The pope, population and ecological sins

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/07/the-pope-population-and-ecological-sins

Version 0 of 1.

Professor Colin Green (Letters, 7 September) makes a classic first-world myopic error in believing that the rise in human population is mainly responsible for the impending ecological crisis. It is not numbers of people per se damaging the planet, but frenetic consumption in the wealthy world that lies behind anthropogenic climate change. You can curb family sizes in poor countries all you like – if you have the moral stomach for such gross colonialism and denial of essential human freedoms – but the ecological crisis will remain as long as we live the way we do in the rich world.

As Pope Francis puts it in his ecological teaching document, Laudato Si’: “To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimise the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalised, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.”

He does not, however, deny population is a factor in the environment, noting that “attention needs to be paid to imbalances in population density, on both national and global levels, since a rise in consumption would lead to complex regional situations”. But the general point is clear: you do not heal the damage to the planet by eliminating the poor. As Francis says: “a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.”Dr Austen IvereighCoordinator, Catholic Voices

• While I am enthused by Pope Francis’s recent calls for environmental destruction to be classified as a sin (Report, 1 September), I do wonder if a more nuanced perspective is required. Is it right to classify certain behaviours that cause ecological harm as sin, if there is a lack of knowledge, capacity and choice to take alternative, more environmentally friendly courses of action?

For example, is it fair to say I have sinned if I have to drive my gas-guzzling car in the city because of an absence of safe and coordinated cycle infrastructure? Is it fair to say I have sinned if I have to deal with the vast amounts of waste forced upon me by retailers? Or if I depend on oil because alternatives are not provided, or are too expensive? Perhaps the sin lies not with the individual, but instead with the failure by government and policymakers to adequately inform on the issues, and provide structures and incentives for pro-environmental behaviour.Catherine DevittJesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Dublin

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com