Thread: Pope Francis on climate change Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029201
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
Although there is already a thread on "titanic struggle for the Catholic church", I think the Pope's encyclical on climate change raises many wider issues for non-Catholics and non-Christians, so deserves a new thread. So here it is.
For the full text of the encyclical "laudate si" go to here .
For a briefer newspaper report, go to here
Hosts: can you pls clean up these links - the new URL dialogue has confused me, although I could manage the old one.
In essence the Pope has called on the world’s rich nations to begin paying their “grave social debt” to the poor and take concrete steps on climate change, saying failure to do so presents an undeniable risk to a “common home” that is beginning to resemble a “pile of filth”.
Do you think this none of his business? Or on the contrary, that climate change or more generally despoiling the environment is a moral issue on which he can and should speak out. As a Pacific Islander I sympathise with President Tong of Kiribati , who also calls it a moral issue, as the sea level caused by climate change threatens to put his whole country under water.
What effect will or should the Pope's forceful statement have on ordinary catholics/ christians or on catholic layleaders? I have in mind the Australian Prime Minister , who was once a Catholic seminary student wants the issue ignored as he states "coal is good for humanity" and "climate change is crap" as he does his best to negate all measures to reduce the use of fossil fuels. .
[fixed URL code]
[ 19. June 2015, 06:07: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
Guess even the Pope can have a point of view on climate change . But what kind of ffect does he\ expect from this pronouncement ?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'd say the destruction of God's creation and the blatant exploitation of natural resources for our own benefit at the expense of others are subjects well within a theologian's remit.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
We have known beyond any reasonable doubt that human activity, principally burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, have been causing significant change in local and global climates for more than 20 years. These causes are primarily the result of the lifestyles of the rich - our demands for energy to power our affluent lifestyle, our demands for cheap meat (with the clear felling of forestry for cattle grazing), etc. But, having been the significant cause of the problems of climate change, we who are rich are unlikely to face the consequences for at lest the next few decades, whereas the poor are already forced from the homes and livelihoods, and getting sick and dying.
These are all moral issues. The wilful blindness of some people to the effects of our lifestyle is a moral issue. The increase in obesity among the rich, which is approaching levels in excess of the number of people starving, is a moral issue. The amount of stuff we waste is a moral issue. Our excessive consumption of limited resources, especially when we start to fight wars to secure control of oil and other resources, is a moral issue.
The Pope surely has no real choice but to address what is quite possibly the biggest moral issue facing the world today.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It is hard to imagine the Pope having much impact on those Roman Catholics who already have closed minds, even if they are Australian Prime Ministers or US Republican Presidential candidates.
But I did think it was interesting how some sections of the media were intent on castigating the Pope for the things he didn't talk about - notably contraception.
I am not a Roman Catholic, and I don't agree that there is anything unholy about family planning. But the Pope is undoubtedly correct that the main issue here is consumption by the few. It is the minority of ultra-consumers who have caused the problem, it is the minority of ultra-consumers who have primarily trashed the planet and it is primarily the weakest and poorest who will suffer from the results.
It seems to me that if the richest billion did not exist, then the planet could sustain multiple times the population of the rest.
There is more sobering science and analysis coming out all the time. This recent analysis is apparently giving this scary thought:
quote:
By 2018, no new cars, homes, schools, factories, or electrical power plants should be built anywhere in the world, ever again, unless they’re either replacements for old ones or carbon neutral. Otherwise greenhouse gas emissions will push global warming past 2˚C of temperature rise worldwide, threatening the survival of many people currently living on the planet.
No new factories, no expansion... what then?
[ 19. June 2015, 08:01: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I think it's great that he has done this. And he's absolutely spot on to pin much of it on blatant unrestrained greed.
I like this pope a lot.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No new factories, no expansion... what then?
The total insolation is in the order of 10^17W. Our power consumption is in the order of 10^13W. That's 10,000 times more than we use. We just have to stop burning shit, that's all.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It isn't only energy, although it is a major issue. Many systems depend on fossil fuels eg agriculture. Converting everything to work on solar (even if feasible) by 2018 is not going to happen.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Mr Cheesy: quote:
I am not a Roman Catholic, and I don't agree that there is anything unholy about family planning.
Maybe it's not up to me to point out this misrepresentation, since I too am not in the RCC.
But SFAIK there is no RCC moral objection to family planning.
If you mean "anything morally objectionable to the use of artificial contraceptives" why not just say so?
It really is important in any debate (like on climate change) to represent viewpoints you express disagreement with accurately.
I know this is a tangent.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No new factories, no expansion... what then?
The total insolation is in the order of 10^17W. Our power consumption is in the order of 10^13W. That's 10,000 times more than we use. We just have to stop burning shit, that's all.
It's only necessary to do a few fag packet calculations to realise that a factor of 1 in 10,000 is way too high to be achieved only from insolation. The point about Pole Francis's statement is that the Natural world is sacred, and needs to be given a higher priority and a higher value (not monetary - or more to the point - beyond monetary). Thinking in these terms is not just about tech fixes and power consumption - and the whole thing will come back into order of whatever kind when we as a communal whole start to think in terms of love of life (all life, not just us as individuals). Trying to bypass this by saying "it's impossible" or "it will take too long" or whatever will simply result in the tech fixes becoming a fixation and also them being doomed to failure - wither because they will not even be implemented, or because we will just cause more damage.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Maybe it's not up to me to point out this misrepresentation, since I too am not in the RCC.
But SFAIK there is no RCC moral objection to family planning.
If you mean "anything morally objectionable to the use of artificial contraceptives" why not just say so?
It really is important in any debate (like on climate change) to represent viewpoints you express disagreement with accurately.
I know this is a tangent.
It is a tangent, so I'll not be rising to that.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Do you think this none of his business? Or on the contrary, that climate change or more generally despoiling the environment is a moral issue on which he can and should speak out.
If climate change pans out badly, future generations will look back on it as the only moral or political issue which mattered. Everything else we worry about - from gun control to gay marriage to Islamic State - will just be a tiny footnote. Climate change could be a extinction-level event.
