[✔️] October 5, 2023- Global Warming News Digest | Pope Francis speaks up, full English document 8000 words, 1988 Loyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle debate

[Richard Pauli]

/*October 5*//*, 2023*//
/

/[ New religious exhortation from Pope Francis  ]/
*‘Laudate Deum’: A brief guide for busy readers *
LUKE COPPEN
October 4, 2023 /
/

    // Writing in his new apostolic exhortation Laudate Deum (“Praise
    God”), released on the Oct. 4 feast of St. Francis of Assisi, the
    pope said the planet was approaching a “point of no return” as
    global warming hurtled toward the maximum recommended limit of 1.5
    degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) higher than the pre-industrial average.

    “Even if we do not reach this point of no return, it is certain that
    the consequences would be disastrous and precipitous measures would
    have to be taken, at enormous cost and with grave and intolerable
    economic and social effects,” he wrote.

    “Although the measures that we can take now are costly, the cost
    will be all the more burdensome the longer we wait.”

    While that is the text’s headline message, the document — a sequel
    to Francis’ 2015 encyclical Laudato si’ — contains much else
    besides. Here’s a brief guide for busy readers...

    *    It’s short*
    The first thing to note is that Laudate Deum is strikingly short for
    a document in the Pope Francis era.

    The exhortation clocks in at around 8,000 words, compared to the
    40,000 words of Laudato si’ and the 60,000 words of the gargantuan
    2016 apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia. It can be read
    comfortably in half an hour.

    *    Why ‘Praise God’?*
    The document’s opening words — or “incipit” in Latin — relate to St.
    Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of ecology.

    “‘Praise God for all his creatures,’” Laudate Deum begins. “This was
    the message that St. Francis of Assisi  proclaimed by his life, his
    canticles and all his actions.”

    Unlike Laudato si’, which began with a direct quotation from St.
    Francis’ “Canticle of the Creatures,” Laudate Deum appears to start
    with a paraphrase seeking to capture the spirit of the saint’s work.

    A Google search for the phrase “praise God for all his creatures”
    brings up a Sept. 1, 2019, Angelus address, in which Pope Francis
    said: “From today until Oct. 4, the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi,
    it is a favorable time to praise God for all his creatures and to
    assume responsibility before the cry of the Earth.”

    In a striking editorial choice, readers must wait until Laudate
    Deum’s final paragraph for a direct explanation of why the text is
    entitled “Praise God.”

    “‘Praise God’ is the title of this letter,” Francis writes. “For
    when human beings claim to take God’s place, they become their own
    worst enemies.”

    *        Tackling skeptics*
    In Laudate Deum, Pope Francis goes into battle with people who he
    believes downplay or deny outright the severity of the threat posed
    by climate change.

    He devotes 10 paragraphs to rebutting common objections, such as
    that the world has historically experienced periods of cooling and
    warming, and that steps to protect the environment will destroy jobs.

    “I feel obliged to make these clarifications, which may appear
    obvious, because of certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable
    opinions that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church,” he notes.

    “Yet we can no longer doubt that the reason for the unusual rapidity
    of these dangerous changes is a fact that cannot be concealed: the
    enormous novelties that have to do with unchecked human intervention
    on nature in the past two centuries.”

    A sense of urgency
    There’s a notably urgent tone throughout Laudate Deum. Eight years
    on from the publication of Laudato si’, Francis believes that the
    world has largely failed to rise to the challenges he outlined in
    the encyclical.

    He writes that “with the passage of time, I have realized that our
    responses have not  been adequate, while the world in which we live
    is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point.”

    The “technocratic paradigm” that he deplored in Laudato si’ has
    continued to wreak havoc. “Artificial intelligence and the latest
    technological innovations start with the notion of a human being
    with no limits, whose abilities and possibilities can be infinitely
    expanded thanks to technology,” he says. “In this way, the
    technocratic paradigm monstrously feeds upon itself.”

    Meanwhile, he believes that the international consensus needed to
    combat climate change remains weak. He offers a detailed critique of
    recent United Nations climate change conferences, seeing them
    broadly as failures, with the possible exception of the 2015 edition
    in Paris, which produced an agreement that observers believe was
    influenced by the publication of Laudato si’.

    The pope looks ahead to the next conference, which will be held Nov.
    30-Dec. 12 in the United Arab Emirates. He seems unenthusiastic
    about the venue, noting that the UAE is “known as a great exporter
    of fossil fuels,” and oil and gas companies are planning new
    projects in the country.

    But despite his sadness at the ineffectiveness of global
    institutions, he insists that “to say that there is nothing to hope 
    for would be suicidal, for it would mean exposing all humanity,
    especially the poorest, to the worst impacts of climate change.”

    *     Criticism of the U.S.*
    Pope Francis cites a 2019 U.S. bishops’ document on climate change
    approvingly in Laudate Deum’s third paragraph.

    But elsewhere, he suggests that the U.S. is one the main culprits of
    the climate crisis.

    “If we consider that emissions per individual in the United States
    are about two times greater than those of individuals living in
    China, and about seven times greater than the average of the poorest
    countries, we can state that a broad change in the irresponsible
    lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant
    long-term impact,” he writes.

