Climate Change Is A Pro-life Issue

[Perigrina]

I almost died because of environmental issues. Having access to cleaner air somewhere and the ability to afford medication saved my life. To me, these are also about saving lives. I don't care what people say about climate change. I want clean air so that my daughter can live and play outside and have fun in the yard.

 

I have a lot more respect for people who talk about environmental issues this way.  Being responsible about controlling pollution is already worth doing.  We don't need the emotionally-charged doomsday scenarios of the climate change movement.
 

[mortify ii]

[mortify ii]

"Progress is the scourge God has chosen for us"

Don Colacho

[Credo in Deum]

probably a good approach considering the data:

 

 

From:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/05/going-down-death-rates-due-to-extreme-weather-events/

[Anastasia13]

probably a good approach considering the data:

 

 

From:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/05/going-down-death-rates-due-to-extreme-weather-events/

As I suspected, a major reason it sites is increased technologies for warning and responding to weather. If, as the author of that poo age horrendously near the end, we see this more as an issue simply because we are more aware of extreme weather, I wonder what recent studies of weather we are aware of looks like.

[CrossCuT]

I have a lot more respect for people who talk about environmental issues this way.  Being responsible about controlling pollution is already worth doing.  We don't need the emotionally-charged doomsday scenarios of the climate change movement.
 

 

This is what Climate change IS. This is implied. People really dont have a good grasp on this issue. 

[CrossCuT]

probably a good approach considering the data:

 

 

From:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/05/going-down-death-rates-due-to-extreme-weather-events/

 

The guy who wrote that article is a climate change skeptic. Automatically renders anything out of his mouth as poo on the subject. 

 

Besides, thats a blog site. I dont like using blogs for evidence...its typically just any average Joe giving their thoughts...which isnt always a bad thing. Just gotta do extra research on the persons background. He denies the science behind climate change which is a derp. But the paper he references states the reasons you see this trend in the data presented:

 

 

• Better real-time monitoring due to satellite technology and surface networks
• Better forecasting due to increased skill sets and improvements in computer aided forecasting
• Better warning lead times, due to satellites for hurricanes and radar for tornadoes and flash floods
• Better and faster warning dissemination thanks to radio, TV, and Internet

 

 

The blog references the WHO data which I looked up:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

 

Globally, the number of reported weather-related natural disasters has more than tripled since the 1960s. Every year, these disasters result in over 60 000 deaths, mainly in developing countries.

Rising sea levels and increasingly extreme weather events will destroy homes, medical facilities and other essential services. More than half of the world's population lives within 60 km of the sea. People may be forced to move, which in turn heightens the risk of a range of health effects, from mental disorders to communicable diseases.

Increasingly variable rainfall patterns are likely to affect the supply of fresh water. A lack of safe water can compromise hygiene and increase the risk of diarrhoeal disease, which kills 2.2 million people every year. In extreme cases, water scarcity leads to drought and famine. By the 2090s, climate change is likely to widen the area affected by drought, double the frequency of extreme droughts and increase their average duration six-fold3.

Floods are also increasing in frequency and intensity. Floods contaminate freshwater supplies, heighten the risk of water-borne diseases, and create breeding grounds for disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes. They also cause drownings and physical injuries, damage homes and disrupt the supply of medical and health services.

Rising temperatures and variable precipitation are likely to decrease the production of staple foods in many of the poorest regions – by up to 50% by 2020 in some African countries4. This will increase the prevalence of malnutrition and undernutrition, which currently cause 3.5 million deaths every year.

 

 

 

Measuring the health effects

Measuring the health effects from climate change can only be very approximate. Nevertheless, a WHO assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, concluded that the modest warming that has occurred since the 1970s was already causing over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 20047.

 

 

Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually.

• That estimate includes deaths as a result of extreme weather conditions, which may be occurring with increased frequency. Changes in temperature and rainfall conditions also may influence transmission patterns for many diseases, including water-related diseases, such as diarrhoea, and vector-borne infections, including malaria. Finally, climate change may affect patterns of food production, which in turn can have health impacts in terms of rates of malnutrition. There is further evidence that unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions would increase disease burdens in the coming decades. The risks are concentrated in the poorest populations, who have contributed the least to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Here is a link to a study done that looked at the changes in infectious diseases as a results of Climate change. 

