
Pope Francis saw environmental and climate issues as moral concerns
Wearing one of the cheap plastic yellow ponchos that were handed out to the faithful, Francis experienced first-hand the type of freak, extreme storms that scientists blame on global warming and are increasingly striking vulnerable, low-lying islands.
He had traveled to Tacloban, on the island of Leyte, to comfort survivors of one of the strongest recorded tropical cyclones, Typhoon Haiyan. The 2013 storm killed more than 7,300 people, flattened villages and displaced about 5 million residents.
But with another storm approaching Tacloban two years later, Francis had to cut short his visit to get off the island.
'So many of you have lost everything. I don't know what to tell you,' Francis told the crowd in Tacloban's muddy airport field as the wind nearly toppled candlesticks on the altar.
Francis, who died Monday at 88, was moved to silence that day by the survivors' pain and the devastation he saw. But he would channel it a few months later when he published his landmark encyclical, 'Praised Be,' which cast care for the planet as an urgent and existential moral concern.
The first ecological encyclical
The document, written to inspire global negotiators at the 2015 Paris climate talks, accused the 'structurally perverse,' profit-driven economy of the global north of ravaging Earth and turning it into a 'pile of filth.' The poor, Indigenous peoples and islanders like those in Tacloban suffered the most, he argued, bearing the brunt of increasing droughts, extreme storms, deforestation and pollution.
It was the first ecological encyclical, and it affirmed the Argentine Jesuit, who in his youth studied to be a chemist, as an authoritative voice in the environmental movement. Later cited by presidents and scientists, the document inspired a global faith-based coalition to try to save God's creation before it was too late.
'I think he understood from the beginning that there are three relationships that had to be regenerated: Our relationship with God, our relationship with the created world and our relationship with our fellow creatures,' said papal biographer Austen Ivereigh.
It wasn't always so.
A conversion in 2007 in Brazil
Francis had a steep learning curve on the environment, just as he did with clergy sexual abuse, which he initially dismissed as overblown. He himself pointed to a 2007 meeting of Latin American and Caribbean bishops in Aparecida, Brazil, as the moment of his ecological awakening.
There, the then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio had been elected to draft the conference's final document, and was under pressure to include calls from Brazilian bishops to highlight the plight of the Amazon.
Bergoglio, the dour-faced archbishop of urbane Buenos Aires, didn't get what all the fuss was about.
'At first I was a bit annoyed,' Francis wrote in the 2020 book 'Let Us Dream.' 'It struck me as excessive.'
By the end of the meeting, Bergoglio was converted and convinced.
The final Aparecida document devoted several sections to the environment: It denounced multinational extraction companies that plundered the region's resources at the expense of the poor. It warned of melting glaciers and the effects of lost biodiversity. It cast the ravaging of the planet as an assault on God's divine plan that violated the biblical imperative to 'cultivate and care' for creation.
Those same issues would later find prominence in 'Praised Be,' which took its name from the repeated first line of the 'Canticle of the Creatures,' one of the best-known poetic songs of the pontiff's nature-loving namesake, St. Francis of Assisi.
They also would be highlighted in the Amazon Synod that Francis called at the Vatican in 2019, a meeting of bishops and Indigenous peoples specifically to address how the Catholic Church could and should respond to the plight of the Amazon and its impoverished people.
'I think the pope's most important contribution was to insist on the ethical aspect of the debate about climate justice,' said Giuseppe Onofrio, head of Greenpeace Italy, 'that the poor were those who contributed the least to pollution and the climate crisis, but were paying the highest price.'
How the environment affects all other ills
In many ways, those same issues would also come to define much of Francis' papacy. He came to view the environmental cause as encapsulating nearly all the other ills afflicting humanity in the 21st century: poverty, social and economic injustice, migration and what he called the 'throwaway culture' — a melting pot of problems that he was convinced could only be addressed holistically.
Some of Francis' strongest calls to protect the environment would come on or around Earth Day, celebrated April 22.
'For some time now, we have been becoming more aware that nature deserves to be protected, even if only because human interaction with God's biodiversity must take care with utmost care and respect,' Francis said in a video message released on Earth Day in 2021.
Cardinal Michael Czerny, the Canadian Jesuit whom Francis would later entrust with the ecological dossier, said the 2007 meeting in Brazil had a big impact on Francis.
'In Aparecida, listening to so many different bishops talking about what was deteriorating, but also what the people were suffering, I think really impressed him,' said Czerny.
Czerny's mandate encapsulated Francis' vision of 'integral ecology,' covering the environment, the Vatican's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, its charitable Caritas federation, migration advocacy, economic development and its antinuclear campaign.
