Data Series No. 1: On pharmaceuticals and personal care products

Many of my colleagues have lots of information to share—as do the researchers that I work with when writing this blog (or elsewhere) about the Catholic perspective of ecology. It makes sense, then, to bring a little of what they know to you.

And so today, on the Feast of St. Kateri Tekakwitha, patron of the environment, we begin what I hope to be a series of occasional interviews with those in the know. 

I hope these posts help us better appreciate the work that's being done to understand how man’s actions are impacting ecosystems—and what we can do to make things better.

The inaugural interview is with one of my fellow engineers at the Department of Environmental Management. Sam Kaplan recently published a summary of what science is showing us about the impact on ecosystems of pharmaceuticals and personal care products. It’s a fascinating topic that, as Sam notes, has a great deal more to tell us—especially about human health impacts. But for now, we’ll let Sam tell you the state of the science at present.

Catholic Ecology: Tell us a little about you—your background and what led you to write your paper on pharmaceutical and personal care products.

Sam Kaplan: I've worked for the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management as an engineer since 2004 and before that I was a homeland security consultant at the Rhode Island Department of Health. During graduate studies at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, I wrote a journal article manuscript entitled "Review: Pharmacological Pollution in Water." I had heard about pharamcological pollution for the first time when I was at the Department of Health. A coworker who was very forward thinking circulated a news story about fish that had visible mutations which were attributed to the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products ("PPCPs") in the water.

My article summarizes research highlights on all aspects of the topic from approximately 1999 (when research in this field took off due to improved laboratory methods) to 2010. Before I tell you more, I would like to thank the researchers whose work I cited. It is very challenging to do original research about PPCPs because they typically occur in the environmental at the nanogram per liter (ng/L) level. 28 ng/L is one drop of water in an Olympic sized swimming pool. Measuring these small doses requires very meticulous sampling and lab work.

Where was the paper published and what reactions have you received?

The paper was published in March of 2013 in "Critical Review in Environmental Science and Technology.” I have not had anyone I did not previously know contact me about the article, but I did find out from Google Scholar that some researchers in China cited my work to provide context for their research, which measured PPCPs in riverbed sediments in China.

What are some of the main themes that you found about the research related to disposal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products?

PPCPs get into surface water and ground water from via sewage, farms, landfills, and toilet flushing of unused medications. There are some better alternatives to toilet flushing. The best thing to do is to return unused medication to your pharmacy, if they accept it for proper disposal. But most pharmacies don't accept unused medications for liability reasons. Another alternative is to bring medications to collection locations on drug take-back days run by the US Drug Enforcement Agency with the help of law enforcement agencies. Another alternative is to put unused medication in a resealable bag with coffee grounds or kitty litter and place it in the trash. The resealable bag prevents drugs for leaching into groundwater at the landfill, and the coffee grounds or kitty litter makes the drugs less likely to fall into the wrong hands. 

However, if your doctor specifically instructs you to flush the medication, you should take his or her advice because some highly toxic, alergenic, addictive, or controlled substances present a human health hazard that outweighs the environmental consequences. I would add that all of this advice and everything else in this interview is based on my own research, and I am speaking for myself, not my employer.

What is the research not clear about and what do we need to learn? Is any of that research taking place?

The big unanswered question is what, if any, impacts the presence of PPCPs in drinking water is having on human health. As of the time the article was published, there is little evidence to indicate human health impacts, so there should be no cause for alarm. At the same time, I would add that we really don't know what the human health impacts are because any exposure from drinking water would happen at very, very low levels over a lifetime, and conventional risk assessment models for other areas of toxicology focus on short-term acute exposure to high levels of one drug that measure visible effects in the patient. So risk assessment models will have to be developed that are just the opposite: lifetime exposure to many substances with effects that are subtle, hard to measure, and hard to separate out from other stressors.

Research into the human health effects of PPCPs is a subset of research into human health effects of endocrine-disrupting compound (EDCs), natural and synthetic substances which mimic human and animal hormones. About a month ago, I received a call for papers about human health impacts of EDCs and PPCPs, so that's where the focus is now.

What facts surprised you the most as you were assembling this research summary?

In contrast with human heath effects, which, as I noted, are in the process of being researched, there is evidence to indicate a variety of sub-lethal effects on freshwater and marine aquatic life at different levels of the food chain. Let me give two examples which I cited in my article:

• Saaristo et al. (2010) found that just 41 ng/L of a hormone changed the courtship and parenting behavior of the sand goby fish. These are sublethal impacts, but impacts that could have a detrimental effect on offspring and population. Please keep in mind that 41 ng/L is one and a half drops of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool, so some of these PPCPs are extremely potent to animals who are continuously exposed.

• Ericson et. al. (2010) performed lab studies on Baltic Sea blue mussels. They exposed these organisms to different levels of three common pharmaceutical PPCPs and evaluated the organisms' responses. They found that the animals physiology was affected in certain portions of the experiment with effects that included muscle weakness, and bioconcentration of these substances in the mussel's tissues at over 100 times ambient levels. Now this may sound like typical experiment, but one surprise finding was that one of the pharmaceutical PPCPs (propranolol, an anti-hypertensive) was found in the mussels gathered from the Baltic Sea for use in the experiment before the experiment even began.

What important facts should people know about how chemicals are impacting local ecologies and human health?

