In a special and unique event, 1000 leaders of about 30 different religions from all over the world gathered in Uppsala, Sweden, to hold a discussion on climate change and humanity's damage to the natural environment
In a special and unique event, 1000 leaders of about 30 different religions from all over the world gathered in Uppsala (Sweden). The leaders, including Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and others, were invited to Uppsala by the heads of the Swedish Church with the stated main goal being: "Discussion of climate change and the damage humanity has caused to the natural environment".
When the question arose of what religious leaders have to do with a topic that researchers and scientists deal with, Sweden's Hashman answered that, "The offered hope of religion and tradition fits well with the public fear of climate change."
Participants in the conference admitted that, "in many cases, tradition and religion do not internalize the importance of climatic changes". Chashman of the Anglican Church in London said that, "The religious communities must study the issue, and be active in what is described as an "emergency situation for humanity". Does faith in humanity have nothing to say about the challenge? Believers must bring the environmental problem to the forefront of their minds."
The conference was also attended by politicians headed by the European Commissioner (Margot Wallstrom) Margot Wallstorm who said that, "The interfaith conference will bring another point of view to the discussion in which many politicians are not ready to engage".
After three days of discussions, the leaders of the religions came out with a joint statement that calls for a "rapid and significant reduction in the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere by rich countries". Fast and significant, this means a reduction of at least 40% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The leaders emphasize the responsibility of the leaders of the rich countries to lead the reduction in emissions and the protection of the environment.
In the manifesto, the religious leaders call on rich countries, "to accept not only moral responsibility, and not only to reduce emissions at home, but also to bear the costs of reducing emissions in the poor world." The manifesto calls for the creation of a mechanism that will oblige the rich countries to act accordingly and to share with the general technologies and methods to reduce emissions.
The religious leaders call on their believers to recognize the importance of a positive attitude towards environmental problems and to act in the direction of preventing damage to the environment.
Most of the environmental damage stems from short-sightedness, from the "small" accounts of those who lack understanding and lack the ability to see far. Most of the less educated believers flock to their leaders out of blind faith which in many cases simply stems from ignorance. In the framework of the "ignorant believers" it is possible to include quite a few rulers of countries and states, even if there are those who will be outraged by the above-mentioned sentences and will be sarcastic, then when you combine the above-mentioned three figures, it can be hoped that a call from religious leaders will do more for the issue than explanations scientific or connoisseur readings.
17 תגובות
"Sages"...
In 39 studies conducted between 1927 and 2002, as well as in a study conducted in 1998 by scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and California State University, an inverse relationship was found between the level of intelligence and education and the degree of religious belief. Is there a God in his book? (2006) concludes Richard Dawkins: "The higher the level of intelligence and education, the less likely the person will be religious or hold beliefs of any kind."
(Taken from the "Atheism" entry in Wikipedia)
Tamir, on a factual level, your responses only indicate ignorance! (I'm sorry if I offended you)
On the tip of the fork I will tell you about a theory that continued research only adds reinforcements to and has not yet been disproved: life on Earth has known at least three catastrophic extinctions. I assume you know the one about 65 million years ago - a meteor hit the Gulf of Mexico and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. It was preceded by another extinction (according to the study), about 250 million years ago, a huge continent that included today's America-Africa-Europe broke up (it is easy to see the correspondence of the coastlines of these continents). The movement of the continents led to the blocking of ocean currents (the Gulf Stream today). The dispersion of energy from the equator to the poles stopped, the poles cooled and grew, the addition of the ice area increased the return of the sun's rays into space, less heat was absorbed by the earth and this process accelerated itself until the earth became all, but entirely, a snow/ice ball. North America was buried under 4 kilometers of ice. 99% of the species on earth became extinct and it was like that for millions of years.
There is a theory (proven in the laboratory) that shows the possibility that the thawing of the poles (the thawing is indisputable, there is ground and space monitoring) will cause a significant amount of fresh water to be released into the oceans. The same fresh water will cause the same ocean currents (energy conveyors) to stop and return to the same snow ball situation I described earlier.
Does that sound insignificant to you?
I don't know how others, I know about myself, that from the studies I read, the situation is difficult. The earth is warming, the number of skin cancer cases in areas where the hole in the ozone is large (South America, Australia) is higher, the precipitation patterns are changing and Israel is turning into a desert. Just last week we were told to visit a depression that moved north at the last minute, on the other hand you must have heard about the flooding in Italy.
I don't own shares of any oil company (at least not as far as I know because I really have no idea what the pension funds and provident funds invest in), but consciously at least I don't invest.
To my father
I agree with some of your points, some (small) of the greens rely on facts. The rest are religious fundamentalists.
A call for "a rapid and significant reduction in the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere by rich countries" is a desirable call, isn't it? Even if some of us think the readers' motives are wrong (because they are religious), it is still possible to connect with their message. Parable What is it similar to? To the doctor who gives correct treatment, even though he understands the treatment as an exorcism. What do you think, the patient will get well thanks to the right treatment, even if the doctor made a mistake in understanding the reasons why the treatment is effective.
To the point, there is a difference between statistical arguments regarding the level of people's faith in religion, and empirical data indicating global warming, mass extinctions, etc.
When, for example, did you last see normal rain in Israel?
Father, I don't understand you. The greens are followers of religion for everything. Elilem is the color of the earth which they work and cultivate.
And regarding the fact that they rely on data, the religious sages also rely on data that indicates that most people want and need to believe in something.
Tamir, regarding the clergy, I'm sure they're wasting time, but why the greens? After all, as far as I know, they rely on scientifically proven data.
Do you have any other data that shows the Earth is thriving?
Totally despicable
A. Don't connect with religious people, your goals are also similar.
B. Their goals just seem similar to yours
third. Their goals and yours are completely wrong.
It turns out that masses of people work without any purpose, and instead of improving, they spoil. Yes, the greens are also religious. They are fundamentalists who do not let the facts confuse them.
why despicable? People listen to clergymen. They are more successful than scientists in convincing the public. How many people are there who will go to war because of the call of scientists? And how many people went to war due to the call of clerics? If the quality of the environment is really important to us, we need as many supporters as possible, even if we don't agree with them on all issues.
Sometimes, self-righteousness needs to be left at home to bring results.
A despicable initiative.
The little brother
Also a lot of gaseous sulfur oxides with us is still a little less
The human race has overcrowded the Saa and replaced the creator, so it doesn't matter how many conferences it conducts. This species
Devour the Earth's resources and specialize in Hellion himself.
cute Shlomi,
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it just made Venus what it is today (the closest you can get to hell). For the earth it will cause a temperature of 428 degrees Celsius on a pleasant spring day.
Besides, he is really sympathetic, from a good family and has a great personality.
Since when did DTP become a pollutant?
I have the feeling that the people who caused the DPD to be absorbed as a polluting gas in the public consciousness are people who understand that fear can lead to any move and not rational consideration and an understanding that the climate is a complex and dynamic system.
And this is also the main connection to the religious leaders or as they are known: "the ultimate understanders of human fear".
The test of the result shows that in the last decades the scientists did not succeed in convincing the population as expected, maybe referring to religious people would help more. And apart from that, the aforementioned reference increases awareness of the issue, so in my opinion the initiative is welcome.
With all due respect and there is respect for everyone who mobilizes for environmental problems. The term "clerics" is an oxymoron, either a cleric or a sage.