    *     Footnote curiosities *
    Laudate Deum’s footnotes consist largely of references to other
    texts of the Francis pontificate, principally Laudato si’. They also
    amply cite documents produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change (IPCC).

    The exhortation alludes to the 2008 book “When Species Meet,” by the
    U.S. professor Donna Haraway, which explores the notion of
    “companion species.”

    But perhaps the quirkiest reference is to the Russian writer
    Vladimir Solovyov’s apocalyptic “A Short Story of the Anti-Christ.”

    The story, published in 1900, imagines the emergence of an
    Antichrist who establishes himself as a global authority and seeks
    dominion over Christians worldwide, but faces heroic resistance from
    Church leaders and is ultimately vanquished by Christ.

    The pope doesn’t delve into the story’s plot in Laudate Deum, but
    limits himself to quoting Solovyov’s “ironic comment” about an “age
    which was so advanced as to be actually the last one.”
    https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/laudate-deum-a-brief-guide-for-busy

- -

/[Go ahead, read the entire document - only 8000 words... 
/https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/10/04/0692/01509.html#inglese 
/scroll for different languages //]/

*         APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION

          LAUDATE DEUM OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS

          TO ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL

          ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS*

1. “Praise God for all his creatures”.This was the message that Saint 
Francis of Assisi proclaimed by his life, his canticles and all his 
actions. In this way, he accepted the invitation of the biblical Psalms 
and reflected the sensitivity of Jesus before the creatures of his 
Father: “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither 
toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not 
clothed like one of these” (Mt 6:28-29). “Are not five sparrows sold for 
two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God’s sight” (Lk 12:6). 
How can we not admire this tenderness of Jesus for all the beings that 
accompany us along the way!

2. Eight years have passed since I published the Encyclical Letter 
Laudato si’, when I wanted to share with all of you, my brothers and 
sisters of our suffering planet, my heartfelt concerns about the care of 
our common home. Yet, with the passage of time, I have realized that our 
responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is 
collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point. In addition to this 
possibility, it is indubitable that the impact of climate change will 
increasingly prejudice the lives and families of many persons. We will 
feel its effects in the areas of healthcare, sources of employment, 
access to resources, housing, forced migrations, etc.

3. This is a global social issue and one intimately related to the 
dignity of human life. The Bishops of the United States have expressed 
very well this social meaning of our concern about climate change, which 
goes beyond a merely ecological approach, because “our care for one 
another and our care for the earth are intimately bound together. 
Climate change is one of the principal challenges facing society and the 
global community. The effects of climate change are borne by the most 
vulnerable people, whether at home or around the world”.[1] In a few 
words, the Bishops assembled for the Synod for Amazonia said the same 
thing: “Attacks on nature have consequences for people’s lives”.[2] And 
to express bluntly that this is no longer a secondary or ideological 
question, but a drama that harms us all, the African bishops stated that 
climate change makes manifest “a tragic and striking example of 
structural sin”.[3]

4. The reflection and information that we can gather from these past 
eight years allow us to clarify and complete what we were able to state 
some time ago. For this reason, and because the situation is now even 
more pressing, I have wished to share these pages with you.

*         1. The Global Climate Crisis
*

5. Despite all attempts to deny, conceal, gloss over or relativize the 
issue, the signs of climate change are here and increasingly evident. No 
one can ignore the fact that in recent years we have witnessed extreme 
weather phenomena, frequent periods of unusual heat, drought and other 
cries of protest on the part of the earth that are only a few palpable 
expressions of a silent disease that affects everyone. Admittedly, not 
every concrete catastrophe ought to be attributed to global climate 
change. Nonetheless, it is verifiable that specific climate changes 
provoked by humanity are notably heightening the probability of extreme 
phenomena that are increasingly frequent and intense. For this reason, 
we know that every time the global temperature increases by 0.5° C, the 
intensity and frequency of great rains and floods increase in some areas 
and severe droughts in others, extreme heat waves in some places and 
heavy snowfall in others.[4] If up to now we could have heat waves 
several times a year, what will happen if the global temperature 
increases by 1.5° C, which we are approaching? Those heat waves will be 
much more frequent and with greater intensity. If it should rise above 2 
degrees, the icecaps of Greenland and a large part of Antarctica[5] will 
melt completely, with immensely grave consequences for everyone.
*
           Resistance and confusion*

6. In recent years, some have chosen to deride these facts. They bring 
up allegedly solid scientific data, like the fact that the planet has 
always had, and will have, periods of cooling and warming. They forget 
to mention another relevant datum: that what we are presently 
experiencing is an unusual acceleration of warming, at such a speed that 
it will take only one generation – not centuries or millennia – in order 
to verify it. The rise in the sea level and the melting of glaciers can 
be easily perceived by an individual in his or her lifetime, and 
probably in a few years many populations will have to move their homes 
because of these facts.

7. In order to ridicule those who speak of global warming, it is pointed 
out that intermittent periods of extreme cold regularly occur. One fails 
to mention that this and other extraordinary symptoms are nothing but 
diverse alternative expressions of the same cause: the global imbalance 
that is provoking the warming of the planet. Droughts and floods, the 
dried-up lakes, communities swept away by seaquakes and flooding 
ultimately have the same origin. At the same time, if we speak of a 
global phenomenon, we cannot confuse this with sporadic events explained 
in good part by local factors.

