From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Mon May 28 2007 - 16:25:58 EDT

At 05:28 AM 5/28/2007, (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan wrote:

>"The last Pope wasn't much interested in
>greenery either, but in 1990 coined the term
>ecological conversion, which was mentioned by several
>speakers. "
>I thought the Catholic Church has worked out an
>ecumenical document with the Eastern Orthodox
>Church on environmental care? And that was
>under Pope John Paul II, with the then Cardinal
>Ratzinger as his deputy guardian of doctrines.
>If the Pope was not interested, why chose such a
>topic to make an ecumenical statement?

@ Probably because proper stewardship of our
environment is one of the individual Christian's
responsibilities toward God, in this order:

"..the pope considers an authentic...theology:
one that puts [1] God and the life of the spirit
first, [2] direct charitable care of others
second, [3] and only then draws consequences for
a just social order."

At a Vatican conference on climate change, Pope
Benedict urged bishops, scientists and
politicians - including UK environment secretary
David Miliband - to "respect creation" while
"focusing on the needs of sustainable
development". The Pope's message ... that
"disregard for the environment always harms human
coexistence, and vice versa".

.. About four years ago the progressives began
..redefining environmentalism as "creation care", ....

Although the
] World Council of Churches in Geneva has had a
department to investigate climate change since
1990, churches have come late to the debate. "The
[environment and religion] is a no-brainer, but
we are all only now realising it", said Claire
Foster, environmental policy adviser to the Church of England.

[[[ World Council of Churches is the largest
coalition of leftist religious denominations in
the United States and has a long record of
financial support for Communist
regimes: ]]]]

[[[ Pope Benedict, on the other hand,
denounces Marxist/Communist influence warning
where it leads: ]]]

Many faiths also realise their potential to
influence politicians and financiers. A survey by
US bank Citigroup found that the 11 major faiths
now embrace 85% of the world's population and are
the world's third largest group of financial
investors. In the US the United methodist church
pension fund alone is worth $12bn-$15bn
(£6bn-£7bn). Total investment of US churches is
nearly $70bn. Switching to ethical investments would be hugely significant.

One Catholic priest impatient for change is SeŠn
McDonagh, a Columban missionary and author of
books on ecology and religion. "The Catholic
church's social teaching on human rights and
justice has been good, but there has been little
concern about the impact on the planet. The
church has been caught up on its emphasis on
development and on resisting population control,
but if we are pro-life we should be banging the
drum now about climate change." .."

Source: John Vidal and Tom Kington in Rome
Friday April 27, 2007 The

~ Janice

Janice Matchett <> wrote:

