I'll just accept that he's calling for something to be done against climate change. That's a big advocate on our side.

It isn't the number of creatures existing, it is the amount of consumption by existing creatures and the effect of that consumption on nature.

What concerns us are the policies of governments which dictate how much effects are to be allowed.

Because the environmentalists stood up for clean air and got the government to dictate strong emission controls, our air is much better in the US in just the last 10 years.

More people, but cleaner air: It is possible.

The point being that we can control our our polluting activities. We just need the will to do so.

Anyway, it looks like the pollution from nuke power plants is gonna take care of any population problems. Have you seen the reports of all the dead sea life along the west coast of N. America?

Is it 8 billion? 2 billion? 10 trillion?

I'm pretty sure it's something below 10 trillion. It's a bit too complex of a math problem for me, but some people have worked the numbers and believe we're already well past it.

One distinguished ecologist, addressing the threats posed to tropical ecosystems said that it is taboo to say it, but the top threat is human over population.

It is human overpopulation that drives the problems of resource depletion (i.e. human consumption), climate change, habitat fragmentation and loss, and pollution.

uses their power to help with the extinction event bearing down on us is my hero.

+ about a quadrillion!!!

I am amazed that this is happening. Usually the encyclicals talk about lofty but obscure shit or reaffirm that a woman does not have the last word over her own body, or enlarge upon some Scripture passage for modern readers. It's never been as uber-practical and relevant to THESE TIMES as what we're seeing now.

This is a guy with a constituency of Billions. Huge swaths of those pay close attention to a leader like him a whole lot of the time. Many, I suspect, may be from developing countries that haven't approached even considering anything like environmental protection laws. A problem THIS big, that literally has planetary impact, needs everyone everywhere on board and fully conscious of it.

Because we really DO need a revolution in thinking. The diehard capitalists are gonna hate it. But the fact is, capitalism for capitalism's sake very urgently needs to be reconsidered. And completely replaced if necessary.

and I'm an atheist.

I strongly believe that human overpopulation is at the core of it and many other global problems. But I also applaud any powerful voices trying to wake up the masses.

anything to you? If it doesn't, yall better start putting those words in your vocabulary - without building coalitions to address this and other critical issues, we're toast. Literally ..... toast...

BTW, most modern catholics already are enthusiastic users of birth control in spite of what the dogma says, so you might want to educate yourself there

We're about 40 years late to the party in our efforts to combat climate change. The time to start building coalitions was decades ago.

We're so close to multiple climate and biosphere tipping points at this point that nothing short of massive, aggressive changes will give us a snowball's chance in Hell of preventing catastrophic climate change.

An encyclical calling for baby steps to combat global warming at this point isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid. Which is why I highlighted widespread acceptance of birth control and limited family sizes as being so important to saving our collective butts.

Do you prefer, then, he stay silent on the issue?

Put this in context. Pick up any collection of papal encyclicals on social justice -- from Rarum Novarum issued in 1891 to those issued in the present day -- and tell me whether or not they have had at least some impact on forming some sort of societal change.

I am no great defender of the Church -- I left it, in fact. But I heartily respect what this man is trying to do in the world. as well as what he is trying to do within his own institution.

But, I know: I'm full of shit, and so is Francis. I don't think there is any person who is constantly in a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" position with people on this board as the Pope. And I have to say I'm getting sick of it. This is the person a lot of us here have been wanting in Rome for years, but nothing is ever good enough for some people.

His is an important voice in world discussion. We should be open to hearing what he has to say.

Thanks for saying it.

First of all, climate change was first raised to Congress and the general public less than 30 years ago, by NASA's chief climatologist, Jim Hansen. Second, as Jim Hansen first publicly raised in 2007 -- and in a genuinely free society it would have merited banner headlines across the "free" world -- we have ALREADY passed the "tipping point" which is 350 parts per million CO2 or its global warming equivalent (eg less if there's extra methane in the atmosphere) or less. That's the whole point of 350.org and the significance of that number. What we are rapidly approaching is a point of no return, where all the emergency efforts in the world will be insufficient to prevent runaway catastrophic climate change. (Some degree of catastrophe is already inevitable given how serious the problem already is).

You are right that only massive and aggressive changes, going way beyond the carbon tax that is being embraced now by several international oil giants, something like the sudden shift that the US economy underwent to address WWII. I disagree that population is the key issue as you put it. Any ecological program necessarily must include an ecologically centered development program for the lesser developed world, including women's liberation and education, which, with rising living standards, is the best known way to further lessen population increase. The role of the Church and the Pope at this point in determining population growth is minor at best.