8. Lack of information leads to confusion between large-scale climate 
projections that involve long periods of time – we are talking about 
decades at least – with weather forecasts that at most can cover a few 
weeks. When we speak of climate change, we are referring to a global 
reality – and constant local variations – that persists for several decades.

9. In an attempt to simplify reality, there are those who would place 
responsibility on the poor, since they have many children, and even 
attempt to resolve the problem by mutilating women in less developed 
countries. As usual, it would seem that everything is the fault of the 
poor. Yet the reality is that a low, richer percentage of the planet 
contaminates more than the poorest 50% of the total world population, 
and that per capita emissions of the richer countries are much greater 
than those of the poorer ones.[6] How can we forget that Africa, home to 
more than half of the world’s poorest people, is responsible for a 
minimal portion of historic emissions?

10. It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by 
reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources 
will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs. What is happening is 
that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects 
of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts and other phenomena 
affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the 
transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as 
efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of 
generating countless jobs in different sectors. This demands that 
politicians and business leaders should even now be concerning 
themselves with it.

*            Human causes*

11. It is no longer possible to doubt the human – “anthropic” – origin 
of climate change. Let us see why. The concentration of greenhouse gases 
in the atmosphere, which causes global warming, was stable until the 
nineteenth century, below 300 parts per million in volume. But in the 
middle of that century, in conjunction with industrial development, 
emissions began to increase. In the past fifty years, this increase has 
accelerated significantly, as the Mauna Loa observatory, which has taken 
daily measurements of carbon dioxide since 1958, has confirmed. While I 
was writing Laudato si’, they hit a historic high – 400 parts per 
million – until arriving at 423 parts per million in June 2023.[7] More 
than 42% of total net emissions since the year 1850 were produced after 
1990.[8]

12. At the same time, we have confirmed that in the last fifty years the 
temperature has risen at an unprecedented speed, greater than any time 
over the past two thousand years. In this period, the trend was a 
warming of 0.15° C per decade, double that of the last 150 years. From 
1850 on, the global temperature has risen by 1.1° C, with even greater 
impact on the polar regions. At this rate, it is possible that in just 
ten years we will reach the recommended maximum global ceiling of 1.5° 
C.[9] This increase has not occurred on the earth’s surface alone but 
also several kilometres higher in the atmosphere, on the surface of the 
oceans and even in their depths for hundreds of metres. Thus the 
acidification of the seas increased and their oxygen levels were 
reduced. The glaciers are receding, the snow cover is diminishing and 
the sea level is constantly rising.[10]

13. It is not possible to conceal the correlation of these global 
climate phenomena and the accelerated increase in greenhouse gas 
emissions, particularly since the mid-twentieth century. The 
overwhelming majority of scientists specializing in the climate support 
this correlation, and only a very small percentage of them seek to deny 
the evidence. Regrettably, the climate crisis is not exactly a matter 
that interests the great economic powers, whose concern is with the 
greatest profit possible at minimal cost and in the shortest amount of time.

14. I feel obliged to make these clarifications, which may appear 
obvious, because of certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions 
that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church. Yet we can no longer 
doubt that the reason for the unusual rapidity of these dangerous 
changes is a fact that cannot be concealed: the enormous novelties that 
have to do with unchecked human intervention on nature in the past two 
centuries. Events of natural origin that usually cause warming, such as 
volcanic eruptions and others, are insufficient to explain the 
proportion and speed of the changes of recent decades.[11] The change in 
average surface temperatures cannot be explained except as the result of 
the increase of greenhouse gases.

*            Damages and risks*

15. Some effects of the climate crisis are already irreversible, at 
least for several hundred years, such as the increase in the global 
temperature of the oceans, their acidification and the decrease of 
oxygen. Ocean waters have a thermal inertia and centuries are needed to 
normalize their temperature and salinity, which affects the survival of 
many species. This is one of the many signs that the other creatures of 
this world have stopped being our companions along the way and have 
become instead our victims.

16. The same can be said about the decrease in the continental ice 
sheets. The melting of the poles will not be able to be reversed for 
hundreds of years. As for the climate, there are factors that have 
persisted for long periods of time, independent of the events that may 
have triggered them. For this reason, we are now unable to halt the 
enormous damage we have caused. We barely have time to prevent even more 
tragic damage.

17. Certain apocalyptic diagnoses may well appear scarcely reasonable or 
insufficiently grounded. This should not lead us to ignore the real 
possibility that we are approaching a critical point. Small changes can 
cause greater ones, unforeseen and perhaps already irreversible, due to 
factors of inertia. This would end up precipitating a cascade of events 
having a snowball effect. In such cases, it is always too late, since no 
intervention will be able to halt a process once begun. There is no 
turning back. We cannot state with certainty that all this is going to 
happen, based on present conditions. But it is certain that it continues 
to be a possibility, if we take into account phenomena already in motion 
that “sensitize” the climate, like the reduction of ice sheets, changes 
in ocean currents, deforestation in tropical rainforests and the melting 
of permafrost in Russia, etc.[12]

18. Consequently, a broader perspective is urgently needed, one that can 
enable us to esteem the marvels of progress, but also to pay serious 
attention to other effects that were probably unimaginable a century 
ago. What is being asked of us is nothing other than a certain 
responsibility for the legacy we will leave behind, once we pass from 
this world.

