About the Environmental Justice Program
February 2001
The issue of global climate change raises two central religious
and moral concerns—how are we to fulfill God’s call
to be stewards of creation in an age when we have the capacity
to significantly, and perhaps irrevocably, alter that creation;
and how can we, as a family of nations, exercise stewardship in
a way that respects the integrity of nature itself while simultaneously
providing for economic and social progress based on justice?
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established
by the United Nations in 1988, has issued a series of reports.
The Panel is publishing its third set of reports in spring, 2001.
These reports are expected to confirm and strengthen earlier findings
that there is human inducement to climate change, beyond the variations
that are considered natural and normal. While impact scenarios
abound, certitude about them does not. What is uncertain is the
rate of climate change, the period of time involved, and the full
extent of environmental and social impacts.
The reports suggest that impacts from climate change will vary
across the globe. Some regions will gain benefits while others
will experience problems. Those countries with more financial
resources and advanced technological capacity will more easily
adapt. The IPCC reports point to concerns about rising ocean levels,
melting of mountain glaciers, increasing frequency and intensity
of more extreme weather events, sever stress on forests, wetland
and other habitats, dislocation of agriculture and some threats
to human health. The effects, benefits, and burdens of a more
rapid change in global climate are uneven. What is clear is that
the poor are likely to suffer the most because they have fewer
resources for adaptation and live in the most effected regions.
At the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, more than 150 countries signed
the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It has since been
ratified by 180 countries including the United States. The signatories
agreed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
The agreement was voluntary. The parties at Rio recognized “common
but differentiated” responsibilities between the developed
and the developing countries.
In 1995, the Parties to the Climate Convention met in Berlin
and admitted that voluntary measures were not working. The conferees
proposed binding targets for the industrialized countries and
phased in targets for developing countries. China and other large
developing countries, e.g., Mexico, South Korea, and India, resist
mandatory targets for their economies fearing interference in
their economic development. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was signed
with these binding targets for industrialized countries but not
for the developing ones.
The politics of global climate change is fueled by the perceived
economic, social, and political costs. While some still question
the basic science of climate change, most of the public debate
focuses on proposed solutions. Some fear moving too fast will
cripple economic growth across the globe. Others fear waiting
too long to act will mean taking more drastic measures later.
Poorer countries blame richer ones for creating the problem in
the first place. Richer countries spar over goals and procedures
and increasingly want the poorer countries to fully participate.
The Congressional debate mirrors the global debate. Perceived
losers, particularly in the energy and agriculture industries
and certain labor representatives, are wary of mandatory emission
reductions. Proponents of doing something about climate change
point toward a softer economic landing if we take action now.
But a unifying theme of the Congressional discussion is that both
developing and developed countries must adopt similar measures
in the same time frame.
The Kyoto Protocol has not been submitted for ratification to
the U.S. Senate. The new Bush Administration has not yet declared
its negotiating position for the next round of international talks
scheduled for May, 2001.
For the past three years, the Domestic and International Policy
Committees have studied the issue and met with science and policy
experts. Currently, the Committees are developing a draft of a
possible statement for consideration by the full body of bishops.
This effort has also been reviewed by the bishops’ Doctrine
and Science and Human Values Committees.
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/publicpolicy/index.shtml
For more information on this project, contact Walt Grazer at
202-541-3182 or wgrazer@usccb.org.