 

Also a page from the CDC discussing everything as well http://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects/

 

 

So while the deaths and death rates are only estimates as this issue is very complex, it should not be a shock to people that these things are escalating. And its an all encompassing issue. We arent just talking about temperatures, we are talking about crops, water, resources, allergies, whatever! It bothers me when people brush it under the rug "Oh Ill wait and see if things get bad". We have a moral obligation to make the world a better place. Even if you DONT "believe" in global warming, the obligation is still there. Cleaning up the earth is not a bad thing.

Edited May 21, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Perigrina]

This is what Climate change IS. This is implied. People really dont have a good grasp on this issue. 

 

When some people's idea of an explanation is a Face Palm image, it is not surprising that the issue is not clear. 

 

I tend to dismiss "the sky is falling we have to do something" rhetoric.  I am interested in specific well-researched proposals.  I do not see much of that from politicians.

 

For the record, I am an environmentalist by just about anybody's standards.  I am a co-founder of an eco-village.  I have written, spoken, and appeared on television concerning environmental topics.  I get that this is important.  But when it comes to politics, "climate change" is at least as much game playing as doing anything constructive.  It just is not on the same level as opposing abortion.
 

[KnightofChrist]

The guy who wrote that article is a climate change skeptic. Automatically renders anything out of his mouth as poo on the subject.

Skepticism is healthy in science and it is needed. The idea that there can be no room for skepticism in climate change is dogmatic thinking, which is fine in religion, but not in science. Why is it that people cannot be skeptical of climate change, when there have been many predictions of gloom and doom that have never happened?

I don't deny climate change but I am skeptical it. I doubt it because I remember growing up believing it, believing all the sky is falling predictions, all of which should have happened already but didn't. My front yard is not a beach, though I remember being taught by this time it should have been, and I see recently that prediction is being recycled, again. It still snows and rather heavily, even though I was taught that would be a thing of the past by this time. The ozone layer is still there, even though I remember being taught that it would not be or be greatly reduced by now. Massive hurricanes have not been overly active, even though I was taught that they would be very numerous by now and very powerful. Etc, etc...

It feels like ever ten years or so we've only got 10 years before the end of the world. When evangelists foretell the end of the world and it doesn't happen not only is it answered with skepticism but with mockery as well. But when climate change advocates do the same the story is completely different they get a pass.

When someone or a group says 'x' will happened and then it doesn't it is perfectly fine to have a healthy skepticism of that person or movement. Edited May 21, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[arfink]

The guy who wrote that article is a climate change skeptic. Automatically renders anything out of his mouth as poo on the subject. 

 

Besides, thats a blog site. I dont like using blogs for evidence...its typically just any average Joe giving their thoughts...which isnt always a bad thing. Just gotta do extra research on the persons background. He denies the science behind climate change which is a derp. But the paper he references states the reasons you see this trend in the data presented:

 

 

The blog references the WHO data which I looked up:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

 

 

 

Here is a link to a study done that looked at the changes in infectious diseases as a results of Climate change. 

 

Also a page from the CDC discussing everything as well http://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects/

 

 

So while the deaths and death rates are only estimates as this issue is very complex, it should not be a shock to people that these things are escalating. And its an all encompassing issue. We arent just talking about temperatures, we are talking about crops, water, resources, allergies, whatever! It bothers me when people brush it under the rug "Oh Ill wait and see if things get bad". We have a moral obligation to make the world a better place. Even if you DONT "believe" in global warming, the obligation is still there. Cleaning up the earth is not a bad thing.

 

Right, but I still don't see it as a pro-life issue, except in the broadest sense of the word. The pro-life movement exists to combat abortion, the direct and fully intentional murder of millions. As Catholics we are obliged to be concerned for all human life as dictated by Christian charity, but concern for the environment is still a very different thing from concern for the unborn. For one thing, there is far less equivocation about abortion. There is no doubt that abortion directly kills millions and maims many more.

