Writing in 2015, Pope Francis
addressed the problem of climate change and suggested what he, or the Vatican
more broadly, considered to be necessary systemic changes on the road to
recovery. In the encyclical, the patient may be human nature itself—specifically,
its self-destructive propensity and trait of power-aggrandizement. In other
words, we had lost control of our built-up (i.e., artificial) societal systems
and structures, which could wind up strangling us in their protection of the
status quo. In this essay, I discuss the Pope’s portrayal of the problem of
climate change from the standpoints of culture, power, and wealth. I then
address the feasibility of the Pope’s prescription.
“A very solid scientific
consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of
the climatic system,” the pope reported.[1] In recent decades this warming had been accompanied by a constant rise in the
sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even
if a scientifically determinable cause could not be assigned to each particular
phenomenon. At the time, India, Pakistan, and parts of western North America
were either in or soon to be in heat-waves.
In the encyclical, Pope Francis turns to what he
viewed as more subtle causes of the climate change. “The problem is aggravated
by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is
at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has
been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for
agricultural purposes.” These “man-made” contributors in turn set in motion
natural contributors. “The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude
plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas, while the
decomposition of frozen organic material can further increase the emission of
carbon dioxide. Things are made worse by the loss of tropical forests which
would otherwise help to mitigate climate change. Carbon dioxide pollution
increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food
chain. If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary
climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious
consequences for all of us.” Put another way, the CO2 already in the atmosphere—at
approximately 400 ppm—had already triggered natural processes beyond the reach
of human technology. The resulting climatic shift could easily outpace the
ability of biological evolution to adapt. Given the historical role of the
Creationism-Evolution false-dichotomy, the pope’s reference to evolution is
striking.
Undergirding the role of
fossil fuels, the pope highlights socio-economic and political obstacles. “Regrettably,
many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved
ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more
general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of
believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant
resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions. We require a new and
universal solidarity.”
The pope evinces very little
patience for such attitudes. He was hardly alone. "We are not
here today to debate whether or not climate change is real. We are not here to
debate whether or not human activity is contributing to that. These questions
have been settled by science," U. S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said a
week after the Vatican’s release of the encyclical.[2]
On the same day, the 2015 Lancet Commission
on Health and Climate Change came out with its report.[3]
More severe heat waves, longer allergy seasons, and decreased urban air-quality
were already erasing gains made in public health, according to the report.[4]
It's
like a cigarette smoker with lung problems,” a Commission official said at the
time. “Doctors can treat the disease, but the first thing that has to be done
is to get the patient to stop smoking, or in this case get off coal in the next
five years.”[5]
In short, the world—or, more precisely, the species—no longer had the luxury of
denial; in fact, radical change was urgently needed.
Formidable, well-entrenched
forces nevertheless stood in the way. In fact, some were actually urging
environmental deregulation. Accordingly,
the pope charges ahead. “Many of those who possess more resources and
economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the
problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of
the negative impacts of climate change.” This is not enough. “Caring for
ecosystems demands far-sightedness, since no one looking for quick and easy
profit is truly interested in their preservation. But the cost of the damage
caused by such selfish lack of concern is much greater than the economic
benefits to be obtained.” In other words, an expedient, selfish mentality—doubtless
rooted in human nature itself—has been a steady obstacle to caring for
ecosystems such that the species made in God’s image might long endure.
Additionally, organizational
and societal artifacts have been erected in line with the sordid mentality.
Indeed, the pope claims that “many of these symptoms indicate that such effects
will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and
consumption.” Privileging “short-sighted approaches to the economy, commerce
and production,” those models do not adequately absorb externalities—such as
costs borne by the environment because firms can evade them. Whereas “the way
natural ecosystems work is exemplary: plants synthesize nutrients which feed
herbivores; these in turn become food for carnivores, which produce significant
quantities of organic waste which give rise to new generations of plants. But
our industrial system, at the end of its cycle of production and consumption,
has not developed the capacity to absorb and reuse waste and by-products. We
have not yet managed to adopt a circular model of production.” The circular
system of inputs, manufacture, and use is not sufficiently closed. On the input
end, natural resources are depleted. On the output end, waste piles up in the “throwaway
culture,” whether in the oceans or in the air.
