The Pope’s Eco-mmunist Manifesto

Apart from the religious references, Pope Francis’s climate Encyclical, Laudato Si’ (Praise Be), could have come from any branch of the UN, any environmental NGO, or the World Economic Forum. This is hardly surprising since they all promote Global Salvationism, which is based on projections of doom to be countered by morally charged, UN-centric, globally governed sustainable development and corporate social responsibility.

The one non-religious reference that receives laudations is the Earth Charter, a bogus consultative document dreamed up by Canadian ecomeister Maurice Strong and former Soviet supremo Mikhail Gorbachev. According to the Encyclical, “the Earth Charter asked us to leave behind a period of self-destruction and make a new start, but we have not as yet developed a universal awareness needed to achieve this.”

We might note that the universal awareness of Strong and Gorbachev has left a trail of policy disaster in its wake.

The Pope appears to be blinded by a moral vision that he shares not just with Strong and Gorbachev but with Naomi Klein, Al Gore and David Suzuki: capitalism is evil, is destroying the earth, and involves oppression of the poor and a zerosum struggle for resources that promotes war.

Laudato Si’ not only allies the Church to UN master plans, it wallows in Gaian mysticism, and promotes policies that would damage the very people whom Francis claims are his priority: the poor.

Apart from a general condemnation of the free markets, property rights and fossil-fuelled growth, Francis suggests that unreliable and expensive renewable energy be forced on the wretched of the earth, albeit with the guilty rich footing the bill. Does he want to keep the poor “always with us” because they are his main constituency? He seems far more concerned with afflicting the comfortable than comforting the afflicted.

Ultimately, it seems, Francis doesn’t want to save the poor from bad weather; he wants to save them from Walmart. His most bizarre target as a runaway technology driven by market madness is… air conditioning.

Meanwhile, unsupervised corporate social responsibility does not fare so well. “If in a given region, the state does not carry out its responsibilities,” declares Laudato Si’, “some business groups can come forward in the guise of benefactors, wield real power, and consider themselves exempt from certain rules, to the point of tolerating different forms of organized crime, human trafficking, the drug trade and violence, all of which become very difficult to eradicate.” That’s some bad business. The Encyclical demonizes wicked, heartless and short-sighted straw men. This unnamed “they” are proponents of “throwaway culture” and “compulsive consumerism,” of “rampant individualism” and the “self-centred culture of instant gratification.” They claim “an unlimited right to trample his creation underfoot.” They regard “other living beings as mere objects subjected to arbitrary human domination.” They view nature “solely as a source of profit and gain.” They believe that “maximizing profits is enough.” So, as Lenin asked, what is to be done? The setting up of a Green Comintern ruled by positive adjectives. “What is needed,” declares the Encyclical, “is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis.”

That is, a politics of panoptic wisdom and virtue that has never, ever been seen anywhere on the face of the earth. This new and unprecedented political power will somehow be devoid of the career interests that pervade lesser power structures, such as, say, the Vatican.

Still, a more totalitarian global approach is necessary because silly old public opinion resists measures that restrict consumption, while national governments don’t want to discourage foreign investment. So, “Society, through non-governmental organizations and intermediate groups, must put pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls.” NGOs must also control corporations via product boycotts.

Agreeing with his laterally arabesqued predecessor, Benedict XVI, Francis concludes that “there is urgent need of a true world political authority.” But doesn’t it seem rather bizarre to be castigating the “technocratic paradigm” when that is the UN’s guiding principle? Also, condemning the “cult of unlimited human power” sits a little uneasily with supporting plans to control the global climate.

One thing is for sure: the higher eco morality needs teeth. “Because the stakes are so high, we need institutions empowered to impose penalties for damage inflicted on the environment.” Those so empowered will apparently avoid the pitfalls of “earthly power” because of their qualities of “self control.”

The actual shape of the Brave New Papal World is a bit vague. The specific example of self-sufficient renewable local energy co-operatives offers thin policy gruel (although St. Naomi would approve), as does the promotion of locavorism against evil agribusiness.

The eco-fiscal crowd will be disappointed if they were looking for specific backing for their emission control plans. The Pope rejects cap-and-trade out of hand as speculation, putting Quebec and Ontario in the sin bin. He makes no mention of carbon taxes. It may be that the Eco-fiscaliens’ plans are not draconian enough for the Pope, who wants nothing less than a root and branch makeover of human nature into New Vatican Man.

Echoing every doomster doorstop since The Limits to Growth, the Encyclical declares it crucial to promote a radical change in lifestyles.

The Encyclical was immediately greeted with Hosannas by the global bureaucrats whose Kingdom it heralds. According to UN climate high priest, Christiana Figueres, “This clarion call should guide the world towards a strong and durable universal climate agreement in Paris at the end of this year. Coupled with the economic imperative, the moral imperative leaves no doubt that we must act on climate change now.”

World Bank president Jim Yong Kim — who runs an institution charged with preventing fossil fuel-powered development for the poor — claimed “today’s release … should serve as a stark reminder to all of us on the intrinsic link between climate change and poverty.”

Or should that be the intrinsic link between climate change and the relentless search to justify and enhance bureaucratic power, both religious and secular?

Climate encyclical proposes a Green Comintern ruled by positive adjectives