About the Environmental Justice Program
A Statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
June 15, 2001
The text for Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence,
and the Common Good originated from the Domestic and International
Policy Committees and was prepared in consultation with the bishops’
Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Science and Human Values.
The document was approved for publication by the full body of
United States Catholic bishops at their June 2001 General Meeting
and has been authorized by the undersigned.
Msgr. William P. Fay
General Secretary
USCCB
As people of faith, we are convinced that “the earth is
the Lord’s and all it holds” (Ps 24:1). Our Creator
has given us the gift of creation: the air we breathe, the water
that sustains life, the fruits of the land that nourish us, and
the entire web of life without which human life cannot flourish.
All of this God created and found “very good.” We
believe our response to global climate change should be a sign
of our respect for God’s creation.
The continuing debate about how the United States is responding
to questions and challenges surrounding global climate change
is a test and an opportunity for our nation and the entire Catholic
community. As bishops, we are not scientists or public policymakers.
We enter this debate not to embrace a particular treaty, nor to
urge particular technical solutions, but to call for a different
kind of national discussion. Much of the debate on global climate
change seems polarized and partisan. Science is too often used
as a weapon, not as a source of wisdom. Various interests use
the airwaves and political process to minimize or exaggerate the
challenges we face. The search for the common good and the voices
of poor people and poor countries sometimes are neglected.
At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory
or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest
group pressures. It is about the future of God’s creation
and the one human family. It is about protecting both “the
human environment” and the natural environment.1
It is about our human stewardship of God’s creation and
our responsibility to those who come after us. With these reflections,
we seek to offer a word of caution and a plea for genuine dialogue
as the United States and other nations face decisions about how
best to respond to the challenges of global climate change.
The dialogue and our response to the challenge of climate change
must be rooted in the virtue of prudence. While some uncertainty
remains, most experts agree that something significant is happening
to the atmosphere. Human behavior and activity are, according
to the most recent findings of the international scientific bodies
charged with assessing climate change, contributing to a warming
of the earth’s climate. Although debate continues about
the extent and impact of this warming, it could be quite serious
(see the sidebar “The Science of Global Climate Change”).
Consequently, it seems prudent not only to continue to research
and monitor this phenomenon, but to take steps now to mitigate
possible negative effects in the future.
As Catholic bishops, we seek to offer a distinctively religious
and moral perspective to what is necessarily a complicated scientific,
economic, and political discussion. Ethical questions lie at the
heart of the challenges facing us. John Paul II insists, “We
face a fundamental question which can be described as both ethical
and ecological. How can accelerated development be prevented from
turning against man? How can one prevent disasters that destroy
the environment and threaten all forms of life, and how can the
negative consequences that have already occurred be remedied?”2
Because of the blessings God has bestowed on our nation and the
power it possesses, the United States bears a special responsibility
in its stewardship of God’s creation to shape responses
that serve the entire human family. As pastors, teachers, and
citizens, we bishops seek to contribute to our national dialogue
by examining the ethical implications of climate change. We offer
some themes from Catholic social teaching that could help to shape
this dialogue, and we suggest some directions for the debate and
public policy decisions that face us. We do so with great respect
for the work of the scientists, diplomats, business and union
representatives, developers of new technologies, environmental
leaders, and policymakers who have been struggling with the difficult
questions of climate change for many years.
While our own growing awareness of this problem has come in part
from scientific research and the public debate about the human
contribution to climate change, we are also responding to the
appeals of the Church in other parts of the world. Along with
Pope John Paul II, church leaders in developing countries—who
fear that affluent nations will mute their voices and ignore their
needs—have expressed their concerns about how this global
challenge will affect their people and their environment. We also
hear the call of Catholic youth and other young people to protect
the environment.
Therefore, we especially want to focus on the needs of the poor,
the weak, and the vulnerable in a debate often dominated by more
powerful interests. Inaction and inadequate or misguided responses
to climate change will likely place even greater burdens on already
desperately poor peoples. Action to mitigate global climate change
must be built upon a foundation of social and economic justice
that does not put the poor at greater risk or place disproportionate
and unfair burdens on developing nations.
