This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

A little over a year ago, I wrote about a Heartland Institute conference in Las Vegas where climate change deniers engaged in a failed attempt to poke holes in the massive body of scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. I quoted Bloomberg News: “Heartland's strategy seemed to be to throw many theories at the wall and see what stuck.”

A recent study came to a similar conclusion about contrarian “scientific” efforts to do the same. “Learning from mistakes in climate research,” published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, examined some of the tiny percentage of scientific papers that reject anthropogenic climate change, attempting to replicate their results.

In a Guardian article, co-author Dana Nuccitelli said their study found “no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming.” Instead, “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on.”

Nuccitelli and fellow researchers Rasmus Benestad, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland and John Cook note that about 97 per cent of experts worldwide agree on a cohesive, science-based theory of global warming, but those who don’t “are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.”

It’s astounding and tragic that, with all the evidence — from volumes of scientific research to the very real effects we are experiencing everywhere — some people stubbornly refuse to believe there’s a problem worth addressing. Sadder still: many of them are political leaders.

Part of the problem is that fossil fuel interests spend enormous amounts of money to sow doubt and confusion, often by funding or setting up organizations like the Heartland Institute in the U.S., the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the U.K., Ethical Oil and Friends of Science in Canada and the International Climate Science Coalition, based in this country but affiliated with similar organizations in Australia and New Zealand and with close ties to Heartland. A number of industry-funded websites also promote fossil fuels at the expense of human life, including Climate Depot and Watts Up With That?

These secretive organizations rarely reveal funding sources, prey on the uninformed and ignorant, and blanket the media with opinion articles, letters to editors and comments, often referring to misleading charts and graphs and bogus “studies” from organizations with names that imply they’re scientific when they’re anything but. They’re assisted by a compliant news media and politicians who also receive fossil fuel industry funding. It’s likely the people behind these organizations know they’re lying but care more about making money and preserving the lopsided benefits of a polluting sunset industry than finding ways to contribute to human health, well-being and survival.

Those who argue that seven billion people pumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere aren’t having a serious negative impact are out to lunch.

Fortunately, most thinking people don’t buy the lies. People from all sectors and walks of life — religious, academic, business, political, activist, social justice and citizenry — are calling for an urgent response to the greatest threat humanity faces. From Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama to Islamic scholars and Hindu, Sikh and Jewish leaders; from Volvo, Ikea and Apple to the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization; from every legitimate scientific academy and institution to enlightened political leaders — all have warned about the serious nature of global warming and the urgent need to do something about it.

Polls and marches, demonstrations and citizen initiatives show that people want action. Yet, despite this tremendous recognition of the reality of our situation, governments have failed to come up with a legally binding, ambitious and universal climate agreement, thanks in part to efforts by countries like Canada, Japan and Australia to stall or water down agreements at economic summits and UN climate conferences.

As world leaders prepare for the December UN climate meeting in Paris, Canadians must impress upon all those who hope to govern us after October 19 the importance of making a positive contribution. As voters, we have the power to make a difference in this critical conversation. Let’s exercise it.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Pope Francis has released his long awaited encyclical, or teaching document, on climate justice and the environment, and it flies in the face of everything climate deniers stand for.

The encyclical is officially called “Laudato Si (Be Praised), On the Care of Our Common Home,” and it makes a compelling case for humanity’s moral responsibility to “protect our common home” by tackling the root causes of two of the greatest interlinked global crises of our time: climate change and poverty.

“[T]he earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor,” Pope Francis writes. Echoing his earlier critique of capitalism and inequality, the Pope links the pollution and waste degrading our environment directly to our “throwaway culture” that, unlike nature, does not seek to reuse and recycle every resource as a valuable constituent of the circle of life.

“We have not yet managed to adopt a circular model of production capable of preserving resources for present and future generations,” the Pope writes. He faults this mode of consumption for creating global warming, and concludes: “Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.”

The Pope unequivocally embraces the science showing mankind is responsible for global warming:

"A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity."

He specifically calls for policies to change the way we power human society:

“There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.”

It is the poor who suffer most from the impacts of climate change and humanity's failure to act, the Pope argues.

"Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited."

No role for fossil fuels in solving global poverty

Unlike Peabody Energy, which has touted coal as a solution to global energy poverty, the Pope sees no place for fossil fuels in helping to raise the standard of living around the world in a sustainable manner:

“We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels — especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas — needs to be progressively replaced without delay.”

While the ultimate goal of climate action, according to the Pope, must be to increase prosperity and justice for all of Earth’s inhabitants, he does not ignore political realities in developing countries even while he calls on developed countries to shoulder a proportion of the burden equal to their culpability in creating the climate crisis in the first place:

For poor countries, the priorities must be to eliminate extreme poverty and to promote the social development of their people. At the same time, they need to acknowledge the scandalous level of consumption in some privileged sectors of their population and to combat corruption more effectively. They are likewise bound to develop less polluting forms of energy production, but to do so they require the help of countries which have experienced great growth at the cost of the ongoing pollution of the planet.

