An ethical answer

"Climate change is increasingly understood to have become a question of survival for a large part of mankind" and "it is high time to recognise that the fight " against this phenomenon is first of all a problem of public ethos". Stated the Expert group, set up by the Commission of the Bishops’ Conference of the European Community (Comece), that on October 29 presented in Brussels its report to the Bishop members titled: "Climate change requires an ethical answer". Rethink lifestyles. For the Group of experts, which consists of 10 European personalities from Politics and Science and chaired by the former EU-Commissioner Prof. Franz Fischler, "the solution to the environmental problem calls for new models of organising society, our lifestyles and system of values", furthermore the need "for a strong political leadership" and "an profound ethical reflection and debate" that "could be based on Christian theology" and social doctrine of the Church. Values such as "respect for human dignity, global justice, responsibility for the common good could allow climate change policies to be assessed".More serious consequences on the poor. In its fourth Report (2007), the Intergovernmental forum for Climate change (Ipcc) estimates that if no serious policies are taken, global temperature would likely rise by 1.6 to 6.9 C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Although this climate change "will have a serious impact on Europe, its consequences will be even more severe in other countries", especially "on the poorest communities with low adaptive capabilities and high vulnerability" the experts pointed out. Thus, the need to "limit as much as possible temperature increase". " Inaction is unforgivable- highlights the Comece report – because the actions do not require unacceptable sacrifices by the industrialized world" and " climate protection is an essential contribution to fighting malnutrition, illness and poverty".European Union’s role. According to the experts "climate change is also an issue of intra-and inter-generational justice"; therefore on the bases of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities", they call on the European Union to bear "a special responsibility, not only in the history of the phenomenon, but also in view of its technological and financial means and its experience with cooperative action", and to take up "the leadership" and "to raise its voice for the developing countries and future generations who will bear the highest burden of climate change". The EU "should go out of its way to convince all actors concerned of the necessity of protecting the Earth’s climate". The report recalls that climate change "is but one symptom of an unsustainable way of life, modes of production and patterns of consumption that have evolved in the industrialised world"; therefore "environmental challenge is not just the urgent need to restructure current production modes but first of all the need to adopt new lifestyles less dependent on material goods and base them more on cultural and relational goods. The Catholic Church and all Christian traditions are best places to propagate such changes", both "through concrete proposals and by their own examples". The Church’s example. Therefore, according to the Working group, " It would be also an important signal to all Christians and the world if the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol were to be ratified by the Holy See", or even if "a major encyclical on environmental issues could set out the good practices of the churches as an example to others". For the experts, the Church should also be " to the forefront in investing in ethical and sustainable projects and developing corporate social responsibility concepts for their economic activities". Christians, on the other hand, should "distance themselves from the lifestyles predominant in our countries, centred on consumption". The Report also highlights the need to have "a more comprehensive vision of human life" and "responsible relationships with the spaces where we live"; however, a meaningful change in our lifestyles "will be possible if voluntary ‘sobriety’ will be accepted as central virtue". The report concludes by underlining how "promoting the concept of sobriety is not intended to lower, but rather improves the quality of life"; it doesn’t mean "giving up the desire for material goods, but to select what is essential from what is unnecessary".