Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pope Francis Endorses Climate Science, Trashes Modernity
As promised, the pope’s encyclical came out today, so I spent most of my morning reading and processing so I could say something useful about it. (Amusingly, I was recently pre-interviewed for an NPR panel on the topic, but they got spooked when they discovered that I’m a climate skeptic. Such disreputable views are obviously not suitable for NPR. So I had to wait and read the encyclical today, with the rest of the plebs.)
So here’s something you already knew: Pope Francis believes in climate change. Here’s something else you knew: he’s wary of free markets. Despite that, I found it a very enjoyable read. Neither climate change nor free markets were the central focus. It’s more of a meditation on the dehumanizing, technocratic tendencies of modernity. It occurred to me as I was reading that Pope Francis believes in climate change mainly for the same sorts of reasons that conservatives are prone to doom-and-gloom future projections: the progressive disregard for nature has advanced so far that it seems credible to him that the earth is on the brink of disaster.
So, that’s some interesting food for thought. I’ll pull out a few passages that I liked, and invite others to leave whatever reactions they want to share.
Lamenting the fact that the poor are regularly overlooked and underserved, Francis opines that,
(49) This is due partly to the fact that many professionals, opinion makers, communications media and centres of power, being located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems. They live and reason from the comfortable position of a high level of development and a quality of life well beyond the reach of the majority of the world’s population. This lack of physical contact and encounter, encouraged at times by the disintegration of our cities, can lead to a numbing of conscience and to tendentious analyses which neglect parts of reality. At times this attitude exists side by side with a “green” rhetoric.
He goes on to lambast population control advocates (which was a great pleasure for some of us, who did not enjoy watching figures like Jeff Sachs get a platform at a Vatican-sponsored event):
50. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health.” Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”.[28] To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.
In general, what Francis calls “human ecology” is a major point of emphasis. Multiple times he returns to theme of the hypocrisy of those who claim to champion the environment while ignoring the applications of natural law to human beings, who are even more precious.
91. A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings. It is clearly inconsistent to combat trafficking in endangered species while remaining completely indifferent to human trafficking, unconcerned about the poor, or undertaking to destroy another human being deemed unwanted. This compromises the very meaning of our struggle for the sake of the environment. It is no coincidence that, in the canticle in which Saint Francis praises God for his creatures, he goes on to say: “Praised be you my Lord, through those who give pardon for your love”. Everything is connected. Concern for the environment thus needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society.
There is also, of course, some specific environmental advice that most conservatives will find distasteful. On the whole though, it seemed to me like a lot of trepidation leading up to a document in which conservatives can find quite a lot to admire.
Published in Economics, General, Science & Technology
Can you name a significant Catholic who thinks this way?
It’s just crazy talk, pure assertion, perhaps out of frustration, but it doesn’t inform, adds to more misinformation and confusion–particularly in today’s environment, what with Big Media’s and the Obama Admin’s unending spins to “nudge” the electorate.
Meh. As Knotwise said, to listen to Francis on this subject, you’d think that the world was beset by a lack of regulation and laissez faire extremism, rather than the opposite.
Again, if there are people who think that The Market — PBUH — will solve everything, those people are fools. But I don’t think you’ll find anyone, not even on Ricochet, who actually argues that.
Sorry; do you mean me, those conservatives who have educated themselves on matters other than Coase, or Francis? I don’t think that any of those groups is engaging in pure crazy talk, although at least two of those groups are wrong about some things.
James: No, sorry, I wasn’t clear. It’s the Rico format. I didn’t mean you. Your comment was well taken. I meant the statement “let private companies maximize their profits without any restraints this would also magically yield clean air, pure water, etc “ Throwing out crazy assertions like these doesn’t take us anywhere but tends to breed more confusion and more of the same.
Here are two videos that might be of interest.
Catholic commentary from Kevin Roberts, President of Wyoming Catholic College:
Catholic commentary from the team at Ignatius Press (the publishers for the Holy See in the USA) at Catholic World Report:
Rachel, you are being too generous. I’m not really sure what he is saying because these tweets are so vague and incoherent. But talking about “deified markets” is simply dealing in caricature, what’s more he is using that term in support of the idea that the environment is so fragile that our greed will consume it and destroy it. The consumerism and deified markets he speaks of so disdainfully has produced cleaner air, water, and more protected wilderness in the developed world than any other. What’s more, the answers to the climate science he foolishly laps up lies entirely in the development of technologies developed in a free and entrepreneurial market where innovation and risk are rewarded.
But what about the other tweets?