Only collective action by all of the countries of the world can adequately address the climate crisis, the Pope says:

Enforceable international agreements are urgently needed, since local authorities are not always capable of effective intervention. Relations between states must be respectful of each other’s sovereignty, but must also lay down mutually agreed means of averting regional disasters which would eventually affect everyone. Global regulatory norms are needed to impose obligations and prevent unacceptable actions, for example, when powerful companies dump contaminated waste or offshore polluting industries in other countries.

These assertions form the basis of the Pope’s call for mankind to take collective action in defense of our shared planet.

So it’s little wonder climate deniers lined up to try and discredit the Pope ahead of the release of the encyclical. But Pope Francis appears to speak directly to the issue of climate denial in calling for "a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet."

"The worldwide ecological movement has already made considerable progress and led to the establishment of numerous organizations committed to raising awareness of these challenges. Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions. We require a new and universal solidarity."

Environmentalists welcomed the Pope’s call for "universal solidarity" in climate action.

“The pope’s message applies to all of us, regardless of our faith,” Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “He is imploring people of good will everywhere to honor our moral obligation to protect future generations from the dangers of further climate chaos by embracing our ethical duty to act.”

Mike Brune, Sierra Club executive director, released a statement saying, “The vision laid out in these teachings serves as inspiration to everyone across the world who seeks a more just, compassionate, and healthy future.”

The Pope's encyclical comes at a critical juncture for the global response to climate change. Momentum is building for a meaningful agreement to halt global warming, to be negotiated this December at UNFCCC talks in Paris. The Pope’s decision to weigh in and call for a healthy and more equitable clean energy economy is widely expected to help build on that momentum.

Image Credit: giulio napolitano / Shutterstock.com

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Charles J. Reid Jr., professor of law at the University of St. Thomas.

It is a line repeated with tiresome regularity in right-wing circles: Pope Francis has no business proposing solutions to the crisis of global climate change. He is not a scientist, they say. He should stick to morals and to matters of faith and doctrine.

Pope Francis’ defenders point out that climate change is a moral question. If the destruction of the planet’s ecological health is not a moral concern, then what is? But while climate change is certainly a moral issue, it is something much larger and more significant than that. It is a threat to the common good of the world.

Climate Change a Threat to the ‘Good Life’

It is menacing the globe’s well-being and even the integrity of nations. There are the island nations, of course: the Maldives, Fiji, the many islands and atolls of Micronesia, of course.

But even the Cape Verde Islands and Tonga are at grave risk. It is not a coincidence that Pope Francis conferred the rank of cardinal on Arlindo Gomes Furtado (Cape Verde Islands) and Soane Patiti Paini Mafi (Tonga). They are the first cardinals to represent these small nations, but they have clearly been given a responsibility to the world: to stand at the front line of looming climate catastrophe and carry the message of a world at risk to all of humanity.

Even the world’s superpowers are not immune from the effects of climate change. Climate change is disrupting agriculture and water supplies in China. It is melting the Siberian permafrost and releasing thousands of tons of trapped methane in Russia. And it is eroding American coastlines and threatening harbors and beaches close to home. There is no question — the world is at risk.

Pope Francis now means to address this growing crisis and he intends to do so in the name of the common good. As we look forward to his message, we should understand something of what is meant by the “common good” as Catholics use this term. For I predict that we shall hear this term mentioned frequently in the weeks and months ahead.

The “common good” is a term that has an ancient meaning and Popes have long invoked that ancient heritage. The idea of the common good can be traced as far back as Aristotle. Aristotle maintained that there were certain concerns so widely shared that it was uniquely the community’s responsibility to address them. Thus, the community was supposed to see to the common defense, prosecute crime, and ensure that the marketplace operated fairly and to the benefit of all. The community should aim, in other words, at creating the conditions that allowed its members to lead “the good life.”

This is not the way contemporary Americans view politics. Politics, as it is widely understood and practiced today, is about satisfying individual interests and wants. Politics in the United States is about short term fixes and quick solutions. It is missing the sober, long-term thinking that comes with reflection on the common good. Just from the standpoint of thinking about problem-solving, I suspect Pope Francis will have some important things to say.

Nothing Revolutionary About a Pope Defending the Common Good

When Pope Francis speaks about the defense of the common good later this week, he will, furthermore, be joining a long line of pontiffs who have used this mode of reasoning to advocate for a better world. The modern papacy might be said to have its origin with Leo XIII (1878-1903). Leo inherited a papacy in deep disarray following Pope Pius IX’s military defeats and the loss of the papal states. But Leo had the foresight to realize that the papacy might be rebuilt, not on geographic ambitions or political expedience, but as the conscience and moral voice to the world.

