Vatican conference: wealthy humans responsible for global warming, extinction of species
March 02, 2017
A Vatican conference on biological diversity has concluded with a statement calling for redistribution of the world’s wealth, arguing that the consumption by the rich is a primary cause of global warming.
The Vatican conference, co-sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, had drawn criticism because of the list of invited participants, including the discredited prophet of “overpopulation,” Paul Ehrlich.
In their concluding statement, the participants claimed that biological species are becoming extinct at “approximately 1,000 times the historical rate,” and attributed this to the “huge strains on the earth’s capacity to function sustainably” because of human use of fossil fuels.
Noting that a small percentage of the world’s people account for a large portion of global consumption, the conference concluded: “The wealthy are thus substantially responsible for the increase in global warming and, consequently, the decrease in biodiversity.” The statement argued: “An inescapable condition for attaining global sustainability is wealth redistribution.”
The statement called for “new ways of working together to build a sustainable, stable, and socially just world.”
For all current news, visit our News home page.
- Extinction is Forever: How To Avoid It (Vatican press office)
- Paul Ehrlich, prophet of ‘overpopulation’ doom, invited to speak at Vatican conference (CWN, 1/13)
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: rpp -
Mar. 03, 2017 8:53 AM ET USA
This is not the Church of the Blessed Bishop Fulton Sheen. Remember his rants against communism and socialism?
Posted by: claude-ccc2991 -
Mar. 03, 2017 4:22 AM ET USA
An idea as equally nonsensical as wealth redistribution is the implication of FIXED sustainability. Have these people no grasp of history? As man went from his own muscle power, to horse and other animal power, to harnessing certain forces of nature like water power, sustainability INCREASED. That tendency toward greater sustainability is driven by man's ability to harness new sources of energy & that tendency persists. Nuclear fusion is around the corner & will provide nearly limitless energy.
Posted by: claude-ccc2991 -
Mar. 03, 2017 4:14 AM ET USA
“An inescapable condition for attaining global sustainability is wealth redistribution” is a self-contradicting statement. Only if the redistributed wealth were NOT spent would it cease being self-contradictory. Of course, everyone spends what they have. Therefore, consumption will NOT decreasefrom redistributing wealth, and so sustainability won't be achieved.
Posted by: lak321 -
Mar. 02, 2017 10:38 PM ET USA
Catholics have always been taught to redistribute wealth. It is called charity. One on one, with a dose of love.
Posted by: Ken -
Mar. 02, 2017 8:36 PM ET USA
It's times like this when I am ashamed to be called Catholic. The uneducated, official sounding announcements have as much credibility as Ehrlich's predictions on population control.
Posted by: Terri11 -
Mar. 02, 2017 7:28 PM ET USA
And redistributing wealth will solve consumption how? By spreading it out among everyone? Seems kind of impractical. Better solution is cleaner Tech which will eventually trickle down to a better lifestyle for the impoverished as well.
Posted by: jalsardl5053 -
Mar. 02, 2017 6:42 PM ET USA
From the Pontifical Academy of Poof and the Pontifical Academy of Social Nonsense comes pontificating showing common sense at its best and the ultimate perfection of socialism: redistribute wealth so that the "huge strains on the earth’s capacity to function sustainably" can be equally distributed.
Posted by: james-w-anderson8230 -
Mar. 02, 2017 6:20 PM ET USA
I must be reading the wrong bible translation, as I don't remember Christ calling for wealth redistribution. This sounds more like it came from Karl Marx or Saul Alinsky.