So yes, it's good that the Pope's speaking out. If there was ever a political issue he ought to speak on, it's this.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
My thanks to host AlanCresswell for fixing my untidy URL.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Is the issue, 'what do we think about climate change?' or is it, 'should the Pope express a view on climate change?'
So often, when the Pope, or some other ecclesiastical figure, expresses an opinion on something controversial, whether climate change, the poor, or even both as here, up goes the cry from various other public voices, 'the church should stick to churchy matters and not presume to express a view on anything else, where we are the experts and know so much more about it'.
Odd, isn't it, though, that these public opinion-formers never seem to object when a church voice says something they agree with - only when it says something they don't want the public to hear. Through all the years when church voices have said 'the powers that be are ordained by God' or that the faithful shouldn't rock the political boat, we've never had presidents, monarchs, prime ministers, senators etc saying 'the church should not meddle in politics'. But as soon as a church leader mentions that Jesus might have been more interested in the poor and powerless than the rich and important, immediately the church is told not to interfere with what is none of its business, and to stick to the sort of stuff the ecclesiasiantic board deals with.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Most of the "anti" reaction I've seen has focused on the fact that Pope should shut up about moral issues until the Catholic Church has spilled all they know about child abuse, rather than people being annoyed about coming down one one side or the other of a particular issue.
As far as these commenters are concerned, the church has lost the right to moralise to people on account of presiding over child abuse etc etc.
On this issue, I think the Pope is quite right, but others don't care on account of what they perceive as his failings
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
As far as these commenters are concerned, the church has lost the right to moralise to people on account of presiding over child abuse etc etc.
Where are these commentaters located, lowlands boy? AFAIK the Catholic Church's record on child abuse in the UK is no worse than most other institutions, albeit far from perfect. Historically, the sector which did really badly was that of local authority children's homes, though they did clean up their act long ago.
Maybe they are posting from one of the countries where the record was far different?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
You don't think it's more likely that those who cite the sorry story of child abuse are looking for what they think is a convenient excuse to let them off having to listen?
As an excuse, it's so irrelevant as it be irrationally so - in the strict legal meaning of that word.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
As far as these commenters are concerned, the church has lost the right to moralise to people on account of presiding over child abuse etc etc.
Where are these commentaters located, lowlands boy? AFAIK the Catholic Church's record on child abuse in the UK is no worse than most other institutions, albeit far from perfect. Historically, the sector which did really badly was that of local authority children's homes, though they did clean up their act long ago.
Maybe they are posting from one of the countries where the record was far different?
This one from the Daily Telegraph trots out a list of failings in the opinion of the other, but it's all a bit predictable. That one appeared somewhere on my Facebook feed, but there have been others in a similar vein.
I suppose the problem is that ex directors of children's homes aren't pontificating on climate change.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
If you don't like the truth - the easiest way to ignore it is to complain about the messenger.
[ 19. June 2015, 14:55: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
You don't think it's more likely that those who cite the sorry story of child abuse are looking for what they think is a convenient excuse to let them off having to listen?
As an excuse, it's so irrelevant as it be irrationally so - in the strict legal meaning of that word.
Well no, not really. The The Guardian, which has been generally supportive of the Pope's words and has a strong line on Climate Change has been pushing this as well.
[ 19. June 2015, 14:58: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Both those are opinion pieces, though. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, though I certainly won't be handing over any money for it.
There's a certain irony in two writers whose understandings (let alone qualifications) in the area of ethics, environmental science and religion appear to be genuinely zero telling us what to think. Both are journalists, and nothing wrong with that (though probably a lot wrong with spending much time at the Express). My message to them would be "try being a journalist - I want to hear about the facts. I'll make my own mind up thanks, so keep your opinions". Still, it's indicative of the enfeebled state of British newspaper publishing that feels such confused nonsense to be worth publishing.
I'm not sure it's really worth taking any engagement or critique further. (The Grauniad piece is probably the more coherent of the two).
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Tukai
Do you think this none of his business? Or on the contrary, that climate change or more generally despoiling the environment is a moral issue on which he can and should speak out. ...
What effect will or should the Pope's forceful statement have on ordinary catholics/ christians or on catholic layleaders?
I do see man made climate change as a moral issue and an appropriate subject for the Pope to address. But I completely disagree with his analysis of the causes and his preferred solutions, so the only effect his statement has on me is to depress me a little.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
My message to them would be "try being a journalist - I want to hear about the facts. I'll make my own mind up thanks, so keep your opinions".
The problem is that facts are so inconvenient.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Damn right they are Alan.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I do see man made climate change as a moral issue and an appropriate subject for the Pope to address. But I completely disagree with his analysis of the causes and his preferred solutions, so the only effect his statement has on me is to depress me a little.
It might make for interesting discussion if you unpacked this a bit. I confess that I am still reading and digesting the Encyclical, and so I throw no stones for those not yet ready to get into detail (I am not yet ready!), but I find it difficult to believe that you completely disagree with all of the Pope's proposals (and in full fairness, you did not say that you did--just that you disagreed with the Pope's "preferred solutions").
For example, in part he is encouraging open dialogue about the issues, with that dialogue including
quote:
everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.
From Paragraph 14.
Is that disagreeable?
He seems to be arguing for people to raise their world-view above mere political or national boundaries, above social/racial/economic divides, to view ourselves as a global community that needs to come together as a global community to address a global problem, rather than put all the burden on one nation or people to solve the problem. For example, from Paragraph 13:
quote:
The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change. The Creator does not abandon us; he never forsakes his loving plan or repents of having created us. Humanity still has the ability to work together in building our common home.
I question whether such a dream is utopian, but I do not personally find it objectionable.
As I said, I am still digesting the letter but as the OP has suggested, I think it has a lot that could lead to fruitful discussion of the problem.
A dialogue, as it were.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems to me that if the richest billion did not exist, then the planet could sustain multiple times the population of the rest.
