In the Chinese-language world, coverage of the pope\u2019s death and funeral was muted \u2013 certainly low-key. But as we prepare to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement<\/a> and hail the importance of continued multilateralism, I think we in the Chinese-language world must remember the vital contribution that Pope Francis made to that deal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pope Francis became head of the Catholic church in 2013. In May 2015, he published<\/a> an encyclical (a papal letter to the church\u2019s bishops) titled Laudato<\/em> Si<\/em> (Praise be to you). Its subtitle, \u201cOn care for our common home\u201d, signalled its environmental focus. That year was an important one for climate negotiations. By the end of it, the world was due to agree on new climate change cooperation arrangements \u201capplicable to all parties\u201d. Though this was the pope\u2019s second encyclical, his first had primarily continued his predecessor\u2019s work. The 2015 encyclical was not only the first to represent Pope Francis\u2019 own views, but the first ever to focus on the planet rather than just humanity. This decision made a big impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Responses came in from around the world. Scientists were particularly welcoming. In October of that year, the scientific journal Nature Climate Change paid tribute<\/a> to the pope in a special issue. Science and religion, as the pope had advocated, set aside their differences and started to talk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The encyclical, which is 184 pages long, gets stuck into the environmental crisis immediately after the preamble. It also covers air and water pollution and biodiversity loss, but gives the climate crisis a special focus. The letter does not reference the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by name, but paragraphs 23 and 24 mention the \u201cvery solid scientific consensus\u201d that the climate is changing unnaturally quickly, primarily due to human activity. This alludes to the IPCC\u2019s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) published a few months prior. The encyclical goes on to look at the impacts and risks of global heating, and the implications for global justice. It emphasises the disproportionate harms to the poor and the Global South, the risk of forcing people into migrating, and of war over access to resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The letter is also clear on the climate being a global common good. There is therefore a moral duty to take strong action in response to climate change, it argues. Let us think back to the 2014 debate over the wording of AR5\u2019s Mitigation of Climate Change Summary for Policymakers. There was fierce disagreement<\/a> over whether or not the climate could be called a \u201cglobal commons problem\u201d. In the end, the term was moved from the main text into a footnote, with a clarification that this was unrelated to any \u201ceffort-sharing\u201d. The pope, however, does not need to take the opinion of others into account. Francis could say what he thought, directly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chapter 2 of the encyclical refers at length to the Bible as it discusses the intrinsic value of all forms of life. And the pope was not entirely unaware of practical concerns: chapters 3 to 6 review the roots of the climate crisis and our response in terms of political economy, technology, society and culture. Much ink is spent criticising the \u201ctechnocratic paradigm\u201d \u2013 a mindset that views technology and human control over nature as the primary means of progress. For the pope, this belief forgets what is essential, and drives endless extraction of the earth\u2019s resources in pursuit of limitless growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the economy, the pope criticised the maximisation of profit driven by instrumental reasoning. On the contrary, the pope recommended \u201cdecreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.\u201d He considered growth without advances in social justice and morality inappropriate. He also criticised the merit of market forces in solving environmental problems, arguing we can never truly know the value of the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On lifestyles, the pope\u2019s heartache over the immoderate \u201cbuy and throw away\u201d consumption driven by capital and manufacturing \u2013 and the associated individualism \u2013 can be sensed in every chapter. Not all economists will agree and technological experts may be opposed. But it speaks to me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critics said<\/a> the pope\u2019s hopes of encouraging moral reasoning and cultural transformation to tackle climate change were unrealistic. Huge political and social mobilisation would be necessary, they said. Nor did the encyclical discuss<\/a> the links between sustainable development and demographic growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My own reading found many words of wisdom and a strong philosophical basis, but perhaps a slight hollowness and lack of pragmatism. This gave the document somewhat limited policy-making value. It did, however, go a long way towards bringing morality \u2013 something technologists and scientists overlook in their research \u2013 back into the debate<\/a>. That was a huge contribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In late September 2015, Pope Francis attended<\/a> the UN Summit on Sustainable Development in New York, giving an important speech that restated the spirit of his encyclical. Humanity\u2019s endless pursuit of power and material pleasures was causing the misuse of natural resources and the exclusion of the poor and the vulnerable, he said, and it was time for us to acknowledge the \u201crights of nature\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In December 2015, the UN climate conference COP21 passed the Paris Agreement, which came into effect the following year. This was another milestone for global climate governance. For the first time, the emotive idea of \u201cMother Earth\u201d appeared in a legal UN text. Pope Francis is said to have acted as a mediator during negotiations on key issues, such as long-term goals. That may or may not be true, but the impact of his encyclical is undeniable. Since then, the post-Paris climate story has been a complex and unpredictable one, but Pope Francis\u2019 voice was always clearly heard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The encyclical was a powerful part of a growing awareness of the social aspect to climate change mitigation. Its impact on the IPCC\u2019s scientific assessments is also clear to see. From the start of work on the IPCC\u2019s next Assessment Report, AR6, sociological science was embedded into policy research. The AR6 Mitigation of Climate Change report<\/a> included a whole new chapter, titled \u201cDemand, Services and Social Aspects of Mitigation\u201d. It covers sustainable production and consumption, development models and metrics, the role of culture, social norms and behaviour change, sharing and the circular economy, and policy measures to promote sustainable lifestyles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In October 2023, with the climate crisis worsening and the COP28 round of talks about to start in Dubai, Pope Francis spoke out again. His apostolic exhortation, Laudate Deum<\/em><\/a> (Praise God) was subtitled \u201cTo all people of good will on the climate crisis\u201d. This update on the 2015 encyclical was 17 pages long and focused more particularly on the climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After an introduction lamenting the increasing frequency of climate disasters, Pope Francis regretfully pointed out that the \u201ctechnocratic paradigm\u201d was only worsening \u2013 artificial intelligence being the prime example \u2013 and there was still no limit to the growth of human power. The point of no return was close. He went on: the existing multilateral mechanisms were not strong enough to tackle climate change and new decision-making and implementation mechanisms were needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n2015: \u2018On care for our common home\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The encyclical, the Paris Agreement and the IPCC<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"solar](\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/solar-panel-roof-in-Rome_Alamy_2E2PAAB.jpg\")
<\/div>2023: Exhortation on climate change<\/h2>\n\n\n\n