As Catholic bishops, we make no independent judgment on the plausibility
of “global warming.” Rather, we accept the consensus
findings of so many scientists and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a basis for continued research
and prudent action (see the sidebar: The Science of Global Climate
Change). Scientists engaged in this research consistently acknowledge
the difficulties of accurate measurement and forecasting. Models
of measurement evolve and vary in reliability. Researchers and
advocates on all sides of the issue often have stakes in policy
outcomes, as do advocates of various courses of public policy.
News reports can oversimplify findings or focus on controversy
rather than areas of consensus. Accordingly, interpretation of
scientific data and conclusions in public discussion can be difficult
and contentious matters.
Responsible scientific research is always careful to recognize
uncertainty and is modest in its claims. Yet over the past few
decades, the evidence of global climate change and the emerging
scientific consensus about the human impact on this process have
led many governments to reach the conclusion that they need to
invest time, money, and political will to address the problem
through collective international action.
The virtue of prudence is paramount in addressing climate change.
This virtue is not only a necessary one for individuals in leading
morally good lives, but is also vital to the moral health of the
larger community. Prudence is intelligence applied to our actions.
It allows us to discern what constitutes the common good in a
given situation. Prudence requires a deliberate and reflective
process that aids in the shaping of the community’s conscience.
Prudence not only helps us identify the principles at stake in
a given issue, but also moves us to adopt courses of action to
protect the common good. Prudence is not, as popularly thought,
simply a cautious and safe approach to decisions. Rather, it is
a thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding
action to achieve a moral good.
In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response;
it cannot be easily dismissed. Significant levels of scientific
consensus—even in a situation with less than full certainty,
where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies,
indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential
dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the
present course of action could jeopardize humankind’s well-being,
prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.
This responsibility weighs more heavily upon those with the power
to act because the threats are often greatest for those who lack
similar power, namely, vulnerable poor populations, as well as
future generations. According to reports of the IPCC, significant
delays in addressing climate change may compound the problem and
make future remedies more difficult, painful, and costly. On the
other hand, the impact of prudent actions today can potentially
improve the situation over time, avoiding more sweeping action
in the future.
God has endowed humanity with reason and ingenuity that distinguish
us from other creatures. Ingenuity and creativity have enabled
us to make remarkable advances and can help us address the problem
of global climate change; however, we have not always used these
endowments wisely. Past actions have produced both good works
and harmful ones, as well as unforseen or unintended consequences.
Now we face two central moral questions:
- How are we to fulfill God’s call to be stewards of creation
in an age when we may have the capacity to alter that creation
significantly, and perhaps irrevocably?
- How can we as a “family of nations” exercise stewardship
in a way that respects and protects the integrity of God’s
creation and provides for the common good, as well as for economic
and social progress based on justice?
Catholic social teaching provides several themes and values that
can help answer these questions.
The Universal Common Good
Global climate is by its very nature a part of the planetary commons.
The earth’s atmosphere encompasses all people, creatures,
and habitats. The melting of ice sheets and glaciers, the destruction
of rain forests, and the pollution of water in one place can have
environmental impacts elsewhere. As Pope John Paul II has said,
“We cannot interfere in one area of the ecosystem without
paying due attention both to the consequences of such interference
in other areas and to the well being of future generations.”3
Responses to global climate change should reflect our interdependence
and common responsibility for the future of our planet. Individual
nations must measure their own self-interest against the greater
common good and contribute equitably to global solutions.