Unfortunately, culture and
leadership can wind up reinforcing each other in favor of the status quo. “The
problem is that we still lack the culture needed to confront this crisis. We
lack leadership capable of striking out on new paths and meeting the needs of
the present with concern for all and without prejudice towards coming
generations.” We lack principled leaders with the guts to stand up to the
corporate patrons whose disproportionate impact on democracies gives the vested
interests in the status quo a veto on real change. The inherent conflict of
interest is of course ignored. Additionally, people are too willing to enable
the denial espoused in some of their respective leaders’ rhetoric. “As often
occurs in periods of deep crisis which require bold decisions, we are tempted
to think that what is happening is not entirely clear. Superficially, apart
from a few obvious signs of pollution and deterioration, things do not look
that serious, and the planet could continue as it is for some time. Such
evasiveness serves as a licence to carrying on with our present lifestyles and
models of production and consumption. This is the way human beings contrive to
feed their self-destructive vices: trying not to see them, trying not to acknowledge
them, delaying the important decisions and pretending that nothing will happen.”
A cultural mentality ensconced in a throwaway society reinforces the leaders of
denial.
Furthermore, the
live-for-today mentality societally in an era of technological advancement
proffers a blind faith in technology as savoir. “Following a period of
irrational confidence in progress and human abilities,” Francis writes, “we
find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological
problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology
and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change.” The
incrementalism itself may reflect the nature of the production model based on
Frederick Taylor’s Principles of
Scientific Management. The pope points to the tunnel-vision inherent in
such an approach. “Technology, which, linked to business interests, is
presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable
of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes
solves one problem only to create others.
Not even human pride in our
sapiens brain can touch the intricate complexity in Creation as evinced in
natural laws. “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for
all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the
essential conditions for human life.” The precariousness of conditions
consistent with human life is invisible next to the observed constancy through
a “long life” and, moreover, the length of human history. “Many people will
deny doing anything wrong,” the Pope maintains, “because distractions
constantly dull our consciousness of just how limited and finite our world
really is.” The subtle premise that tomorrow will be like today is so hardwired
into the human psyche that we are vulnerable to environmental shocks.
Not unexpectedly, the pope
assumes a distinctly religious perspective. Rather than selfishly padding our
own nests in excess to what is natural (not to mention necessary) within a
narrow perspective, “we are called to be instruments of God our Father, so that
our planet might be what he desired when he created it and correspond with his
plan for peace, beauty and fullness.” Seeing himself as such an instrument, the
Pope goes beyond the problem itself to propose possible steps toward a
solution.
Given the tyranny of the
status quo and its formidable defenders, the pope argues that the “establishment
of a legal framework which can set clear boundaries and ensure the protection
of ecosystems has become indispensable.” The pope is proposing here that some
governmental sovereignty be transferred to the global level because relying on
nation-states to deal with the externalities (i.e., CO2 emissions) had only
resulted in dismal results. In other words, the nation-state system itself (and
the disproportionate influence therein of business interests) had become
incompatible with the new problem, which is inherently global and thus
potentially treated at that scale, politically speaking.
“It is remarkable,” the pope
observes, “how weak international political responses have been. The failure of
global summits on the environment makes it plain that our politics are subject
to technology and finance. There are too many special interests, and economic
interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information
so that their own plans will not be affected.” According to the pope, “economic
powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be
given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain, which fail to take the
context into account, let alone the effects on human dignity and the natural
environment.” In other words, plutocracy—wherein wealth rules—combined with the
externalities-problem of the nation-state system rendered continued reliance on
the extant system of geo-politics nothing short of a fool’s errand. In fact,
the reliance could be classified as self-destructive from the species’
standpoint.
Jean-Jacque Rousseau, a
seventeenth-century philosopher, wrote in his treatise, The Social Contract, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in
chains.” At least with respect to the tyranny of the industrial and political
status quo, those chains are entirely of our own making. It is easy to point to
theoretical freedom, and yet quite another to stand up to the paymasters in
order to hem them in such that the maximizing species will not pierce the
semi-permeable membrane of the Earth’s habitat for humanity. If a transfer of
governmental sovereignty to a global entity is needed to stave off additional
climate change, who’s to say that large multinational corporations won’t
capture that power too? Moreover, how many government officials would willingly
give up some power to a global organization that could hold them accountable?
At the time, the U.S. would not even agree to be bound by the International Criminal
Court. Also, neither China nor Russia—defenders of the notion of absolute sovereignty,
or “internal affairs”—would likely consent to be bound by a global entity that
could be dominated by the U.S. and the E.U. In short, if the Vatican’s
assessment and prescription are correct, the species made in God’s image might
turn out to be a flickering image on the mask of eternity.
4. Sheppard, “Surgeon General.”