I suspect the richest billion think it's the poorest 4 billion who should disappear.
quote:
quote:
By 2018, no new cars, homes, schools, factories, or electrical power plants should be built anywhere in the world, ever again, unless they’re either replacements for old ones or carbon neutral. Otherwise greenhouse gas emissions will push global warming past 2˚C of temperature rise worldwide, threatening the survival of many people currently living on the planet.
No new factories, no expansion... what then?
Then the status quo is guaranteed - rich stay rich grandfathered into owning factories, the poor stay poor barred from starting factories that would compete, poor countries stay poor because they cannot develop commercially.
I expect the rich love this idea that only they are allowed to build new (replacement) factories, no upstart can build a greener one and compete.
It's a problem, how to you lock the amount of oil use or carbon or new building without locking people and countries into their current wealth or poverty status?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There's no reason why the new factories need to be owned by the same people as the old ones. Just that if we're to have any sort of hold on the mess we've made of things the total number of (non-carbon-neutral) factories can't change. If someone can open a factory making widgets far more efficiently than the existing factories then that will result in the older factories getting closed down. The challenge for existing factory owners is to pre-empt the efficiency improvements and enact them before a new competitor comes along.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Part of the problem is that the manufacturing sector has devoted itself to making stuff which lasts a short time an then has to be replaced. In e.g. clothing, his is partly achieved via the fashion "industry", but also by deliberately making all kinds of stuff so that it wears out quickly. I have a shirt made about 1990 by a surfing clothes company - I assume they chose best quality fiber to make it on the assumption that it would see a lot of saltwater and sun - I've worn it and worn it and it's still got years of life left in it. But instead of producing and using long fibres, a whole load of good agricultural land is now used to produce short cotton fibres for garments only meant to last a few months. Think of the water, the energy (in farming, producing, transporting), the pesticides, and the loss of fertile land that could be used for food production. That's just one example. Another example - Look at the UK's recent move to DAB instead of analogue radio and TV broadcasting - the power consumption of each DAB set is over 10x the old analogue sets. The electronic components are vastly more - integrated circuits (implying manufacturing power, pollution, and mining and use of rare earth minerals) - and what was the reason? so that the UK Govt could sell off airwaves and make a bit of money to balance its budget. Computers are now throwaway objects after 5 years because the systems that have to run on them are too big and demand too much speed - But for most intent and purposes, I could still be using a 1990 MacPro with a bigger hard drive if I were prepared to have a separate machine to play videos and I did not expect to be able to download them off the web. Take a look at food packaging. Take a look at long term arrangements for transport relying on roads and short delivery times (meaning more small deliveries) and the arrangement of towns so that we have to drive to shop - etc etc etc etc.
All this has to stop. It never was sustainable in the long term and it certainly isn't now. Reversing the manufacturing wastage is a relative doddle compared to what needs to be done to reverse inefficient infrastructure. How does anyone really think that energy consumption and pollution can really be addressed without tackling these issues? And how can these issues be tackled if we do not have a non-materialist view of what is valuable in the world?
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Hedgehog
I find it difficult to believe that you completely disagree with all of the Pope's proposals
"Since everything is closely interrelated, and today’s problems call for a vision capable of taking into account every aspect of the global crisis, I suggest that we now consider some elements of an integral ecology ..."
This sentence which begins chapter 4 sums up what I find unhelpful about this encyclical. The Pope writes about a large number of issues in addition to climate change, for example genetic modification of crops, bio diversity in forests, control of water resources, different patterns of land ownership and farming, quality of life in cities, the banking crisis, trade relationships between developed and developing countries. And a whole load of other stuff.
Then he says they are all linked and need to be solved as a whole. For me that would be a way of guaranteeing that climate change can't be addressed. It's hard enough to deal with that one issue without dragging in all those other things and trying to rewrite the whole world.
Not only because each issue is thorny in itself but because most people don't subscribe to a grand theory of everything. So you start out with the support of all who wants to tackle climate change, and then for each extra thing they are expected to sign up to, you lose a bit of the support.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
...
This sentence which begins chapter 4 sums up what I find unhelpful about this encyclical. The Pope writes about a large number of issues in addition to climate change, for example genetic modification of crops, bio diversity in forests, control of water resources, different patterns of land ownership and farming, quality of life in cities, the banking crisis, trade relationships between developed and developing countries. And a whole load of other stuff.
Then he says they are all linked and need to be solved as a whole. For me that would be a way of guaranteeing that climate change can't be addressed. It's hard enough to deal with that one issue without dragging in all those other things and trying to rewrite the whole world.
Not only because each issue is thorny in itself but because most people don't subscribe to a grand theory of everything. So you start out with the support of all who wants to tackle climate change, and then for each extra thing they are expected to sign up to, you lose a bit of the support.
The point is that all the things you list are expressions of human arrogance and greed - not about working with and respecting nature an other human beings. The gross accumulation of wealth and its use just to generate more wealth at any price to others and the planet is the main problem. I doubt that Francis has any problem with accumulation of wealth per se - provided that it is gathered and then re-used in a manner that respects people and nature.
If you want to see what that means in practice, there is a good example in organic sugar farming
[code]
[ 21. June 2015, 07:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Just to add to that, reading further into the document...
The argument for GM is essentially one based on a particular economic model of land ownership - as opposed to land stewardship.
FAO land productivity figures show that there is a broad inverse relationship between land area farmed by one person/business entity and the total food produced. We talk about feeding the world, but in actuality it is about a small number of people feeding the world at a cost that is less than that commensurate with proper land stewardship, at a land productivity of maybe half what it could potentially be if land were owned and managed in smaller packets. The fix is to make more money by GMing rather than looking at productivity in a broader picture. Money for who? Most farmers in the UK operate on a marginal profit - some years they do well and other years at a loss. The money goes to seed suppliers and agrochemical producers and petrochemical companies (diesel) and supermarkets. All of which are on the small list on the graphics I posted. Arguing for GM to feed the world is further entrenching the current economic-industrial shareholder dividend agenda. And is in spiritual terms a complete travesty - it's taking creation and saying that Man can do it Better. Francis - unusually for anyone in a position of authority - has identified both ends of the fallacy. The link between third world economies and poverty is nicely illustrated by the banana industry, 90% of which is owned by two american companies, and on whose plantations the workers are (in all but name) working in indebted servitude. Big corporations, shareholder profits, unsustainable land management practices, agrichemicals, GM. They don't have to go together - but they often have so far. The lack of contact most people have with the food chain is just another aspect of the problem - if we no longer know how our food is grown, how can we really have any serious sense of connection to the natural world?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Regarding the closed minds of four US Republican candidates--I find it funny one of them said the Pope should leave the discussion to the scientists--he did not realize the pope has a masters degree in science. It is even funnier when he (and the others) continue to deny the human causes even though 99.7% of the scientists say humans are a major cause of climate change.