Stewardship of God’s Creation and the Right to Economic
Initiative and Private Property
Freedom and the capacity for moral decision making are central
to what it means to be human. Stewardship—defined in this
case as the ability to exercise moral responsibility to care for
the environment—requires freedom to act. Significant aspects
of this stewardship include the right to private initiative, the
ownership of property, and the exercise of responsible freedom
in the economic sector. Stewardship requires a careful protection
of the environment and calls us to use our intelligence “to
discover the earth’s productive potential and the many different
ways in which human needs can be satisfied.”4
We believe economic freedom, initiative, and creativity are essential
to help our nation find effective ways to address climate change.
The United States’ history of economic, technological innovation,
and entrepreneurship invites us to move beyond status quo responses
to this challenge. In addition, the right to private property
is matched by the responsibility to use what we own to serve the
common good. Our Catholic tradition speaks of a “social
mortgage” on property and, in this context, calls us to
be good stewards of the earth.5 It also calls us to use the gifts
we have been given to protect human life and dignity, and to exercise
our care for God’s creation.
True stewardship requires changes in human actions—both
in moral behavior and technical advancement. Our religious tradition
has always urged restraint and moderation in the use of material
goods, so we must not allow our desire to possess more material
things to overtake our concern for the basic needs of people and
the environment. Pope John Paul II has linked protecting the environment
to “authentic human ecology,” which can overcome “structures
of sin” and which promotes both human dignity and respect
for creation.6 Technological innovation and entrepreneurship can
help make possible options that can lead us to a more environmentally
benign energy path. Changes in lifestyle based on traditional
moral virtues can ease the way to a sustainable and equitable
world economy in which sacrifice will no longer be an unpopular
concept. For many of us, a life less focused on material gain
may remind us that we are more than what we have. Rejecting the
false promises of excessive or conspicuous consumption can even
allow more time for family, friends, and civic responsibilities.
A renewed sense of sacrifice and restraint could make an essential
contribution to addressing global climate change.
Protecting the Environment for Future Generations
The common good calls us to extend our concern to future generations.
Climate change poses the question “What does our generation
owe to generations yet unborn?” As Pope John Paul II has
written, “there is an order in the universe which must be
respected, and … the human person, endowed with the capability
of choosing freely, has a grave responsibility to preserve this
order for the well-being of future generations.”7
Passing along the problem of global climate change to future
generations as a result of our delay, indecision, or self-interest
would be easy. But we simply cannot leave this problem for the
children of tomorrow. As stewards of their heritage, we have an
obligation to respect their dignity and to pass on their natural
inheritance, so that their lives are protected and, if possible,
made better than our own.
Population and Authentic Development
Population and climate change should be addressed from the broader
perspective of a concern for protecting human life, caring for
the environment, and respecting cultural norms and the religious
faith and moral values of peoples. Population is not simply about
statistics. Behind every demographic number is a precious and
irreplaceable human life whose human dignity must be respected.
The global climate change debate cannot become just another opportunity
for some groups—usually affluent advocates from the developed
nations—to blame the problem on population growth in poor
countries. Historically, the industrialized countries have emitted
more greenhouse gases that warm the climate than have the developing
countries. Affluent nations such as our own have to acknowledge
the impact of voracious consumerism instead of simply calling
for population and emissions controls from people in poorer nations.
A more responsible approach to population issues is the promotion
of “authentic development,” which represents a balanced
view of human progress and includes respect for nature and social
well-being.8 Development policies that seek to reduce
poverty with an emphasis on improved education and social conditions
for women are far more effective than usual population reduction
programs and far more respectful of women’s dignity.9
We should promote a respect for nature that encourages policies
fostering natural family planning and the education of women and
men rather than coercive measures of population control or government
incentives for birth control that violate local cultural and religious
norms.
Caring for the Poor and Issues of Equity
Working for the common good requires us to promote the flourishing
of all human life and all of God’s creation. In a special
way, the common good requires solidarity with the poor who are
often without the resources to face many problems, including the
potential impacts of climate change. Our obligations to the one
human family stretch across space and time. They tie us to the
poor in our midst and across the globe, as well as to future generations.
