Climate Change, etc.: Response to Eduardo

Eduardo writes:

A clear Church teaching on climate change, rooted in solidly Catholic teaching on environmental stewardship and intergenerational justice, might be something as simple as a clear and forceful as the following:  (1) anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon with potentially catastrophic effects, not a liberal fairy tale; (2) inaction in the face of this problem is not an option, and is, in fact, positively sinful; (3) what to do in response to climate change is a prudential question best determined on the basis of sound science and economics, but (4) whatever solution we collectively adopt must be one that places a priority on protecting those who are already most vulnerable among us.

I think I agree, but I want to suggest a few amendments.  Maybe Eduardo can accept them as friendly ones? 

First, (3) has to modify (1).  That is, "sound science and economics" must be brought to bear, at the outset, and followed where it leads, on questions of climate change's effects, extent, and causes.  It is a mistake -- that is, it is not consistent with "sound science and economics" -- to take as not-to-be-examined-ly given any particular scenario with respect to climate change's effects, causes, costs, extent, etc.  Second, to propose the preceeding sentence is not to be a "denier", anti-science, etc., etc.  Third, it would be equally "sinful" to engage in foolish, harmful, damaging over-reaction, or misplaced reaction, as it would to engage in foolish, harmful, damaging under-reaction.  Fourth, point number (4), above, needs to be understood in such a way that "protecting" includes "not imposing upon the poor the costs and harms that could be associated with growth-stifling over-reactions.

As for the earlier part of Eduardo's post, no one suggested -- at least, I didn't -- that the relevant comparison was between a "someone who uses contraception but understands the urgency of the climate debate" and a "(hypothetical) contraception-shunning climate denier."  The suggestion, instead, was that we might think a truly "Green" consciousness would be one that did not buy into contemporary thinking about sex, reproduction, fertility, and children.  And I am confident, in so suggesting, that I do "[]understand[]" -- at least, as well as other law professors do -- the nature, and complexity, of the "challenge we face."  A (hypothetical) person who failed to appreciate the fact that misguided or misplaced reactions to climate-change evidence could cause grave harm to the poor would, in this failure, demonstrate that he or she did not understand this challenge.