SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Despite the santorum splattered about, the Pontiff of the Church Universal and Triumphant [EDIT: This is actually referring to the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church Universal and Triumphant] is going to agree with the climate change consensus in an encyclical to be released on Thursday. Early leaks give some idea of the content.
Pope Francis is preparing to declare humans as primarily responsible for climate change, call for fossil fuels to be replaced by renewable energy and decry the culture of consumerism, a leaked draft of his much anticipated statement on the environment suggests.
The source for this somehow concerns Australians, but we will take any indication of infallibility where we can get it.
So the humble submitter has to wonder, does this mean that climate-change deniers are now to be considered heretics, rather than just Petro shills or anti-environmental conservative conspiracy theorists? It does add a entirely new dimension to the debate, and I hope that God will forgive your Conservative asses for screwing up Her creation in the quest for profit.
UPDATE - janrinok 18 Jun 12:36UTC
is it possible to update/append aristarchus' post "Pope Affirms Anthropogenic Global Warming" (https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/06/17/0317256), as follows:
Update: The encyclical can be read and downloaded here.
I am not affiliated with the submitter, aristarchus, or the pope. I have a slightly paranoid reason for asking for this update; it is my experience that, whenever politically important documents are published, the actual document often gets overshadowed by an enormous load of blog commentary, providing a bit of "damage control" and "spin". It is my fervent opinion that the readership of Soylentnews deserves to read the actual source documents. (It's only 82 pages long, in this case, anyway).
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday June 19 2015, @04:20PM
cap-and-trade seems to be an attempted economic solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. the right is always pushing for less governmental intervention and more economic-type solutions (eg, relying on private sector) rather than simply using taxation as a tool to reduce harmful actions, so they should be supporting it, or suggesting other economic-type solutions, yet they're the ones most against it, usually because "Its just a scam to make Al Gore rich!". well of course somebody is going to get rich from it, thats how capitalism works! so is that really the main problem with cap-and-trade, "I didn't think of it first, so fuck you"? even if its not a perfect solution, nobody is suggesting anything better (sweeping it under the rug and letting our children and grandchildren deal with it is not a solution), and about the only other option is taxation. would the right be creaming in their pants over cap-and-trade if the Koch brothers were behind it up instead of Gore? i've yet to see a criticism of cap-and-trade that isn't just an ad hominem referencing Gore.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday June 19 2015, @07:49PM
As I see it, cap and trade is a way to use market forces to reduce a form of pollution by making it more profitable to pollute less. However, I do see the Pope's point. Cap and trade only delays the inevitable.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday June 19 2015, @08:45PM
i agree that its not a permanent or even a good solution, but at least its something, as far as i know there have been no other suggestions except taxation and continuing the status quo, and its at least a step in the right direction that'll help buy time to allow businesses to create and implement policies, methods, and technologies which reduce and/or eliminate CO2 emissions. if its cheaper to reduce CO2 emissions, that should push companies to reduce or eliminate them, and its a method that relies entirely on the private sector (not taxation-based), so i can't understand why right so readily attacks it (nor can i understand why they always push the strawman that anyone in who believes in AGW is pushing for cap-and-trade; you don't need to know anything about a viewpoint or belief to know if its valid, just look at the arguments used to support it - valid ones are supported by logic and reason, while invalid ones are supported by sophistry and violence).