Catholic Culture Resources
Catholic Culture Resources

The Moral Downside of Climate Change

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Aug 16, 2012

Now that parishes and Catholic schools are being urged to show a documentary on climate change, perhaps it is time to comment on the wisdom of attempting to turn climate change into a moral issue. This is a danger currently being courted by those who portray climate change both as a disaster of epic proportions and as something we can control, causing them to seek to invest the issue with a high moral priority in both education and politics.

Based on my own review of the arguments surrounding climate change, I believe that the evidence is scanty or non-existent that these changes are either well-understood or under our control even in theory. The situation is even more dubious when we consider what realistic steps a disunited world with very limited financial resources is likely to be able take to effect any consistent or controlled change. If I am correct in this assessment, then climate change may still be a problem for some people in some regions, or it may even be a general human problem at some point, but it is not a moral problem. We may be called to assist those who suffer (as we always are, for whatever reason), but we are not morally impelled to join the fight against climate change itself.

Catholics, of course, have more reason than most to foster good stewardship of creation, as a moral priority, so that present resources are not used by some to the detriment of others, including future generations, and so that we weigh carefully the potential harm of various human activities which may be under consideration for approval, disapproval, expansion or restriction. But to more deeply grasp that the implications go beyond what is fashionable, consider that we might start by ceasing to pollute our bodies and our waters with contraceptive chemicals. In any case, as Pope Benedict has pointed out, such an analysis must be done not as if man is the enemy of nature, but as if man is the apex of visible creation, to whom all of nature has been given for use, while at the same time being placed under his stewardship by God, to Whom he must give an account (Caritas in Veritate, # 48).

At the same time, preaching a moral responsibility when there really is none (as I believe is the case with our current knowledge of climate change) can only serve to distract people from more pressing things that they ought to be doing to protect and enhance human life and the common good. It is no coincidence, I think, that belief in the moral imperative to “do something” about climate change declines in inverse proportion to how religious people are and, for Catholics, how frequently they attend Mass. The issue is widely viewed in such circles as another alleged crisis fashioned by “the world” as an excuse for ignoring the more pressing moral and spiritual business of the human person.

It seems likely, after all, that what we are witnessing in the furor over climate change is a rerun of the wildly off-base population explosion announced in the 1960s, or the brief romance with a threatened ice age in the next decade, or the treatment of pregnancy as a disease, or the pressing need for safe sex, or the horrors of growing up in a world in which not everyone respects and affirms our every choice. These have all been made the moral basis for social, political and economic action, yet most people in our culture understand these issues either badly or wrongly. Worse still, the actions taken at best waste time, energy and resources and at worst either make the problem worse or create new problems in their wake.

Think how much more good could be done if those who are rushing to join the climate change crusade, especially as it relates to yet another set of coercive government policies, were to put even half of their fervor into living chastely, protecting the lives of the unborn, discouraging divorce, nurturing families, participating actively in local churches and community organizations, supporting neighborhood health clinics, promoting charitable work, or actually lending a hand to those in concrete, discernible and remediable need. Instead of trying to be seen on the “moral high ground” of the latest fashionable cause (be it whales, diversity, gender-neutral speech, or climate change), we could all actually begin to construct a better world one person at a time.

After observing the secular social order for some fifty years, I am absolutely convinced that both the human person and society as a whole have a deep need for a moral orientation, and when a society either rejects or ignores the natural law and Divine Revelation because these conflict with inordinate desires, then people are strongly drawn to ersatz causes in order to achieve moral satisfaction while distracting themselves from deeper issues. The effort to get climate change documentaries into parishes and Catholic schools is, I believe, a signal example of this common failing, arising as it does from an almost willful refusal on the part of the proponents to open their eyes to the for more pressing moral infections which have already metastasized in our culture like a deadly cancer.

A study of climate science in educational institutions is certainly both appropriate and important. As with knowledge of almost anything else, but especially of those things which may affect our lives, we should want to study climate and learn what we can about it. But we also need to recall that there have been significant climate changes before, even during the past few thousand years of recorded human history, complete with widespread shifts in what crops could be grown in different places and where people preferred to live. One thinks, for example, of the Medieval Warm Period which affected Europe and other regions between about 950 and 1250, which was followed by the so-called Little Ice Age. We probably do not even have a long enough window of serious climate study to know what we ought to consider the outer limits of “normal”.

In any case, it will take far more study, with far more accurate and universally respected results, over a much longer period of time before our limited human comprehension can form a true picture of what is happening, why it is happening, whether it is a source of long-term concern, and whether there is anything particular to be done about it. Under these circumstances, making climate change into a moral priority—that is, a guilt trip—is extraordinarily imprudent. It will serve as more than a distraction. Like many a cause célèbre before it, climate change will become an excuse to ignore the damage done through human relationships that are sadly based on a rejection of God and the natural law.

