Today's UN exhortation: a moral imperative without content?

From today's VIS. My comments paragraph-by-paragraph:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE

Made public today was the text of a speech delivered by Msgr. Pietro Parolin, under-secretary for Relations with States, before the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly which is meeting to deliberate on the theme of "the future is in our hands: addressing the leadership challenge of climate change."

"Climate change is a serious concern and an inescapable responsibility," said Msgr. Parolin in his English-language talk. "My delegation wishes to stress the underlying moral imperative that everyone, without exception, has a grave responsibility to protect the environment," he added.

Everyone has a responsibility to protect the environment. This statement is an imperative for human action. However, where is the actual content of this action? What must human beings do, in the modern world, to protect the environment? Again, in this vacuum of specificity the content will continued to be supplied by secular lobby groups.

"The best scientific assessments available have established a link between human activity and climate change," he continued. "However, the results of these scientific assessments, and the remaining uncertainties, should neither be exaggerated nor minimized in the name of politics, ideologies or self- interest. Rather they now need to be studied closely in order to give a sound basis for raising awareness and making effective policy decisions.

Of course there is a link between human activity and climate change. My contention is that it is so minimal as to be irrelevant on a global scale. I agree there should be objectivity in the debate. However, if the fundamental scientific claims still "need to be studied closely" in order to raise awareness, how can there already be moral imperatives involved? Or is the moral imperative to study the question? Finally, how can effective policy decisions be an imperative when further study is still required?

"In recent times," he added, "it has been unsettling to note how some commentators have said that we should actually exploit our world to the full, with little or no heed to the consequences, using a world view supposedly based on faith." This, said Msgr. Parolin "is a fundamentally reckless approach." However "there are those who hold up the earth as the only good, and would characterize humanity as an irredeemable threat to the earth, whose population and activity need to be controlled by various drastic means." They, he stressed, "would place human beings and their needs at the service of an inhuman ecology."

I'm not sure exactly who these people are who claim we should "exploit our world to the full, with little or no heed to the consequences." The position is so extreme as to not deserve attention in the first place. In other words, the phrasing ("exploit, to the full, no heed to consequences") precludes justifying it as a rational position. Of course it's a "fundamentally reckless choice." But abuse does not negate the use: just because some people abuse the environment doesn't mean the environment can't be used legitimately. The principle stated above that one must never "place human beings and their needs at the service of an inhuman ecology" pretty much sums up my reason for resisting countless innitiatives the environmentalists council.

"Since no country alone can solve the problems related to our common environment, we need to overcome self-interest through collective action. On the part of the international community, this presupposes the adoption of a coordinated, effective and prompt international political strategy" to "identify ways ... to enhance sustainable development and foster a healthy environment," while bearing in mind "that poor nations and sectors of society are particularly vulnerable to the adverse consequences of climate change, due to lesser resources and capacity to mitigate their effects and adapt to altered surroundings."

"The pace of achieving and codifying a new international consensus on climate change is not always matched by an equally expeditious and effective pace of implementation of such agreements. States are free to adopt international conventions and treaties, but unless our words are matched with effective action and accountability, we would do little to avert a bleak future and may find ourselves gathering again not too long from now to lament another collective failure."

This line about poor nations is problematic. If by saying "poor nations ... are particularly vulnerable to the adverse consequences of climate change" he means for instance, rising sea levels caused by man made global warming will drown citizens of coastal areas, I see a problem, which touches upon a more fundamental issue of prudence. Namely, I think it is more prudent to directly aid people who are the victims of natural disasters than to mandate worldwide, drastic changes in the very structures of international society and production because such actions *might* alleviate future natural disasters. This *might* is dependent upon recent, questionable scientific hypothesis. Remember, the UN is the same institution that said global overpopulation would destroy the earth (and now they're actually admitting that underpopulation is the chief problem in most the world). These are the same scientists who said we were risking the advent of another Ice Age back in the 1970's. Since when do these same bodies, so clearly susceptible to "group think" and politics, merit the support of Vatican delegates?

Is this prudence? I don't think so.