19. Finally, we can add that the Covid-19 pandemic brought out the close 
relation of human life with that of other living beings and with the 
natural environment. But in a special way, it confirmed that what 
happens in one part of the world has repercussions on the entire planet. 
This allows me to reiterate two convictions that I repeat over and over 
again: “Everything is connected” and “No one is saved alone”.

*             2. A Growing Technocratic Paradigm*

20. In Laudato si’, I offered a brief resumé of the technocratic 
paradigm underlying the current process of environmental decay. It is “a 
certain way of understanding human life and activity [that] has gone 
awry, to the serious detriment of the world around us”.[13] Deep down, 
it consists in thinking “as if reality, goodness and truth automatically 
flow from technological and economic power as such”.[14] As a logical 
consequence, it then becomes easy “to accept the idea of infinite or 
unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers 
and experts in technology”.[15]

21. In recent years, we have been able to confirm this diagnosis, even 
as we have witnessed a new advance of the above paradigm. Artificial 
intelligence and the latest technological innovations start with the 
notion of a human being with no limits, whose abilities and 
possibilities can be infinitely expanded thanks to technology. In this 
way, the technocratic paradigm monstrously feeds upon itself.

22. Without a doubt, the natural resources required by technology, such 
as lithium, silicon and so many others, are not unlimited, yet the 
greater problem is the ideology underlying an obsession: to increase 
human power beyond anything imaginable, before which nonhuman reality is 
a mere resource at its disposal. Everything that exists ceases to be a 
gift for which we should be thankful, esteem and cherish, and instead 
becomes a slave, prey to any whim of the human mind and its capacities.

23. It is chilling to realize that the capacities expanded by technology 
“have given those with the knowledge and especially the economic 
resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of 
humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity had such power over 
itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly 
when we consider how it is currently being used… In whose hands does all 
this power lie, or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for 
a small part of humanity to have it”.[16]

*             Rethinking our use of power*

24. Not every increase in power represents progress for humanity. We 
need only think of the “admirable” technologies that were employed to 
decimate populations, drop atomic bombs and annihilate ethnic groups. 
There were historical moments where our admiration at progress blinded 
us to the horror of its consequences. But that risk is always present, 
because “our immense technological development has not been accompanied 
by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience... We 
stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, 
lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial 
mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and 
spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching 
clear-minded self-restraint”.[17] It is not strange that so great a 
power in such hands is capable of destroying life, while the mentality 
proper to the technocratic paradigm blinds us and does not permit us to 
see this extremely grave problem of present-day humanity.

25. Contrary to this technocratic paradigm, we say that the world that 
surrounds us is not an object of exploitation, unbridled use and 
unlimited ambition. Nor can we claim that nature is a mere “setting” in 
which we develop our lives and our projects. For “we are part of nature, 
included in it and thus in constant interaction with it”,[18] and thus 
“we [do] not look at the world from without but from within”.[19]

26. This itself excludes the idea that the human being is extraneous, a 
foreign element capable only of harming the environment. Human beings 
must be recognized as a part of nature. Human life, intelligence and 
freedom are elements of the nature that enriches our planet, part of its 
internal workings and its equilibrium.

27. For this reason, a healthy ecology is also the result of interaction 
between human beings and the environment, as occurs in the indigenous 
cultures and has occurred for centuries in different regions of the 
earth. Human groupings have often “created” an environment,[20] 
reshaping it in some way without destroying it or endangering it. The 
great present-day problem is that the technocratic paradigm has 
destroyed that healthy and harmonious relationship. In any event, the 
indispensable need to move beyond that paradigm, so damaging and 
destructive, will not be found in a denial of the human being, but 
include the interaction of natural systems “with social systems”.[21]

28. We need to rethink among other things the question of human power, 
its meaning and its limits. For our power has frenetically increased in 
a few decades. We have made impressive and awesome technological 
advances, and we have not realized that at the same time we have turned 
into highly dangerous beings, capable of threatening the lives of many 
beings and our own survival. Today it is worth repeating the ironic 
comment of Solovyov about an “age which was so advanced as to be 
actually the last one”.[22] We need lucidity and honesty in order to 
recognize in time that our power and the progress we are producing are 
turning against us.[23]

*          The ethical goad*

29. The ethical decadence of real power is disguised thanks to marketing 
and false information, useful tools in the hands of those with greater 
resources to employ them to shape public opinion. With the help of these 
means, whenever plans are made to undertake a project involving 
significant changes in the environment or high levels of contamination, 
one raises the hopes of the people of that area by speaking of the local 
progress that it will be able to generate or of the potential for 
economic growth, employment and human promotion that it would mean for 
their children. Yet in reality there does not seem to be any true 
interest in the future of these people, since they are not clearly told 
that the project will result in the clearing of their lands, a decline 
in the quality of their lives, a desolate and less habitable landscape 
lacking in life, the joy of community and hope for the future; in 
addition to the global damage that eventually compromises many other 
people as well.

