Global group of Catholic bishops call for end to fossil fuels

[freebuddy]

Global group of Catholic bishops call for end to fossil fuels

By Matt McGrath

Environment correspondent, BBC News, Lima

10 December 2014

Negotiators are gathered in Lima, Peru, for this year's UN's climate meeting

Catholic bishops from around the world are calling for an end to fossil fuel use and increased efforts to secure a global climate treaty.

Catholics, they say, should engage with the process leading to a proposed new deal to be signed in Paris next year.

The statement is the first time that senior church figures from every continent have issued such a call.

Negotiators in Lima are currently trying to advance the outline text of an agreement at UN-led talks.

With 1.2bn people worldwide calling themselves Catholic, the church has considerable potential to influence public debate on any issue.

On climate change, some bishops have previously called for rapid decarbonisation and argued for moves to protect the most vulnerable.

But this is first time that such a global collection of senior priests have made such a call.

In their statement, the bishops say they want a "deepening of the discourse at the COP20 in Lima, to ensure concrete decisions are taken at COP21 to overcome the climate challenge and to set us on new sustainable pathways".

It is the first time senior priests have made such a call

Monsignor Salvador Piñeiro García-Calderón, Archbishop of Ayacucho, and president of the Peruvian Bishops' Conference, said: "We bishops from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe have engaged in intense dialogue on the issue of climate change, because we can see it's the poorest people who are impacted the most, despite the fact they've contributed the least to causing it.

"They're the ones who respect the planet, the Earth, the soil, the water and the rainforests.

"As the church, we see and feel an obligation for us to protect creation and to challenge the misuse of nature. We felt this joint statement had to come now because Lima is a milestone on the way to Paris, and Paris has to deliver a binding agreement."

The bishops argue that nations should aim to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C.

This goes further than the current position of many negotiators who say that 2 degrees represents the threshold for dangerous climate change.

Many negotiators see 2 degrees as the threshold for dangerous climate change

The bishops say this is necessary "in order to protect frontline communities suffering from the impacts of climate change, such as those in the Pacific Islands and in the coastal regions."

As well as calling for the phasing in of 100% renewable energy, there is a strong focus on finance for adaptation in the statement.

The Bishops say that solving the climate challenge with a new treaty will be a key step towards a new economic approach.

"In viewing objectively the destructive effects of a financial and economic order based on the primacy of the market and profit, which has failed to put the human being and the common good at the heart of the economy, one must recognise the systemic failures of this order and the need for a new financial and economic order."

Ministers from around the world have joined their negotiators in Peru in an effort to drive forward the talks process. While the atmosphere has been positive, little progress has been made.

Environmental activists are planning a large scale demonstration in the centre of Lima on Wednesday in an effort to increase pressure on negotiators.

US Secretary of State John Kerry arrives in Lima on Thursday, the first time a senior US politician has attended the talks since President Obama went to Copenhagen in 2009.

http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30408022

[nuck nit]

The Vatican and PTB might want to begin allowing/funding /promoting the global use of free energy that has existed for many decades.

[Ghostsof1915]

The amount of oil is finite anyways.

We are going to have to find alternative sources, regardless.

[Rick Grimes]

The amount of oil is finite anyways.

We are going to have to find alternative sources, regardless.

We already have, they're being suppressed by the almighty dollar.

[Ghostsof1915]

We already have, they're being suppressed by the almighty dollar.

You mean like this? Not really suppressed. A lot of money and research is going on to invest in algae.

[Mike Vanderhoek]

And next year World demand for oil is actually projected to drop, so there is that....Clearly other sources of energy and " domestic " production is the shift in thinking.

[taxi]

We already have, they're being suppressed by the almighty dollar.

I'm curious what that alternative is? What alternative do we have that is feasible that could replace fossil fuels this instant?

As for the OP, if the catholic church really wants to make a difference, they should remove their ban on birth control. Population expansion is chocking this planet to death.

[ckamo]

I'm curious what that alternative is? What alternative do we have that is feasible that could replace fossil fuels this instant?

