By: Taliah Dommerholt
Last week Pope Francis delivered his encyclical letter On Care For Our Common Home, which, opens with the strong message that we have mistakenly come to view ourselves as Mother Earth’s “…lords and masters, entitled to plunder at will.” The powerful messages of compassion, equity, and justice in reference to the planet and its people will be read and reflected upon throughout the world. The blog post below details my own personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Sierra Club.
On June 18, Pope Francis released an encyclical on climate change and ecology, although it had already been leaked a few days prior. For those of you who are not sure what an encyclical is, it’s a papal letter sent to all bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. Encyclicals are usually designed for the Catholic community, but they can have immense influence beyond the reach of the Catholic Church. In the recent encyclical, Pope Francis identifies the problems of consumption and waste that have exceeded the planet’s capacity to sustain our extremely unsustainable contemporary lifestyles. He pointedly addresses “every person living on this planet,” in an effort to stress the necessity for global collaboration to preserve and protect “our common home.”
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising quickly and are expected to reach between 700 and 1,000 ppm by 2100, a stark contrast with the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm measured in 1750. The Sierra Club maintains that in order to avoid irreversible and severe climate consequences, atmospheric carbon dioxide should be reduced to below 350 ppm within the century, a goal that cannot be reached without global cooperation and drastic changes in energy consumption. Despite the increase, emissions have been falling in many industrialized countries and although this is excellent, I would like to emphasize the principle of equity and our shared responsibility to the planet, especially in regard to disproportionate historical emission rates and consumption of nonrenewable resources.
In the United States there has been much dispute over the relationship between natural phenomena and human causation, and whether global warming even exists, as seen explicitly when Oklahoma senator Jim Inhofe used a snowball as evidence against climate change. The fact is, climate change is extremely multifaceted and often there is not an obvious link between cause and effect. I think one of the major problems here in the US is our disconnect from the problem, which perhaps is because we are not truly feeling the direct impacts of climate change at extraordinary levels, other than oddly warm winters or occasional bouts of heavy precipitation. It is easy for us to continue thriving in a consumerist society without considering the consequences of our actions across spatial and temporal boundaries.
Climate change is a transboundary phenomena, both in cause and in effect. During the first industrialization, Europe and the United States were by far the largest producers of greenhouse gases, but today, greenhouse gas emissions come largely from China and India, whose economies are expanding rapidly in order to meet a global capitalist demand. According to the World Bank, China’s export goods constitute approximately 30 percent of its GDP, worth millions of dollars of electromechanical and labor-intensive products exported to Europe and the United States. In a literal sense, emissions regulations in China are the responsibility of China, yet from a global perspective, nearly everyone around the world benefits from the goods China manufactures and the negative effects of greenhouse gases are not isolated to their sources. Although developed countries can now afford sustainable production and can rely on imports from other countries to meet their material needs, these countries that have had the privilege of prosperity and now must have the means and responsibility of remediation and prevention. In all, the US accounts for 28.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from 1850-2007, while China only has emitted 9.0 percent in the same time frame (World Resources Institute). To further understand the impact of our consumption in developed countries, we can also look at per capita consumption: according to the world bank, between 2010 and 2014, the United States emissions per capita were 17.6 metric tons, whereas China’s were only 6.2 (The World Bank).
With such a complicated and on-going problem, the solution is even more complex and less straightforward. I think a lot of us can agree that as an industrialized nation, we owe an “ecological debt” not only to the planet, but also to less developed nations that all too frequently bear the consequences of climate change and should have the right to sustainable growth. The gap between living standards in industrialized and developing states must be closed, and the Global North has the means to promote sustainability and development, in an effort to not only protect the planet, but also to decrease worldwide poverty.
In light of the upcoming Paris climate negotiations at the end of this year, the Pope chose a very good time to release the encyclical. With hope, it will have the ability to broaden environmental awareness and influence world decision-makers to support a low-carbon global energy system. Climate change is an issue founded in high degrees of uncertainty and regardless of scientific consensus, it is a heated topic of moral significance as well. What makes this movement so unique is its relevance on the global scale; when we challenge our political leaders, show solidarity with environmental efforts, and make more sustainable lifestyle choices, to actively reduce exorbitant levels of consumerism, we can come together as a global community and recognize that all of our lives are equally dependent on the well-being of the planet. The encyclical will hopefully further the awareness of our obligations to “our common home” and remind us all how important it is to love our neighbors. Often it is easy to support something in theory, but complacency and “blind confidence” in others finding solutions is dangerous, and I believe that it is our responsibility to make personal sacrifices and actively advocate environmental change. We need to remember that this isn’t about political allegiance and it isn’t about individual interest--it’s about a global effort for radical change.