Anglican Bishop Peter Forster and Labour Party Leader Bernard Donoughue team up for a clear, concise, respectful, yet telling critique of Pope Francis’s encyclical LAUDATO SI’, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. They argue, as has the Cornwall Alliance, that:
1. The policies Pope Francis supports to reduce global warming will harm the world’s poor.
2. Using fossil fuels has been and should continue to be a huge benefit to humanity, lifting billions of out poverty, but also to the environment, minimizing the amount of land conversion needed to provide the energy necessary to overcome poverty, and carbon dioxide, a byproduct of this use, is not a pollutant.
3. The market economy, while flawed like all other human institutions because of human sinfulness, is the best economic order for overcoming poverty, and Pope Francis’s attacks on it are naive.
4. The alleged scientific consensus on dangerous man-made global warming runs contrary to the weight of the evidence, and consequently governments should not be quick to risk trillions of dollars fighting global warming.
5. Adaptation is a more promising response to global warming than attempting to curb it, and economic growth is indispensable to adaptation.
6. Appeal to the “precautionary principle” is little more than a mask for the absence of sound scientific and economic reasons for seeking to reduce global warming.
The document is short–slightly over six pages of text–but it is a good reply to Pope Francis’s 192-page encyclical and well worth reading.
(Note: At least as first released, page 1 cites “Genesis 2:28” but should have cited “Genesis 1:28.”)
Featured image courtesy of Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Lisa Prestwich says
You should be ashamed of yourselves. Spreading the propaganda of profit driven fossil fuel companies over the word of a man who has been chosen to represent all of Catholicism by god. Not only has the spread of fossil fuels contributed to the deaths of thousands through the pollution it releases into our atmosphere, but even a child can see by the very basic structure of religion that the devil comes from below (coincidence that’s where fossil fuels are dug up from?), the devil’s symbol is fire -aren’t fossil fuels BURNT to make energy?! Meanwhile we have been sent these amazing renewable energy forms that are so quickly and cheaply being developed from above, the sun, the wind the water, all heavenly symbols.
The market economy you speak of is run by some of the biggest sinners on Earth. Remember greed, vanity, lust, pride, anger, gluttony & sloth (yes I believe taking short cuts in business has had a large part in the economic crash)- the society you defend runs off of all of these in a disgusting amount. Many of the leaders claiming to be good men of God are getting drunk and doing cocaine whenever the camera’s are not looking, it is despicable that you defend them.
The truth is we can easily curb climate change (we stopped calling it global warming years ago by the way as that name was misleading) VERY EASILY by simply putting aside our selfish nature and sin behaviours and cleaning up after ourselves. We make children do it and yet now when it is our turn we do the same thing they do, come up with a million and one excuses not to rather than just facing the fact that it needs done and do it. It’s pathetic and immature and to try to use religion to do it is lower than any words I can think of.
To call Pope Francis naive is to belittle the decision to appoint him which was passed down by God. You are a disgrace. The church of England left Catholicism because King Henry VIII believed the word of a King, who was also appointed by God, should be equal in power to the word of the Pope. Prince Charles is next in line and he made a speech very much in line with the Pope. You clearly have sold your soul to the devil that is the fossil fuel burning companies.
This planet was given to us as our home. It’s time to quit your bogus rhetoric and treat it as such. Or your soul is truly lost.
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. says
To quote David Riesman:
“Defamation of opponents is one of the standard devices of political propaganda. In the fascist tactic, defamation becomes a form of verbal sadism, to be used in the early stages of the conflict, before other forms of sadism are safe. The violence and daring of verbal onslaughts exercise a great appeal over the imagination of lower middle-class folk who live insipid and anxious lives; the apparent daring of their leaders, moreover, is in sharp contrast to the balanced, and often timid, speaking and writing of the teachers, preachers, and politicians who, for them, have represented “democracy.” The fascist speaker does not demand much of his audience, save submission; the terms in which defamation are couched are standardized and frequently repeated; and the defamatory appellations are not argued, they are assumed.” (David Riesman, “Democracy and Defamation,” in Civil Liberties and the Arts: Selections from Twice a Year 1938–48, edited by William Wasserstrom [Syracuse University Press, 1964], 156–157.)
Counter-evidence to evidence we present, or correction of improper logic in our arguments, is welcome and helpful. Argumentum ad hominem is totally unhelpful.