Do You Believe the Apocalypse Is Coming?

Most of us have probably heard someone or some fringe group lamenting that the end of the world is coming or even upon us. Often the lamenter quotes the book of Revelation.  Such lamentations of doom are not new.

Every so many years, it seems someone or some group claims that the apocalypse is imminent.  An antichrist is sometimes identified and signs are said to be everywhere. But then nothing happens.  Some years later, a new antichrist is identified.  More signs are found, and a new prediction of the end is made.  And, again, nothing happens.

But lately, apocalyptic prophets seem to be gaining influence.  In today’s world, however, these prophets of doom are called ‘environmentalists.’

Appealing to the Catholic Conscience

Today’s secular world is filled with environmental prophets peddling assertions that end of the world is near.  It seems not a day does go by where I am not confronted with such claims in the news or at my place of work.

I tend to think the rhetoric of environmentalism has a special appeal for atheists. It may fill the void created by their rejection of God.  (I think this based on my own past belief system.)

The claims of environmentalists do, however, also tug at the consciences of people of good will.  Hardly anyone of good will wants to be responsible for destroying the environment and possibly the whole planet.

Catholics should know that it is a sin to steal the future from coming generations.  This would be a combination of greed and gluttony.  But are that many of us so heartless as to willingly contribute to the desolation of the earth?  Environmentalists seem to think this is the case.

As such, many of us concede to the trumped up claims and acquiesce to the proposed solutions of the experts.  We want to do the right thing.  But are the claims of impending doom reasonable? And are the proposed actions to combat climate change reasonable?

Predictions over 50 Years

When I was born, the population of the world was going to outstrip the food supply by 1980 resulting in mass starvation.  This claim by Paul Ehrlich of Stanford in 1970 turned out to be false.  What actually happened was the global population grew from 3.7 to 7.8 billion.  Simultaneously the daily nutrition intake increased to over 2,000 calories per person.

The world should be celebrating this fact.  We are nearing the end of world hunger.  Humanity created innovative solutions in farming.  It is almost as if humans were created in God’s own image with a drive to be creative as well!

A mere four years later, Time magazine reported (in 1974) that a New Ice Age was coming with no indication of reversing.  The experts absolutely knew this would happen.  But this fear of doom by global cooling soon fizzled out.  It changed a few years later to global warming.

Then, in 1989, the United Nations reported to the Associated Press that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend was not reversed.  The UN predicted this would happen by the year 2000.  But the sea levels did not rise as predicted.  So, the term “global warming” simply morphed into “climate change.”

During my lifetime I have heard dozens of declarations that we have only 10 years left before it is too late.  Every assertion was made with confidence.

Other predictions of doom were made based on the depletion of the ozone layer, acid rain, shortages of water, and mass floods.  The only prediction that seemed to come true was the renewal of grant money for experts to continue studies to make predictions.

Right or Wrong?

So, are the latest claims of impending doom reasonable?  It would not be logical to reject new claims off hand based on a terrible track record.  That terrible track record does, however, raise some doubts.  The “experts” have been wrong more than they have been right.

Another reason to reject these claims is that the language keeps changing.  Is the problem global cooling, like in the 1970’s, or is it global warming, like in the 1980’s and 1990’s?  Or is it really just climate change?

The earth’s climate has changed a number of times in the past.  Our planet even experienced a “little ice age” from around 1560 to 1850.  “Climatologists believe that a combination of reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation and increased volcanism may have caused the Little Ice Age.”

Now the UN says, “But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.”  Who is to say, however, that “reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation and increased volcanism” will not happen again and cause another little ice age?  No one can predict an increase in solar flares a year from now or the timing of volcano eruptions.

Proposed Solution

So, even if one were to concede to this supposed impending doom, is the proposed action to combat climate change reasonable?

Decarburization of the economy is one solution which most western countries have embraced.  This will decrease the emission of greenhouse gases.  This means eliminating all petroleum products, coal, natural gas, and even wood.  All of these sources of energy create carbon dioxide.

This also means that other products created during the processing of carbon based fuels will be eliminated as well.  Things like plastics to make medical supplies and sterile food packaging.  Decarburization of the economy is not just the elimination of all fossil fuels.  It is the elimination of all carbon based products tied to fossil fuel production.  Have you noticed disposable aluminum cups are now available?  They are intended to replace plastic cups.

So, will decarburization of the west solve the so called climate change problem?  An obvious question to ask is: If CO₂ is the problem, how much CO₂ should be in the atmosphere?

Currently, 0.04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.  What should it be?  0.03%?  0.02%?  When one of these numbers is reached, can fossil fuels be used again?  And if the globe drops below this number, will re-carburization of the atmosphere be needed?

The Solution

This proposed solution seems to ignore data from the fossil records showing that the CO₂ content in the atmosphere was an order of magnitude higher in past with no clear correlation in CO₂ and average global temperature.

The decarburization solution also ignores the carbon cycle.  To vegetation, CO₂ is a vital nutrient.  Plants take the CO₂ out of the air for photosynthesis.  The plants die and eventually make coal, petroleum, etc.  This cycle is similar to the water cycle, but over a much longer duration.  Some even speculate that the current high percentage of deserts is partially caused by a low CO₂ level in the atmosphere.

So basically, the current solution is to decarburize the economy.  We have to lower CO₂ levels an undefined amount to combat the increase of the average global temperature.  (This actually sounds like we are combatting global warming as opposed to mere climate change!)  And let us not worry about how this may affect plant life.  Does this sound like a solution?

Typical Response to Logic

Many have brought up these points before.  However, what is presented above is very much contrary to the current narrative.

Common responses to even asking the questions offered include:

• The Science is settled.
• You are a climate change denier.
• You are anti-science.
• You are not an expert and should not be commenting on this subject.

For some reason, it appears no one should question experts with 50 years of inaccurate predictions.

Catholic Stewards of the Earth

So how should Catholics respond to the secular world’s obsession with environmentalism?  I offer a few comments.

For many in today’s world, environmentalism is their religion with “experts” ordained as their priests. Catholics must first remain Catholic and not allow environmentalism to become a false god.

As Catholics, we are called on to be good stewards of the world.  We should not waste the bounties found on earth through gluttony.  Yes, we should recycle.  We should also not waste water, food, or other goods.  And we should not throw things away just because they are old or new model has come out.

But being a good steward also means one should not mindlessly agree with every declaration of doom made, or follow misguided solutions by climate change activists.  God gave us the ability to think and use logic.  We should not be afraid to challenge declarations.

As Catholics, we should not be stingy with the blessings God has granted us.  We should not keep our talents buried in the ground for fear.  We should not deny anyone affordable fuel to heat their homes or cook their meals.  And we should share the prosperity made possible by harnessing the earth’s natural resources given to us through creation by the Supreme Architect.

As Catholics our moral compass is based on commandments given to us by God. Using the bountiful resources of this world given to us by God is using His blessings.  This is not sinful.  Combating climate change should not become a false crusade that impoverishes the world with no actual impact on a problem that may not really exist.