But it is not the closed mindedness of the Republican presidential candidates I am concerned about. It is how the American electorate will use the Pope's encyclical when they vote in a year and a half.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
However, it's disappointing that the pope's collection of linked problems relating to climate change doesn't address the elephant in the room: the burgeoning population of human beings who, rich & poor alike, require lebensraum, water, food, and habitat.
Meanwhile, the economists keep clamoring for growth. Aren't the two inextricably linked? How can we grow the economy while shrinking the population?
Not that there's much hope of doing the latter.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
How can we grow the economy while shrinking the population?
Automation.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
However, it's disappointing that the pope's collection of linked problems relating to climate change doesn't address the elephant in the room: the burgeoning population of human beings who, rich & poor alike, require lebensraum, water, food, and habitat.
Meanwhile, the economists keep clamoring for growth. Aren't the two inextricably linked? How can we grow the economy while shrinking the population?
Not that there's much hope of doing the latter.
I already mentioned this.. The problem is not the absolute population but the existence of a minority who over-consume resources.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm not sure this particular pope is stuck in any particular cul-de-sac, so I'm with mr cheesy on this. It seems pretty clear to me that this pope has been significantly affected by Catholic Liberation Theology.
The tulgey wood of Catholic sexual ethics and the tensions between ancient principles and current Catholic practice (particularly in the well-off West) will not get sorted out any time soon. But that doesn't preclude this pope from making the obvious point that the real current and urgent issue is exacerbated consumerism and overconsumption by the minority. The link between indifference to the earth and indifference to the poor is well drawn in this encyclical.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Sorry; overpopulation IS the problem.
Species go extinct every day, at an ever-increasing rate, because human overpopulation requires ever-expanding incursions into species' habitats. Humans need space in which to develop communities, more space for growing food, for erecting infrastructure, etc. etc.
How many species of plant and animal life can we destroy before the remaining ecological structure collapses, and us along with it?
Yes, the billion richest consume a lion's share of some crucial resources, like petroleum, and yes, this needs to stop. With water, things work differently. Human life can be lived without petroleum; it was, for all but the last 150 years of human history. Human life without water? Not so much.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Sorry; overpopulation IS the problem.
Species go extinct every day, at an ever-increasing rate, because human overpopulation requires ever-expanding incursions into species' habitats. Humans need space in which to develop communities, more space for growing food, for erecting infrastructure, etc. etc.
Sorry, that is not an absolute truth. The planet could cope with an increasing human population providing they lived at the bottom of the consumption pyramid.
quote:
How many species of plant and animal life can we destroy before the remaining ecological structure collapses, and us along with it?
Who is causing the species destruction, who is causing the climate change? It isn't the poorest - or even the majority of the planet.
quote:
Yes, the billion richest consume a lion's share of some crucial resources, like petroleum, and yes, this needs to stop. With water, things work differently. Human life can be lived without petroleum; it was, for all but the last 150 years of human history. Human life without water? Not so much.
Again, the question is whether there is an absolute shortage of water or whether some are consuming too much.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
The question of how you compute overall sustainability is subject to debate. There is an interesting short article on the BBC website (here) which will take you through some of the issues.
But whilst how those matters are addressed get debated, it's pretty clear that the issue is not simply about overpopulation. It is about over-consuming.
Sure, I think population needs to be discussed, but to say it is THE issue detracts from the urgency of the actions that we first world countries need to take.
Or in other words, Mr. Cheesy is right.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
On this, there is an interesting graph on page 2 of this report - which is possibly worth contemplating further.
According to this, the bottom billion contribute negligible amounts of net greenhouse emissions, the top billion or 1.5 billion contribute around 50% of all emissions.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
There's an issue with discussing who is rich and poor though isn't there.
One indicator of the problem here is that even if you are in the bottom 1% of "wealth" (however measured) here in the UK, you are still in the top 1% of "wealth" (measured the same way) worldwide.
I'd guess that the difference in water consumption between a family of four in a three bedroom house in the least desirable housing estate in Britain, and the same size of family in a much nicer bit of it, is tiny compared to the difference between the council house and someone in the bottom few percent.
People will, inevitably, look upwards. The people in Britain's least desirable location would surely like to live somewhere nicer - they aren't going to look at a starving African and think "actually I'm doing fine".
It seems to me that looking up is what got us out of caves. Us glutinous over consuming first world westerners, are, in evolutionary terms, winning. Evolution doesn't require you to care about who you've trodden on, merely to survive.
Maybe if people genuinely believe that their own survival is threatened (rather than that of some pacific islander whose island is going to get submerged), then there will be some hope.
On the other hand, through history, people have "looked up" and seen the need for innovative solutions for clean water, medicine, and all the other good stuff we have. So maybe somebody has got some good answers....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
People will, inevitably, look upwards. The people in Britain's least desirable location would surely like to live somewhere nicer - they aren't going to look at a starving African and think "actually I'm doing fine".
I think this is a fair point, however clearly the planet could hold a lot more people even if a small minority of top consumers did not exist. There is a long way for the bottom to go upwards before they reach anywhere near the consumption patterns of the top.
quote:
It seems to me that looking up is what got us out of caves. Us glutinous over consuming first world westerners, are, in evolutionary terms, winning. Evolution doesn't require you to care about who you've trodden on, merely to survive.
The rich are the best fit? Oh right, thanks for telling me.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
People will, inevitably, look upwards. The people in Britain's least desirable location would surely like to live somewhere nicer - they aren't going to look at a starving African and think "actually I'm doing fine".
