LAUDATO SI’: ON THE CARE OF OUR COMMON HOME (Vatican Radio) Pope Francis’ first encyclical is focused on the idea of ‘integral ecology’, connecting care of the natural world with justice for the poorest and most vulnerable people. Only by radically reshaping our relationships with God, with our neighbours and with the natural world, he…
Read more
LAUDATO SI’: ON THE CARE OF OUR COMMON HOME
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis’ first encyclical is focused on the idea of ‘ integral ecology ’, connecting care of the natural world with justice for the poorest and most vulnerable people. Only by radically reshaping our relationships with God, with our neighbours and with the natural world , he says, can we hope to tackle the threats facing our planet today. Science , he insists, is the best tool by which we can listen to the cry of the earth, while dialogue and education are the two keys that can “help us to escape the spiral of self-destruction which currently engulfs us”.
At the heart of the Pope’s reflections is the question: “What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?”. The answers he suggests call for profound changes to political, economic, cultural and social systems, as well as to our individual lifestyles.
Chapter 1 sets out six of the most serious challenges facing “our common home
” Pollution, waste and our throwaway mentality : “the earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth”
Climate change : “one of the principle challenges facing humanity in our day” but “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”
Water : “access to safe drinkable water is a basic and universal human right” yet entire populations, and especially children get sick and die because of contaminated water
Biodiversity : “Each year sees the disappearance of thousands of plant and animal species” and the consequences cannot be predicted as “all of us, as living creatures, are dependent on one another”. Often transnational economic interests obstruct this protection
Breakdown of society : Current models of development adversely affect the quality of life of most of humanity and “many cities are huge, inefficient structures, excessively wasteful of energy and water
Global inequality : Environmental problems affect the most vulnerable people, the greater part of the world’s population and the solution is not reducing the birth rate but counteracting “an extreme and selective consumerism”.
And Chapter 3 explores six of the deep root causes of these growing crises
Technology : While it can bring progress towards sustainable development, without “a sound ethics”, it gives “those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources… an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity”
The technocratic mentality : “the economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit……yet by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion”
Anthropocentrism : we fail to understand our place in the world and our relationship with nature. Interpersonal relations and protection of human life must be set above technical reasoning so environmental concern “is also incompatible with the justification of abortion”
Practical relativism : environmental degradation and social decay is the result of seeing “everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests”
Employment : Integral ecology needs to take account of the value of labour so everyone must be able to have work and it’s “bad business for society” to stop investing in people to achieve short-term financial gains
Biological technologies : GMOs are a “complex environmental issue” which have helped to resolve problems but bring difficulties such as concentrating land “in the hands of a few owners”, threatening small producers, biodiversity and ecosystems
So where do the solutions lie? Here are six of the best
In “ The Gospel of Creation ”: Chapter 2 examines the Old and New Testaments to show how human life is grounded in our relationships with God, with our neighbours and with the created world. We must acknowledge our sins when we break these relationships and realize our “tremendous responsibility” towards all of God’s creation
In Integral Ecology : Chapter 4 explores this new paradigm of justice which means “the analysis of environmental problems cannot be separated from the analysis of human, family, work-related and urban contexts”, while solutions must be based on “a preferential option for the poorest of our brothers and sisters”
In Dialogue : Chapter 5, entitled ‘Lines of Approach and Action’ stresses the need for “honest and open debate, so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good”. The Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics, but it can promote dialogue on global and local governance, transparent decision-making, sustainable use of natural resources, as well as engaging in respectful dialogue with other people of faith and with the scientific world
In Education : Chapter 6 urges schools, families, the media and the churches to help reshape habits and behavior. Overcoming individualism, while changing our lifestyles and consumer choices, can bring much “pressure to bear on those who wield political, economic and social power” causing significant changes in society.
In Ecological Conversion : Chapter 6 also highlights St Francis of Assisi as the model of “a more passionate concern for the protection of our world”, characterized by gratitude and generosity, creativity and enthusiasm
In Spirituality : Finally Chapter 6 and the two concluding prayers show how faith in God can shape and inspire our care for the environment. The Sacraments, the Trinity, the model of the Holy Family and our hope for eternal life can teach, motivate and strengthen us to protect the natural world that God has given us.
(from Vatican Radio)…
(Vatican Radio) “How ought we to order our lives together?” This is the basic question of political philosophy, and it is a question with global and even cosmic implications. The Encyclical letter of Pope Francis, Laudato si’ – “Praise be to You, Lord” – published on Thursday, calls on all persons of good will to consider the duty to care for creation as an integral part of our common life.