30. One need but think of the momentary excitement raised by the money 
received in exchange for the deposit of nuclear waste in a certain 
place. The house that one could have bought with that money has turned 
into a grave due to the diseases that were then unleashed. And I am not 
saying this, moved by a overflowing imagination, but on the basis of 
something we have seen. It could be said that this is an extreme 
example, but in these cases there is no room for speaking of “lesser” 
damages, for it is precisely the amassing of damages considered 
tolerable that has brought us to the situation in which we now find 
ourselves.

31. This situation has to do not only with physics or biology, but also 
with the economy and the way we conceive it. The mentality of maximum 
gain at minimal cost, disguised in terms of reasonableness, progress and 
illusory promises, makes impossible any sincere concern for our common 
home and any real preoccupation about assisting the poor and the needy 
discarded by our society. In recent years, we can note that, astounded 
and excited by the promises of any number of false prophets, the poor 
themselves at times fall prey to the illusion of a world that is not 
being built for them.

32. Mistaken notions also develop about the concept of “meritocracy”, 
which becomes seen as a “merited” human power to which everything must 
be submitted, under the rule of those born with greater possibilities 
and advantages. A healthy approach to the value of hard work, the 
development of one’s native abilities and a praiseworthy spirit of 
initiative is one thing, but if one does not seek a genuine equality of 
opportunity, “meritocracy” can easily become a screen that further 
consolidates the privileges of a few with great power. In this perverse 
logic, why should they care about the damage done to our common home, if 
they feel securely shielded by the financial resources that they have 
earned by their abilities and effort?

33. In conscience, and with an eye to the children who will pay for the 
harm done by their actions, the question of meaning inevitably arises: 
“What is the meaning of my life? What is the meaning of my time on this 
earth? And what is the ultimate meaning of all my work and effort?”
*
             3. The Weakness of International Politics*

34. Although “our own days seem to be showing signs of a certain 
regression… each new generation must take up the struggles and 
attainments of past generations, while setting its sights even higher. 
This is the path. Goodness, together with love, justice and solidarity, 
are not achieved once and for all; they have to be realized each 
day”.[24] For there to be solid and lasting advances, I would insist 
that, “preference should be given to multilateral agreements between 
States”.[25]

35. It is not helpful to confuse multilateralism with a world authority 
concentrated in one person or in an elite with excessive power: “When we 
talk about the possibility of some form of world authority regulated by 
law, we need not necessarily think of a personal authority”.[26] We are 
speaking above all of “more effective world organizations, equipped with 
the power to provide for the global common good, the elimination of 
hunger and poverty and the sure defence of fundamental human 
rights”.[27] The issue is that they must be endowed with real authority, 
in such a way as to “provide for” the attainment of certain essential 
goals. In this way, there could come about a multilateralism that is not 
dependent on changing political conditions or the interests of a certain 
few, and possesses a stable efficacy.

36. It continues to be regrettable that global crises are being 
squandered when they could be the occasions to bring about beneficial 
changes.[28] This is what happened in the 2007-2008 financial crisis and 
again in the Covid-19 crisis. For “the actual strategies developed 
worldwide in the wake of [those crises] fostered greater individualism, 
less integration and increased freedom for the truly powerful, who 
always find a way to escape unscathed”.[29]

*           Reconfiguring multilateralism*

37. More than saving the old multilateralism, it appears that the 
current challenge is to reconfigure and recreate it, taking into account 
the new world situation. I invite you to recognize that “many groups and 
organizations within civil society help to compensate for the 
shortcomings of the international community, its lack of coordination in 
complex situations, and its lack of attention to fundamental human 
rights”.[30] For example, the Ottawa Process against the use, production 
and manufacture of antipersonnel mines is one example that shows how 
civil society with its organizations is capable of creating effective 
dynamics that the United Nations cannot. In this way, the principle of 
subsidiarity is applied also to the global-local relationship.

38. In the medium-term, globalization favours spontaneous cultural 
interchanges, greater mutual knowledge and processes of integration of 
peoples, which end up provoking a multilateralism “from below” and not 
simply one determined by the elites of power. The demands that rise up 
from below throughout the world, where activists from very different 
countries help and support one another, can end up pressuring the 
sources of power. It is to be hoped that this will happen with respect 
to the climate crisis. For this reason, I reiterate that “unless 
citizens control political power – national, regional and municipal – it 
will not be possible to control damage to the environment”.[31]

39. Postmodern culture has generated a new sensitivity towards the more 
vulnerable and less powerful. This is connected with my insistence in 
the Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti on the primacy of the human person 
and the defence of his or her dignity beyond every circumstance. It is 
another way of encouraging multilateralism for the sake of resolving the 
real problems of humanity, securing before all else respect for the 
dignity of persons, in such a way that ethics will prevail over local or 
contingent interests.