I think this is a fair point, however clearly the planet could hold a lot more people even if a small minority of top consumers did not exist. There is a long way for the bottom to go upwards before they reach anywhere near the consumption patterns of the top.
quote:
It seems to me that looking up is what got us out of caves. Us glutinous over consuming first world westerners, are, in evolutionary terms, winning. Evolution doesn't require you to care about who you've trodden on, merely to survive.
The rich are the best fit? Oh right, thanks for telling me.
We survive better than the poor, certainly, and that's all evolution has to say on the matter. My point is that overcoming this problem will require overcoming extremely base instincts that have served to get us here - and to start giving a hoot about people and places that we have no connection with.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
We survive better than the poor, certainly, and that's all evolution has to say on the matter. My point is that overcoming this problem will require overcoming extremely base instincts that have served to get us here - and to start giving a hoot about people and places that we have no connection with.
With respect, try living without a source of clean water or sanitation, on a limited diet, experiencing the blunt end of natural disasters and in the presence of many pathogens.
The fact is that you and I would barely survive 24 hours of the lives that others live. The idea that the rich are somehow evolutionarily a superior subspecies is utterly broken.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
We survive better than the poor, certainly, and that's all evolution has to say on the matter. My point is that overcoming this problem will require overcoming extremely base instincts that have served to get us here - and to start giving a hoot about people and places that we have no connection with.
With respect, try living without a source of clean water or sanitation, on a limited diet, experiencing the blunt end of natural disasters and in the presence of many pathogens.
The fact is that you and I would barely survive 24 hours of the lives that others live. The idea that the rich are somehow evolutionarily a superior subspecies is utterly broken.
Indeed - if you take any entity out of the environment to which it is accustomed and dump it somewhere else, it will either adapt or die. That's the point of evolution isn't it?
The key point is that we have got to where we are by adapting the the challenges that we face at that point in time, and not by adapting our own behaviour to compensate for challenges faced by someone else, or a challenge that we might face in the future.
At the "basic instinct" level, we don't have to care about others at all.
People who can do something (again, the rich first world) might start doing something constructive about these problems when more of us get flooded, or blown away by tornadoes or whatever.
We are (unlikely) to start doing it because of the consequences of not doing it for someone else. The someone else, are, by definition, the have nots. After all, the poor have always been there, and we rich have sucked at helping them for a long time.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
One indicator of the problem here is that even if you are in the bottom 1% of "wealth" (however measured) here in the UK, you are still in the top 1% of "wealth" (measured the same way) worldwide.
Being picky: the population of the UK is a bit over .5% of the world's total population, so this can't be true unless the poorest person in the UK is richer than the median person in Germany (and everybody in the rest of Western Europe, Scandinavian countries, Canada, Japan, the US, Australia, etc etc...)
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
One indicator of the problem here is that even if you are in the bottom 1% of "wealth" (however measured) here in the UK, you are still in the top 1% of "wealth" (measured the same way) worldwide.
Being picky: the population of the UK is a bit over .5% of the world's total population, so this can't be true unless the poorest person in the UK is richer than the median person in Germany (and everybody in the rest of Western Europe, Scandinavian countries, Canada, Japan, the US, Australia, etc etc...)
Well, fair enough, we might need to tweak the percentages a little, but no so as to shift the fundamental divide - particularly not in terms of consumption of natural resources, rather than money in the bank.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
We survive better than the poor, certainly, and that's all evolution has to say on the matter.
Yet, generally, birth rates (and, more importantly survival to reproductive age rates) among the rich are lower - therefore evolution favours the poor.
Which just goes to show that on this point evolutionary arguments are a load of crap.
The rich have used their power to adapt the environment to be extremely comfortable. In the process we have a) done so at the expense of other environments which are now less comfortable for those who live there (the poor), and b) done so unsustainably.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Moreover, we use various kinds of language (including bogus evolutionary language) to imply that the problems of the world are caused by the weakest by harping on about population growth - as if that counters all possible objections.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Moreover, we use various kinds of language (including bogus evolutionary language) to imply that the problems of the world are caused by the weakest by harping on about population growth - as if that counters all possible objections.
I didn't say anything about population growth. The point is that we haven't had to care about the welfare of others when securing our own welfare. That's amply demonstrated by the myriad of other problems that disproportionately or exclusively affect the poor that the rich don't do anything about (or exacerbate).
The Pope isn't going to get anyone to do anything about climate change by appealing about the impact of it on the poor. The rich will get round to some solutions when it screws them.
And who says we've adapted our environment in a way that's unsustainable ? Unsustainable for who? We might well be able to sustain our nice environment by building thicker houses that won't blow down in gales, that are on stilts, etc etc etc. That won't help the poor, and sadly, such insular looking solutions are quite likely.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The biggest forms of unsustainability are:
1. Energy - in particular reliance on fossil fuels (finite resource)
2. Water - just look at California for unsustainable water exploitation by the rich
3. Food - we're reliant on imported foods, which is a very fragile position in the event of general global social breakdown
4. Basically every raw material - metals, plastics, chemical feed stock for pharmaceuticals ... all finite resources, most dependent on global trade
5. Loads of other stuff
Yes, the rich will be able to buy themselves out of the catastrophe. But, as the world goes to hell in a handbasket, the costs of doing so will escalate and the number of people who can afford to do that will diminish. Meanwhile those at the bottom of the pile will either starve, or rise up to bring everything crashing down.
Of course, those who are currently wealthy will be OK, and probably so will their children. Grand children and great grandchildren are more vulnerable.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
But will it motivate people enough to change?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
On current evidence, not enough people, not the right people, and not enough action by those who are motivated to do something.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I'd like to see the UK Govt drop DAB and revert to analogue as a useful and relevant gesture of goodwill. Less manufacturing resources & pollution, less transmission and receiver power usage. It's not a big thing, and there is a certain degree of humble pie required, but not so much that it is impossible.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There are advantages of DAB over analogue. Probably the biggest is transmission power, at about 10% the power needed for FM delivering more stations on each frequency and requiring less repeater stations. That is a substantial cut in energy use.