Prof. Patrick Deneen , who teaches political philosophy at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, USA, told Vatican Radio the new teaching document presents itself as one written with the intention of reaching beyond the confines of the institutional Church, and engaging people with different sets of basic presuppositions and commitments in the political, social and spiritual spheres. “I think it has a lot of relevance to those, who think about these kinds of issues – issues of environmentalism, nature, the human relationship to the natural world, in the same sort of genre as a political philosopher would think about them,” he said.
Click below to hear our extended conversation with Prof. patrick Deneen of Notre Dame University
Deneen went on to explain that the Encyclical presents a way of thinking, rather than a set of specific policy proposals. “The theme that runs through [the Encyclical] is, I think, a very Aristotelian theme – not surprisingly – a Thomistic and Aristotelian theme: how human beings live in and with and through nature, in ways that do not fall into what Pope Francis calls, again and again, the twin temptations of, on the one hand, viewing human beings as separate from nature in our capacity to dominate nature, [and] on the other side, a kind of anti-humanism which regards human beings as equally foreign to nature, but now as a kind of virus that has to – in some ways – be eliminated.”
To the extent the encyclical is concerned with questions of governance, Deneen said that the letter is concerned primarily with self-governance. “Pope Francis is here, in this Encyclical, calling for a kind of self-control and a self-mastery of our impulse to treat the world in a utilitarian fashion, to treat nature in a utilitarian fashion.” This way of thinking, Deneen explained, is one that encompasses different areas of human activity. “If you translate that teaching in regard to the human body, you could say this is the exact same teaching as we hear in regard to contraception and to abortion: that we shouldn’t treat the human body and natural processes in a utilitarian way, in which we master and dominate those processes.”
What are Deneen’s hopes for the Encyclical’s reception in public intellectual life? “Read the document first,” he said. “Try to think about it and challenge oneself,” he continued. “If one finds oneself resisting it, [he should ask], ‘Why am I resisting it, and in what ways do the areas in which I agree with the Church’s teaching actually call on me to have a consistent understanding of the Church’s teaching where this Encyclical is concerned?’ and I would say the same, vice versa, to those who are very excited about this Encyclical, and maybe less excited about some of the social teachings in the area of sexual morality.”
Deneen concluded, saying, “It seems to me that the social teaching of Catholicism is consistent, and ultimately is going to challenge people in ways that will cut across various kinds of partisan lines.”
(from Vatican Radio)…
(Vatican Radio) Among those at the presentation of Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si’ was Dr. Carolyn Woo, CEO and President, Catholic Relief Services and former dean, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame.
She was there to give insights for the world of business.
“The market alone cannot solve environmental problems,” said Dr. Woo. “Likewise, technology can bring great benefits, but also great costs as it allows those with knowledge and resources to dominate humanity and the entire world. So business must focus on the creative elements of technology, but always linked to humility and service.”
The full text of the presentation of Dr. Carolyn Woo is below
Dr. Carolyn Woo, CEO and President, Catholic Relief Services and
former dean, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame
Laudato Si’ –Be Praised
Reflections for the Business Audience
Dr Woo notes that her presentation was prepared in close collaboration with Dr Anthony Annett, Climate Change and Sustainable Development Advisor, UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Earth Institute, Columbia University; and Religions for Peace, who is therefore to be considered as the co-author of this contribution.
1. The encyclical draws its name from St. Francis’ Canticle of the Creatures reminding us that earth is our common home and that our bodies are made of her elements, we breathe her air and draw nourishment from her gifts.
2. The framing question asked by Pope Francis in his encyclical is a simple one: “what kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up”? This question surely resonates with everyone in the world. It resonates with me as a mother. And it resonates with me as one who draws on business as a partner to eliminate poverty and as an educator of business practitioners. It is from the perspective of business that I speak today.
3. The questions Pope Francis poses to the readers, “What is the purpose of our life in this world? Why are we here? What is the goal of our work and all our efforts?” are not different from the mission and vision statements that businesses formulate to define their purpose and to gain legitimacy from society, commitment from employees and support by customers.
4. The message of this encyclical to the business world is a profoundly hopeful one as it sees the potential of business as a force for good whose actions can serve to mitigate and stop the cumulative, compounding, irreversible catastrophic effects of climate change driven by human actions.