40. It is not a matter of replacing politics, but of recognizing that 
the emerging forces are becoming increasingly relevant and are in fact 
capable of obtaining important results in the resolution of concrete 
problems, as some of them demonstrated during the pandemic. The very 
fact that answers to problems can come from any country, however little, 
ends up presenting multilateralism as an inevitable process.

41. The old diplomacy, also in crisis, continues to show its importance 
and necessity. Still, it has not succeeded in generating a model of 
multilateral diplomacy capable of responding to the new configuration of 
the world; yet should it be able to reconfigure itself, it must be part 
of the solution, because the experience of centuries cannot be cast 
aside either.

42. Our world has become so multipolar and at the same time so complex 
that a different framework for effective cooperation is required. It is 
not enough to think only of balances of power but also of the need to 
provide a response to new problems and to react with global mechanisms 
to the environmental, public health, cultural and social challenges, 
especially in order to consolidate respect for the most elementary human 
rights, social rights and the protection of our common home. It is a 
matter of establishing global and effective rules that can permit 
“providing for” this global safeguarding.

43. All this presupposes the development of a new procedure for 
decision-making and legitimizing those decisions, since the one put in 
place several decades ago is not sufficient nor does it appear 
effective. In this framework, there would necessarily be required spaces 
for conversation, consultation, arbitration, conflict resolution and 
supervision, and, in the end, a sort of increased “democratization” in 
the global context, so that the various situations can be expressed and 
included. It is no longer helpful for us to support institutions in 
order to preserve the rights of the more powerful without caring for 
those of all.

*              4. Climate Conferences: Progress and Failures*

44. For several decades now, representatives of more than 190 countries 
have met periodically to address the issue of climate change. The 1992 
Rio de Janeiro Conference led to the adoption of the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty that took 
effect when the necessary ratification on the part of the signatories 
concluded in 1994. These States meet annually in the Conference of the 
Parties (COP), the highest decision-making body. Some of these 
Conferences were failures, like that of Copenhagen (2009), while others 
made it possible to take important steps forward, like COP3 in Kyoto 
(1997). Its significant Protocol set the goal of reducing overall 
greenhouse gas emissions by 5% with respect to 1990. The deadline was 
the year 2012, but this, clearly, was not achieved.

45. All parties also committed themselves to implementing programmes of 
adaptation in order to reduce the effects of climate change now taking 
place. Provisions were also made for aid to cover the costs of the 
measures in developing countries. The Protocol actually took effect in 2005.

46. Afterwards, it was proposed to create a mechanism regarding the loss 
and damage caused by climate change, which recognizes as those chiefly 
responsible the richer countries and seeks to compensate for the loss 
and damage that climate change produces in the more vulnerable 
countries. It was not yet a matter of financing the “adaptation” of 
those countries, but of compensating them for damage already incurred. 
This question was the subject of important discussions at various 
Conferences.

47. COP21 in Paris (2015) represented another significant moment, since 
it generated an agreement that involved everyone. It can be considered 
as a new beginning, given the failure to meet the goals previously set. 
The agreement took effect on 4 November 2016. Albeit a binding 
agreement, not all its dispositions are obligations in the strict sense, 
and some of them leave ample room for discretion. In any case, properly 
speaking, there are no provisions for sanctions in the case of 
unfulfilled commitments, nor effective instruments to ensure their 
fulfilment. It also provides for a certain flexibility in the case of 
developing countries.

48. The Paris Agreement presents a broad and ambitious objective: to 
keep the increase of average global temperatures to under 2° C with 
respect to preindustrial levels, and with the aim of decreasing them to 
1.5° C. Work is still under way to consolidate concrete procedures for 
monitoring and to facilitate general criteria for comparing the 
objectives of the different countries. This makes it difficult to 
achieve a more objective (quantitative) evaluation of the real results.

49. Following several Conferences with scarce results, and the 
disappointment of COP25 in Madrid (2019), it was hoped that this inertia 
would be reversed at COP26 in Glasgow (2021). In effect, its result was 
to relaunch the Paris Agreement, put on hold by the overall effects of 
the pandemic. Furthermore, there was an abundance of “recommendations” 
whose actual effect was hardly foreseeable. Proposals tending to ensure 
a rapid and effective transition to alternative and less polluting forms 
of energy made no progress.

50. COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh (2022) was from the outset threatened by 
the situation created by the invasion of Ukraine, which caused a 
significant economic and energy crisis. Carbon use increased and 
everyone sought to have sufficient supplies. Developing countries 
regarded access to energy and prospects for development as an urgent 
priority. There was an evident openness to recognizing the fact that 
combustible fuels still provide 80% of the world’s energy, and that 
their use continues to increase.

51. This Conference in Egypt was one more example of the difficulty of 
negotiations. It could be said that at least it marked a step forward in 
consolidating a system for financing “loss and damage” in countries most 
affected by climate disasters. This would seem to give a new voice and a 
greater role to developing countries. Yet here too, many points remained 
imprecise, above all the concrete responsibility of the countries that 
have to contribute.

