Climate Change
The Duty toward Creation is Essential to Faith
Our Influence is Uncertain
Climate Change is a Fact
— Find What You're Looking For —
“Christians, in particular, realize that their responsibility within creation and their duty towards nature and the Creator are an essential part of their faith.”
Pope St. John Paul II, 15
“The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all.”
Pope Francis, 23
Care for creation is a “duty born of faith.”
Pope Leo XIV
The Environment is Not an Optional Concern
The environment is not an optional concern added to Catholic social teaching.
Pope St. John Paul II warned in Centesimus Annus that “in his desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, man consumes the resources of the earth and his own life in an excessive and disordered way,” and that humanity must become conscious of its “duties and obligations towards future generations.” (Centesimus Annus, 37)
Pope Benedict XVI likewise described the earth as a “precious gift of the Creator” whose intrinsic order gives humanity guidance for its role as steward. (General Audience, August 26, 2009)
And Pope Francis placed the care of creation squarely within Catholic social teaching in (Laudato Si).
Pope Leo XIV: Continuing the Church’s Teaching
Pope Leo XIV has explicitly continued his predecessors’ teaching on care for creation.
In his 2025 message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, he referred directly to “climate changes provoked by human activity” and warned that environmental destruction does not affect everyone equally. The poor, marginalized and excluded are often hurt first and most severely.
Pope Leo XIV went further: “Environmental justice…can no longer be regarded as an abstract concept or a distant goal.”
For believers, he taught, care for creation is a “duty born of faith.” (Message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, 2025)
This is fully consistent with the teaching of St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. The natural environment is not more important than the human person. Nor is the human person somehow separate from creation. Care for creation, human dignity, solidarity, peace, development and concern for the poor belong together.
Climate change is one among many serious ecological and environmental challenges. In solidarity with our neighbor and with future generations, the Church calls us to care for creation, evaluate competing environmental needs and, exercising informed prudential judgment, act for the common good.
Pope Leo XIV: Continuing the Church’s Teaching
Pope Leo XIV has explicitly continued his predecessors’ teaching on care for creation.
In his 2025 message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, he referred directly to “climate changes provoked by human activity” and warned that environmental destruction does not affect everyone equally. The poor, marginalized and excluded are often hurt first and most severely.
Pope Leo XIV went further: “Environmental justice…can no longer be regarded as an abstract concept or a distant goal.”
For believers, he taught, care for creation is a “duty born of faith.” (Message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, 2025)
This is fully consistent with the teaching of St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. The natural environment is not more important than the human person. Nor is the human person somehow separate from creation. Care for creation, human dignity, solidarity, peace, development and concern for the poor belong together.
Climate change is one among many serious ecological and environmental challenges. In solidarity with our neighbor and with future generations, the Church calls us to care for creation, evaluate competing environmental needs and, exercising informed prudential judgment, act for the common good.
What Is Settled—and What Requires Prudential Judgment?
The scientific evidence that human activity—principally greenhouse-gas emissions—is the dominant cause of recent global warming is strong. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that: “Human activities…have unequivocally caused global warming.” (IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report: Synthesis Report)
There remains legitimate scientific debate about important matters—including climate sensitivity, regional effects, attribution of individual extreme events and the magnitude and timing of future impacts. A minority of credentialed scientists also gives greater weight to natural variability or questions estimates of human influence. But it would be misleading to suggest that scientists are evenly divided over the principal human contribution to recent warming.
More importantly, scientific agreement about the cause of warming does not dictate a single political response.
Science can help establish causes, risks and probabilities. It cannot by itself determine how quickly societies should change their energy systems; how costs should be distributed; how environmental objectives should be balanced with energy reliability, affordability and development; or which tax, regulatory, technological or international policies best advance the common good.
Those are prudential questions requiring sound science, economics, moral principles and careful judgment.
Addressing Climate Change
Who is Responsible?
Responsibility also extends across nations and generations.
Countries have contributed very differently to present emissions. In 2024, fossil-fuel and industrial CO₂ emissions were approximately. (Global Carbon Budget)
- China: 32%
- United States: 13%
- India: 8%
- European Union: 6%
Those numbers raise serious questions of justice:
- What obligations belong to historically wealthy countries?
- What responsibilities fall upon today’s largest emitters?