5. The encyclical affirms that business is a noble vocation, geared toward improving the world. As the pope says, “it can be a source of prosperity….especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good”. Pope Francis also calls for an economy that favours “productive diversity and business creativity”. He specifically mentions the important role played by small businesses, the importance of diversified production, the need to restrain monopolistic elements that constrain economic freedom, and the need for good governance and the rule of law. So there is a positive role for business, but business must put the common good first.
6. Lest there is the temptation to dismiss the encyclical as ungrounded in evidence, note the extensive work and consultation by the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences, and Pope Francis’ urging that “science is the best tool by which we can listen to the cry of the earth.”
7. One of the principal themes in this great encyclical is that all life on this planet is connected, bound together. Human life is grounded in three fundamental and intertwined relationships : with God, our neighbour and the earth. When one of these relationships is damaged, then the others are damaged too. So there is a connection between how we treat the planet and how we treat the poor. As Pope Francis puts it, we do not have two separate crises, social and economic, but “one complex crisis which is both social and environmental”.
8. Yet we have not treated our common home well—this is a key message of the encyclical. When it comes to the earth, we should think of ourselves as stewards rather than owners—tenants of God, as it were. The encyclical refers to the concept of the “global commons,” i.e. the tangible and intangible assets that belong to all of human kind across all generations for human flourishing. Examples of these include water, air, biodiversity, culture, genetic materials. The encyclical speaks of the loss of biodiversity that forever changes our eco-system and reminds us that diverse species are not just exploitable resources by humans; they have an inherent value in and of themselves: “……each creature has its own purpose. None is superfluous.” And the pope has rightly noted that business interests have too often been unkind to these ecosystems.
9. The correct response, according to Pope Francis, is a true “ecological conversion” involving business as a part of the solution.
10. What does that mean in practice? Gleaning from the encyclical, it means adopting the virtues of solidarity and sustainability, oriented toward the common good and the true development of all peoples. This has a number of practical dimensions.
11. First, over-reliance on market forces or technology deployment overlooks integral human development and social inclusion and “masks the deepest problems of the global system.” Markets can support human flourishing, but we must avoid excessive reliance on its “invisible force” or be swayed by “magical conceptions” of it. The market alone cannot solve environmental problems. Likewise, technology can bring great benefits, but also great costs as it allows those with knowledge and resources to dominate humanity and the entire world. So business must focus on the creative elements of technology, but always linked to humility and service.
12. Second, we are also reminded that job creation is possibly the greatest responsibility entrusted to business—it is a sacred trust, and must always be prioritized. The right to work is fundamental—it not only provides income security and a decent standard of living, but also dignity, meaning, and fulfilment. This is an idea that business should warmly embrace.
13. Third, Pope Francis speaks forcefully of the dangers of short-term thinking and a selfish mindset. He denounces what he calls a “misguided anthropocentrism”—which leads people to elevate selfishness and short-termism to a virtue. If something doesn’t serve your immediate self-interest, it is deemed irrelevant. And short-term profit is seen as the only yardstick of success. But this is ultimately self-defeating. As the pope says, “to stop investing in people, in order to gain short-term financial gain, is bad business for society”. And I would add: “bad business for business too”!
14. This is especially problematic when it comes to the financial sector. Pope Francis is emphatic on this point: he condemns what he calls the “absolute power of the financial system”, and notices that “finance overwhelms” the real economy. Given our experience of the global financial crisis, I think the vast majority of economists would agree with this assessment. And business should agree too—they also suffer from the uncertainty and lack of confidence brought about by financial instability.
15. Fourth, in line with what Pope Francis says in this encyclical, businesses are realizing that they need to account for all costs involved in production, not just “a fraction of the costs involved”. He notes that both politics and business have been slow to respond to environmental challenges, but I think this is changing. Working against the pressures of short term profits, a movement in the business sector has emerged over the last decades for the adoption of the triple bottom line which adds the advancement of people and care for the planet as equally important objectives to challenge the primacy of short term profits. Various stock indices, regulatory bodies, consultancies, measurement approaches and reporting protocols have sprung up to provide incentives, targets, guidelines and expertise for implementing the triple bottom line. Correspondingly, we now have means to estimate the cost of an organization’s carbon emission and provide incentives for its reduction. More businesses need to be actively engaged in the kinds of “environmental impact assessments” called for by the encyclical. The Pope’s message adds urgency for widespread, deep and focused adoption of these practices.