Domestic DAB radios do tend to be more power hungry than FM radios. Part of that is that there are very few no-frills versions, they need computing resource to decode the signals so you can't have a manual tuner so you should compare power consumption with comparable digital tuned FM radios. The biggest issue is the ubiquitous "stand by" that is built in basically all electronic gadgets.
Besides, as far as I know there's no imminent end to FM radio. It's been mentioned repeatedly over at least the last 5 years, but seems no closer now ... and won't get closer as long as large quantities of FM radios are being sold (and, those in new cars are going to be one of the biggest problems since upgrading from analogue to digital for automotive systems is particularly hard, and in the car is probably one of the most common places to listen to the radio).
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Part of that is that there are very few no-frills versions, they need computing resource to decode the signals so you can't have a manual tuner so you should compare power consumption with comparable digital tuned FM radios.
This, IMHO, is nonsense. You're telling me that it's good value to take the bus for a journey I could cycle, because it's not fair to compare the bus to cycling, so I should compare it to driving my car.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
No, I'm saying the headline "DAB radios use more than 4x the power of FM radios" need to be investigated more thoroughly. The computing power to decode the digital signals will inevitably need more power than the much simpler circuits needed to convert FM to sound. But, it's additional features of DAB radios - the ability to pause and rewind broadcasts, displays showing information about the station being listened to and other data streamed with the broadcast, etc - that account for a large portion of the headline figures.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
There's also the fact that, I presume, analogue signals won't be turned off until their coverage can be replaced with DAB. We still can't get DAB out here.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Last I heard, the government would make a statement on when they would switch of FM at the end of 2016. But, before then there will need to be nationwide DAB coverage, and there would need to be a phase out of FM receivers as well - which would start by stopping sales. I doubt there would be an announcement in 18 months, and even if there was it'll be at least 10 years before they start turning off FM.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
It's not that complicated - I have a wind-up radio, and the analogue channels will play for a little over 30 mins on one charge, but the DAB (if I can receive DAB channels) will only play for about 5 mins - I was being generous on the factor of 4 (unless there is also an issue of battery voltage).
Then add all the Analogue radios that were supposed to be replaced by DAB when it becomes universally available and the number of DAB radios that will have to be manufactured to replace them. The advantage is that there is more functionality, but it's functionality that is unnecessary. It's just another aspect of the "We Do It Because We Can" attitude rather than thinking whether it there is an overall benefit. That attitude creates dodgy areas of science - like human cloning - but at a science level it's relatively easy to contain. Once it moves from science/tech capacity to a consumer level, it translates into "We Do It Because Someone Can Make Lots Of Money" and it's much harder to contain because we have no consensual ethical basis for containing it. The whole of the field of consumer technology is shot through with this moral ambiguity in the name of profit, and you just iterated the usual response - we worship the clay god of increased functionality. The fact that this debacle is also sponsored by our government is appalling. I contacted both FoE and Greenpeace and a few other ®environmental organisations when this project first got off the ground, and none of them would consider a campaign against it - I guess for fear of appearing to be Luddites.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
There's a chicken and egg problem over DAB take up. Poor signal reception even in some "enabled" areas leaves you with the characteristic gurgling sound. We've had a couple of digital radios as presents, but the reception for the stations we like to listen to suck.
There's also the problem of some stations you might like to listen to simply not being on a DAB offering in your area, or not being on DAB at all.
So without the stations (or with poor reception ) then people don't buy more sets, so the incentive to improve the reach doesn't come.
On the other hand, stations like BBC 6 music have never been on fm and are digital only. For domestic use, I think digital has overtaken analogue as a way of listening to radio, albeit that that means via radio being broadcast on the tv frequencies or over Internet in some cases.
A few years ago it was popular for mobile phones to offer FM radio. Nowadays although the chip to do that is included , the FM functionality is disabled as networks and providers want to push streaming media services as they can charge for that.
Internet based radio will probably be king one day, maybe without DAB ever becoming king on its own first.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Alan, is there any way to compare internet radio streaming with DAB (in terms of energy use)? My impression is that DAB is in danger of being superseded by internet radio anyway.. but I don't remember seeing comparative energy usage calculations as you've described above.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
The crack on that is whether you would have your computer on only to listen to the radio
Living out in the sticks, if everyone tried to stream TV and radio with the current "broadband" we would be lucky to share the BBC screen test card between us all.
Also, whilst most people live in big towns at the moment, that certainly isn't true for everyone, and for maybe 5-10% of the population there is a LOT of work to do to upgrade broadband infrastructure just to have fast access. Upgrading that to the point that everyone could also stream their TV and radio is - at the moment something of a fantasy.
What bothers me about this route is that we (me and my partner) already have found that we sleep a lot better in our house if we switch off all the internet and computers. If the solution to rural broadband is local wifi using some kind of mobile phone mast (we have a scheme in Norfolk using church towers), then all that never gets switched off. And anyone who is sensitive to electrical activity will have no way of turning it off, and will just has to live with the increased physiological stress that is caused by it. So I personally don't see internet streaming as a positive solution - both in power usage terms and in terms of being human friendly
In fact, it rails somewhat against the spirit of Pope Francis' statement. I started with a simple FACT that DAB power usage is too high plus the need for manufacture of millions of DAB receivers to replace perfectly good analogue receivers is just not a good environmental decision. And it would be a simple move in the right direction for our government to get hold of it, acknowledge the issue, and just stop the rollout. Sidestepping and talking about internet streaming instead is just another "toys of the boys" fantasy approach more worthy of Top Gear. This is a mindset that has to be dropped - it's a toddler let loose in a toy store kind of bottomless hole of craving for more and more tech fixes for problems that only exist if we think of what tech we might be able to have in our living rooms. When everything is added up, does it really add something of value to the quality of life? No.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
[response to mr cheesy's question]
No idea. I had to go look up some figures from BBC trials of DAB to get the broadcast power. I know that each 3G and 4G broadcast tower is much lower in power, but there are orders of magnitude more of them. And, at the device end there is a much greater power consumption as they're bidirectional so the device transmits as well as receives. Of course, internet streaming over wire is another set of questions about efficiency - and, then if you then dump that through a wi-fi you're reintroducing a broadcast efficiency term.