This is just lazy, overly broad and demagogic. And this below,
What does that even mean? The economy and technology aren’t conscious entities. They have no interests. This is completely vacuous.
And now I just see this new pearl,
What is he saying here?
In that case I’d defend them on the grounds of rational ignorance. They’re wrong, but it might not be rational for them to learn about Coase. I think people often ought to, but I’d like to defend the merely ignorant from charges of craziness.
Obviously, sometimes I get a little tempted to suggest that someone might be ignorant and crazy, but since Ricochet is akin to a dinner party, I would never want to give in to that temptation, no matter how much of a whacky firebrand Tom Meyer might be.
I presumed he meant me. Apparently I’m not permitted even an ounce of hyperbole to make my point clear — though I’m uncertain if calling my comment “crazy” is also an instance of hyperbole or meant to suggest that I am literally insane.
It’s really, really, hard not to be snarky when people advocate cultural revolutions. Nonetheless, while all these things sound like crazed radical statements (I find his disgust with the planet particularly disturbing), they’re abstract enough that it’s hard to objectively assign meaning. Just like with Muslims and “jihad”, it seems legitimate for defenders to say that he just means that we should “struggle” to make the world a better place.
If, like anonymous, you believe in “the roaring 20s”, and that a properly regulated marketplace will produce wonderful things for humanity over the next decade, you could, I think, read Laudato Si and come away thinking that we should think deeply about this stuff, vote Republican, and enjoy the coming great leap forward.
The tone is awful, but the phrasing is broad enough that I don’t think much of the normative stuff is meaningfully binding. There’s false statements of fact, but from what I’ve read so far, essentially no one should find themselves forced to reconsider their views by this document, which is as good as could be hoped for.
Yes, I have. I’ve read Mises, Hayek, and Friedman, but it’s true I am unfamiliar with the works of Ronald Coase.
Rachel: I wonder if it’s an incorrect inference you have drawn–that there are people who “deify” markets (“think this way” as you say). I associate free markets with individual liberty that engenders widespread cooperation among human beings within the division of labor that free markets promote; and know that free market capitalism has proven itself historically as the only mass poverty reduction system tied to individual liberty. That doesn’t mean I “deify” markets, does it?
From everything I have read in the media about what the Pope has said about markets, it does seem to me that he has an animus towards free markets–although I have yet to read his latest opinions, i.e., the encyclical.
I’m giving you three months to do so, then I’m telling Midge (only because I think you’ll like him, and her encouragement to familiarize yourself with him seems likely to be positive).
Also, I may forget, but you should read him anyway.
I feel like I should disclaim the fact that I do kind of deify markets. I think that mankind’s ability to cooperate on a massive scale to achieve miraculous things is likely in part due to the workings of the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe that the market consistently achieves the best outcomes, avoids atrocities, or otherwise operate contrary to Solomon’s claim that races go not to the swift, but what they do do, I think is divinely aided, at the very least through the design of humanity, but probably also though subsequent maintenance.
I don’t think that I’m particularly mainstream in my association of the Invisible Hand and the Holy Ghost, though. I certainly don’t think that there’s a body of people holding that belief that have a measurable impact on the planet. I don’t think that my belief in the imperfection of markets allows me to identify properly with Francis’ targets, but I felt like I was hiding something in discussing the subject with what some people might feel was a conflict of interests.
James: You misunderstand. I criticized his statement based on its sweeping, hyperbolic nature and apparent unawareness of externalities. I accept that many do not know Coase. I don’t need Coase, just negative externalities.
Uh, I’m actually pretty close to this. I’ve often said that free markets allow people to cooperate in God’s creative enterprise.
Oh, you did mean Joseph? I’d read your clarification as referring to conservative non-Coaseans. In that case, I’m going back to defending him on the merits. Perhaps the conservatives making the arguments he describes shouldn’t exist, but they certainly do exist.
For a couple of minutes, I actually felt humility. Then I discovered that WC agreed with me, so clearly my fears that I might be wrong were clearly poorly founded. Darn it, why won’t people let me be godly, or at least allow me to reduce my smugness to tolerable levels?
I think it is the conservatives who call for abolishing the EPA (as they often do, here on Ricochet and elsewhere) without clearly specifying a replacement mechanism for controlling pollution that display an apparent unawareness of externalities.
Perhaps when you hear someone say “abolish the EPA!” you naturally assume they have read Coase and are proposing whatever it is he proposes. I assure you most moderate voters simply thinks “abolish the EPA!” means companies should be free to pollute without restraint or punishment, and proposing this sort of thing (again w/o a clearly specified alternative) is a sure way to lose elections.
