A few years ago, a university conducted a survey among students on ‘climate crisis and fast fashion’. More than 70% of respondents said that shopping for fast fashion has an impact on the planet, but fast fashion is sensitive to trends and is cheap. Ultimately, the temptation to consume often goes beyond concern about the climate crisis. So begins the Diagnosis of the Times column in the Catholic Peace Weekly by an author in Environmental Spirituality.
Regarding the change in weather on February 15, a weather broadcaster used the expression: "I was ‘bewildered’ by the weather that went from spring to winter in one day,” but did not explain that the cause was climate warming. As a result of the first greenhouse gas observation at the Daesan Industrial Complex in South Chungcheong Province on January 14, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was 480 ppm. The Korea Meteorological Science Research Institute only explained this as the level of emission concentration caused by artificial pollutants. If the global average is 480 ppm, this is a threshold that exceeds the global average temperature of 2 degrees, according to the National Weather Service. The increase in greenhouse gases is entering an irreversible state.
There was no response from the media. Whether it has value as main news, or will it make advertisers uncomfortable seems to be a more important criterion for judgment. The media's indifference based on commercial and selective criteria also shows that the climate crisis is just 'changeable weather' for the public.
Preparing for a climate crisis is preparing for natural disasters caused by extreme weather changes that future generations will experience. We should be preparing for the ‘common home’ crisis mentioned by Pope Francis. However, when these countermeasures come up against the problem of reducing the pleasure and happiness of current consumption, most people choose a ‘private home’ where they find happiness through consumption, and the climate here becomes an area that has nothing to do with them.
The economically wealthy perceive it as a secure personal home for living in an environment unaffected by climate issues. Ultimately, the victims of ‘extreme weather changes’ are the economically poor. However, among climatologists, some do not hesitate to make skeptical remarks that there will be no future damage from extreme weather changes. This is because it is a story about something we have not experienced. Moreover, they also dismiss the climate crisis theory by saying that the increase in greenhouse gases related to climate change is meaningless.
Humans living in a common house only perceive their current home as their personal home. Do current generations still need to take responsibility for future generations? Rather than being concerned with these questions, parents are only interested in the current problems such as the academic competition among children.
There is controversy among scholars regarding the climate issue but in reality, the current situation is evolving from indifference to climate issues to a nonissue. This is because, in many public discussions related to responsibility for future generations, there is more interest in current happiness rather than the problems future generations may receive.
The current situation is one in which we do not agree with Jeremy Bentham's ‘utilitarian’ understanding that the happiness of the majority is true happiness. In such a situation, those who believe in God, who created the world, do not recognize the words of St. Paul: For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him (cf. Col 1:16). Are not our parishes also a 'private home' rather than a 'common home'?