The commandment to love our neighbor invites us to consider the
poor and marginalized of other nations as true brothers and sisters
who share with us the one table of life intended by God for the
enjoyment of all.
All nations share the responsibility to address the problem of
global climate change. But historically the industrial economies
have been responsible for the highest emissions of greenhouse
gases that scientists suggest are causing the warming trend. Also,
significant wealth, technological sophistication, and entrepreneurial
creativity give these nations a greater capacity to find useful
responses to this problem. To avoid greater impact, energy resource
adjustments must be made both in the policies of richer countries
and in the development paths of poorer ones.
Most people will agree that while the current use of fossil fuels
has fostered and continues to foster substantial economic growth,
development, and benefits for many, there is a legitimate concern
that as developing countries improve their economies and emit
more greenhouse gases, they will need technological help to mitigate
further atmospheric environmental harm. Many of the poor in these
countries live in degrading and desperate situations that often
lead them to adopt environmentally harmful agricultural and industrial
practices. In many cases, the heavy debt burdens, lack of trade
opportunities, and economic inequities in the global market add
to the environmental strains of the poorer countries. Developing
countries have a right to economic development that can help lift
people out of dire poverty. Wealthier industrialized nations have
the resources, know-how, and entrepreneurship to produce more
efficient cars and cleaner industries. These countries need to
share these emerging technologies with the less-developed countries
and assume more of the financial responsibility that would enable
poorer countries to afford them. This would help developing countries
adopt energy-efficient technologies more rapidly while still sustaining
healthy economic growth and development.10 Industries from the
developed countries operating in developing nations should exercise
a leadership role in preserving the environment.
No strategy to confront global climate change will succeed without
the leadership and participation of the United States and other
industrial nations. But any successful strategy must also reflect
the genuine participation and concerns of those most affected
and least able to bear the burdens. Developing and poorer nations
must have a genuine place at the negotiating table. Genuine participation
for those most affected is a moral and political necessity for
advancing the common good.
Catholic social teaching calls for bold and generous action on
behalf of the common good. “Interdependence,” as Pope
John Paul II has written, “must be transformed into solidarity.
… Surmounting every type of imperialism and determination
to preserve their own hegemony, the stronger and richer
nations must have a sense of moral responsibility for the
other nations, so that a real international system may
be established which will rest on the foundation of the equality
of all peoples and on the necessary respect for their legitimate
differences.”11
The common good is built up or diminished by the quality of public
debate. With its scientific, technological, economic, political,
diplomatic, and religious dimensions, the challenge of global
climate change may be a basic test of our democratic processes
and political institutions. We respect the inquiry and dialogue
which has been carried forward by a wide variety of scientists,
diplomats, policy makers, and advocates, not only in the United
States but around the world. These efforts should not be demeaned
or distorted by disinformation or exaggeration. Serious dialogue
should not be jeopardized by public relations tactics that fan
fears or pit nations against one another. Leaders in every sector
should seek to build a scientifically based consensus for the
common good; avoid merely representing their own particular interests,
industries, or movements; and act responsibly to protect future
generations and the weak.
In the past decade, a continuing process of international diplomacy
has led to agreements on principles and increasingly on procedures.
In 1992, more than 160 nations, including the United States, ratified
the first international treaty on global climate change at Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which was known as the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In 1997,
parties to the UNFCCC including the United States negotiated the
Kyoto Protocol, which established mandatory emission reduction
targets, market-based procedures for meeting those targets, and
timetables for industrialized nations.
Without endorsing the specifics of these agreements and processes,
we Catholic bishops acknowledge the development of these international
negotiations and hope they and other future efforts can lead to
just and effective progress. However, serious deliberations must
continue to bring about prudent and effective actions to ensure
equity among nations.
As an act of solidarity and in the interest of the common good,
the United States should lead the developed nations in contributing
to the sustainable economic development of poorer nations and
to help build their capacity to ease climate change. Since our
country’s involvement is key to any resolution of these
concerns, we call on our people and government to recognize the
seriousness of the global warming threat and to develop effective
policies that will diminish the possible consequences of global
climate change. We encourage citizens to become informed participants
in this important public debate. The measures we take today may
not greatly moderate climate change in the near future, but they
could make a significant difference for our descendants.