- How can developing nations raise living standards without being denied the affordable and reliable energy that wealthier countries already enjoy?
Read More
Catholic social teaching does not provide a mathematical formula for answering those questions. It does provide the principles with which to approach them: human dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity, the common good and a preferential concern for the poor.
Is it a Political Issue?
Clearly, in the United States, the answer is ‘yes’.
Climate and energy policy have become deeply partisan, with successive administrations reversing policies on emissions, regulation, energy development and international climate commitments.
The history of the Paris Agreement illustrates this divide.
The United States accepted the Agreement in 2016, withdrew effective November 4, 2020, rejoined in 2021 and again withdrew effective January 27, 2026. (United Nations Treaty Collection, Paris Agreement status)
But the fact that an issue is political does not mean it is merely partisan.
Questions involving energy, taxation, economic development, regulation, international obligations and environmental protection necessarily become political because they concern the ordering of society and the common good.
Fulfilling My Obligation
“[T]he direct duty to work for a just ordering of society…is proper to the lay faithful.” (Pope Benedict XVI, 29)
And Pope Francis said: “Politics is an essential means of building human community and institutions”. (Message for the 2019 World Day of Peace)
“Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy. It is a moral obligation. For Christians, the responsibility is even greater: it is a commandment.” (Pope Francis, 3.1)
He insisted: “We, Christians, cannot ‘play the role of Pilate’, washing our hands of it.” (Address to students of Jesuit schools, June 7, 2013)
Participation, however, does not require Catholics to accept a predetermined political program.
Rather, Catholics must form their consciences from the Church’s social teaching, seek accurate facts, consider foreseeable consequences and work prudently for the common good.
In Pursuit of Climate Justice
The Catholic Church affirms our responsibility to care for our “common home.” (Pope Francis)
Terms like “climate action” and “climate justice” are valid—when understood through Catholic social teaching.
Pope Francis has emphasized intergenerational justice, reminding us that the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us. (Laudato Si, 159)
And the Catechism defines justice as “the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor” and as promoting equity regarding persons and the common good. (CCC, 1807)
Climate justice, rightly understood, can therefore be an act of faith and a work of mercy.
It is not an ideology and should never be isolated from the rest of Catholic teaching.
Rather, environmental responsibility forms part of integral ecology because the natural environment, human dignity, family, work, economic life and care for the poor cannot ultimately be separated. (Laudato Si, 137-162)
What is needed is a Christian environmentalism: concern for our common home grounded in our responsibilities to God and to every human person. (Caritas in Veritate, 51)
This is the path to authentic climate justice.
In Pursuit of Climate Justice
The Catholic Church affirms our responsibility to care for our “common home.” (Pope Francis)
Terms like “climate action” and “climate justice” are valid—when understood through Catholic social teaching.
Pope Francis has emphasized intergenerational justice, reminding us that the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us. (Laudato Si, 159)
And the Catechism defines justice as “the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor” and as promoting equity regarding persons and the common good. (CCC, 1807)
Climate justice, rightly understood, can therefore be an act of faith and a work of mercy.
It is not an ideology and should never be isolated from the rest of Catholic teaching.
Rather, environmental responsibility forms part of integral ecology because the natural environment, human dignity, family, work, economic life and care for the poor cannot ultimately be separated. (Laudato Si, 137-162)
What is needed is a Christian environmentalism: concern for our common home grounded in our responsibilities to God and to every human person. (Caritas in Veritate, 51)
This is the path to authentic climate justice.
True Climate Justice is...
Climate Justice Must Also Mean Energy Justice
One of the most important facts in the climate debate receives far too little attention: approximately 730 million people still lack access to electricity, while nearly 2 billion lack access to clean cooking. (International Energy Agency, Accelerating Clean Cooking and Electricity Services Scenario)
Reliable modern energy is indispensable to health care, education, sanitation, economic opportunity and human development.
The International Energy Agency notes that households, clinics, schools and businesses without reliable modern energy suffer lower productivity and impaired socioeconomic development. (International Energy Agency)
Consequently, a Catholic response cannot consider emissions in isolation.
Policies must also ask whether poor families and developing nations have access to energy that is: Reliable. Affordable. Abundant enough to support development. And increasingly clean.
Stewardship of creation and human development are not competing Catholic concerns.
Authentic integral ecology requires both.