16. Fifth, the encyclical is asking business to embrace the idea of sustainable development—to act on our concern for the environment and for future generations. He is critical of using economic growth as the sole yardstick of economic success. As he puts it, there can be no “infinite or unlimited growth.” Here, the scientists and economists would agree, as this kind of unbounded growth runs into important “planetary boundaries”—not only climate change, but also issues like ocean acidification, chemical pollution, ozone depletion, land use constraints, depletion of water resources, and loss of biodiversity. By embracing sustainability, business can help pay the “ecological debt” that Pope Francis claims exists between developed and developing countries.
17. Sixth, business should not shy away from any of this. Investing in sustainability is another “win-win” opportunity for business. As Pope Francis says, “efforts to promote a sustainable use of natural resources are not a waste of money, but rather an investment capable of providing other economic benefits in the medium term”. He goes on to say that “more diversified and innovative forms of production which impact less on the environment can prove very profitable”. This is not just conjecture—it is borne out by solid analysis and research. Numerous studies have provided estimates of astronomical costs associated with coastal disasters as water level rises, drought and storms that devastate agricultural production, or loss in productivity due to growing days of extreme heat and health crises due to pollution.
18. Seventh, a human-centered approach based on the principles of inclusive development can create better economic growth and better economic conditions—growth that benefits the many, not just the few; growth that strengthens local communities and builds resilience; growth that increases substantive freedoms and aids human flourishing. This is not just a dream or empty ideal but serve as operational goals of the global community including the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (to be released in September 2015) and the World Bank’s top priorities for the elimination of extreme poverty and reduction of income inequality.
19. Eighth, in addition, business can play a role to assist customers to become responsible consumers. Design and production that minimizes waste by utilizing renewable energy sources, improving efficiencies, enabling recycling, reclamation and re-use provides new opportunities for businesses as these enable consumers to do their part.
20. Today, more and more consumers and investors are holding business to a higher standard. They want business to be ethical and to practice sustainability. And it is the job of business to listen to the people they serve. But Pope Francis also makes a point about authenticity, warning against reducing this important responsibility to mere “marketing and image-enhancing measures”. The virtues of sustainability need to be incorporated into core business practice and measurable outcomes.
21. Let me make one final point. This encyclical certainly affirms the important role that business will need to play, but Pope Francis is clear that we need partnerships between public and private sectors—as he puts it, “politics and economics in dialogue for human fulfilment.” Since both public and private sectors have the same goal, and are integrated into the same interconnected web of life, they need to work together in harmony. Sometimes that means business being more accepting of stronger forms of regulation, especially in the financial sector. It also means business getting fully on board with the new Sustainable Development Goals and the need to take action to combat climate change.
22. At the end of the day, business is a human enterprise and must strive for true human development and the common good. In the years ahead, the challenges will be large. How can we develop the technologies so that we can move to a zero-carbon economy? How can we boost living standards of the developing world in a sustainable way and give all people the ability to live the lives God intended them to live? How can we make sure all have access to nutrition, energy, healthcare and education? These are huge challenges, but we must face up to them. The answer lies with all working together—governments, international institutions, businesses, NGOS, and religions. It lies in forthright and honest debate and dialogue. But it begins in the call to ecological conversation outlined so clearly in this great encyclical.
23. “What kind of world do we want to leave to our children?” If we stay focused on that question, we are on the right path.
(from Vatican Radio)…
(Vatican Radio) During the presentation of Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter Laudato si’ , climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber gave a power point presentation on some of the science surrounding climate change.
“The urgency to act on these pressing issues that is expressed in the Encyclical mirrors the scientific findings which have accumulated into an overwhelming body of evidence,” he said.
“Pope Francis highlights the ethical dimension of the climate problem and provides fundamental principles to be applied for solutions: the preferential option for the poor, inter- and intragenerational justice, common but differentiated responsibility, orientation to the common good,” said Dr. Schellnhuber. “The Encyclical argues for a global governance structure for the whole spectrum of the planetary commons.”
The full text (without powerpoint illustrations) of Dr. Schellnhumber is below:
Common Ground
The Papal Encyclical, Science and the Protection of Planet Earth
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany;
Santa Fe Institute for Complex Systems Research, USA
Laudato si ’, the Papal Encyclical[1], is compiled at a crucial moment in the history of humanity: today.
We are faced with the great challenge of limiting global warming to below 2°C while fostering development for the poorest. But we are also experiencing a special window of opportunity because the knowledge about the Earth system has never been greater. Moreover, we have the technical and economic solutions at hand to overcome the challenges we are confronted with.