We also hope that the United States will continue to undertake
reasonable and effective initiatives for energy conservation and
the development of alternate renewable and clean-energy resources.
New technologies and innovations can help meet this challenge.
While more needs to be done to reduce air pollution, through the
use of improved technologies and environmental entrepreneurship,
the United States has made significant environmental gains over
the last several decades. Our hope is that these technologies
along with other resources can be shared with developing countries.
Within the United States, public policy should assist industrial
sectors and workers especially impacted by climate change policies,
and it should offer incentives to corporations to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and assistance to workers affected by these policies.
We encourage all parties to adopt an attitude of candor, conciliation,
and prudence in response to serious, complex, and uncertain challenges.
We hope the continuing dialogue within and among the diverse disciplines
of science, economics, politics, and diplomacy will be guided
by fundamental moral values: the universal common good, respect
for God’s creation, an option for the poor, and a sense
of intergenerational obligation. Since religious values can enrich
public discussion, this challenge offers opportunities for interfaith
and ecumenical conversation and cooperation.
Finally, we wish to emphasize the need for personal conversion
and responsibility. In our pastoral reflection Renewing the
Earth, we wrote the following:
Grateful for the gift of creation … we invite Catholics
and men and women of good will in every walk of life to consider
with us the moral issues raised by the environmental crisis.
… These are matters of powerful urgency and major consequence.
They constitute an exceptional call to conversion. As individuals,
as institutions, as a people, we need a change of heart to preserve
and protect the planet for our children and for generations
yet unborn.12
Each of us should carefully consider our choices and lifestyles.
We live in a culture that prizes the consumption of material goods.
While the poor often have too little, many of us can be easily
caught up in a frenzy of wanting more and more—a bigger home,
a larger car, etc. Even though energy resources literally fuel
our economy and provide a good quality of life, we need to ask
about ways we can conserve energy, prevent pollution, and live
more simply.
Our national debate over solutions to global climate change needs
to move beyond the uses and abuses of science, sixty-second ads,
and exaggerated claims. Because this issue touches so many people,
as well as the planet itself, all parties need to strive for a
civil and constructive debate about U.S. decisions and leadership
in this area.
As people of religious faith, we bishops believe that the atmosphere
that supports life on earth is a God-given gift, one we must respect
and protect. It unites us as one human family. If we harm the
atmosphere, we dishonor our Creator and the gift of creation.
The values of our faith call us to humility, sacrifice, and a
respect for life and the natural gifts God has provided. Pope
John Paul II reminds us in his statement The Ecological Crisis:
A Common Responsibility that “respect for life and for
the dignity of the human person extends also to the rest of creation,
which is called to join man in praising God.”13 In that
spirit of praise and thanksgiving to God for the wonders of creation,
we Catholic bishops call for a civil dialogue and prudent and
constructive action to protect God’s precious gift of the
earth’s atmosphere with a sense of genuine solidarity and
justice for all God’s children.
The photographs from the Apollo missions show earth glowing in
the stillness of space like a blue-white opal on black velvet.
Cool and beautiful, it hurries along in the Sun’s gravitational
embrace. The earth is our home, our whole wide world.
Our enfolding blanket of air, our atmosphere, is both the physical
condition for human community and its most compelling symbol.
We all breathe the same air. Guarding the integrity of the atmosphere—without
which complex life could not have evolved on this planet—seems
like common sense. Yet a broad consensus of modern science is
that human activity is beginning to alter the earth’s atmospheric
characteristics in serious, perhaps profound ways. For the past
century, researchers have been gathering and verifying data that
reveal an increase in the global average temperature. Until recently,
scientists could not say with great confidence whether or not
this phenomenon was in any way the result of human activity or
entirely the result of natural changes over time.