Climate Justice Requires Mitigation—and Adaptation
Reducing future greenhouse-gas emissions is only one part of the challenge. Communities are already exposed to climatic risks, making adaptation and resilience essential elements of climate justice.
The United Nations Environment Program estimates that developing countries will require approximately $310–365 billion annually for climate adaptation by 2035 while international public adaptation finance was about $26 billion in 2023—meaning estimated needs are roughly 12 to 14 times current flows. (UNEP, Adaptation Gap Report 2025)
Adaptation can include spending on flood defenses, drought-resistant agriculture, stronger water systems, coastal protection, heat preparedness, disaster-warning systems, and public-health measures.
For Catholics, the relevant question therefore cannot simply be: How do we reduce emissions?
It must also be: How do we protect people—especially the poor—from harms that cannot now be entirely avoided?
The Energy System Is Already Changing
The world’s energy system is changing rapidly.
In 2025, renewable sources supplied approximately 34% of global electricity, compared with 23% only a decade earlier. Wind and solar together supplied approximately 17%, up from around 5% ten years earlier.
Coal nevertheless remained the largest individual source of global electricity, also at approximately 34%. (International Energy Agency, Global Energy Review 2026 — Electricity Supply)
Renewable capacity additions reached approximately 800 gigawatts in 2025, the 23rd consecutive annual record, with solar accounting for more than three-quarters of those additions. (IEA, Global Energy Review 2026 — Solar PV and Wind)
Yet global energy-related CO₂ emissions also increased about 0.4% in 2025, reaching a record of nearly 38.4 billion tonnes. (IEA, Global Energy Review 2026 — CO₂ Emissions)
Both facts matter.
Low-carbon technologies are scaling rapidly — But global demand for energy continues to grow and emissions have not yet fallen on a sustained global basis.
The prudential question is therefore no longer whether cleaner technologies can contribute meaningfully. They already do.
The harder question is how rapidly and economically they can expand while maintaining reliability, affordability, and the energy required for human development.
How Best to Address It Politically?
Pope Benedict XVI offered a useful framework for applying moral truth in political life:
“[W]hat does it mean, in practical terms, to promote moral truth in the world of politics…?
- It means acting in a responsible way on the basis of an objective and integral knowledge of the facts;
- deconstructing political ideologies which end up supplanting truth and human dignity in order to promote pseudo-values under the pretext of peace, development and human rights;
- fostering an unswerving commitment to base positive law on the principles of the natural law.” (World Day of Peace 2011, 12)
Applied to climate policy, this means rejecting two temptations.
The first is to assume that every policy described as “green” is morally required simply because it intends to reduce emissions.
The second is to dismiss environmental dangers merely because climate policies have become associated with one political party or ideology.
Instead, Catholic social teaching asks:
What are the facts? // Does the proposal respect human dignity? // Does it advance the common good // Does it respect subsidiarity? // Does it express solidarity? // What will it do to the poor? // Will it actually work?
Scientific evidence alone has plainly not created political agreement. Climate change has become deeply entwined with partisan identity, differing economic priorities and conflicting views about government’s proper role.
It also involves legitimate disagreement about the consequences of proposed policies.
For example, in 2026, Americans differed sharply over whether policies encouraging a transition from fossil fuels would make electricity more expensive.
Among conservative Republicans, 68% expected higher electricity prices, compared with 50% of liberal/moderate Republicans and only 15% of liberal Democrats. (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Spring 2026)
That is not simply a disagreement about climate science. It is a disagreement about the expected economic effects of policy.
Climate action itself can involve costs, benefits and unintended consequences. So can climate inaction. Prudence therefore requires examining both sides of the ledger.
People of goodwill can disagree about political positions, provided their prudential judgment is well formed by the facts and by a deep internalization of Catholic social teaching.
Public Opinion
Updated October 2026
Americans remain deeply divided over climate change—but the divide is more pronounced over political priority and causes than over every possible response.
In April 2026, 63% of Democrats described climate change as a “very big problem,” compared with 14% of Republicans. (Pew Research Center, May 2026)
Yale similarly found that only 49% of registered voters overall considered global warming a high or very high federal priority. Yet 58% preferred a candidate who supports action on global warming, and 68% said the United States should use more renewable energy. (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Spring 2026)
Public understanding of the science also remains incomplete: 59% of Americans said global warming is mostly human-caused, while only 54% understood that most scientists agree global warming is occurring. (Yale, Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Spring 2026)
The challenge is therefore not simply whether Americans care about climate change, but how differently they understand its urgency, causes and appropriate response.