I have also written a letter to the Guardian today, in response to the above article, like a previous never published letter to the NY Times a while back and other times & mentions, calling on the Church to found a religious order devoted to the social and natural ecological issues raised in the encyclical. It would be more than baby steps, tho in itself no doubt not enough to change the course of governments including the US and China, but for the Church it would approach the maximum that they can do.

With population, all the limits on population in the world would make little difference if there isn't the kind of "massive aggressive" changes you rightly advocate. But if the policy changes are made and right away then the difference of a little more or less population growth, while not without impact, would be within the range of the manageable.

This is an interesting line from the article:

However, it is certain to anger sections of Republican opinion in America by endorsing the warnings of climate scientists and admonishing rich elites, say cardinals and scientists who have advised the Vatican.

It suggests that "sections of Republican opinion in America" is about the only segment on earth that may object!

IE a very, very exceedingly small percentage of Earth's population.

You go, pontiff! Don't hold back now - tell it like it is!

Great argument, Santorum... haha

His wife gets a late term abortion to save her life, but votes so no one else suffering the same can.

Didn't he equate same sex marriage with beastiality?

I know Rand Paul (R- liberty for me but none for thee) did.

Does Rick hear the words coming out of his own mouth now? Did he ever?

Go Francis!

Pukes, Baggers, KKKoch Brothers Clan....

They're not gonna like this type of talk.

Gee, maybe we are on the edge of a revolution?!?!

that if I adopted, I would be a child abuser.

If that's "hating", so be it.

"It is also intended to improve the prospect of a strong new UN global agreement to cut climate emissions. By adding a moral dimension to the well-rehearsed scientific arguments, Francis hopes to raise the ambition of countries above their own self-interest to secure a strong deal in a crucial climate summit in Paris in November."

AND

"He was echoed by Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga of Honduras, who coordinates the Vatican’s inner council of cardinals and is thought to reflect the pope’s political thinking . “The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits,” Rodríguez Maradiaga said."

Okay, that's good enough for me. So glad that we are being joined by someone with such huge moral authority for millions of people all around the world. It really doesn't matter that he, because of the institution he represents, cannot echo ALL of our sentiments. He's a real asset just as he is, and I'm grateful for him.

It will take years of small steps to get the Catholic church out of the dark ages.

The Catholic Church is incrementally moving out of the dark ages under this pope, we should wish him well and a long life. Meanwhile the right wing republican evangelicals are racing into the darkness and trying to take the rest of us with them. I have other wishes for them and their ilk.

and about the danger of climate change.

Pope Benedict XVI: the first green pontiff?

the international energy extractors and polluters. They will simply ignore that man in a white cassock because they can.

I have also written a letter to the Guardian today, in response to the above article, like a previous never published letter to the NY Times a while back and other times & mentions, calling on the Church to found a religious order devoted to the social and natural ecological issues raised in the encyclical. It would be more than baby steps, tho in itself no doubt not enough to change the course of governments including the US and China, but for the Church it would approach the maximum that they can do.

(excerpted from a comment above)

I think they will have to reach out to the lay community and that means they are going to have to offer women something.

This has been the stance of the Papacy for some time; it seems to have gotten lost in all the gay-bashing, abortion-bashing culture wars. This is from an AP article in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday:

Pope Paul VI: In his 1967 encyclical, "Popularum Progresso" (Development of Peoples), Paul wrote that while creation is for man to use, the goods of the Earth are meant to be shared by all, not just the rich."

"No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life," Paul wrote nearly a half-century ago.

This ties in the issue of poverty and the issue of wealth and of environmental destruction, together.

Sounds like he's targeting the Kochs and the Republicans generally. And I remember this was pretty much the stance of the recently-retired Pope Benedict.

but a social one, they won't be a force for change. They could change this too because birth control was never an important issue in the Church before the nineteenth century.

Thanks, alboe, and welcome to D.U.

I never thought I'd live to see a pope speak about this.

He has to have a very deep sense of service to humanity to try it.

This Guardian piece explains how the GOP are already telling the Pope to stick "with his job."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/13/climate-change-conservatives-catholic-teaching

catholic priests to stop molesting children.

Fat chance of either.