As I said, the human health impacts are unknown, however, there is a lot of evidence to indicate the presence of PPCPs in a wide range of saltwater and freshwater species at many different levels of the foodchain, with sublethal effects quantified is some of those cases. To give a few more examples, Wilson et. al. (2003) found significant differences between algea communities upstream and downstream of a wastewater treatment plant which may be attributable to the presence of PPCPs. Fair et. al. (2009) found one particular PPCP, triclosan, an antimicrobial disinfectant, in the blood plasma of 7 of 26 dolphins evaluated in a catch and release study in coastal regions of South Carolina and Florida. If you include all the species that are or could be affected, over the life cycle of each organisms, over many generations, the impacts could be quite significant, and yet it would be hard to tease out those effects from other environmental stressors, making a definitive evaluation even more difficult. This argument was the thesis of a landmark article by Daughon and Ternes in 1999, and the research I cited provided further evidence of the veracity of that thesis.

The bottom line is that we need to think about ways to reduce our discharge of PPCPs to the environment, but we also have to balance that against the beneficial effect that many of these PPCPs have on human health, and recognize that improving human health is also an important societal goal.

What's the good news, if any, that the research is showing us? 

Research by Dr. Christian Daughton of the US Environmental Protection Agency (2003) indicated that there may be some innovative nonregulatory responses that drug companies can take to voluntarily to reduce the environmental impacts of PPCPs. This falls under the banner of "green chemistry" and includes the development of drugs that are better absorbed by the body, and the use doses of medication that are customized to a drug consumer's physiology, preventing the use of doses that are higher than necessary. In this work, Daughton also suggested things that drug companies and pharmacies could do to make it less likely that drugs would go unused only to be flushed down the toilet later. This includes allowing prescriptions to be filled in lower amounts, like getting 10 pills instead of 30, and developing more exact drug expiration dates. I reached out to Dr. Daughton several times when doing my research and he was very helpful, so I would like to thank him. He put me in touch with people at US EPA in Washington who provided me with information about regulatory developments (which, for the sake of brevity I won't get into) and one person at US EPA even reviewed the entire manuscript on behalf of US EPA.

What else would you like to add?

I want to thank my advisor, Professor John Bergendahl of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He was my instructor for the independant study in which I wrote the article manuscript. Studying this topic was my idea but writing the article was his idea. A good teacher encourages their students to aim high and then go for it, and then supports them in that goal, and that's what he did.

What needs to be done to prevent any harm being caused by pharmaceuticals and personal care products?

At the consumer level, proper drug disposal is part of the solution. It would be great if the drug companies would get on board and start to adopt some of Dr. Daugton's suggestions for green pharmacy on a wide scale, with high visibility. Green pharmacy would also be a great thing for scientists and chemistry and biology students to research and explore. It would change the world and I also think it would be a great business opportunity, and it would be a chance for corporations to be models for responsible environmental stewardship. This problem cannot be solved by regulation alone, and we need all sectors—corporations, health care, education, and government to contribute to a solution.

Lastly, I would like to thank you, Bill, for the opportunity to share my findings with your readers. Your enthusiasm for environmental protection is making Rhode Island a better place.

[Note: I did not pay Sam for the kind words, but I am thankful that he took the time to share his findings with us.]

Catholic Ecology Home

The Light of Faith: Truth for the natural order

[Faith] illumines the material world, trusts its inherent order and knows that it calls us to an ever widening path of harmony and understanding. The gaze of science thus benefits from faith: faith encourages the scientist to remain constantly open to reality in all its inexhaustible richness. Faith awakens the critical sense by preventing research from being satisfied with its own formulae and helps it to realize that nature is always greater. By stimulating wonder before the profound mystery of creation, faith broadens the horizons of reason to shed greater light on the world which discloses itself to scientific investigation. [Lumen Fidei, Section 34]

What a day in Rome. Pope Francis and Benedict XVI come together to consecrate the Vatican to St. Michael while it is announced that Bl. John Paul II and Bl. John XXIII are on the road to sainthood.

Then there is Lumen Fidei, the much anticipated encyclical on faith. This letter to the Church—begun by Benedict XVI and completed by Pope Francis—is a lofty, profound, tender, and much-needed statement on Christianity and the nature of the Church.

Early impressions are in, such as this one by David Cloutier and this one by James V. Schall S.J., as worldwide discussions are underway among clergy, academics, and the lay faithful. And so the Church grows as these 18,000 or so words begin nurturing and challenging the People of God.

I especially appreciate the lines above. They speak well to Catholics engaged in scientific matters. But then, Lumen Fidei in its entirety is a love letter to the Church filled with passages worth interiorizing, pondering, and—especially—sharing.

I was happy to see a direct acknowledgement of how faith can impact our understanding of the natural environment. In a document that maintains a broad view of earthly affairs without delving into the details of this or that particular issue, words about ecology show how deeply rooted the topic is within the minds of the pontiff and the pope emeritus.

In speaking of the incarnational nature of Christianity—of maintaining the goodness of creation—Pope Francis weaves the natural environment with Christianity’s view of humanity. The pairing is striking, especially since the section ends with a sorely needed quality in today’s divisive world: forgiveness. In speaking of forgiveness, the document calls to mind earlier discussions by John Paul II and Benedict XVI on “human ecology.” Also noteworthy is the opening of the section: an apologetic reminder of what Christianity has brought to human cultures.