Read More
Yale’s Spring 2026 survey found a similarly large division over political priority.
Asked whether global warming should be a “high” or “very high” priority for the president and Congress:
- 84% of liberal Democrats said yes;
- 70% of moderate/conservative Democrats;
- 36% of liberal/moderate Republicans;
- 11% of conservative Republicans.
Overall, 49% of registered voters considered it a high or very high priority. (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Spring 2026)
Yet the same survey found broader support for some responses: 58% of registered voters preferred a candidate who supports action on global warming, while only 14% preferred one opposed to action, and 68% said the United States should use more renewable energy. (Yale, Spring 2026)
On causation, 59% of Americans said global warming is mostly human-caused, while 27% attributed it mostly to natural environmental changes. Only 54% understood that most scientists agree global warming is occurring, while 25% believed there is substantial scientific disagreement. (Yale, Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Spring 2026)
Public Opinion
Updated October 2026
Americans remain deeply divided over climate change—but the divide is more pronounced over political priority and causes than over every possible response.
In April 2026, 63% of Democrats described climate change as a “very big problem,” compared with 14% of Republicans. (Pew Research Center, May 2026)
Yale similarly found that only 49% of registered voters overall considered global warming a high or very high federal priority. Yet 58% preferred a candidate who supports action on global warming, and 68% said the United States should use more renewable energy. (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Spring 2026)
Public understanding of the science also remains incomplete: 59% of Americans said global warming is mostly human-caused, while only 54% understood that most scientists agree global warming is occurring. (Yale, Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Spring 2026)
The challenge is therefore not simply whether Americans care about climate change, but how differently they understand its urgency, causes and appropriate response.
Read More
Yale’s Spring 2026 survey found a similarly large division over political priority.
Asked whether global warming should be a “high” or “very high” priority for the president and Congress:
- 84% of liberal Democrats said yes;
- 70% of moderate/conservative Democrats;
- 36% of liberal/moderate Republicans;
- 11% of conservative Republicans.
Overall, 49% of registered voters considered it a high or very high priority. (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Spring 2026)
Yet the same survey found broader support for some responses: 58% of registered voters preferred a candidate who supports action on global warming, while only 14% preferred one opposed to action, and 68% said the United States should use more renewable energy. (Yale, Spring 2026)
On causation, 59% of Americans said global warming is mostly human-caused, while 27% attributed it mostly to natural environmental changes. Only 54% understood that most scientists agree global warming is occurring, while 25% believed there is substantial scientific disagreement. (Yale, Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Spring 2026)
The Need for Discussion
Pope Francis teaches: “An integral ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good.” (Laudato Si, 156)
The polarization surrounding climate change makes serious discussion more important—not less.
Yet Americans seldom have those discussions. In Spring 2026, 69% said they “rarely” or “never” discuss global warming with family and friends; only 31% said they do so occasionally or often. (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Spring 2026)
That silence matters. Durable public policy normally requires some measure of public understanding and consent—particularly when policies impose costs, alter energy systems or demand long-term sacrifices.
Catholics should therefore be willing to discuss climate change across political lines: acknowledging scientific evidence, listening to legitimate concerns, rejecting ideological caricatures, recognizing legitimate uncertainty, and evaluating proposed solutions through the full body of Catholic social teaching.
The Need for Faith & Science
Catholics can make a distinctive contribution to that discussion by connecting scientific understanding with the moral principles needed to judge how we should respond.
Science and faith do not compete here.
Science asks: What is happening? Why is it happening? What may happen next?
Faith and moral reasoning ask: Why should we care? What do we owe our neighbor? What sacrifices are just? What kind of development respects the dignity of the human person?
There is evidence that religious language may reach people whom conventional climate rhetoric does not. Among liberal/moderate Republicans who supported a transition toward renewable energy in a 2026 Yale survey, “protecting God’s creation” was the most frequently chosen most-important reason for doing so. Among conservative Republicans who supported such a transition, protecting God’s creation tied for the second-most-important reason. (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Spring 2026)
Faith need not substitute for science.
