The entire territory of Vatican City State is a mere 108-acres (44 hectares). It has a population of just over 800 people.
It has been installing solar panels on buildings within its territory for the last 13 years and in 2020 it banned single-use plastic bags. It is also reportedly recycling up to 65% of its waste with the aim of reaching 75% in 2023.
It does not have anything remotely resembling industrial heartlands or a high carbon emitting aviation industry and it has a head of state with a global reach who for the better part of a decade has been to the forefront in seeking to place the ‘climate emergency’ at the centre of international, to say nothing of theological, policy making.
So, with all of this in mind you might think that if any state or territory was ideally primed to achieve ‘net-zero’ carbon emissions after a regulatory or legislative hop-skip and jump, it would be one precisely like Vatican City State.
It turns out however that the answer to that is a resounding no.
Indeed, The Holy See in its submission to COP26 merely reconfirmed its previously stated position i.e., that it will aim to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the same date for example as the UK with its population of 67 million.
Contrast this again with Canada with its legally binding target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.
Is Vatican City State willing to accept that Canada (population 38 million) can reach net-zero before it can and if so, why?
This is important because as the Holy See noted in a high-level thematic debate on climate action in the build-up to the COP26, there is a need for common “yet differentiated climate action” at all levels. What they mean by this is that ‘wealthy countries must take the lead in reducing their emissions.’
So, it is not clear to me how well or consistently the adoption of the 2050 date by Vatican City State sits with the comments made by both Francis in his submission to COP26 and the Holy See more generally.
Francis in his submission to COP26 says “there is no time to waste,” and “now is the time to act.” But again, how do we square this with his state’s adoption of the 2050 date?
What is also clear is that Vatican City State’s adoption of 2050 for achieving net-zero emissions flies in the face of many policy positions adopted by agencies attached to Bishops Conferences around the world.
These are similar to the Irish Bishops overseas agency Trócaire, which by and large promote very left of centre positions on the climate issue.
In fact, Trócaire in its submission to COP26 clearly stated that “the equity principle” means that developed nations should move faster than the average and that countries such as Ireland and other EU member states have an obligation to make greater efforts at climate mitigation prior to 2050.
It would appear therefore that Vatican City State is at odds with many the Church’s own institutions and organisations on this matter of dates.
This lack of consistency also gives rise to another important question; namely why should anyone bother listening to anything the Holy See says on climate action so long as it continues to assert that it will take its population of 800+ the same length of time to achieve net-zero status as nations with 80 million?
If you will pardon the pun, it appears inexcusable to pontificate in such circumstances, especially when you demand countries engage in destabilising levels of economic change that you yourself will be essentially immune from.