Yesterday I sat down at this computer
to write my blog. But, then the question
comes up, “What to write about”? Iraq
(again), Syria, bombing people, Fox News commenting on the United Arab Emirates’
female fighter pilot who was allowed to drop the first bombs on ISIS because of
the way they treat women, and then the Fox News idiot commenting something to
the effect that she had dropped her boobs, and then could she actually park
that plane. So, I started playing spider
solitaire to have something surface, and won the first game. Of course, when that happens it is required
that one play again, and I won that one.
The same rule applies, so I played a third game and won that!! Ran out of luck, and lost the fourth. But by then family had arrived, so there went
the blog.
In the meantime, however, Science
magazine arrived, which I seldom read because I don’t comprehend the scientific
means and methods by which the authors arrive at their conclusions. But when I staggered out this morning, there
was Science carefully placed where I could see the Editorial, “The Pope tackles
sustainability”. Since sustainability
has been on our family’s agenda for many years, this Editorial was quite a
surprise. Popes John Paul II and
Benedict XVI had written erudite papers on the subject which were printed in
Catholic circles, but definitely not picked up elsewhere. What appears below is a compilation of both
the Editorial and an article in the same edition, “Pursuit of the common good”. In some places I have quoted exactly; in
others I have paraphrased. The two not
too long papers can be found in their entirety at: www.sciencemag.org, 19 September 2014, Vol
345,issue 6203.
The difference in the approach by
Pope Francis is what has made the difference.
The Pope prompted a Joint Workshop of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to be convened in May, 2014 on
sustainability. Although the meeting was
convened by the Catholic Church, attendees included a plethora of people of
other religions, or none. The addition
of leaders from the Vatican enriched discussions of ethics, values, morality
and social justice with regard to climate change and sustainability.
Actions need to be taken by the 1
billion people responsible for the bulk of the fossil fuel emissions, of
course. These emissions need to be
halved by mid-century and eliminated completely by the end of the century. Since the article appeared in Science, there were
many data points with footnotes, but they are too detailed for this blog. What struck me was the fact that 1/3 of the
heat energy being added to the planet come from four short-lived climate
pollutants (methane, ozone, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons). The majority of the 3 billion people living
in poverty at the very bottom use firewood, dung, and crop residues for cooking
and kerosene for lighting, creating the four short term pollutants. Scalable technologies that reduce these
emissions are available off the shelf, e.g., cleaner-burning cook stoves and
solar lamps to replace kerosene lamps for the three billion without access to
fossil fuels. Because the lifetimes of
these pollutants range from weeks to a decade, the mitigation effect would be
almost immediate. The Vatican and other
religions have vast networks of voluntary organizations that can have a major
impact on distribution of clean technologies in rural areas of Asia, Africa,
and South America. Thus, distribution is
not a problem. Probably eliminating one
bombing run over Iraq would fund the purchase of these stoves and lights.
I would urge everyone who reads this
to look up the Editorial and article.
They have given me some hope that something can actually be done about
the problems caused by climate change.
There are other suggestions for nations that can help with this huge
problem, but they are too complicated for here. I will conclude with the final sentences
of the final paragraph of the Editorial:
“…Although the meeting was convened
by the Catholic Church, the attendees included Hindus, Muslims, Protestants, Jews,
atheists, and agnostics, all willing to follow this leader, not because of his
religious significance, but because of his moral high ground. We need more leaders to step forward,
claiming this moral high ground.
Although the current trajectory we are on is dangerous, the message is
also one of hope. A safer, more just,
more prosperous, and sustainable world is within reach.” Marcia McNutt
No comments:
Post a Comment