It helps answer a different question science cannot answer by itself:
Why should we act—and what duties do we owe one another?
In Summary
Climate change presents Catholics with neither a choice between science and faith nor between environmental protection and human flourishing.
The scientific evidence that human activity is warming the climate is strong.
The Church’s teaching that creation is a gift entrusted to our stewardship is equally clear.
But neither statement determines a single political program.
Catholics may legitimately disagree about carbon taxes, regulatory mandates, nuclear energy, renewable subsidies, fossil-fuel policy, adaptation spending, international agreements and the proper pace of an energy transition.
That is because climate action itself can involve costs and unintended consequences, just as failure to address climate risks can have costs and consequences.
Such disagreement should not be confused with indifference to creation. Nor should concern for creation be used to place every proposed climate policy beyond legitimate debate.
Catholic social teaching instead requires us to hold several responsibilities together: stewardship of creation, protection of human dignity, solidarity with the poor and future generations, respect for subsidiarity, promotion of the common good and concern for authentic human development.
Catholic social teaching instead requires us to hold several responsibilities together: stewardship of creation, protection of human dignity, solidarity with the poor and future generations, respect for subsidiarity, promotion of the common good and concern for authentic human development.
Care for creation is a Christian duty.
Determining how best to fulfill that duty in a complicated world requires sound science, informed conscience, honest dialogue and prudential judgment.
What About other Environmental Issues?
Pope Benedict XVI taught: “The environment is God’s gift to everyone”.
Caritas in Veritate, 48
Its use therefore entails responsibility toward the poor, future generations and humanity as a whole.
Climate change is not the only serious environmental problem.
Environmental Degradation
Air and water pollution directly affect human health. Deforestation, biodiversity loss, marine degradation, toxic waste, soil degradation and unsafe disposal of industrial and radioactive materials can impose severe costs on both people and ecosystems. Many of those costs fall disproportionately on poor communities and developing nations.
Integral Ecology
Integral ecology therefore requires us to consider the whole of creation and the whole human person—not to allow any single environmental problem, however important, to make every other problem invisible.
The Human Environment
Climate change deserves serious attention—but authentic stewardship requires attention to the whole environmental and human ecology.
FAQs
Q: Is climate change real?
A: Yes. Multiple independent measurements show that the planet has warmed substantially since the nineteenth century. The eleven years from 2015 through 2025 were the eleven warmest years in the observational record. (World Meteorological Organization, State of the Global Climate 2025)
Q: Is climate change caused by human activity?
A: The world’s major scientific assessments conclude that human greenhouse-gas emissions are the dominant cause of recent global warming. Scientific debate continues over important questions including climate sensitivity, regional effects, particular extreme-event attribution and future impacts. (IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report: Synthesis Report)
Q: Does the Catholic Church require Catholics to support a particular climate policy?
A: No. Care for creation, the common good and concern for the poor are moral obligations. Particular tax, regulatory, technological and energy policies are matters of prudential judgment guided by Catholic social teaching (see “What Is Settled—and What Requires Prudential Judgment?” above). See Pope Benedict XVI’s discussion of the role of the lay faithful in Deus Caritas Est, 28–29
Q: What has Pope Leo XIV said about climate change?
A: Pope Leo XIV has explicitly referred to climate change caused by human activity and teaches that environmental justice is a matter of social, economic and human justice—and, for believers, a duty flowing from faith. (Message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, 2025)
Q: What is climate justice?
A: From a Catholic perspective, climate justice means addressing environmental harms in a way that respects human dignity, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity and the preferential option for the poor. See Pope Francis’s treatment of integral ecology, the common good and intergenerational justice in Laudato Si’, 137–162.
It must include not only reducing environmental risks but ensuring that the poor have access to reliable, affordable energy and the opportunity for authentic human development.
Q: Is climate policy a matter of prudential judgment?
A: Yes. Scientific findings can inform policy choices, but science alone cannot determine how society should balance costs, benefits, competing goods, development needs, energy reliability and distributional consequences.
Those choices require prudential judgment guided by Catholic social teaching.
Catholic Social Teaching and Other Issues
Why These Issues Matter
Catholic social teaching informs our consciences and requires action from us, the lay faithful. “Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy. It is a moral obligation.
For Christians, the responsibility is even greater: it is a commandment.”
