By: Aashka Dave
In 2013, Pope Francis was named TIME’s Person of the Year for nothing short of bringing some personality back into the Vatican. Francis reinvigorated a religious institution in need of a breath of fresh air. In doing so, he gained the world’s attention. As TIME mentioned, “He makes masterly use of 21st century tools to perform his 1st century office.” Francis is photographed doing the right things in the right places. His speeches show marked changes in the Catholic Church, and though those changes might appear small in some areas (female priests do not appear a likelihood anytime soon), they have had a marked impact in others, making Pope Francis a significant change agent. His ability to effect change within the church has not gone unnoticed, and has led to Pope Francis’ involvement in global developments as well.
President Barack Obama acknowledged that Pope Francis had a hand in the renewed U.S.-Cuba relations that were announced in early January 2015. Since there hasn’t been a U.S. embassy in Havana for over half a century, the thawing of relations between the two nations is an important development, regardless of one’s overall opinion on interactions between the two countries.
Internal and global successes have consequently set the stage for the Pope’s involvement in yet another global issue: fossil fuels.
In November 2014, Greenpeace made a mockery of the Nazca Lines during the United Nations Climate Summit held in Peru. It’s true the organization damaged a natural wonder in the name of environmentalism. That being said, Greenpeace did have a point.
Since their introduction into wide use over 150 years ago, fossil fuels have resulted in an over 25 percent increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Having determined that the increase in temperatures worldwide over the past century is not solely due to natural causes, scientists in large part advocate for a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels, which run the gamut from coal to oil to natural gas, are the cornerstone of civilization today. They make possible an industrialized society, global transportation, and everyday technologies such as plastic. Yet, the very technologies that hold up said society could portend its demise. Refining oil, for instance, necessitates the use of toxic chemicals and all but guarantees the release of pollutants such as CO2 into the atmosphere. Attendant with an increase in fossil fuel usage are risks such as oil spills, ecological damage, pollution, and human health problems, to name a few. We have seen examples of these devastations in the past decade, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the increased risk of tuberculosis faced by individuals merely exposed to cooking fuels.
To that effect, organizations such as the United Nations have been working to decrease worldwide use of fossil fuels and promote green technologies. These technologies would not only provide jobs in a largely untapped sector of the economy, but also reduce dependence on oil reservoirs in unstable regions of the world and on dominant oil cartels such as OPEC, all while minimizing the need for procedures such as fracking.
In a nod to the heightened importance of curtailed fuel emissions, China and the United States reached a landmark bilateral agreement earlier this year. For the first time, China agreed to “a date for peak CO2 emissions for the first time and also promised to raise the share of zero-carbon energy to 20 percent of the country’s total.” In return, President Obama promised that the United States would reduce carbon emissions by over a quarter by the year 2025.
Because of this deal, world leaders headed into the U.N. Climate Summit in Peru hopeful; if these two bickering nations had been able to reach such an accord, then surely the U.N. Summit would be productive. It was anything but, despite the presence of Pope Francis, who emphasized the importance of global cooperation, saying that climate change could only be addressed “if we act together and agree.”
Overshadowed by the previously mentioned Greeenpeace debacle at the Nazca Lines, the climate summit actually went over by two days. BBC news acknowledged that progress in Lima was limited, and that many decisions “were simply postponed” until the next summit, which is scheduled to occur in Paris in 2015. To be certain, some decisions were made, and the classification system of countries was changed: no longer are countries merely viewed as “rich” or “poor.” Their environmental contexts shall hopefully be taken into account as well, suggesting that the effects of environmental practices and procedures in any given country will be a factor in decision-making.
Yet, somewhat dismayed by world leadership of late, religious environmentalist groups decided to take matters into their own hands. In April, the Australian Response to Climate Change and U.S.-based Greenfaith (both largely representing Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish groups) wrote a letter to Pope Francis requesting his involvement on the issue of fossil fuel divestment, or the reduction of investment in fossil fuels:
“We urge you, as a person held in high esteem by many millions around the world, to speak clearly about the place of divestment from fossil fuels as one significant means to avert the worst of climate disruption. You could have a desperately needed influence on the direction humanity takes from here. We urge you to use this influence.”
Earlier this week, it was announced that Pope Francis would take heed of these requests. In 2015, the pope will be releasing a lengthy message, or enyclical, on fossil fuels to the world’s Catholics. He will also be speaking to the U.N. General Assembly and calling for a summit of representatives of the world’s religions. Of these intended plans, the encyclical is the most noteworthy. By deciding to issue an encyclical, Pope Francis is going where no other has gone; he is a major religious figure bringing a major issue to a larger audience in an unprecedented manner. The encyclical will be a “lengthy message to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics,” making it a font of information on fossil fuels available to people the world over.
Pope Francis is going into uncharted territory. There are members of the Catholic Church only too ready to believe that climate change is a myth. For instance, Cardinal George Pell, the Vatican’s budget manager, has previously claimed that global warming has stopped, and that “plants would love” an increase in global levels of CO2.
It appears, therefore, that Pope Francis has his work cut out for him. It is uncertain whether or not the pope’s presence in Lima had much of an effect on the discussions given the dissatisfaction with which many parties left the summit. Yet it is possible that such a concerted effort on the part of Pope Francis will, in fact, make a difference. The precedent set by Pope Francis in previous years suggests that although there is much work to be done before the talks in Paris even begin, it is possible that the pope will be able to make a mark.
As Pope Francis becomes more involved in the climate change debate and becomes more outspoken on the subject of fossil fuels, increased awareness of the ills associated with fossil fuels is almost a certainty. In turn, the Pope’s involvement will also signal to other religious leaders that fossil fuels can be an issue on which religious groups take a stance. Both of these assumptions guarantee that, regardless of how the pope affects the Parisian summit, he will get people talking on a subject that is in great need of an effective representative.