The urgency to act on these pressing issues that is expressed in the Encyclical mirrors the scientific findings which have accumulated into an overwhelming body of evidence. The science is clear: global warming is driven by greenhouse-gas emissions which are the result of burning fossil fuels. If we fail to strongly reduce these emissions and to bend the warming curve, we, our neighbors and children will be exposed to intolerable risks. The scientific consensus as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been continuously reaffirmed by the most eminent scientific academies, including the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences which have congregated several times over the past years to address the topics of climate change and global sustainability ([2]–[5]). As any further delay to mitigation measures may jeopardize climate stability and thus our future, it is time to form alliances, find common ground and act together as humankind — but also to take on individual responsibility and change what is in our power to change.
What we have done
The large-scale production of fossil fuel energy which was initiated by the Industrial Revolution and accelerated in the 20thcentury has led to great human development – for a minority. For the very few, it has even generated extreme wealth. On the other side of this development stand the poor and the poorest of the poor. The structural violence of this development predetermines their lives. Sources of fossil fuel energy are private goods, owned by corporations or controlled by governments. Access to energy thus largely depends on the financial resources of the individual. It follows that the deployment of fossil fuel energy and the connected technological advances have led to unprecedented disparities and to wasteful over-usage of resources. The carbon history of humankind is one of exploitation.
But not only were the poor excluded from participating in human progress, now they are forced to cope with the dreadful byproduct: climate change. This constitutes an unacceptable double-inequality: the poor are responsible for a tiny share of global emissions (Figure 1), yet they have to bear the greatest consequences. Contrary to what some have claimed, it is not the mass of poor people that destroys the planet, but the consumption of the rich. Global warming is the consequence of this development of a few and will affect everyone, but brings devastation especially to the weakest in society. As has been pointed out in the Encyclical, it is not possible to address climate change and poverty consecutively, in either order. It is indispensable to confront them simultaneously, as human development is deeply intertwined with the services the Earth provides. If these services are under threat through manmade environmental destruction, the poor will be the first to suffer. They live in exposed areas and have no resources to adapt to a changing climate. Furthermore, some climate impacts will disproportionately affect many of the developing countries.
Presently, the disparities are engrained so deeply that the poor remain voiceless, well-aware of the changes to their environment, but without any knowledge about the underlying causes. They are continuously kept from forming an opinion on climate change because they lack a formal education, yet their need for a life of dignity has been repeatedly misused as an excuse for inaction on climate change. Hitherto, dignity has remained impossible to attain for the many who live in their own and foreign waste, without access to clean water, exposed to environmental hazards and without the power to shape their own future. The unnecessary hardship the poor have had to experience in a world of abundance can no longer be accepted.
Already, we have not only violated the moral boundaries of our global civil society, but are also leaving the safe operating space of our planet by crossing planetary guardrails [6]. The continuation on this development pathway will not bring prosperity for all, but may end in disaster for most. But it is not an inevitable fate to which humanity has to succumb. As climate change is human-made, it is also in our hands to turn the trend around. Although the Earth system is characterized by great complexities and further research is needed in many areas, the scientific knowledge on climate change impacts is already so profound that it will be impossible to refer to ignorance as a justification for our inaction.
What we have learned
“If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler” stated Alonso X of Castile in the 13th century. Were this advice taken, we would have been deprived of the exquisite joy that lies in the admiration of the complexity surrounding us – nature itself. Even the most abstract-minded mathematician recognizes the awe-provoking mystery behind the fact that a very simple-looking equation can wonderfully unfold into a beautiful picture of intricacy. The Earth’s climate (in keen competition with the human brain) constitutes perhaps one of the most breathtaking manifestations of this complexity [1, No.20]. We live in an age that grants us the privilege of building on centuries of tradition in natural sciences fueled by human curiosity – this enables us more than ever before to assess the causes of climatic change.
I have had the honor to elaborate on that subject in a contribution to a workshop of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility last year [7]. It states that “The climate system is a most delicate fabric of interwoven planetary components (such as the atmosphere, the oceans, the cryosphere, the soils, and the ecosystems) that interact through intricate physical, chemical, geological and biological processes (such as advection, upwelling, sedimentation, oxidization, photosynthesis, and evapotranspiration). […] We eventually become aware of the fact that even slightly pulling one single string might have the potential to tear apart the entire fabric.“
This fabric constitutes the parachute for our daily flight in the environment surrounding us, shaken by the mighty forces of nature – and yet a small, privileged group of mankind has been pulling strings ever more strongly since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. And as a result, we are already starting to tailspin. For instance, after a “decade of weather extremes” [8] it is now clear that local heat records happen about five times more often than they would in an unchanged climate – that is with an intact parachute [9]. At the same time, although still too far away to be directly visible to most of us (but not to all!), major turbulence is approaching inexorably: almost 20 cm of global mean sea-level rise since 1880, for example, is starting to impact entire societies, washing away the ground they live on or degrading the soil on which they grow their food through salt-water intrusion.