 

With climate change, you can sorta-kinda lump ordinary natural disasters and "acts of God" into a big ball and blame it on the climate, sure. It smacks of confirmation bias to me, but that's just my opinion. And you can look at the amount of CO2 humans make and see that temps have risen in a more-or-less correlated way with it, sure. But only over a comparatively short period of time during which we have been able to actually measure such things. And cleaning up the earth for the good of all is something we should be doing, but if we can't do a perfect job right away we can at least still treat the symptoms of it (treatments for allergies and diseases, new farming techniques, etc).

 

But you can't do much to help someone who has been killed before they could even be born.

[Credo in Deum]

I'm Pro-Life, since I'm anti-cancer, anti-drug abuse, anti-obesity, anti-anti anti anti-ism. Some say I'm so Pro-Life, that I'm an Antiist. 

 

It all makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[CrossCuT]

Skepticism is healthy in science and it is needed. The idea that there can be no room for skepticism in climate change is dogmatic thinking, which is fine in religion, but not in science. Why is it that people cannot be skeptical of climate change, when there have been many predictions of gloom and doom that have never happened?

I don't deny climate change but I am skeptical it. I doubt it because I remember growing up believing it, believing all the sky is falling predictions, all of which should have happened already but didn't. My front yard is not a beach, though I remember being taught by this time it should have been, and I see recently that prediction is being recycled, again. It still snows and rather heavily, even though I was taught that would be a thing of the past by this time. The ozone layer is still there, even though I remember being taught that it would not be or be greatly reduced by now. Massive hurricanes have not been overly active, even though I was taught that they would be very numerous by now and very powerful. Etc, etc...

It feels like ever ten years or so we've only got 10 years before the end of the world. When evangelists foretell the end of the world and it doesn't happen not only is it answered with skepticism but mockery. But when climate change advocates do the story is completely different.

When someone or a group says 'x' will happened and then it doesn't it is perfectly fine to have a healthy skepticism of that person or movement.

 

You have every right to be skeptical. But 97% of scientists disagree with you. Which side do you want to error on?

[CrossCuT]

Right, but I still don't see it as a pro-life issue, except in the broadest sense of the word. The pro-life movement exists to combat abortion, the direct and fully intentional murder of millions. As Catholics we are obliged to be concerned for all human life as dictated by Christian charity, but concern for the environment is still a very different thing from concern for the unborn. For one thing, there is far less equivocation about abortion. There is no doubt that abortion directly kills millions and maims many more.

 

With climate change, you can sorta-kinda lump ordinary natural disasters and "acts of God" into a big ball and blame it on the climate, sure. It smacks of confirmation bias to me, but that's just my opinion. And you can look at the amount of CO2 humans make and see that temps have risen in a more-or-less correlated way with it, sure. But only over a comparatively short period of time during which we have been able to actually measure such things. And cleaning up the earth for the good of all is something we should be doing, but if we can't do a perfect job right away we can at least still treat the symptoms of it (treatments for allergies and diseases, new farming techniques, etc).

 

But you can't do much to help someone who has been killed before they could even be born.

 

I guess thats where we dont see eye to eye. I dont view being prolife as JUST an abortion issue. I think it encompasses so much more. I think what it means to be a true prolife person is that you are prolife through ALL stages of life. Not just before birth. 

I believe prolife means we help the poor, we protect the planet etc. My prolife views dont stop after birth.

[arfink]

I guess thats where we dont see eye to eye. I dont view being prolife as JUST an abortion issue. I think it encompasses so much more. I think what it means to be a true prolife person is that you are prolife through ALL stages of life. Not just before birth. 

I believe prolife means we help the poor, we protect the planet etc. My prolife views dont stop after birth.

 

Neither do mine. Which is why I think it's so important that we ensure people get to live past their birth. If we can't even do that, what good is it?

[KnightofChrist]

You have every right to be skeptical. But 97% of scientists disagree with you. Which side do you want to error on?

I go by what I see, and I see many people in that movement repeatedly making claims that over time are shown to be false. And when I see so many claims that turn out to be false, it makes it harder to believe other predictions and claims by the same people.