How many benefits has the gaze of Christian faith brought to the city of men for their common life! Thanks to faith we have come to understand the unique dignity of each person, something which was not clearly seen in antiquity. In the second century the pagan Celsus reproached Christians for an idea that he considered foolishness and delusion: namely, that God created the world for man, setting human beings at the pinnacle of the entire cosmos. "Why claim that [grass] grows for the benefit of man, rather thanfor that of the most savage of the brute beasts?" "If we look down to Earth from the heights of heaven, would there really be any difference between our activities and those of the ants and bees?" At the heart of biblical faith is God’s love, his concrete concern for every person, and his plan of salvation which embraces all of humanity and all creation, culminating in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without insight into these realities, there is no criterion for discerning what makes human life precious and unique. Man loses his place in the universe, he is cast adrift in nature, either renouncing his proper moral responsibility or else presuming to be a sort of absolute judge, endowed with an unlimited power to manipulate the world around him.

Faith, on the other hand, by revealing the love of God the Creator, enables us to respect nature all the more, and to discern in it a grammar written by the hand of God and a dwelling place entrusted to our protection and care. Faith also helps us to devise models of development which are based not simply on utility and profit, but consider creation as a gift for which we are all indebted; it teaches us to create just forms of government, in the realization that authority comes from God and is meant for the service of the common good. Faith likewise offers the possibility of forgiveness, which so often demands time and effort, patience and commitment. Forgiveness is possible once we discover that goodness is always prior to and more powerful than evil, and that the word with which God affirms our life is deeper than our every denial. From a purely anthropological standpoint, unity is superior to conflict; rather than avoiding conflict, we need to confront it in an effort to resolve and move beyond it, to make it a link in a chain, as part of a progress towards unity. [Sections 54, 55]

There is another section—well, there are many sections, but this one especially—that I suggest goes to the heart of our world’s ecological crises, which are really crises of faith. I offer this as an example of how an authentic Catholic engagement of ecology must never forget the roots of faith: 

There is an urgent need, then, to see once again that faith is a light, for once the flame of faith dies out, all other lights begin to dim. The light of faith is unique, since it is capable of illuminating every aspect of human existence. A light this powerful cannot come from ourselves but from a more primordial source: in a word, it must come from God. Faith is born of an encounter with the living God who calls us and reveals his love, a love which precedes us and upon which we can lean for security and for building our lives.

Transformed by this love, we gain fresh vision, new eyes to see; we realize that it contains a great promise of fulfilment, and that a vision of the future opens up before us. Faith, received from God as a supernatural gift, becomes a light for our way, guiding our journey through time. [Section 4]

And certainly, rightly guided journeys are vital if we are to steward well the natural world.

There will be much written and said in the days and years ahead about Lumen Fidei and its place in the life of the Church. If you haven’t, add it to your reading list—it won’t take long and it makes for a stirring mini-retreat.

And if you have a moment, spend a few minutes with this video. It’s a beautiful narration of an 1893 essay by the Croation scientist Nikola Tesla (1856-1943). Apparently Tesla’s father, a Serbian Orthodox priest, had some influence on his son. The words you will hear, and the images of the filmmakers, resonate with many themes from Lumen Fidei. They especially call to mind the quote that opens this posting. Whether or not the filmakers or Tesla realized it, what is said in this video speaks to the innate human yearning for nature’s truths and how, like it or not, these truths build up humanity only when illuminated with the light of faith.

Catholic Ecology Home

Happy birthday, America—the beautiful

St. Ann Parish in Kosciusko, TX

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

My deacon preached well this morning about the founding of the United States of America—an event rooted in a Christian worldview, as evidenced by the words above from the Declaration of Independence. One wonders if, given the rise of secularism, this founding document will soon be outlawed in public schools.

America along with much of the West is accelerating the speed with which it forgets—or actively casts aside—its Christian worldview. The resulting damage will be (and already is) profound. Within the rubble will be a good many people, families, cultures, and ecosystems.

In reflecting on the 60^th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy by allied forces, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote an essay that opens thus ... 

On the 6th of June, 1944, when the landing of the allied troops in German-occupied rance commenced, a signal of hope was given to people throughout the world, and also to many in Germany itself, of imminent peace and freedom in Europe.  What had happened?  A criminal and his party faithful had succeeded in usurping the power of the German state.

In consequence of such party rule, law and injustice became intertwined, and often indistinguishable. The legal system itself, which continued, in some respects, still to function in an everyday context, had, at the same time, become a force destructive of law and right. This rule of lies served a system of fear, in which no one could trust another, since each person had somehow to shield himself behind a mask of lies, which, on the one hand, functioned as self defense, while, in equal measure, it served to consolidate the power of evil.  And so it was that the whole world had to intervene to force open this ring of crime, so that freedom, law and justice might be restored.

We give thanks at this hour that this deliverance, in fact, took place. And not just those nations that suffered occupation by German troops, and were thus delivered over to Nazi terror, give thanks. We Germans, too, give thanks that by this action, freedom, law and justice would be restored to us.  If nowhere else in history, here clearly is a case where, in the form of the Allied invasion, a justum bellum worked, ultimately, for the benefit of the very country against which it was waged.