To deal with the difficulty of making precise measurements and
arriving at definite conclusions, the World Meteorological Organization
and the United Nations Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to seek a clear explanation of
the causes and possible impacts of this global climate change.14
Because of the large number of scientists involved in the IPCC
and its process of consultation, its reports are considered widely
as offering the most authoritative scientific perspectives on
the issue. IPCC’s findings have met with general—but
because of remaining uncertainties, not complete—agreement
within the wider scientific community.
In 1996, the IPCC issued its Second Assessment Reports, which
summarized the current state of knowledge. The first of these
reports concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests
that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”15
The Third Assessment Reports, approved in early 2001, found even
stronger evidence and concluded, “most of the observed
warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
[human-induced] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”
[italics added].16
The IPCC offers convincing evidence that there exists if not
a clear and present danger then a clear and future one, and that
coming changes will affect all aspects of the environment and
societal well-being. Based on measurements taken over both land
and sea, the global average surface-air temperature has increased
by about one degree Fahrenheit since 1860, building up as the
Industrial Revolution was hitting full stride. While this is hardly
a frightening increase for a particular geographic location, the
temperature change is global in extent, so one must read it against
the background of the earth’s average temperature during
historic times. According to IPCC, the rate and duration of warming
in the twentieth century appears to be the largest in the last
one thousand years. The twentieth century also experienced precipitation
increases in mid- and high-northern latitudes; drier conditions
in the subtropics; decreases in snow cover, mountain glaciers,
and Arctic sea ice; and a rise of four to eight inches in mean
sea level.17
The “greenhouse effect,” though complex in detail,
is simple enough in outline. Not considering the internal heating
due to radioactive decay and volcanism, the earth draws its thermal
energy from the Sun. Atmospheric gases form a protective cover
that makes our planet hospitable to life, transmitting visible
light, blocking out harmful high-energy radiation like ultraviolet
rays, and keeping temperatures comfortable by moderating the escape
of heat into space. However, the precise mix of these gases is
quite delicate, and changing that mix alters the atmosphere’s
properties. An increase in the relative abundance of the greenhouse
gases (carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, tropospheric
ozone, and nitrous oxide) causes the earth to trap more of the
Sun’s heat, resulting in what is called “global warming.”
Since the beginning of the industrial period, the IPCC reports,
the concentration of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide,
has increased by 30 percent and is now greater than at any time
in the past 20 million years.18 The presence of methane (150 percent
increase) and nitrous oxide (16 percent increase) is also growing.
The result is the small but alarming temperature rise science
has detected.19
What causes greenhouse gases to accumulate in the atmosphere?
Emissions from cars and trucks, industry and electric plants,
and businesses and homes are the largest part of the answer, although
other factors such as deforestation contribute. The Industrial
Revolution was built on furnaces and engines burning fossil fuels
(coal, natural gas, oil, and such derived products as gasoline
and heating oil). These fossil fuels now power the U.S. and global
economy. Although some of the smoke particles and other pollutants
(such as sulfur dioxide) now streaming from chimneys and tailpipes
can actually cool the earth if they take an aerosol form, the
great bulk of our emissions are contributing a warming influence.
Reflecting upon studies completed since its last report in 1996,
the IPCC says, “There is new and stronger evidence that
most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable
to human activities.”20
Whatever the extent, severity, or geographical distribution of
global warming impacts, the problem is expected to disproportionately
affect the poor, the vulnerable, and generations yet unborn. Projected
sea level rises could impact low-lying coastal areas in densely
populated nations of the developing world. Storms are most likely
to strain the fragile housing infrastructure of the poorest nations.