Sea-level rise distinctly illustrates many dilemmas often involved also with other climate change impacts. Rising gauges, for example, are on the one hand caused by the expansion of sea water as it warms, on the other hand by the extra amount of water in our ocean basins stemming from melting glaciers and ice caps. Since most of the Earth’s ice – inherited from many ice ages over countless millennia – is located near the poles on Greenland and the Antarctic continent, its loss by melting reduces the gravitational pull and sets the water free to float more towards the Equator. This is the region on the globe where most of those people are living who do not have the means to purchase reserve parachutes in the form of uphill estates. Another dilemma lies in the long time span between cause and effect – the already damaged fabric will silently but inexorably unravel more and more until the consequences can no longer be ignored. Ice flow changes that are happening now, for instance, in a large ice basin in West Antarctica ([10], [11]) seem to have been triggered by warm ocean waters bathing the floating tongues of the glaciers. But the resulting speed-up of the ice flow – once initiated – can likely not be halted due to nonlinearities in the underlying dynamics. This means that ultimately about 1.2 meters of sea-level rise – in addition to all the anticipated contributions stemming from human interference with the climate system – have to be expected from that single source over the centuries to come.
The West Antarctic ice sheet is – due to the mentioned nonlinearity – a classic example of a tipping element in the Earth System [12]. But there are many more: from the ice sheets and glaciers, to permafrost in the vastness of Siberia and northern North America, to monsoon systems, the Jet Stream and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation pattern, and to biological systems like coral reefs or the Amazon rainforest. What they all have in common is that fundamental changes of state, caused by a relatively small external disturbance, are possible due to the complexity of the associated nonlinear system. Although the respective dynamics of those elements is beginning to be better understood, our ability as human beings to intuitively grasp nonlinearities is surprisingly limited: in our everyday experience, cause and effect are usually closely connected in time, space and extent. This, however, is not the case with the tipping elements: Climate change, caused by this tiny molecule of CO2, can trigger sudden, irreversible and large-scale disruptions in the above-named interwoven physical and ecological systems. It is therefore of utmost importance for the scientific community to clearly communicate the risks involved with altering our climate – crossing certain thresholds may turn tiny holes in the fabric into long, ever increasing ladders.
The visualization of those risks in Figure 2 aims at making these sometimes dry scientific results come to life: it illustrates a crucial reasoning behind the well-known 2°C guardrail. While for many millennia, human civilization has had the privilege to relish a largely stable Earth temperature (in blue), we are now on track to abandon this climate paradise, as can be seen by the sharp increase in temperature (in black). Depending on the choices we make today, in our future we may follow the green path, respecting the 2°C guardrail, or – if we continue with business as usual – greenhouse gas emissions will lead us along the red path, past 4°C by the end of this century and with even higher warming levels in store after that.
What difference does it make? This question is often asked with the notion that a doubling of temperature increase would mean a simple doubling in the severity of the consequences. And it reveals the linear thinking that is so natural to most of us. However, this assumption is completely misleading. The complexity of nature gives rise to temperature thresholds which – if crossed – leave the associated tipping element in a fundamentally different state. Those thresholds are visualized in Figure 2 for a number of climatic elements. The coral reefs, for example, are at risk of long-term degradation [16] and the Greenland ice sheet may melt down in the end [20], even if the 2°C guardrail is respected. But the further the temperature rises, the higher is the risk of crossing the tipping point for each element, and the more climatic elements are in danger. The consequences such as the collapse of the “lung of the Earth”, the Amazon rainforest, would be disastrous, not to mention a complete disintegration of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, associated with about 3.3 and 7 meters of sea-level rise, respectively. As has been addressed also in the Encyclical [1, No. 34], technological advances would not be able to keep up in providing solutions to manage changes of this scale.