52. Today we can continue to state that, “the accords have been poorly 
implemented, due to lack of suitable mechanisms for oversight, periodic 
review and penalties in cases of noncompliance. The principles which 
they proclaimed still await an efficient and flexible means of practical 
implementation”.[32] Also, that “international negotiations cannot make 
significant progress due to positions taken by countries which place 
their national interests above the global common good. Those who will 
have to suffer the consequences of what we are trying to hide will not 
forget this failure of conscience and responsibility”.[33]

*                   5. What to Expect from COP28 in Dubai?*

53. The United Arab Emirates will host the next Conference of the 
Parties (COP28). It is a country of the Persian Gulf known as a great 
exporter of fossil fuels, although it has made significant investments 
in renewable energy sources. Meanwhile, gas and oil companies are 
planning new projects there, with the aim of further increasing their 
production. To say that there is nothing to hope for would be suicidal, 
for it would mean exposing all humanity, especially the poorest, to the 
worst impacts of climate change.

54. If we are confident in the capacity of human beings to transcend 
their petty interests and to think in bigger terms, we can keep hoping 
that COP28 will allow for a decisive acceleration of energy transition, 
with effective commitments subject to ongoing monitoring. This 
Conference can represent a change of direction, showing that everything 
done since 1992 was in fact serious and worth the effort, or else it 
will be a great disappointment and jeopardize whatever good has been 
achieved thus far.

55. Despite the many negotiations and agreements, global emissions 
continue to increase. Certainly, it could be said that, without those 
agreements, they would have increased even more. Still, in other themes 
related to the environment, when there was a will, very significant 
results were obtained, as was the case with the protection of the ozone 
layer. Yet, the necessary transition towards clean energy sources such 
as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels, is not 
progressing at the necessary speed. Consequently, whatever is being done 
risks being seen only as a ploy to distract attention.

56. We must move beyond the mentality of appearing to be concerned but 
not having the courage needed to produce substantial changes. We know 
that at this pace in just a few years we will surpass the maximum 
recommended limit of 1.5° C and shortly thereafter even reach 3° C, with 
a high risk of arriving at a critical point. Even if we do not reach 
this point of no return, it is certain that the consequences would be 
disastrous and precipitous measures would have to be taken, at enormous 
cost and with grave and intolerable economic and social effects. 
Although the measures that we can take now are costly, the cost will be 
all the more burdensome the longer we wait.

57. I consider it essential to insist that “to seek only a technical 
remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what 
is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems 
of the global system”.[34] It is true that efforts at adaptation are 
needed in the face of evils that are irreversible in the short term. 
Also some interventions and technological advances that make it possible 
to absorb or capture gas emissions have proved promising. Nonetheless, 
we risk remaining trapped in the mindset of pasting and papering over 
cracks, while beneath the surface there is a continuing deterioration to 
which we continue to contribute. To suppose that all problems in the 
future will be able to be solved by new technical interventions is a 
form of homicidal pragmatism, like pushing a snowball down a hill.

58. Once and for all, let us put an end to the irresponsible derision 
that would present this issue as something purely ecological, “green”, 
romantic, frequently subject to ridicule by economic interests. Let us 
finally admit that it is a human and social problem on any number of 
levels. For this reason, it calls for involvement on the part of all. In 
Conferences on the climate, the actions of groups negatively portrayed 
as “radicalized” tend to attract attention. But in reality they are 
filling a space left empty by society as a whole, which ought to 
exercise a healthy “pressure”, since every family ought to realize that 
the future of their children is at stake.

59. If there is sincere interest in making COP28 a historic event that 
honours and ennobles us as human beings, then one can only hope for 
binding forms of energy transition that meet three conditions: that they 
be efficient, obligatory and readily monitored. This, in order to 
achieve the beginning of a new process marked by three requirements: 
that it be drastic, intense and count on the commitment of all. That is 
not what has happened so far, and only a process of this sort can enable 
international politics to recover its credibility, since only in this 
concrete manner will it be possible to reduce significantly carbon 
dioxide levels and to prevent even greater evils over time.

60. May those taking part in the Conference be strategists capable of 
considering the common good and the future of their children, more than 
the short-term interests of certain countries or businesses. In this 
way, may they demonstrate the nobility of politics and not its shame. To 
the powerful, I can only repeat this question: “What would induce 
anyone, at this stage, to hold on to power, only to be remembered for 
their inability to take action when it was urgent and necessary to do 
so?”[35]

*                6. Spiritual Motivations*

61. I cannot fail in this regard to remind the Catholic faithful of the 
motivations born of their faith. I encourage my brothers and sisters of 
other religions to do the same, since we know that authentic faith not 
only gives strength to the human heart, but also transforms life, 
transfigures our goals and sheds light on our relationship to others and 
with creation as a whole.

/In the light of faith/

62. The Bible tells us: “God saw everything that he had made, and 
indeed, it was very good” (Gen 1:31). His is “the earth with all that is 
in it” (Deut 10:14). For this reason, he tells us that, “the land shall 
not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but 
aliens and tenants” (Lev 25:23). Hence, “responsibility for God’s earth 
means that human beings, endowed with intelligence, must respect the 
laws of nature and the delicate equilibria existing between the 
creatures of this world”.[36]

63. At the same time, “the universe as a whole, in all its manifold 
relationships, shows forth the inexhaustible richness of God”. Hence, to 
be wise, “we need to grasp the variety of things in their multiple 
relationships”.[37] Along this path of wisdom, it is not a matter of 
indifference to us that so many species are disappearing and that the 
climate crisis endangers the life of many other beings.