As for the OP, if the catholic church really wants to make a difference, they should remove their ban on birth control. Population expansion is chocking this planet to death.

Teeeechnically, they'd just say don't have sex. What better birth control, right?

I'd also like to know what the alternatives are. As far as I know, Solar isn't close enough yet (with the industrialized silicon solar panels having a theoretical upper limit of 33% power conversion), especially because of the cost it would require to implement them. Then you have the issue of how to store that energy. Water splitting would require an overhaul of infrastructure to transport all that hydrogen gas. I know some people are working on conversion of CO2 to methanol which could use the same transport systems we have now, but I don't know how close they are to making it a viable option yet.

[taxi]

Teeeechnically, they'd just say don't have sex. What better birth control, right?

I'd also like to know what the alternatives are. As far as I know, Solar isn't close enough yet (with the industrialized silicon solar panels having a theoretical upper limit of 33% power conversion), especially because of the cost it would require to implement them. Then you have the issue of how to store that energy. Water splitting would require an overhaul of infrastructure to transport all that hydrogen gas. I know some people are working on conversion of CO2 to methanol which could use the same transport systems we have now, but I don't know how close they are to making it a viable option yet.

The closest viable option we have is nuclear. People are up in arms about that too. The fact of the matter is that as long as you don't build your plants on an earthquake fault or in a former soviet republic, nuclear energy is quite safe. The waste can be treated and becomes harmless in about 300 years. Much better than the damage we are potentially doing with carbon release.

Both wind and solar are simply not there yet. Counties like Germany that invested a huge amount of resources into them are now scaling back and they've led to major infrastructure problems:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/

Not a huge fan of this conservative double speak that the Catholic Church is going on about. It's just like their whole gay issues push..it's okay to be gay...just don't do anything that involves expressing your sexuality in any way...right. If the Catholic Church wants to be progressive, they need to start doing things that are actually progressive. Birth control and gay marriage should be at the top of their list.

[Gurn]

"The fact of the matter is that as long as you don't build your plants on an earthquake fault or in a former soviet republic, nuclear energy is quite safe."

Three Mile Island- not in Russia or on a fault line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

"The Three Mile Island accident was a partial nuclear meltdown that occurred on March 28, 1979 in one of the two Three Mile Island nuclear reactors in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States. It was the worst accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history.[1] The incident was rated a five on the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale: Accident With Wider Consequences.[2][3]

The accident began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-operated relief valve in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface. In particular, a hidden indicator light led to an operator manually overriding the automatic emergency cooling system of the reactor because the operator mistakenly believed that there was too much coolant water present in the reactor and causing the steam pressure release.[4]"

[Buddhas Hand]

Not a huge fan of this conservative double speak that the Catholic Church is going on about. It's just like their whole gay issues push..it's okay to be gay...just don't do anything that involves expressing your sexuality in any way...right. If the Catholic Church wants to be progressive, they need to start doing things that are actually progressive. Birth control and gay marriage should be at the top of their list.

We do not agree on much but agree about this.

Cardinal george POS pell is leading a very conservative faction of the church , trying to take it back to the dark ages , even my mother who is a very devout catholic despises that human filth.

[taxi]

"The fact of the matter is that as long as you don't build your plants on an earthquake fault or in a former soviet republic, nuclear energy is quite safe."

Three Mile Island- not in Russia or on a fault line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

"The Three Mile Island accident was a partial nuclear meltdown that occurred on March 28, 1979 in one of the two Three Mile Island nuclear reactors in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States. It was the worst accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history.[1] The incident was rated a five on the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale: Accident With Wider Consequences.[2][3]

The accident began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-operated relief valve in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface. In particular, a hidden indicator light led to an operator manually overriding the automatic emergency cooling system of the reactor because the operator mistakenly believed that there was too much coolant water present in the reactor and causing the steam pressure release.[4]"

Things have improved since then, and there were no permanent effects.

[Offensive Threat]

"The fact of the matter is that as long as you don't build your plants on an earthquake fault or in a former soviet republic, nuclear energy is quite safe."