The difference between 2 and 4 °C global warming is reflected in these tipping elements. But even without explicitly considering these potential large-scale, non-linear changes, it is indisputable that a 4 °C warmer world has to be avoided ([21]–[23]). For instance, heat extremes, which are virtually absent today and almost certainly never occurred since the rise of human civilization (and not even since the formation of key ecosystems), would become normal in central West Africa following the red path – this is the scenario for business as usual. Such a drastic change would again strike most heavily those who have not eaten from the fruit of fossil fuel burning to any noteworthy extent: the poor
What we need to do
The long-term perspective illustrated through the tipping thresholds in Figure 2 reveals a far-reaching insight: Although the poor are the first to suffer and will be most fundamentally affected, all of mankind are ultimately reliant on the same parachute, irrespective of the temporary short-term benefits for a handful. This parachute – a stable climate – being destroyed by the few, is our common good. The Encyclical confirms this assessment which scientists and moral philosophers have claimed in the context of climate policy: “The climate is a global commons of all and for all” [1, No. 20]. The atmosphere is a global good because of its limited disposal space for greenhouse gas emissions. Presently, the upper-middle classes worldwide are rapidly depleting this scarce resource by emitting greenhouse gases in vast amounts. In contrast to the limited disposal space in the atmosphere, fossil fuels, especially coal, are abundant. Hence limiting the increase of global mean temperature to 2°C requires confining the amount of carbon still to be released into the atmosphere to 1000 gigatons of CO2 (or less). Whereas restricting the use of the atmosphere as a carbon dump is absolutely necessary to avoid intolerable damage and suffering for the many, it will devalue the assets and the property titles of today’s owners of coal, oil and gas. Almost 80 % of coal has to remain underground in a climate-change mitigation scenario compared to a business-as-usual case. Hence, climate policy implies shifting property rights for using the atmosphere from fossil fuel owners to a novel owner – humankind as a whole [27].
It is understandable that there are claims for compensation for the devaluation of the assets in the fossil fuel sector. However, the devaluation of these assets is by no means an illegitimate expropriation because it serves the common good – the avoidance of catastrophic climate risks. The Encyclical draws attention to the principle of “the social obligation of private property”. This goes back to St. Thomas Aquinas and has been further developed by the social teaching of the Catholic Church, in particular by this Encyclical “Laudato si’” of Pope Francis [1, No. 20, 93-95, 156-158]. It maintains that private property, in general, and in natural resource endowments, in particular, is ethically justifiable only if it serves the common good. Moreover, the upcoming devaluation of fossil resources could be viewed as an act of ‘creative destruction,’ instigating a new integral industrial revolution that would bring enormous economic opportunities – possibly also to those who have so far not participated in human progress. The transformation of the way we produce our energy may well cause a greater transformation of society as a whole.
International negotiations over national emission reduction goals, national carbon prices or even a global price, implicitly or explicitly allocate rights for use of carbon space in the atmosphere to nation states, firms and consumers. “Laudato si’” does not provide technical guidance on how to allocate user rights for the atmosphere. However, Pope Francis highlights the ethical dimension of the climate problem and provides fundamental principles to be applied for solutions: the preferential option for the poor, inter- and intragenerational justice, common but differentiated responsibility, orientation to the common good. The Encyclical argues for a global governance structure for the whole spectrum of the planetary commons [1, No. 174]. Putting a price on CO2 emissions – either in the form of emissions cap & trade systems like the one in Europe or the one that China plans to set up, or through national CO2 taxes – is an effective instrument to protect the common good.
Technologically, the deployment of clean energy for all is feasible [28]: this energy, in fact, is available in abundance. All we have to do is develop the means to properly harvest it and responsibly manage our consumption. While we have been working decade after decade on developing an incredibly expensive fusion reactor, we are already blessed with one that works perfectly well and is free to all of us: the Sun. Photovoltaics, wind and energy from biomass are ultimately all powered by sunlight. These new technologies could unfold potential in poor countries where no grid exists to distribute electricity produced by centralized power plants and where settlements may be too distantly located from one another to make such a system feasible. Just like the evolving use of mobile phones without the previous establishment of landlines, developing countries could leapfrog the fossil episode and enter the age of decentralized renewable energy production without detour.
The care for our planet therefore does not have to evolve into a tragedy of the commons. It may well turn into a story of a great transformation in which the opportunity was seized to overcome the profound inequalities. These disparities arose from the geological coincidence of regional fossil fuel distribution controlled by the few and the concomitant exploitation. Today, the implications of our actions and the pathways are clear. It is solely a question of what future we choose to believe in and to pursue [29].
References:
[1] Pope Francis, Carta Encíclica Laudato si’ – Sobre el Cuidado de la Casa Común. Vatican City, 2015.