I agree. The “abolish the EPA” idea comes from the overreaching of the EPA — such as interpreting “pollutant” to include CO2, or deciding that they can regulate the placement of clean fill dirt on dry land as “pollution” of the “waters of the US.”
The EPA serves an important function. Taking lead out of our gas, for instance, was a good idea. But it is now doing too much, and needs to be rolled back.
A reasonable approach doesn’t make for a good campaign slogan, though.
Sadly, mostly when I hear conservatives calling for something to be abolished, they mean it in the Newt Gingrich sense of relabeling the department to something else and cutting a function or two from it.
Even aside from Newt’s DofEd plan, nobody believes that with a flat tax you’d be able to have no tax enforcement, people to help struggling taxpayers with payment plans, corporate tax experts, etc. etc. etc. “Abolish the IRS” is about catharsis, not about policy. At its lowest levels, you get the Cruz line about sending IRS agents to defend the Southern border, but I don’t remember anyone lately suggesting that you could actually have no tax enforcement; perhaps Ben Carson comes close sometimes.
The EPA might be an exception (certainly the cuts envisioned are often steeper), but I think that most conservatives believe that you should have some regulation of interstate industrial pollution.
It’s a classic tragedy of the commons. Having people promising insanely big things makes the politicians honestly promising big things seem small. Sadly, I’m not sure there’s much of a solution available.
I would further note that my original statement said “seem to suggest by their rhetoric.” I was not referring to carefully laid out academic arguments, but rather to the types of things GOP candidates, radio talk show callers, or posters on Ricochet often say. Their own views may in fact be more nuanced but it doesn’t always come across in their rhetoric.
Re BT’s # 37 about the Pope’s tweet:
I hope that this is just an underling who is “tone deaf” to the way “cultural revolution” comes across to Americans. To an American, the “Cultural Revolution” was Mao’s imposition of draconian Communism on the hapless Chinese people. I’ve seen estimates of the death toll in the 30 million range from Mao’s “Cultural Revolution.”
I agree that we could use a small-c “cultural revolution” in the US and elsewhere. Parts of Leftism, ascendant in much of Europe and blue-state America, is a death cult promoting abortion and suicide. There is also something religiously and morally troublesome about the single-minded pursuit of wealth lionized by the Right (and by our libertarian friends a bit more than by traditional conservatives, but only as a matter of degree).
The “he doesn’t speak English” defense is one of the most frequent. It’s almost always a false hope. In this instance, his Spanish language tweet is about the “revolución cultural”. Google that, and you’ll get all Mao, all the time. Same with “rivoluzione culturale”, the Italian version. I’m pretty sure that the sentiment is offensive in all the Papal languages.
It’s not fair to him to take his views from the media. Instead, you should read the man in his original, considered form. Start with chapter 2.1, then skip to 4.2 for the highlights. You should despair, but not because of what the media say.
pro forma disclaimer: As with every other person on the planet, Francis often says things that aren’t awful. There’s plenty of inoffensive stuff in that exhortation, and I’m recommending that you read the views that are distinctive to Francis, rather than the areas in which he agrees with his predecessors. His ignorance, hubris, and malice in this regard should not be taken to mean that he’s wrong about everything.
Now I have totally lost you. Perhaps you have to go back to #28. Let me try again, so we don’t go in a loop.
I was criticizing this statement: “let private companies maximize their profits without any restraints this would also magically yield clean air, pure water, etc “
(1) Nobody ever says “let companies maximize their profits without any restraints..” because that ignores a vast literature about externalities. That’s the hyperbole that leads nowhere, is liable to add more heat than light.
(2) …”this would magically yield clean air, pure water, etc” Joseph’s subtext was we need the govt, EPA to do so. That assumption is reasonable–your rational ignorance argument–even though Joseph’s throwing in the word “magically” is a kinda snarky. So, I threw in Pigou (govt intervention) and Coase (modern approach) as a side point for info, without getting much into Coase.
But (1) was what I thought snarky, crazy talk, even though I didn’t say such until you intervened.
(Also, I really didn’t know which conservatives ever thought (1) but that’s not the issue either. In my view, nobody does.)
Sadly, I believe that an extended time on Ricochet may lower your opinion of conservatives and of our community in this respect. Only the majority, rather than the entirety, of us are sound on this question.
Sorry, James. Midge was already listening ;-)
Joseph, PM me your address! You’ll really like Coase – I promise!