To Europe was given, after 1945, a period of peace of such duration as our continent had never seen in its entire history.  To no small degree, this was the accomplishment of the first generation of post-war politicians -- Churchill, Adenauer, Schuman, De Gasperi - whom we have to thank at this hour: We are to give thanks that it was not punishment that was fixed upon, nor again revenge and the humiliation of the defeated, but rather that all should be accorded their rights.

Let us say it openly: These politicians took their moral ideas of state and right, peace and responsibility, from their Christian faith, a faith that had undergone the tests of the Enlightenment, and in opposing the perversion of justice and morality of the party-states, had emerged re-purified. They did not want to found a state upon religious faith, but rather a state informed by moral reason, yet it was their faith that helped them to raise up again a reason once distorted by, and held in thrall to ideological tyranny.

Ratzinger (and, as pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI) spoke and wrote often about the West’s Christian roots and the consequences of claiming independence from them. 

Among these consequences will be an undoing of cultural norms (as we’re seeing with marriage) and the continued erosion of the natural environment. After all, why should one heed one set of natural laws and not others?

There is a link, as Pope Benedict noted, between our duties to the human person and the environment. There is also, then, a link between the degradation of both.

And so on this Fourth of July here in the United States of America, let us pray that we do not forget the divinely ordained laws that assure life, human dignity, and societal stability. Nor can we forget the Author of these laws. 

So if you have a moment, pray the prayer for the nation written by Archbishop John Carroll in 1791. His words remain ever relevant. My pastor led us in this prayer after morning Mass today. It was a powerful moment. These few words especially struck me ...

We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law; that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world cannot give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are eternal.

 May God continue to shed His grace on America—the beautiful!

Catholic Ecology Home

How to communicate climate change? With hope.

"The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life." Pope Benedict XVI. Spe Salvi §2

Last week I took part in three days of training on public policy and the science of climate change. NOAA’s Coastal Services Center brought the workshop to Rhode Island with the help of the University of Rhode Island’s Coastal Institute and the Narragansett Bay Estuary Reserve, which is a partnership between NOAA, the Audubon Society of Rhode Island, and my agency.

About three dozen state and local officials took part in a whirlwind of presentations and activities on climate and coastal sciences, policy, and example practices of climate change adaptation. The trainers were wonderful and the networking among the local participants will be invaluable.

Day three of the event focused on communicating climate change. The trainers did an evenhanded job of managing ideological presuppositions among the group, especially when it came to issues of communicating with those who do not “believe” in climate-change science.

To make their points and to generate discussion the trainers used a number of videos—either professional public service announcements for widespread use or those made with less funding for smaller audiences.

One that I liked most was the least controversial. It nicely demonstrates the relationship between trends and variations. That is, for the purposes of climate discussions, how weather and climate differ. This is an important distinction because too often people experience a snowy winter and determine that climate change isn’t really a reality. Watch how the video explains all this with a readily accessible metaphor.

A second video, a British public service ad that also includes a dog, won much less support. Most of us thought it a bit manipulative. One participant said that it was “tricky” and advised against such emotional techniques. My counterpart in the state’s drinking water section and I both found the drowning dog a bit much. And we are not alone in our assessment. In looking for the video, I discovered that it has stirred up a cottage industry of spoofs that lampoon the video's "scary climate monster" imagery. But watch the original and then I'll make a final point (oh, and this video is part of a series, so feel free to stop it at the ending tag line or else it will jump to the next one.):

While I wouldn’t endorse this ad, I understand the creators’ frustration. Like so many of us, the makers of this video wanted to capture the attention of those who think it wise to help future generations (all of them) enjoy the planet. I also found the ending helpful because it offered hope: In the face of major global crises, there are small things that you and I can do, like use less electricity. Offering the individual homeowner (and children) hope—steps that we can take and so that we can exhibit some control—was a topic that we returned to often in our discussions on climate communication.

A much better video was this one from Climate Wisconsin. Its creator is spoken word artist Elijah Furquan. He and the team that assembled the visuals have created a very real, incarnational look at how a warming climate impacts every day people—in this case the urban poor and elderly. Great, great job.

The final video falls somewhere between the one with a drowning puppy and the one by Climate Wisconsin. This one dramatizes a 2011 Washington Post commentary by Bill McKibben of 350.org.

The trainers surprised us with the video after they had us read the commentary quietly to ourselves. After reading it, most of us agreed that the piece, as text, seemed “snarky,” as one of my colleagues put it. But I understood McKibben’s frustration. Indeed, I might have written a piece like that myself.

But was it effective? According to this assembly of folks from state and local governments, the answer was mixed and leaned toward no. The takeaway became the delivery and not the content. And as my friend Bill Jacobs pointed out, there are some factual issues in the piece. For my part, I very much appreciate McKibben’s desire to show trends—to connect the dots of climate change and in doing so make a substantial case. But McKibben mocks the “mantra” that no single weather event can prove that the climate is changing. And yet that is actually the case: The climatologists and meteorologists I deal with typically stop short of saying that this or that storm occurred because of climate change. And as noted before, I am not especially keen on using tragedies to influence policy debates.

But many of these stylistic concerns largely evaporate when you listen to McKibben’s piece narrated to targeted images framed with a dramatic score. You should read the piece first and then watch the video and see (and hear) the difference:

Your thoughts? Effective? Manipulative? Both?

