全球变化知识资源中心

In a year critical for international efforts to address climate change and sustainable development, Pope Francis has published an encyclical on climate change, poverty and inequality (http://go.nature.com/7IbiB5). It is the first time in the history of the Roman Catholic Church that a Pope has addressed an encyclical not only to all Roman Catholics or to “all people of good will”, but also to all “people living on planet Earth”. Pope Francis' call for a global dialogue on the twenty-first-century challenges of climate change, poverty and inequality has resonated with scientific communities in particular, with major journals such as Nature and Science dedicating editorials to the subject^{1, 2}. This is unprecedented in the Western history of dialogue between religion and science.

Since enlightenment, the relationship between science and religion has generally been characterized by conflict rather than cooperation. Religion has struggled to identify a division of labour on questions related to cosmology, evolutionary theory, socio-biology, economics or reproductive medicine. In this struggle, it can be said that religion has been losing epistemic authority to science in one territory after another. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the encyclical is that Pope Francis seems unwilling to continue this conflict — instead, he chooses to embrace science while pointing out that ethical questions cannot be resolved by science alone. He asks for a dialogue between religion and science to meet the fundamental global challenges that mankind is collectively facing.

As its starting point, the encyclical adopts the scientific finding of the anthropogenic causes of climate change as established by Working Group I of the IPCC. Without explicitly citing the IPCC, the encyclical recognizes the human risks from the impacts of climate change, which are summarized in the Working Group II report.

The encyclical puts particular emphasis on the risks of climate impacts for the poor, which include reduced productivity of agriculture, increasing water scarcity, rising sea levels, and increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. The Pope is also concerned about other adverse global environmental challenges, such as air pollution, the loss of biodiversity and increasingly limited access to clean water. He fears that climate change and other environmental pressures will force the poor to migrate and that critical resource depletion might even lead to wars (§25, 57).

The position of climate 'contrarians' is also clearly refuted (§54, 135, 188) and identified as being driven by economic and ideological interests, echoing the analyses of the “merchants of doubt” by Eric Conway and Harvard historian of science Naomi Oreskes³.

Building on scientific consensus about the physics and impacts of climate change, the encyclical also reflects mainstream social scientific analyses on responses to climate change. In particular, the encyclical suggests that the twin challenges of climate change and poverty need to be tackled together and cannot be prioritized over each other. As succinctly put by economist Nicholas Stern: “If we fail on one, we fail on the other”⁴.

Other social scientists have similarly argued that the impacts of climate change threaten to eclipse any progress made in eradicating poverty in the mid- and long-term, and that without attractive low-carbon development pathways, poor societies will refuse to maintain low emissions levels or to reduce them further⁵. The Pope's encyclical endorses this view.

THINKSTOCK / STOCKBYTE / THINKSTOCK

Not all statements in the encyclical have been endorsed by the scientific community. In particular, the encyclical (§171) is concerned about the effectiveness of emission trading as a policy instrument — an analysis that some environmental economists disagree with. Also, the suggestion of using economic de-growth as a tool for mitigating climate change (§193) does not resonate well with economists. However, researchers should note that, unlike fundamental moral considerations, the encyclical does not claim particular authority on questions of applied policy analysis; the Pope's concerns might rather be considered as an invitation to discuss them in light of deeper ethical concerns.

The Pope asks for a fundamental dialogue between religions and science (§199–201) on the responsible use of the powers conveyed to mankind by modern technology. Citing the philosopher Romano Guardini¹¹, the encyclical emphasizes that modern technology bears an immense potential for improving the world if guided by ethical behaviour. Without deliberate and responsible design of technological systems, however, there is a risk not only of global environmental problems such as climate change, but also many other forms of human deprivation. This analysis resonates with discussions of the use of instrumental reason in modernity in the traditions of Max Weber and sociological critical theory^{12, 13}, even though the encyclical does not explicitly refer to these.

Reminiscent of the general tenet of the work by Elinor Ostrom, the central message conveyed by the encyclical is that mankind is not fatally trapped in an inescapable tragedy of the global commons. Rather, the Pope calls for a dialogue among “all people living on this planet” to turn the alleged tragedy of the commons into a drama, in which different forces struggle but eventually make progress towards achieving the common good for all.

A dialogue between science, religions and different worldviews can lead to an enhanced and mutual understanding of the common challenges that mankind is facing. This can increase our freedom to choose among the alternative future pathways on which we will collectively embark.

1. Nature 522, 391 (2015).
2. McNutt, M. Science 349, 6243 (2015).
3. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. Merchants of Doubt. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury, 2011).
4. Stern, N. The Global Deal: Climate Change and the Creation of a New Era of Progress and Prosperity (PublicAffairs, 2009).
5. Edenhofer O. et al. Climate Change, Justice, and Sustainability: Linking Climate and Development Policy (Springer, 2012).
6. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
7. Edenhofer, O., Flachsland, C., Jakob, M. & Lessmann K. in The Handbook on the Macroeconomics of Climate Change (eds Semmler, W. & Bernard, L.) 260–296 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).
8. Bauer, N. et al. Climatic Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0901-6 (2013).
9. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
10. Ostrom, E. Econ. Theory 49, 353–369 (2012).
    • Article
11. Guardini, R. The End of the Modern World (ISI Books, 2001).
12. Weber, M. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Angelico, 2014).
13. Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action (Beacon, 1985).

Download references