My guess is that so long as the 3G/4G/wired connection exists streaming radio is a very small additional power consumption on top of the power needed just to keep the system up and running. And, of course, many people will find the convenience of having their radio built into an existing device attractive - when in Japan I stream radio through my laptop, the only other option I have is FM radio on my phone (which doesn't give me British radio programming).
[ 25. June 2015, 09:41: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
[QB] The crack on that is whether you would have your computer on only to listen to the radio
Living out in the sticks, if everyone tried to stream TV and radio with the current "broadband" we would be lucky to share the BBC screen test card between us all.
OK, yes this is an issue, although FM radio reception is also bad in some areas. And anyway, it is possible that in the future internet broadcasts could be a lot easier.
The outernet is experimenting with bouncing one-way internet (ie like radio you just receive) from tiny satellites, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in the future we could all get broadcasts from these.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
The crack on that is whether you would have your computer on only to listen to the radio
Living out in the sticks, if everyone tried to stream TV and radio with the current "broadband" we would be lucky to share the BBC screen test card between us all.
Also, whilst most people live in big towns at the moment, that certainly isn't true for everyone, and for maybe 5-10% of the population there is a LOT of work to do to upgrade broadband infrastructure just to have fast access. Upgrading that to the point that everyone could also stream their TV and radio is - at the moment something of a fantasy.
What bothers me about this route is that we (me and my partner) already have found that we sleep a lot better in our house if we switch off all the internet and computers. If the solution to rural broadband is local wifi using some kind of mobile phone mast (we have a scheme in Norfolk using church towers), then all that never gets switched off. And anyone who is sensitive to electrical activity will have no way of turning it off, and will just has to live with the increased physiological stress that is caused by it. So I personally don't see internet streaming as a positive solution - both in power usage terms and in terms of being human friendly
In fact, it rails somewhat against the spirit of Pope Francis' statement. I started with a simple FACT that DAB power usage is too high plus the need for manufacture of millions of DAB receivers to replace perfectly good analogue receivers is just not a good environmental decision. And it would be a simple move in the right direction for our government to get hold of it, acknowledge the issue, and just stop the rollout. Sidestepping and talking about internet streaming instead is just another "toys of the boys" fantasy approach more worthy of Top Gear. This is a mindset that has to be dropped - it's a toddler let loose in a toy store kind of bottomless hole of craving for more and more tech fixes for problems that only exist if we think of what tech we might be able to have in our living rooms. When everything is added up, does it really add something of value to the quality of life? No.
But would you be prepared to sacrifice better internet access in order to preserve your low carbon approach? I'm fortunate to live in an area where there is good broadband and I've worked from home for ten years. Out of the question to do it with rubbish "broadband", but has the existence of fast broadband for me offset all the travel etc I'd do otherwise? Maybe....
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
[QB] The crack on that is whether you would have your computer on only to listen to the radio
Living out in the sticks, if everyone tried to stream TV and radio with the current "broadband" we would be lucky to share the BBC screen test card between us all.
OK, yes this is an issue, although FM radio reception is also bad in some areas. And anyway, it is possible that in the future internet broadcasts could be a lot easier.
The outernet is experimenting with bouncing one-way internet (ie like radio you just receive) from tiny satellites, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in the future we could all get broadcasts from these.
Thanks Mr Cheesy :-)
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
The crack on that is whether you would have your computer on only to listen to the radio
Living out in the sticks, if everyone tried to stream TV and radio with the current "broadband" we would be lucky to share the BBC screen test card between us all.
Also, whilst most people live in big towns at the moment, that certainly isn't true for everyone, and for maybe 5-10% of the population there is a LOT of work to do to upgrade broadband infrastructure just to have fast access. Upgrading that to the point that everyone could also stream their TV and radio is - at the moment something of a fantasy.
What bothers me about this route is that we (me and my partner) already have found that we sleep a lot better in our house if we switch off all the internet and computers. If the solution to rural broadband is local wifi using some kind of mobile phone mast (we have a scheme in Norfolk using church towers), then all that never gets switched off. And anyone who is sensitive to electrical activity will have no way of turning it off, and will just has to live with the increased physiological stress that is caused by it. So I personally don't see internet streaming as a positive solution - both in power usage terms and in terms of being human friendly
In fact, it rails somewhat against the spirit of Pope Francis' statement. I started with a simple FACT that DAB power usage is too high plus the need for manufacture of millions of DAB receivers to replace perfectly good analogue receivers is just not a good environmental decision. And it would be a simple move in the right direction for our government to get hold of it, acknowledge the issue, and just stop the rollout. Sidestepping and talking about internet streaming instead is just another "toys of the boys" fantasy approach more worthy of Top Gear. This is a mindset that has to be dropped - it's a toddler let loose in a toy store kind of bottomless hole of craving for more and more tech fixes for problems that only exist if we think of what tech we might be able to have in our living rooms. When everything is added up, does it really add something of value to the quality of life? No.
But would you be prepared to sacrifice better internet access in order to preserve your low carbon approach? I'm fortunate to live in an area where there is good broadband and I've worked from home for ten years. Out of the question to do it with rubbish "broadband", but has the existence of fast broadband for me offset all the travel etc I'd do otherwise? Maybe....
I think Internet access is a wonderful thing - but so far I get the impression that computer technology is a very successful parasitic lifeform rather than being something that is under proper control. Really, if you consider that we have still not fully mastered our carbon hungry transport infrastructure, I think that a lot more thought needs to go into how we would like our lives to be enriched by the technology in the long term rather than what kind of toys can be mass produced now and then thrown in the WEEE bin next year. That doesn't really need any focus on technology per se in itially - but rather it needs us to consciously know in our heart (rather than our heads) what it is that makes life rich and wholesome and worthwhile. Then it can be translated into head stuff and then it can be translate into useful gadgets and gizmos.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
That's just a variation on the wrong-way-up approach of modern marketting (and, maybe it's always been that way).