Three Mile Island- not in Russia or on a fault line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

"The Three Mile Island accident was a partial nuclear meltdown that occurred on March 28, 1979 in one of the two Three Mile Island nuclear reactors in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States. It was the worst accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history.[1] The incident was rated a five on the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale: Accident With Wider Consequences.[2][3]

The accident began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-operated relief valve in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface. In particular, a hidden indicator light led to an operator manually overriding the automatic emergency cooling system of the reactor because the operator mistakenly believed that there was too much coolant water present in the reactor and causing the steam pressure release.[4]"

That was in the late 70s. The massive overhaul in nuclear energy regulations that it caused kept any new nuclear plants from being built in the US for over 30 years. Consider that the computers that ran those facilities were less powerful than what is in your phone today and you will get an idea of how much safer it is now.

What we eventually need is fusion power. Thats being worked on but in the meantime nuclear fission is the answer. Its not perfect, far from it, but its a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

[Guest]

I could not care less about what a group of Catholic bishops call for.

[freebuddy]

Things have improved since then, and there were no permanent effects.

Nuclear hasn't improved. If it had, the private insurance market might actually insure it. If the American and Canadian governments didn't insure nuclear power, it wouldn't exist.

[freebuddy]

The closest viable option we have is nuclear. People are up in arms about that too. The fact of the matter is that as long as you don't build your plants on an earthquake fault or in a former soviet republic, nuclear energy is quite safe. The waste can be treated and becomes harmless in about 300 years. Much better than the damage we are potentially doing with carbon release.

Both wind and solar are simply not there yet. Counties like Germany that invested a huge amount of resources into them are now scaling back and they've led to major infrastructure problems:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/

Not a huge fan of this conservative double speak that the Catholic Church is going on about. It's just like their whole gay issues push..it's okay to be gay...just don't do anything that involves expressing your sexuality in any way...right. If the Catholic Church wants to be progressive, they need to start doing things that are actually progressive. Birth control and gay marriage should be at the top of their list.

Want to try and divert the subject to birth control and marriage? Tell the conservative Christian politicians to get the hell out of people's lives and let them make their own decisions on that. If you don't like the Catholic point of view on those issues, start your own thread about it.

[taxi]

Want to try and divert the subject to birth control and marriage? Tell the conservative Christian politicians to get the hell out of people's lives and let them make their own decisions on that. If you don't like the Catholic point of view on those issues, start your own thread about it.

I think I state that pretty clearly. It's everyone's view that we should move away from fossil fuel dependency. The issue is viable alternatives.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church's views on birth control is a major obstacle to population control. Increasing global population is driving climate change just as much as fossil fuels. There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world and the Catholic church is telling them to reproduce as much as possible. You don't see the issue there?

[freebuddy]

I think I state that pretty clearly. It's everyone's view that we should move away from fossil fuel dependency. The issue is viable alternatives.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church's views on birth control is a major obstacle to population control. Increasing global population is driving climate change just as much as fossil fuels. There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world and the Catholic church is telling them to reproduce as much as possible. You don't see the issue there?

If that's your argument, why single out Catholics? Why aren't you bringing up all the anti-choice Christians in America that talk about being "pro-life", and have no problem letting people be homeless and starve and let the NRA make sure everyone has a high powered gun to commit mass murder and drive SUVs? Population control? What about the other 6 billion people in the world that AREN'T Catholic?

[Gurn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

"At least 57 accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and over 56 nuclear accidents have occurred in the USA. Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities.[2]"

From that page only, I count 24 events/accidents since the year 2000.

[taxi]

If that's your argument, why single out Catholics? Why aren't you bringing up all the anti-choice Christians in America that talk about being "pro-life", and have no problem letting people be homeless and starve and let the NRA make sure everyone has a high powered gun to commit mass murder and drive SUVs? Population control? What about the other 6 billion people in the world that AREN'T Catholic?

Ummm... Because this is a thread about the Catholic church attempting to deflect from their own actions. If Enbridge came out with a statement saying the solution to global warming was to have fewer children, I'd be equally critical.

It's two sides of the same coin. The issue is too many people on this earth and them consuming too many resources.