The multifaceted approach was intentional, Czerny said, to establish new thinking about ecology that went beyond the politicized concept of 'green' advocacy to something bigger and nonnegotiable: humanity's relationship with God and creation.
'Everything is connected,' Francis liked to say.
A legacy from Pope Paul VI
He was by no means the first pope to embrace the ecological cause. According to the book 'The Popes and Ecology,' Pope Paul VI was the first pontiff to refer to an 'ecological catastrophe' in a 1970 speech to a U.N. food agency.
St. John Paul II largely ignored the environment, though he did write the first truly ecological manifesto: his 1990 World Day of Peace message, which linked consumer lifestyle with environmental decay.
Pope Benedict XVI was known as the 'green pope,' primarily for having installed solar panels on the Vatican auditorium and starting a tree-planting campaign to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of Vatican City.
Francis issued an update to 'Praised Be' in 2023, just before the U.N. climate conference in Dubai. While consistent with the original text, the update was even more dire and showed Francis had grown more urgent in his alarm.
He became even more willing to point fingers at the world's biggest emitters of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, especially the U.S. And he called out those, including in the church, who denied the human causes of global warming.
'He showed that he had an understanding of what was happening in the world, and he saw the world from the point of view, as he was like to say, of the peripheries, of the margins,' said Ivereigh, the papal biographer. 'He brought the margins into the center.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
Australia politics live: only four out of 19 Closing the Gap targets improving, latest report shows
Update: Date: 2025-07-30T20:32:14.000Z Title: Content: Without changing the approach to Closing the Gap, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will continue to 'pay the price', Indigenous organisations say. Just four of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track to be met, according to the latest data from the Productivity Commission, the Australian Associated Press reports. But key targets, including adult imprisonment rates, children in out-of-home care, suicide and childhood development are continuing to worsen. While there have been improvements in Year 12 attainment, tertiary education and housing access, these are not on track to meet deadlines. Update: Date: 2025-07-30T20:28:34.000Z Title: Welcome Content: Good morning and welcome to our live politics blog. I'm Martin Farrer with the top overnight stories and then it will be Krishani Dhanji with the main action. The latest Closing the Gap report has been released this morning and it shows that progress is being made on only four of the 19 targets. Indigenous groups and advocates say governments need to do more. More details coming up. Anika Wells, the communications minister, appeared on 7.30 last night to explain the government's decision to restrict children's YouTube access. More details coming up on that as well.


Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Daily Mail
Missionaries secretly evangelizing uncontacted Amazonian tribes with Bible-reciting audio devices
Bible-preaching devices have been found in a remote indigenous village, sparking fears that Christian missionary groups are targeting uncontacted and isolated tribes, despite strict bans. According to reports, solar-powered devices with audio recitals of Biblical passages in Portuguese and Spanish have been discovered among the Korubo people. The tribe, who live in the Javari valley, near the Brazil-Peru border, are under strict protection by the Brazilian government. Military police stationed near the protected region have also reported mysterious drones flying overhead, according to a joint investigation by The Guardian and Brazilian newspaper O Globo. Sgt Cardovan da Silva Soeiro said he was ordered to shoot them down but was unable to. He said: 'I aimed my rifle, but the drone fled at high speed. It seemed very sophisticated.' He also reported the presence of missionaries he believes to be associated with Jehovah's Witnesses who live in nearby towns. Before the pandemic, a group of American and Brazilian evangelicals were accused of plotting to reach the Korubo using seaplanes to map trails and locate their settlements. A court order barred them from entering Indigenous land. The small yellow and black devices found near the tribe are distributed by In Touch Ministries. One recites a line from Philippians that encourages listeners to reflect on the death of Apostle Paul. The evangelical group's head, Seth Grey, has confirmed that the devices are intended for indigenous groups and are loud enough to be heard by up to 20 people. They feature inspirational talks by an American Baptist and can even work off-grid, due to their solar-powered nature. Locals say seven devices, called Messenger, have been discovered so far. But only one has been photographed. A message on the device says: 'Let's see what Paul says as he considers his own life in Philippians chapter 3, verse 4: "If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more".' Grey has claimed to have delivered 48 of the devices to another tribe, but says his organization do not enter areas where contact is forbidden. Grey added that he is aware of missionaries who wander into places where they are prohibited. The Brazilian government prohibits any form of proselytizing in Indigenous territories unless the community themselves initiates contact. The Korubo are considered a recently contacted group and remain highly vulnerable to outside influence and disease, against which they have no immunity. As a result of their recently contacted status, missionary groups are keen to make contact and preach the gospel to them. The device is now in the possession of Maya, the matriarch of the Kurobo community, who has refused to hand over the device to authorities. For years, missionary groups have tried to convert indigenous people to Christianity. One of the most infamous cases of this is that of John Allen Chau, who in 2018 was killed by the Sentinelese people after going into the territory in an attempt to preach to them. In April, Mykhailo Viktorovych Polyakov, an American tourist, was arrested for trying to make contact with the same group that killed Chau.