Rarely does someone investigate what people need to make life better. Instead, someone finds something they can make and then tries to convince people that they need it. Which invariably ends up with resources consumed making lots of things people don't actually need, which then get discarded for the latest thing someone convinces them they need.
Altogether now, "Everybody needs a thneed".
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
All of that said, the issue of DAB radio is pretty small beer on a global scale. I see what you mean about constant upgrades etc, though.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
It's hard to imagine from our privileged position in the west that there's really anything we need from a consumerist point of view to make our lives better.
Any suggestions?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Clearly, DAB radio
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Not sure it's worth a separate thread yet, but on the main theme of this thread, this looks interesting. My guess is it will also be broadcast in the US.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
"The Pope and the Planet" forum at All Ss. Pasadena
A great analysis by a philosopher in dialogue with the rector.
Particularly interesting points:
The global north gets the comfort, the global south gets the suffering. Those in the south will be affected first and most seriously by climate change. Although the speakers didn't use the term, what is happening is an example of "externalizing costs". Those in the north owe those in the south something as a matter of justice. Even libertarians don't deny this (proposing that externalizing costs is a form of trespass, and those trespassed upon should seek redress by means of lawsuits).
As God created the world in Genesis, He said several times, "It is good" even before creating humanity. It is thoroughly biblical to note, therefore, that the created order has value in God's eyes independently of its instrumental value to mankind. The rest of the world does not exists solely for us to exploit it.
The speakers did take issue, of course, with the Pope's need to oppose contraception. However, the Pope did suggest that good Catholics should have fewer children now than in the past. Overpopulation and consumption are both problems, but consumption is the more serious one. The carbon footprint of the poorest is only about 3% that of the richest. If everyone in the world could enjoy sustainably the consumption level of the richest, world population would need to be reduced to 850 million.
As Thoreau said, everything we do has moral-ethical implications.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Alchemist : Take one part fluid and one part air...
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
"The Pope and the Planet" forum at All Ss. Pasadena
A great analysis by a philosopher in dialogue with the rector.
Particularly interesting points:
The global north gets the comfort, the global south gets the suffering. Those in the south will be affected first and most seriously by climate change. Although the speakers didn't use the term, what is happening is an example of "externalizing costs". Those in the north owe those in the south something as a matter of justice. Even libertarians don't deny this (proposing that externalizing costs is a form of trespass, and those trespassed upon should seek redress by means of lawsuits).
As God created the world in Genesis, He said several times, "It is good" even before creating humanity. It is thoroughly biblical to note, therefore, that the created order has value in God's eyes independently of its instrumental value to mankind. The rest of the world does not exists solely for us to exploit it.
The speakers did take issue, of course, with the Pope's need to oppose contraception. However, the Pope did suggest that good Catholics should have fewer children now than in the past. Overpopulation and consumption are both problems, but consumption is the more serious one. The carbon footprint of the poorest is only about 3% that of the richest. If everyone in the world could enjoy sustainably the consumption level of the richest, world population would need to be reduced to 850 million.
As Thoreau said, everything we do has moral-ethical implications.
I watched the Vid, and it was a very clear exposition - not only of the Pope's position, but also of the general facts of global warming. Note that a business as usual indefinitely temperature rise of 12.5 degrees C means peak summer temperatures south of the UK well in excess of 50 degrees C. That makes about 2/3 of the planet's land surface essentially uninhabitable for at least half of the year. I worked in those temperatures for a few years as a desert hydrologist, and I can tell you - it's not sustainable for agriculture. And if you leave your AC living space for more than 5 minutes within +-2 hours of peak daytime temperature, your body pisses out so much water in an attempt to cool down that you will be lucky to make it back alive. Before then - well, the refugee situation in the Med and the ISIS thing in Iraq at the moment are just necessary small scale warm-ups to get us to face only a couple of the issues that will be on everyone's door in a decade or two if no action is taken.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Overpopulation and consumption are both problems, but consumption is the more serious one.
Overpopulation and overconsumption are two halves of the same problem.
A world population that grows at x% per year with constant emissions per head has much the same climate change impact as a rate of emissions per head that grows at x% per year with constant population.
And while it seems that everyone wills the end - stabilising emissions at a reduced level. The Catholic Church wills the means of limiting population about as much as the world's largest economy wills the means of reducing consumption.
Of course climate change is a moral issue. Of course the pope should think about it and talk about it. He's just 50 years too late...
Is his insightful conclusion really that the nations of the world should get together and talk about it ? 20 years after Kyoto ?
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Of course climate change is a moral issue. Of course the pope should think about it and talk about it. He's just 50 years too late...
To be fair, in Paragraph 4 of the Encyclical, it notes that in 1971 the Pope (although it was Paul VI) was sounding the warning:
quote:
4. In 1971, eight years after Pacem in Terris, Blessed Pope Paul VI referred to the ecological concern as “a tragic consequence” of unchecked human activity: “Due to an ill-considered exploitation of nature, humanity runs the risk of destroying it and becoming in turn a victim of this degradation”. He spoke in similar terms to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations about the potential for an “ecological catastrophe under the effective explosion of industrial civilization”, and stressed “the urgent need for a radical change in the conduct of humanity”, inasmuch as “the most extraordinary scientific advances, the most amazing technical abilities, the most astonishing economic growth, unless they are accompanied by authentic social and moral progress, will definitively turn against man”.
Footnotes and links omitted.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not sure it's worth a separate thread yet, but on the main theme of this thread, this looks interesting. My guess is it will also be broadcast in the US.
It's on BBC One this evening, July 12th at 6pm as a repeat.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
I fear I am committing thread necromancy, but I think this new report can add to the discussion, as Islamic leaders also urge action on climate change similar to the Pope's encyclical.
The text of the Islamic Declaration can be found Here.
I doubt the Islamic Declaration will result in any further action from U.S. political leaders than the Pope managed to get (i.e., pretty close to zero, so far as I can see).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
President Obama has recently made a lot of noise about climate change. Whether it's in response to the Pope's comments is another matter.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0