Communicating the realities of climate change science requires a great deal of thought about the audience, the message, and about our own levels of frustration. Certainly, science is giving us profoundly dismal news. (If the updates received at last week’s training were correct, the actual trends in sea-level rise are moving past previous upper-end projections.)

And yet, communicating dismal news requires hope.

While a recent PEW study indicates that worldwide many of us are putting climate change on the top of issues of concern, there are still a great many others who do not or cannot accept what is already occurring. Many may be frightened into into a fatalistic mentality that all is lost, so they'd rather not deal with the subject at all.

This is where people of faith—of hope—have a place. As Pope Benedict instructs us in Spe Salvi:

As Christians we should never limit ourselves to asking: how can I save myself? We should also ask: what can I do in order that others may be saved and that for them too the star of hope may rise? Then I will have done my utmost for my own personal salvation as well.

And what is true in the spiritual realm is also true in the material. In our dialogue within secular realms, we may not be able to use the specifically Christian terms we wish, but we must bring hope. (I was biting my tongue at various points in the training because the answers I wanted to offer were answers rooted in the Gospel. And so I used terms like “common good,” “natural law,” and “what it means to be human.” I believe these terms made my points well enough for the setting.)

There is much work ahead for Catholic ecologists. We must enter this conversation on climate change and authentically, charitably, and unabashedly offer the truth, the life, and the way.

Sure, being effective may mean offering daring, dramatic words and images—much like the Climate Wisconsin video. After all, Our Lord often shocked and startled his listeners with dramatic images and unexpected conclusions, but He did this so that His message resonated with the soul.

And thus the point: The most important question is not the communication techniques that we should or should not use. Rather, the question is what motivates us. Are we seeking to communicate our message of hope out of love and concern, or are we seeking to manipulate with dire predictions for the sake of wielding power to control other people’s choices?

Again, here is where Catholic sensibilities can make a world of difference. By reminding our colleagues that the true basis for sounding the climate alarm is hope, we make difficult conversations more effective because we can ground them in eternal truth and sacrificial love.

Catholic Ecology Home

President Obama and future generations

Photo: Flicker.com/By Barack Obama

President Obama gave an important speech today at Georgetown University about climate change and his administration’s plan to deal with it.

Coincidentally, as he spoke I was at the first of a three-day workshop on incorporating climate-change science into government policy—an activity I am involved with as my office is seeking climate-change vulnerability assessments for Rhode Island’s expensive wastewater treatment infrastructure.

Having now read the president’s plan, I wasn’t surprised to find the steps being proposed. They include good steps, and necessary ones. As the president noted in announcing the plan:

The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years.  Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on record—faster than most models had predicted it would.  These are facts. 

Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change.  Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times.  But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet.  The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago -- that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater.

The president continued to outline the realities of what science is (overwhelmingly) showing us—which you can read about here and here, or spend four minutes with this video.

I wish the administration well in its efforts to deal with a changing climate—just as I hope for the best for my agency’s similar work, as well as the work of many other nations, states, and municipalities, not to mention private industries.

Moreover, I very much appreciate the president’s statement to the young people gathered before him that he refuses “to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” And I stand to applaud his words that “[a]s a president, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act”—because we do need to act—now, profoundly, and with great wisdom.

And yet I must ask: What of those "future generations" who will not be allowed their birth? What of the pro-abortion policies of the president, his administration, and a good many members of his party in Congress—as well as a few folks from the opposite side of the isle, too?

Here we consider the wisdom of the pope emeritus, who provided the words at the top of this blog: that our duties toward the environment are linked to our duties toward the human person. “It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment, and damages society."

Concern over the impacts of climate change seems strange if one also accepts that the intentional killing of unborn children is acceptable and should be encouraged with tax payer funding.

Photo: Flicker.com/By Barack Obama

As for the president’s climate-change plan, it will certainly be too much for some and not enough for others but for the Catholic ecologist it is hypocritical. Seeking to protect future generations from current policies and technologies is certainly the job of the state. But, more importantly, so is rejecting that we can eliminate members of future generations because we refuse to acknowledge their humanity.

In comparing his climate change call-to-arms with President Kennedy’s challenge to send a man to the moon, President Obama said that “[o]ur progress here will be measured differently—in crises averted, in a planet preserved.  But can we imagine a more worthy goal?”

Yes, I can: A culture of life would be infinitely more worthy. Saving the lives of babies would be a good start.

The president went on: “For while we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.”

Whose children? Which ones will benefit from a world “better off” and which ones will have their lifeless, mangled bodies sent to medical waste disposal facilities?

Finally, after some 6,200 words, the president ended with a wish that I share deeply:

“God bless you. God bless the United States of America.”

Yes, may God bless us—and forgive us. But if I may, I would suggest this ending be added to the president’s speech:

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.

Catholic Ecology Home

Pope Francis: Ponder JP II's Evangelium Vitae

Photo: Flicker/by Bruce MacRae

Pope Francis has asked us to ponder the great 1995 encyclical on life by Bl. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae—which carried on the thoughts of Paul VI in Humane Vitae.