>In case you missed it. ~ Janice
>by Sonja Boehmer-Christensen
>1. The main diplomatic aim of the UK was clear
>from [Secretary of State for environment] David
>Miliband's performance - to protect and
>encourage the struggling carbon market. His
>message was: Act speedily now before it is too
>late and do not allow a 'gap' to appear in emission trading.
>He was not at all happy about my question what
>the UK hoped to gain from the 'combat against GW'.
>2. Miliband finished his speech with an
>observation from World Wildlife Fund : "They
>have calculated that if everyone in the world
>were to consume natural resources and generate
>carbon dioxide at the rate we do in the UK, we'd
>need three planets to support (us). We are
>depleting our natural resources at a faster rate
>then we are replenishing them". The man must be
>ignorant, environmentally speaking. Even my
>third-year students laughed at the replenishing
>and had no idea how WWF reached that number.
>(But many church people liked the idea of
>reducing (over)consumption - the other side of serving the poor?)
>3. The Vatican's objective was less clear. There
>is clearly a policy and doctrinal debate going
>on inside the Vatican, with the Pope coming
>under pressure to join 'Al Gore' and the World
>Council of Churches to pronounce an encyclical
>on combating global warming. He is resisting
>and, according to one insider, unlikely to give
>in, though a general statement on our
>responsibility to look after God's creation and
>use nature rationally is likely. The last Pope
>wasn't much interested in greenery either, but
>in 1990 coined the term ecological conversion,
>which was mentioned by several speakers.
>4. Raul Estrada-Oyuela (chief UNFCC/Kyoto
>Protocol negotiator) had an interesting
>position that seriously challenged that of the
>UK. After pointing out that Kyoto was about
>emission reduction, not the creation of a market
>for a new commodity (carbon), he stated that "
>the main purpose, mitigation, cannot be adjusted
>to serve the interests of merchants and dealers.
>The overarching guidance is preserving the
>creation and (that) may be translated in this
>case as climate environmental integrity"
>(.....Whatever that is..). There was no rush to
>complete complex negotiations about the future of Kyoto.
>He also said "emission trading is a fiasco in
>Europe..." and suggested new Protocols to the
>climate convention not based on national but
>sectoral targets as a way forward. There will be
>no giving in by USA and Australia, or the
>industrialising countries (who see targets as
>brakes on development) to EU/UK demands.
>He would rather have a gap in commitments (after
>2012 when current commitment period of Kyoto
>ends) than satisfy the 'carbon market', which is
>of course just what the UK and World Bank want
>to protect, see their current campaign, e.g. at
>UN Security Council, G8, even involving the
>Royal Society (not to mention the BBC),. the
>whole establishment is 'on message.' In my view
>they - the finished Blair Government, but no
>change in sight with Al Gore advising Brown
>- are overdoing it to their own detriment. (Did
>you know that Al Gore believes in Creationism,
>or at least is reported to have said so when
>meeting some religious groups last week.) Raul
>spoke late on the second day , however.
>5. But first came the scientists, with Prof. A.
>Zichichi of CERN /World Federation of
>Scientists, later supported by other Italian
>scientists and Fred Singer) who completely
>rubbished the climate models and in effect
>removed the status of science from meteorology.
>Zichichi was followed by Rahmstorf (Berlin) who
>gave the 'consensus' IPCC line. He disappeared
>soon afterwards and did not engage with his
>critics, just handed out a ‘fact' sheet with the hockeystick etc.
>The World Council of Churches was visibly
>appalled by this science challenge, as were the
>Anglican bishops (Liverpool). “We were not
>consulted about the people invited here and
>shall protest,” one of them confided to me.
>Another later challenged my academic
>credentials. Yet the US Evangelicals were
>represented by a serious scientifically literate 'sceptic' (Calvin Beisner).
>The green lobby inside the Churches, seemingly
>strongest in Africa ('you made the mess, now pay
>for it'), Germany (‘catastrophe is nigh, but we
>may yet save creation..’) and the UK (‘we must
>aid Africa, not to save the planet would be
>sinful’), was very disturbed to have to listen
>to so many science 'deniers'. Others seemed
>worried about the implications of all this
>environmentalism for Man's relationship with
>God, something I have no views on or knowledge
>of, other than sensing that the 'deification' of Nature was a doctrinal worry.
>But we had to listen to the AGW believers in
>turn and at length; there were some very good
>sermons pulling at all heart strings.
>Australian bishop Christopher Toohey was the
>peace-maker and spoke last...’we must help the
>poor whether the climate is changing or not.’ So
>I even discussed the question of immortality, but this was over breakfast.
>Indeed, all positions were justified with
>reference to the poor. Is this new in world/church politics?
>My arrogant impression was that too many of the
>church representatives present while of 'good
>will' and obviously lovely, caring people, were
>illiterate scientifically and in development economics.
>I should mention that I was allowed three
>'interventions,' one quite long, to explain my
>political analysis of why the EU was so keen on climate alarmism.
>Eager to find substitutes for carbon fuels,
>which it is running out of or has 'closed' (the
>coal mines), it was using the climate threat,
>suitably exaggerated, to ensure that the burden
>of this conversion to a low-carbon economy was
>spread globally to avoid 'competitiveness'
>problems and also, to encourage private money
>flow to the 'South'..but with what effect and expectations?
>Energy-intensive industries are already moving
>to China, the main beneficiary by far from the Kyoto-CDM scheme.
> More:
>Matthew Tan Yew Hock
>Support academic freedom. Support Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez.
>Be a better Heartthrob.
>better relationship answers from someone who knows.
>Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 28 16:26:34 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 28 2007 - 16:26:34 EDT