64. Jesus “was able to invite others to be attentive to the beauty that 
there is in the world because he himself was in constant touch with 
nature, lending it an attraction full of fondness and wonder. As he made 
his way throughout the land, he often stopped to contemplate the beauty 
sown by his Father, and invited his disciples to perceive a divine 
message in things”.[38]

65. Hence, “the creatures of this world no longer appear to us under 
merely natural guise, because the risen One is mysteriously holding them 
to himself and directing them towards fullness as their end. The very 
flowers of the field and the birds which his human eyes contemplated and 
admired are now imbued with his radiant presence”.[39] If “the universe 
unfolds in God, who fills it completely… there is a mystical meaning to 
be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor 
person’s face”.[40] The world sings of an infinite Love: how can we fail 
to care for it?

*          Journeying in communion and commitment*

66. God has united us to all his creatures. Nonetheless, the 
technocratic paradigm can isolate us from the world that surrounds us 
and deceive us by making us forget that the entire world is a “contact 
zone”.[41]

67. The Judaeo-Christian vision of the cosmos defends the unique and 
central value of the human being amid the marvellous concert of all 
God’s creatures, but today we see ourselves forced to realize that it is 
only possible to sustain a “situated anthropocentrism”. To recognize, in 
other words, that human life is incomprehensible and unsustainable 
without other creatures. For “as part of the universe… all of us are 
linked by unseen bonds and together form a kind of universal family, a 
sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate and humble 
respect”.[42]

68. This is not a product of our own will; its origin lies elsewhere, in 
the depths of our being, since “God has joined us so closely to the 
world around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost 
as a physical ailment, and the extinction of a species as a painful 
disfigurement”.[43] Let us stop thinking, then, of human beings as 
autonomous, omnipotent and limitless, and begin to think of ourselves 
differently, in a humbler but more fruitful way.

69. I ask everyone to accompany this pilgrimage of reconciliation with 
the world that is our home and to help make it more beautiful, because 
that commitment has to do with our personal dignity and highest values. 
At the same time, I cannot deny that it is necessary to be honest and 
recognize that the most effective solutions will not come from 
individual efforts alone, but above all from major political decisions 
on the national and international level.

70. Nonetheless, every little bit helps, and avoiding an increase of a 
tenth of a degree in the global temperature would already suffice to 
alleviate some suffering for many people. Yet what is important is 
something less quantitative: the need to realize that there are no 
lasting changes without cultural changes, without a maturing of 
lifestyles and convictions within societies, and there are no cultural 
changes without personal changes.

71. Efforts by households to reduce pollution and waste, and to consume 
with prudence, are creating a new culture. The mere fact that personal, 
family and community habits are changing is contributing to greater 
concern about the unfulfilled responsibilities of the political sectors 
and indignation at the lack of interest shown by the powerful. Let us 
realize, then, that even though this does not immediately produce a 
notable effect from the quantitative standpoint, we are helping to bring 
about large processes of transformation rising from deep within society.

72. If we consider that emissions per individual in the United States 
are about two times greater than those of individuals living in China, 
and about seven times greater than the average of the poorest 
countries,[44] we can state that a broad change in the irresponsible 
lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant 
long-term impact. As a result, along with indispensable political 
decisions, we would be making progress along the way to genuine care for 
one another.

73. “Praise God” is the title of this letter. For when human beings 
claim to take God’s place, they become their own worst enemies.

Given in Rome, at the Basilica of Saint John Lateran, on 4 October, the 
Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi, in the year 2023, the eleventh of my 
Pontificate.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/10/04/0692/01509.html#inglese



/[The news archive - looking back at politics how we have changed since 
1988 ]/
/*October 5, 1988*/
October 5, 1988: Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D) and Indiana Senator Dan 
Quayle (R) discuss global warming in the Vice Presidential debate, with 
both men agreeing that the problem must be addressed during the next 
four years; Bentsen suggests that natural gas and ethanol might be 
alternatives to oil dependence. (49:33-52:45)

http://youtu.be/99-v2Farbjs




=== Other climate news sources ===========================================
**Inside Climate News*
Newsletters
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or 
once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines 
deliver the full story, for free.
https://insideclimatenews.org/
---------------------------------------
**Climate Nexus* https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News summarizes the 
most important climate and energy news of the day, delivering an 
unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting. It also provides 
original reporting and commentary on climate denial and pro-polluter 
activity that would otherwise remain largely unexposed.    5 weekday
=================================
*Carbon Brief Daily https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up*
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief 
sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of 
subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours 
of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our 
pick of the key studies published in the peer-reviewed journals.
more at https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief
==================================
*T*he Daily Climate *Subscribe https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate impacts, 
solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better than coffee.
Other newsletters  at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ 

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/


/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only -- and carries no images 
or attachments which may originate from remote servers. Text-only 
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender. This is a 
personal hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for commercial 
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20231005/2e54691c/attachment.htm>