Evangelium Vitae had much that is important to say to Catholic ecologists, including this important passage:

As one called to till and look after the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15), man has a specific responsibility towards the environment in which he lives, towards the creation which God has put at the service of his personal dignity, of his life, not only for the present but also for future generations. It is the ecological question-ranging from the preservation of the natural habitats of the different species of animals and of other forms of life to "human ecology" properly speaking - which finds in the Bible clear and strong ethical direction, leading to a solution which respects the great good of life, of every life. In fact, "the do-minion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to use and misuse', or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to eat of the fruit of the tree' (cf. Gen 2:16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity".

As the reporter in this RomeReports.com clip tells us, because Evangelium Vitae "openly addresses ecology and social issues, the encyclical also serves as a key document to promote the New Evangelization."

Take some time and read through this powerful document. And say a prayer that you, me, business leaders, and government officials are transformed by the Gospel of Life and the words of Blessed John Paul II. If we are, by the grace of God, we can then build up in our world a culture that respects all life.

Catholic Ecology Home

Tweeting truth: On human life and the "culture of waste"

Pope Francis tweeted yesterday a short statement that has immense implications.

The words followed his General Audience last week, which he used to make his first substantial addition to the magisterial conversation on ecology. In his audience was this statement that echoes the message of his tweet: 

This "culture of waste" tends to become the common mentality that infects everyone. Human life, the person is no longer perceived as a primary value to be respected and protected, especially if poor or disabled, if not yet useful - such as the unborn child - or no longer needed - such as the elderly. 

All of this continues the words of Benedict XVI at the top of this blog.

There is a link, as Benedict XVI put it, between the ecological ills of our age and the more traditionally considered life issues of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and euthanasia. Moreover, this link has something to tell us about how to address both problems.

But in order to address either one, we must first deal with unhealthy divisions that prevent the cultivation of a true culture of life.

There can be either ambivalence or a strong dislike for ecological issues by many who struggle heroically to end the slaughter of the unborn, the harvest of embryos, or the intentional killing of the elderly or the infirm. Likewise, there is a sense of non-urgency or even support by some Catholic environmentalists for issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research. Then there is the third category, those who appreciate the importance of how the Holy Fathers are linking human life and ecology without making them equivalent.

Those in the first and second groups often clash, and this is troublesome. One can only imagine how our ancient enemy revels in the hostilities brought about by such polarization. As a warning about disconnecting human life issues and ecology, Benedict XVI has taught that “[i]t would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment, and damages society.” (Caritas in Veritate, 51)

Pope Francis has also sought to unite factions when he noted that man has in the modern age commoditized the human person as well as all creation. We have made human life and relationships as easily disposable as a spent bottle of soda, an empty tube of toothpaste, or an entire ecosystem.

Thus, the underlying causes of our ecological and human life crises can be jointly addressed because they are linked to the same human brokenness: the sin-induced human tendency to toss aside that which one no longer wants—or loves.

This means that the fixes that ecologists seek are the same ones sought by those who fight for the right to life of the unborn and infirmed. These fixes seek the cultivation of a people who love sacrificially as they stand in awe at the very notion of human reproduction as well as the human life-support systems that ecosystems provide—not to mention standing in awe of God, who created all this in the beginning.

Benedict XVI  noted that “[t]he book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development.”

Pope Francis continues this teaching by reminding us that we will never be able to address the problems of over-consumption and waste if we don’t also address the reasons why so many find it acceptable to throw away innocent and vulnerable human beings.

Catholic Ecology Home

Pope Francis: "Culture of waste" requires a Catholic response

Photo: Flicker/Catholic Church (England and Wales)

I would like us all to make a serious commitment to respect and protect creation, to be attentive to every person, to counter the culture of waste and disposable, to promote a culture of solidarity and of encounter. Thank you. 

Pope Francis. General Audience June 5th, 2013.

The US Environmental Protection Agency reports that in 1960 the United States produced some 88 million tons of municipal waste. In 2010 that number climbed to just under 250 million tons—and it may have been higher had a recession not slowed consumption. This jump reflects an almost 184 percent increase in what Americans throw out even though our population increased by only 60 percent. 

This disparate increase has much to do with what we buy, the quantities thereof, its expected use-life, how it is packaged, and how the packaging itself is packaged, wrapped, surrounded with polystyrene, cardboard, and shrink-wrap. Even simple items like lettuce and chewing gum now come in plastic containers that we use ever so briefly and then throw away. While recycling has trimmed the tonnage being trucked to landfills, America is still a nation that consumes and wastes much more than it ever has. The question is: Why?

Pope Francis provided some answers in his first major statement on ecology—natural and human. His sweeping eco-comments at Wednesday’s General Audience offer us much to consider. But one theme in particular dominated his words—a theme that follows quite naturally from his predecessor, who he quoted throughout his audience. 

Man is not in charge today, money is in charge, money rules. God our Father did not give the task of caring for the earth to money, but to us, to men and women: we have this task! Instead, men and women are sacrificed to the idols of profit and consumption: it is the “culture of waste.” 

Western cultures—and those tempted to follow the ways of the West—have come to expect that one can and deserves to attain and consume whatever (and whomever) one wants. Advertisements not only insist that you can have it your way and have as much as you want, but that you deserve to have whatever it is that’s being sold—even if you have lived all these years quite well without it. The makers of such ads understand the fractures in the human soul. They intuitively know that the effects of original sin can be used as a foothold for profit. They create characters and settings that excite our passions. They use language that tugs at our insecurities and at the faint awareness of our incompleteness—a lack of love that all humans crave to fill. In all, the vocation of advertising has become a means to convince us that fulfillment comes only from the attainment of earthly goods.