As many a pundit has said in other contexts: It’s not the heat, it’s the humility. Or at least it ought to be. We could place greater trust in researchers who recognize this. And if all the rest of us could recognize it too, and so stop our endless rebellion against the real moral law, even the environment would benefit.

Jeffrey Mirus holds a Ph.D. in intellectual history from Princeton University. A co-founder of Christendom College, he also pioneered Catholic Internet services. He is the founder of Trinity Communications and See full bio.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

  • Posted by: impossible - Aug. 24, 2012 5:23 PM ET USA

    The science is certainly not settled. There has been no scientific proof that man causes global warming. Man is becoming too enamored with the idea that "man" is in charge. No, its still God's natural law that controls our climate. If someone can cite a reliable honest source that says all qualified scientists agree that man causes global warming, please cite it fully.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 22, 2012 11:35 AM ET USA

    One cannot reasonably question a problem "that threatens to abort all life on earth". If "all life on earth" truly hangs in the balance, it would be insane to oppose any solution to save it. The "science is settled". Scientists "unanimously" agree. To resist is to "deny". Welcome to the climate change "debate": shut up and cede national and personal sovereignty to deracinated global technocrats. Oh, and having a child is an irresponsible act of resource depletion and pollution. Brave new world.

  • Posted by: lynnvinc7142 - Aug. 19, 2012 9:09 AM ET USA

    I realize we need much more talk about abortion in our parishes, since I think Catholics have abortions at higher rates. However, I don't think spending one hour on a problem that threatens to abort all life on earth (see esp p.24 of ), will interrupt much our more pressing work to end abortion and instill moral values. My priests never ever talk about CC. Once in 20 yrs would be great.

  • Posted by: impossible - Aug. 19, 2012 12:21 AM ET USA

    Follow the money. Consider all of the taxpayer monies already paid by Obama to those like the Solyndra folks who contributed big-time to Obama. Consider the UN salivating over taxing the evil Americans to solve the imaginary problems caused by man's unproven impact on climate change.

  • Posted by: bnewman - Aug. 18, 2012 12:00 AM ET USA

    “Climate change” is an odd expression implying that climate should naturally be constant. Past history tells us that this has never been the case:our physical understanding of "climate change" is rudimentary. Measurements over the past few decades suggest a small increase in temperature, and carbon warming might account for a fraction of this, but a vast expenditure of money would be needed for a reversal, with dubious benefits. To attend to third world needs now would be more sensible I think.

  • Posted by: filioque - Aug. 17, 2012 10:14 PM ET USA

    Climate change is a matter of science, not religion or politics. The evidence is that nothing unusual is happening. There has a been a great deal of fiddling with the temperature databases and exaggeration of normal events. There is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide will have a serious effect on climate. You don't have to believe me; just come up with the published data showing that it has had any clear effect and substantiating the theory that it will have any serious effect.

  • Posted by: filioque - Aug. 17, 2012 10:03 PM ET USA

    Dr. Mirus did not commit the either/or fallacy. He said it would be better if people put their efforts into more virtuous living rather than useless efforts to control the climate.

  • Posted by: the.dymeks9646 - Aug. 17, 2012 4:48 PM ET USA

    I consider myself a Catholic Christian, and as a professional engineer, I consider myself also aware of the science and the facts. If I discerned that the facts supported man made global warming, then I would not be afraid to be associated with the left in this belief. But as I tell my daughters, we need to consider the source, and the left has proven itself to me, to be consistently deceived and one dimensional. Nature is analog, and can do quite well on either side of a mathematical average.

  • Posted by: fwhermann3492 - Aug. 17, 2012 11:12 AM ET USA

    You've committed the age-old either/or fallacy here. There is no reason anyone must choose between saving unborn babies and protecting the environment. We can do both. Also, even if there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and belief in climate change, correlation does not imply causation (the post hoc fallacy). Many Christians shun climate change because they don't want to be associated with the left, not because they're aware of the science.

  • Posted by: bkmajer3729 - Aug. 16, 2012 10:13 PM ET USA

    Thank you Dr. Mirus for your well informed commentary. The entire "issue" around epic proportion climate change if we don't do something because of what we've a falsehood. Competent and unbiased scientific evidence does not support the claims made by those with political agendas. I am certain there will be much bemoaning that this position is absolutely wrong. Nevertheless, the evidence does not support the claim. Please keep up the good work. You and your team are in my prayers.

  • Posted by: Justin8110 - Aug. 16, 2012 6:49 PM ET USA

    A big problem today is that so many people are too accepting of "science", as if everything passed off as "science" is automatically infallible even if there is a lot of conflicting evidence. I believe that we each individually have an obligation not to waste things, pollute or wantonly destroy creation but I do not believe in global warming. I think global warming is just an excuse for big government to further intrude into peoples lives and pocketbooks in the name of saving "Mother Earth."