Philip Booth's response to Pope Francis’ encyclical letter on the care for creation, Laudato si’, is disturbing (The Tablet, Letters, 2 July). First, there seems to be a lack ofrealism about current economic activity. Development may help the poor, but often does not. Free markets, good governance and the rule of law are fine.
However, in respect of food and agriculture, for example, the “global free market” is so dominated by a handful of huge and powerful companies that the word “market” is quite inappropriate. Rights to private property are vital, especially for the poor, but too often land rights are trampled on by powerful interests, corporate or private.
However, the most disturbing sentence is: “There is an alternative and that is to follow policies of economic development that make the poor better off and better able to adapt to the consequences of climate change.” This appears to suggest that adaptation alone will save the situation. The probability is that if we do not soon alter our behaviour, farming will become impossible in many parts of the world and extremely difficult in others. How would we adapt to that?
Somehow we have to find a way to change the basis of our economy; to break free of unreality and find new ways forward within the context of climate change, without causing renewed depression and unemployment. It seems to me that from within St Mary's University, Philip Booth is in an ideal position to play an important part in this rethinking.
Christopher Jones, Northampton
Loading ...