This was also the belief of our iconic parents. As Adam and Eve learned about the consequences of their grasping, we are learning that every man-made environmental issue demonstrates that having it our way comes with quite serious and often permanent problems. As discussions of toxic chemicals and species extinction show us, there is a connection between our consumption and the quality and quantity of life on earth—most especially human life, born and unborn. This consumption also has spiritual ramifications, and thus requires a pastoral response as well as an intellectual one. This is why understanding what ecology is showing us and the work of environmental protection, authentically understood and practiced, is a Catholic duty.

Quite simply, environmental protection will benefit from a Catholic awareness of virtue, which defines authentic, ecologically sound human existence: prudence to make right choices; justice to ensure that the rights of strangers are not compromised in our search for pleasure or raw materials; fortitude to guide our urges toward a common good, and especially the virtue of temperance, which we need desperately to consume less.

When graced with the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, these virtues will reorient our inner attitudes to seek fulfillment not in what we consume, but in how well we "love in the present," as a young Joseph Ratzinger put it.

Reorienting the way we fulfill—or turn from—our many appetites has far-reaching ends that go far beyond issues of natural ecology. They affect human ecology, too. This is the very point that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis have been expressing, and it is a fundamental message within revelation. Benedict XVI stated it succinctly in noting that each society must engage in a “serious review of its lifestyle, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences. What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new lifestyles.” (Caritas in Veritate, 51)

And now his successor continues the lesson: 

This "culture of waste" tends to become the common mentality that infects everyone. Human life, the person is no longer perceived as a primary value to be respected and protected, especially if poor or disabled, if not yet useful - such as the unborn child - or no longer needed - such as the elderly. This culture of waste has made us insensitive even to the waste and disposal of food, which is even more despicable when all over the world, unfortunately, many individuals and families are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Once our grandparents were very careful not to throw away any leftover food. Consumerism has led us to become used to an excess and daily waste of food, to which, at times, we are no longer able to give a just value, which goes well beyond mere economic parameters. We should all remember, however, that throwing food away is like stealing from the tables of the the poor, the hungry! I encourage everyone to reflect on the problem of thrown away and wasted food to identify ways and means that, by seriously addressing this issue, are a vehicle of solidarity and sharing with the needy.

To think of the other as we consume "our" food (or any resource, or anyone), we must focus on what drives us to consume and waste all that we do. And we must introduce ourselves to what—indeed, Whom—we truly seek. As Saint Augustine has noted, our hearts are restless until they rest with the Triune God—the God who is relation and love. This is precisely the meaning of Pope Francis's hope of a "culture of solidarity and of encounter."

The task of the Catholic ecologist, then, must primarily be to proclaim the good news of Christ’s offer of life—which comes through the sacrifice of the Cross. For in the end, it will not be science or educational programs that will still our gluttonous consumption. It will be the Gospel of Life and the Grace of God that will reorient and elevate our nature—and in so doing protect nature itself.

 Catholic Ecology Home

Pope Francis takes on waste

Photo: Flicker/Catholic Church (England and Wales)

Excellent words from Pope Francis at today's weekly general audience. In it he links
ecological and human ills, as have his predecessors. But he is pure Pope Francis in presenting the message. I'll have more analysis in the days to come but for now his words speak for themselves. Read well. There are many gems here.

Dear brothers and sisters, good morning! 

Today I want to focus on the issue of the environment, which I have already spoken of on several occasions. Today we also mark World Environment Day, sponsored by the United Nations, which sends a strong reminder of the need to eliminate the waste and disposal of food.

When we talk about the environment, about creation, my thoughts turn to the first pages of the Bible, the Book of Genesis, which states that God placed man and woman on earth to cultivate and care for it (cf. 2:15). And the question comes to my mind: What does cultivating and caring for the earth mean? Are we truly cultivating and caring for creation? Or are we exploiting and neglecting it? The verb "to cultivate" reminds me of the care that the farmer has for his land so that it bear fruit, and it is shared: how much attention, passion and dedication! Cultivating and caring for creation is God’s indication given to each one of us not only at the beginning of history; it is part of His project; it means nurturing the world with responsibility and transforming it into a garden, a habitable place for everyone. Benedict XVI recalled several times that this task entrusted to us by God the Creator requires us to grasp the rhythm and logic of creation. But we are often driven by pride of domination, of possessions, manipulation, of exploitation; we do not “care” for it, we do not respect it, we do not consider it as a free gift that we must care for. We are losing the attitude of wonder, contemplation, listening to creation; thus we are no longer able to read what Benedict XVI calls "the rhythm of the love story of God and man." Why does this happen? Why do we think and live in a horizontal manner, we have moved away from God, we no longer read His signs. 