[2] Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, “Sustainable Humanity Sustainable Nature – Our Responsibility,” Vatican City, 2014.
[3] A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene,” 2011.
[4] Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Declaration of Religious Leaders, Political Leaders, Business Leaders, Scientists and Development Practitioners,” Vatican City, 2015.
[5] P. Dasgupta, V. Ramanathan, P. Raven, M. Sánchez Sorondo, M. Archer, P. J. Crutzen, P. Léna, M. J. Molina, M. Rees, J. Sachs, and H. J. Schellnhuber, “Climate Change and the Common Good: A Statement of the Problem and the Demand for Transformative Solutions,” Vatican City, 2015.
[6] W. Steffen, K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S. Cornell, I. Fetzer, E. Bennett, R. Biggs, S. R. Carpenter, C. a. de Wit, C. Folke, G. Mace, L. M. Persson, R. Veerabhadran, B. Reyers, and S. Sörlin, “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet,” Science (80-. )., vol. 347, no. 6223, p. 1259855, 2015.
[7] H. J. Schellnhuber and M. A. Martin, “Climate-System Tipping Points and Extreme Weather Events,” in Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences: Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility, 2014.
[8] D. Coumou and S. Rahmstorf, “A decade of weather extremes,” Nat. Clim. Chang., no. March, Mar. 2012.
[9] D. Coumou, A. Robinson, and S. Rahmstorf, “Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures,” Clim. Change, 2013.
[10] E. Rignot, J. Mouginot, M. Morlighem, H. Seroussi, and B. Scheuchl, “Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith, and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica, from 1992 to 2011,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 41, pp. 3502–3509, 2014.
[11] I. Joughin, B. E. Smith, and B. Medley, “Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Underway for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica.,” Science, vol. 735, May 2014.
[12] H. J. Schellnhuber, “Tipping elements in the Earth System.,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 106, no. 49, pp. 20561–3, Dec. 2009.
[13] S. A. Marcott, J. D. Shakun, P. U. Clark, and A. C. Mix, “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Science, vol. 339, pp. 1198–1201, 2013.
[14] J. D. Shakun, P. U. Clark, F. He, S. A. Marcott, A. C. Mix, Z. Liu, B. Otto-Bliesner, A. Schmittner, and E. Bard, “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation.,” Nature, vol. 484, no. 7392, pp. 49–54, Apr. 2012.
[15] IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. 2014.
[16] K. Frieler, M. Meinshausen, A. Golly, M. Mengel, K. Lebek, S. D. Donner, and O. Hoegh-Guldberg, “Limiting global warming to 2 °C is unlikely to save most coral reefs,” Nat. Clim. Chang., vol. 3, pp. 165–170, 2013.
[17] T. M. Lenton, H. Held, E. Kriegler, J. W. Hall, W. Lucht, S. Rahmstorf, and H. J. Schellnhuber, “Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system.,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 105, no. 6, pp. 1786–93, Feb. 2008.
[18] A. Levermann, J. L. Bamber, S. Drijfhout, A. Ganopolski, W. Haeberli, N. R. P. Harris, M. Huss, K. Krüger, T. M. Lenton, R. W. Lindsay, D. Notz, P. Wadhams, and S. Weber, “Potential climatic transitions with profound impact on Europe,” Clim. Change, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 845–878, Jun. 2012.
[19] T. M. Lenton, “Arctic climate tipping points.,” Ambio, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 10–22, Feb. 2012.
[20] A. Robinson, R. Calov, and A. Ganopolski, “Multistability and critical thresholds of the Greenland ice sheet,” Nat. Clim. Chang., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1–4, Mar. 2012.
[21] World Bank, “Turn Down The Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided,” 2012.
[22] World Bank, “Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience,” 2013.
[23] World Bank, “Turn Down the Heat : Confronting the New Climate Normal,” 2014.
[24] World Bank, “Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience,” 2013.
[25] World Bank, “Turn Down the Heat : Confronting the New Climate Normal,” 2014.
[26] World Bank, “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided,” 2012.
[27] O. Edenhofer, C. Flachsland, M. Jakob, and K. Lessmann, “The Atmosphere as a Global Commons: Challenges for International Cooperation and Governance,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Macroeconomics of Global Warming, L. Bernard and W. Semmler, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
[28] IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Chapters 6 and 7. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[29] O. Edenhofer, J. Wallacher, H. Lotze-Campen, K. Reder, M., and J. B., Müller, Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability – Linking Climate and Development. Springer, 2012.
(from Vatican Radio)…