The papacy could benefit from advisers who understand metrics, numbers, and human action and exchange.
The papacy could benefit from advisers who understand metrics, numbers, and human action and exchange.
O n October 4, Pope Francis decided again to comment in apocalyptic terms “on the climate crisis,” the subject of Laudate Deum, his apostolic exhortation that is the sequel to his 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’. While the document includes some sense of what Catholics call “integral ecology,” linking human dignity, society, and nature, Laudate Deum unfortunately suffers from too much trust in international governing bodies, a missed opportunity for the papacy to be a stronger moral voice when it comes to China, and a fundamental misunderstanding of some basic economics.
Let’s take the global organizations first. You might be tempted to think of the Catholic Church when you think of international organizations committed to the common good. Indeed, this has traditionally been the role of the pope, who as a moral voice also applies Christian principles in the church’s effort to evangelize the world. But the organizations Pope Francis has in mind are the United Nations, with its Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Conference of the Parties (COP), which gave us the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement.
Resorting to apocalyptic language, Pope Francis argues that “the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point” because of climate change caused by human greed. The solution? The pope, quoting himself, wants to see “‘more effective world organizations’” “endowed with real authority, in such a way as to ‘provide for’ the attainment of certain essential goals.” These organizations would establish “global and effective rules” to protect the world.
Pope Francis insists on “the primacy of the human person and the defense of his or her dignity beyond every circumstance.” As pope, he should. Elsewhere, he has done so in bold terms. Sadly, one thing that in his litany of praise for these international organizations he neglects to mention is the promotion of abortion as a fundamental human right by the U.N., in conjunction with the WHO, the World Health Organization.
Pope Francis seems “confident in the capacity of human beings to transcend their petty interests.” But even if we could find an easy way to distinguish “petty interests” from natural and rightly ordered ones, where does this leave the reality of each person’s inclination toward selfishness? Presumably this consequence of original sin, which G. K. Chesterton called “the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved,” extends to those who work in and for international organizations as well. One might argue that, lacking the profit motive, international organizations such as these are insulated from the temptation to be self-serving or exploitative. Even if we were to assume their good intentions, however, it is power that tends to corrupt, as Lord Acton famously said, not the drive for profit. And these agencies seek to wield more and more power over national governments and are funded in the billions of dollars. Moreover, even NGOs are run by people, all of whom are capable of good as well as evil, just like the rest of us. I would argue that the reality of selfishness — a concern for oneself that surpasses self-interest in a way unmindful of the common good — enjoins us to promote just the opposite: small government, to ward against corruption.
And then there’s the question of China.
Pope Francis compares the United States unfavorably to China by noting that “emissions per individual in the United States are about two times greater than those of individuals living in China.”
This statistic does not tell the whole story and in fact hides the more important tale. In citing per capita alone, Francis is Laudate Deum neglects to note that China’s current population is 1.4 billion people and that of the United States, 330 million. Measuring by nation instead, we find that the United States is on a historically downward trend, producing 11 percent of global emissions. In 1990, the United States produced 17 percent. China, on the other hand, was at 9 percent in 1990 but has been trending to more emissions for decades now, and now it is more than double that of the United States, at 26 percent.
The real question is why Pope Francis would choose to conclude Laudate Deum by calling out the United States and China by name but condemning only the first. Given the human-rights record of China, ruled by the Communist Party, this is a missed opportunity to talk about authentic human dignity in the context of a truly “integral ecology.”
Finally, let’s consider Laudate Deum in the context of economics and the problem of scarcity.
Only God creates ex nihilo, making something from nothing. Everything else in our world of scarce resources comes at a cost. In other words, we must sacrifice something to get something else. Economists, whom Pope Francis criticizes along with “financiers and experts in technology,” call this a trade-off. A trade-off entails giving up something of value in exchange for something else of equal or greater value. This happens in every exchange.
Yet men and women create wealth and add value to scarce resources through their ingenuity and creativity. Indeed, creating wealth involves the transformation of ideas and matter into real resources by entrepreneurs. It is not a zero-sum game. Put simply, value creation is accomplished not only through natural-resource extraction. Pope Paul VI laid this out in Populorum Progressio, where he notes that scripture teaches that “the whole of creation is for man” and that “he has been charged to give it meaning by his intelligent activity, to complete and perfect it by his own efforts and to his own advantage.”
Pope Francis also lampoons those who “accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists.” The pope may be warning against insatiability and avarice. If so, he ought to be clearer, since his intentions are no doubt good and spring from a concern for the poor and a desire for good stewardship of resources. Indeed, he is right that unlimited growth is an attractive idea to economists, but not in the bleak, almost Malthusian way he means. Why? Because unlimited growth is not the same as exploitative, destructive growth. Leaders of private enterprise, NGOs, and government all insist that there is much promise in new technologies and innovations to promote a real integral ecology that raises living standards and enhances the common good without compromising the environment. Ask yourself this question: When is it appropriate to stop growth and development? The only alternatives to economic growth are stagnation, recession, and depression. Which of these is better for the poor? There is an answer: Growth is better.
It seems to me that Pope Francis could benefit from advisers who understand metrics, numbers, and human action and exchange. In other words, rather than criticizing all “economists,” perhaps he ought to hire some. I’d be happy to make recommendations.