But to "cultivate and care" encompasses not only the relationship between us and the environment, between man and creation, it also regards human relationships. The Popes have spoken of human ecology, closely linked to environmental ecology. We are living in a time of crisis: we see this in the environment, but above all we see this in mankind. The human person is in danger: this is certain, the human person is in danger today, here is the urgency of human ecology! And it is a serious danger because the cause of the problem is not superficial but profound: it is not just a matter of economics, but of ethics and anthropology. The Church has stressed this several times, and many say, yes, that's right, it's true ... but the system continues as before, because it is dominated by the dynamics of an economy and finance that lack ethics. Man is not in charge today, money is in charge, money rules. God our Father did not give the task of caring for the earth to money, but to us, to men and women: we have this task! Instead, men and women are sacrificed to the idols of profit and consumption: it is the "culture of waste." If you break a computer it is a tragedy, but poverty, the needs, the dramas of so many people end up becoming the norm. If on a winter’s night, here nearby in Via Ottaviano, for example, a person dies, that is not news. If in so many parts of the world there are children who have nothing to eat, that's not news, it seems normal. It cannot be this way! Yet these things become the norm: that some homeless people die of cold on the streets is not news. In contrast, a ten point drop on the stock markets of some cities, is a tragedy. A person dying is not news, but if the stock markets drop ten points it is a tragedy! Thus people are disposed of, as if they were trash.

This "culture of waste" tends to become the common mentality that infects everyone. Human life, the person is no longer perceived as a primary value to be respected and protected, especially if poor or disabled, if not yet useful - such as the unborn child - or no longer needed - such as the elderly. This culture of waste has made us insensitive even to the waste and disposal of food, which is even more despicable when all over the world, unfortunately, many individuals and families are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Once our grandparents were very careful not to throw away any leftover food. Consumerism has led us to become used to an excess and daily waste of food, to which, at times, we are no longer able to give a just value, which goes well beyond mere economic parameters. We should all remember, however, that throwing food away is like stealing from the tables of the the poor, the hungry! I encourage everyone to reflect on the problem of thrown away and wasted food to identify ways and means that, by seriously addressing this issue, are a vehicle of solidarity and sharing with the needy.

A few days ago, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, we read the story of the miracle of the loaves: Jesus feeds the crowd with five loaves and two fishes. And the conclusion of the piece is important: " They all ate and were satisfied. And when the leftover fragments were picked up, they filled twelve wicker baskets" (Lk 9:17). Jesus asks his disciples not to throw anything away: no waste! There is this fact of twelve baskets: Why twelve? What does this mean? Twelve is the number of the tribes of Israel, which symbolically represent all people. And this tells us that when food is shared in a fair way, with solidarity, when no one is deprived, every community can meet the needs of the poorest. Human ecology and environmental ecology walk together.

So I would like us all to make a serious commitment to respect and protect creation, to be attentive to every person, to counter the culture of waste and disposable, to promote a culture of solidarity and of encounter. Thank you.

Summary in English

Dear Brothers and Sisters: Our Audience today coincides with World Environment Day, and so it is fitting to reflect on our responsibility to cultivate and care for the earth in accordance with God’s command (cf. Gen 2:15). We are called not only to respect the natural environment, but also to show respect for, and solidarity with, all the members of our human family. These two dimensions are closely related; today we are suffering from a crisis which is not only about the just management of economic resources, but also about concern for human resources, for the needs of our brothers and sisters living in extreme poverty, and especially for the many children in our world lacking adequate education, health care and nutrition. Consumerism and a “culture of waste” have led some of us to tolerate the waste of precious resources, including food, while others are literally wasting away from hunger. I ask all of you to reflect on this grave ethical problem in a spirit of solidarity grounded in our common responsibility for the earth and for all our brothers and sisters in the human family.

Catholic Ecology Home

Corpus Christi and Sacramentum Caritatis

I have already blogged on this wonderful passage about ecology in Pope Benedict XVI's apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis. But for the Feast of Corpus Christi, it seems appropriate that we ponder these words anew, or for the first time ...

The sanctification of the world and the protection of creation

§92. Finally, to develop a profound eucharistic spirituality that is also capable of significantly affecting the fabric of society, the Christian people, in giving thanks to God through the Eucharist, should be conscious that they do so in the name of all creation, aspiring to the sanctification of the world and working intensely to that end. The Eucharist itself powerfully illuminates human history and the whole cosmos. In this sacramental perspective we learn, day by day, that every ecclesial event is a kind of sign by which God makes himself known and challenges us. The eucharistic form of life can thus help foster a real change in the way we approach history and the world. The liturgy itself teaches us this, when, during the presentation of the gifts, the priest raises to God a prayer of blessing and petition over the bread and wine, "fruit of the earth," "fruit of the vine" and "work of human hands." With these words, the rite not only includes in our offering to God all human efforts and activity, but also leads us to see the world as God's creation, which brings forth everything we need for our sustenance. The world is not something indifferent, raw material to be utilized simply as we see fit. Rather, it is part of God's good plan, in which all of us are called to be sons and daughters in the one Son of God, Jesus Christ (cf. Eph 1:4-12). The justified concern about threats to the environment present in so many parts of the world is reinforced by Christian hope, which commits us to working responsibly for the protection of creation. The relationship between the Eucharist and the cosmos helps us to see the unity of God's plan and to grasp the profound relationship between creation and the "new creation" inaugurated in the resurrection of Christ, the new Adam. Even now we take part in that new creation by virtue of our Baptism (cf. Col 2:12ff.). Our Christian life, nourished by the Eucharist, gives us a glimpse of that new world – new heavens and a new earth – where the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven, from God, "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband" (Rev 21:2).

Catholic Ecology Home