The migration of diseases could further challenge the presently
inadequate health care systems of these same nations. Droughts
or floods, it is feared, will afflict regions already too often
hit by famine, hunger, and malnutrition. Because the number of
days with high heat and humidity are likely to increase, heat
stress impacts will also increase, especially among the elderly,
the sick, children, and the poor.21
The scientific reports of the IPCC portray the long-term challenge
global climate change poses. Its findings, while not complete,
are widely accepted in the scientific community. In June 2001,
the National Academy of Sciences released a report, prepared at
the request of President Bush, summarizing a prestigious panel’s
understanding of global climate change and an assessment of the
work of the International Panel on Climate Change. The panel said
that “greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth’s
atmosphere as a result of human activities. …” It
also found that “we cannot rule out that some significant
part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability.
. . . Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding
of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions
of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude
of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject
to future adjustments (either upward or downward). …”
The report noted that while the full implications of climate change
remain unknown, the panel “generally agrees with the assessment
of human-caused change presented in the IPCC Working Group I scientific
report.”22
--
- John Paul II, On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum
(Centesimus Annus) (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops, 1991), no. 38.
- John Paul II, “International Solidarity Needed to Safeguard
Environment,” Address by the Holy Father to the European
Bureau for the Environment, L’Osservatore Romano
(June 26, 1996).
- John Paul II, The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility
(Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
1990), no. 6.
- John Paul II, On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum
(Centesimus Annus) (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops, 1991), no. 32.
- John Paul II, On Social Concern (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis)
(Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
1988), no. 42.
- John Paul II, On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum,
no. 38.
- John Paul II, “The Exploitation of the Environment Threatens
the Entire Human Race,” address to the Vatican symposium
on the environment (1990), in Ecology and Faith: The Writings
of Pope John Paul II, ed. Sr. Ancilla Dent, OSB (Berkhamsted,
England: Arthur James, 1997), 12.
- John Paul II, On Social Concern, ch. four. This chapter
of the encyclical gives a more complete definition of the concept
of authentic development.
- Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), nos. 50-51, in Austin
Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post
Conciliar Documents, new rev. ed., 1st vol. (Northport,
N.Y.: Costello Publishing, 1996).
- See also treatment of this topic in Stewardship: A Disciple’s
Response (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, 1993), 27.
- Ibid., no. 39.
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Renewing
the Earth: An Invitation to Reflection and Action on Environment
in Light of Catholic Social Teaching (Washington, D.C.:
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1992), 3. See
also treatment of this theme in Stewardship: A Disciple’s
Response, 46.
- John Paul II, The Ecological Crisis, no. 16.
- To date, the IPCC’s work represents the most authoritative
estimates and prognosis of current and future climate change
data. This statement utilizes the following Second and Third
Assessment Reports by the IPCC:
1996a: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J.
T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris,
A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press).
1996b: Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation
of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, eds. R. T. Watson, M. C. Zinyowera,
and R. H. Moss (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University
Press).
1996c: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, eds. J. P. Bruce, Hoesund Kee, and E. F. Haites
(Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).
1996d: The IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical
Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (Geneva: World Meteorological
Organization/United Nations Environment Programme).
2001a: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, eds.
J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. van der
Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. Johnson (Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press).
2001b: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,
eds. J. McCarthy, O. Canziani, N. Leary, D. Dokken, and K. White
(Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).
2001c: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, eds. O. Davidson,
B. Metz, R. Swart, and J. Pan (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press).
- IPCC, 1996a, 5.
- IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, 10.
- Ibid., ch. two.
- Ibid., 7.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 10.
- IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
- National Academy of Science, Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions (Washington, D.C., June 7,
2001).
--
Copyright © 2001, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Inc., Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the copyright holder.
Scripture texts used in this work are taken from the New American
Bible, copyright © 1991, 1986, and 1970 by the Confraternity
of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. 20017 and are used by
permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.
To order Global Climate Change in its official published format,
contact USCCB Publishing Services, 800-235-8722 (in the Washington
metropolitan area or from outside the United States, 202-722-8716).
English: No. 5-431; Spanish: No. 5-855, 28-page book. $3.50 per
copy plus shipping and handling; quantity discounts are available.