New Statesman
4 days ago
- New Statesman
Why I am sticking with Labour
In a packed fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference in 1980, cigarette smoke hung thickly beneath dim, flickering lights. Amid the hum of tense whispers and shifting chairs, Shirley Williams stood, resolute and defiant, her voice slicing through the haze: 'We are going to fight to save the party, and by God we think we can. We are going to start fighting for a Labour Party worthy of the name. Yet barely a year later, Williams and her allies – soon to be known infamously as the Gang of Four – left Labour altogether, founding the new Social Democratic Party. Why begin an article about my decision to remain within Labour with a quote that, in hindsight, didn't even survive the year? Three reasons. First, because today I – and many others inside the Labour Party – feel exactly as Shirley Williams did when she uttered those words. This is not a Labour government worthy of the name. From its morally hollow alignment with a far-right US president amidst war crimes and probable genocide in Gaza, to its embrace of a discredited economic orthodoxy reliant on trickle-down myths, deregulation, and corporate extraction, this is not the principled, people-first politics we were promised. Add to this the normalisation of racist rhetoric about migrants and asylum seekers, punitive policies targeting disabled people – from threatened cuts to Personal Independence Payments to real-terms reductions in Universal Credit – and the introduction of some of the most draconian laws this country has seen outside wartime, including proscribing protest groups as terrorists, and it becomes painfully clear: something has gone profoundly wrong. Like Shirley Williams then – and countless others from both the left and right throughout Labour's history – I believe remaining in the party (as long as that option is open) and fighting for its soul is the right choice. For all its faults, Labour remains the political vehicle that has done more than any other to improve the lives of working-class people in Britain. That legacy isn't just worth defending; it demands our defence. Secondly, given the increasing fragmentation of British politics – and the very real possibility that the Labour-Conservative duopoly, which has defined our political landscape for over eighty years, might finally unravel – the events of 1981 now look less like a historical footnote and more like an urgent warning. The SDP failed on its own terms, but the two-party system that it aimed to break open never really recovered from its intervention. So, what, if anything, has today's Labour leadership learnt from the emergence of the new left party? What deeper forces – economic, social, and environmental – are shaping this moment? And how might we navigate the storm of intersecting crises we now face? Judging by their reaction thus far: very little. Within Labour circles, responses have been defined more by dismissive sneers than serious reflection. But the hundreds of thousands expressing interest in the new party should serve as a profound wake-up call. This isn't a fringe rebellion, it's an indication that the foundations of our electoral system are cracking. Discontent of this magnitude doesn't emerge from nowhere, nor will it vanish if ignored. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even if you share the leadership's apparent wish that the left be locked away and forgotten, history demonstrates that suppressing dissent doesn't neutralise it – it energises it. Those turning toward this new party are not extremists or radicals, but ordinary people repeatedly told that their entirely reasonable demands (a fair economy, genuine democracy, and meaningful climate action) are dangerous delusions. That lie has a limited shelf life, and we may well be reaching its expiry date. Third, Shirley Williams' instinct in 1980 to remain in the party, was fundamentally right, an instinct shared by myself and many others today. The fight ahead against authoritarian and anti-democratic forces will only intensify. How and where we engage in this struggle must be strategic. Effective strategy against a capable and adaptive opponent demands keeping as many paths open as possible, resisting premature narrowing unless the landscape unmistakably demands it. This strategic calculation lies at the heart of current tensions. Many see this as the decisive moment to commit fully to the new left project. They might well be correct. And those of us still holding the line within Labour, even cautiously, may yet be proven wrong. But we must also acknowledge the unknowns surrounding the new project. Its political culture remains largely untested. There is a genuine risk of fragmentation and recrimination. Prudence advises us to maintain fallback positions and avoid burning bridges prematurely. We must recognise there are many fronts in this fight. I understand deeply the anger towards this Labour government – anger shared by many still within the party. Yet dismissing those who choose to engage within Labour, the Greens, or elsewhere neither advances our cause nor aligns with the pluralist politics this moment demands. We all have roles to play. Thousands choose to fight from within Labour; others do so externally, whether in a political party or campaign groups and broader civil society. What matters is mutual support and solidarity among all committed to democracy, social and climate justice, pluralism, and human rights – across parties and factions. Ultimately, my choice is guided by strategic judgement, not certainty. In these turbulent political times, certainty is a luxury none of us possess. Yet, I sincerely hope the path I've chosen contributes meaningfully and that, regardless of the routes we each take, we find ways to converge again when it truly matters. [See more: Revenge of the left] Related