Leo XIII most famously appealed to the conscience of the world in his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum (best translated as “On Revolution”). Writing near the end of the Industrial Revolution, he feared a death struggle between two opposing camps: the plutocratic captains of industry against socialism. Leo sought a middle ground, most especially by stating a vigorous case for the rights of labor. This much, he said, was demanded by the common good.

Subsequent popes made use of similar arguments, especially on the questions of economic development and justice. St. John XXIII was especially emphatic on these themes. In Mater et Magistra (1961), good Pope John endorsed the modern welfare state: nations today, he asserted, must provide social security and disability for those too old or otherwise unable to work; and they must also commit to ensuring the well-being of workers and farmers.

Pope Paul VI and Benedict XVI both fit firmly within this tradition begun by Leo and advanced by John XXIII. In 1967, Paul VI promulgated Populorum Progressio — on Human Progress. Recognizing the breakdown of traditional societies, Paul recommended building just social structures to assist in the transition to modernity. Education, just and fair wages, the promotion of human development and flourishing, these were the goals Paul VI called on the world to meet. “Freedom from misery” (para. 6) was his ambition. And in Caritas in Veritate (“Love in Truth,” 2009), Pope Benedict XVI warmly restated Paul’s lofty ideals.

All of these documents were issued in the name of a global common good. Like his predecessors, Pope Francis sees himself as uniquely empowered to explain and defend the common good. What he is about to do, in other words, is not revolutionary. Popes have long spoken in the way that Francis is about to.

But while his defense of the common good is traditional, he is expanding its focus. His vision now takes in the whole question of planetary health.

And, truly, global climate change presents questions about the common good in new and powerful ways. Climate change affects all alike. It crosses boundaries. It threatens not merely humanity but other species and forms of life. The “common” in common good, in other words, is about to receive its most expansive definition — now encompassing not merely local or national communities, but the entire world.

I expect this week to see Pope Francis reinvigorate the long-standing practice of Popes to speak constructively about the common good. Let us hope it is to good effect.

Image Credit: Catholic Church of England and Wales

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Religious leaders across a number of faiths are calling on the government of British Columbia to halt its plans to expand coal exports.

“We state emphatically that making money at the expense of the health and prosperity of the planet is wrong,” write clergy and faith leaders from Sikh, Jewish, Unitarian, Quaker, Roman Catholic, Anglican, United Church of Canada, Presbyterian, and Evangelical Lutheran communities along the southern coast, including Texada Island, the Sunshine Coast, Delta, New Westminster and Surrey in an open letter addressed to the Premier Christy Clark and three of her ministers.

The letter was a response to the B.C. government’s quiet approval of an expansion of coal exports from Texada Island in March. The move will increase shipments to between 10 and 20 times the current level, although residents of the island are already complaining that the beaches near the terminal are contaminated with arsenic laden coal.

Citing moral grounds, the leaders are asking the premier “to reconsider the recently approved permit for the augmentation of the Texada Island port facility that would enable the increased coal export, and to phase out all U.S. thermal coal exports from B.C. ports.”

Coal is at the root of “horrific air pollution problems” linked to rising CO2 emissions in China, the group states in their letter, adding we are morally responsible for any human suffering its export causes. “Contributing to the increase in coal-related disability among the Chinese weighs heavily on our conscience,” they write.  

B.C.’s relatively small share of the coal supply does not mitigate the province's responsibility to act, they note.

“In our weekly sermons we encourage our congregations to adopt a sustainable lifestyle,” they say. “Now our congregations are asking us to act as emissaries of their message to you, to embrace a shift in the way to do business. Therefore we will not stand idly by when we see local actions that will contribute to climate destabilization.”

This call comes after Archbishop Desmond Tutu urged Canadians to examine the morality of profiting from oilsands at the expense of environmental health. In an editorial published in the Ottawa Citizen on May 9, the Nobel Peace Laureate called opposition to pipeline expansion a moral imperative.

“I stand in solidarity with communities across Canada and the United States that are opposing the proposed oilsands pipelines,” he wrote. “The struggle of citizens against the pipelines puts them on the front lines of one of the most important struggles in North America today: stopping the reckless expansion of the oilsands.”

Allowing the continued expansion of oilsands, he believes, makes us morally culpable for putting humanity at risk.

“Canada is now faced with a profoundly moral choice: Will the country embrace the oil industry’s plans for radical expansion of the oilsands and the pipelines that come with it, or will it slow down the frenzied rush and focus its efforts on another path that leads us as a global community in a more hopeful direction?”

He will be speaking at a two-day conference in Fort McMurray on May 31.

The Vatican also recently hosted a five-day conclave on sustainability and ethics. The event ended with a short meeting between Pope Francis and San Diego climate change researcher Ram Ramanathan. Afterward, the professor of atmospheric and climate science at Scripps Institution of Oceanography felt hopeful Pope Francis would help advance the goals of climate scientists.

Image Credit: Jordan Oram via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.