I do know that deliberate (not just collateral) damage for the sake of harm (for instance deliberate destruction of cropland so as to cause directly-intended starvation to populations in time of war) would be a sin, because it would be targeting things that noncombatant populations need for their survival.
As to the very sensible questions, "No drilling for oil? No burning fossil fuel of any kind? No dumping at sea? No eating meat? No GMO? No air travel? " I think those are considered prudential questions, which is to say, they would be outside of the competence of the clergy.
This ties to you other sensible question, "Then who decides?"
It would have to be a whole lot of people acting responsibly within the sphere of their competence: me to my kids (don't damage the trees in the public park), a municipal ordinance (no throwing trash on city property), the county (no dumping construction rubble into stream beds), the TVA--- I'm a Tennesseean --- (reforest denuded slopes), --- many things handled by public authorities on the basis of subsidiarity.
Roughly, "subsidiarity" means "conducted at the lowest, most local level of organization that can adequately do the job."
I have no problem accepting all of what you wrote.
However, I also have my doubts as to whether this is what Pope Francis *means*.
It’s pretty clear that he has bought into the global warming fraud — as well as its socialist-oriented remedies — hook, line, and sinker.
And that, not sensible environmentally-conscious activities like you mention, is what the Pope is really pushing. And what he says GOD will judge us for: not going along with the global warming income-redistribution and elite-enrichment scam.
That alarms me, not least because those most strongly aligned with the global warming fraud are not Christian in nature, but rather atheistic and pagan.
And paganism and creation-worship and its close ally, human pride and confidence in human solutions, I assure you, is definitely counter to GOD’s will and His plan.
“I do know that deliberate (not just collateral) damage for the sake of harm (for instance deliberate destruction of cropland so as to cause directly-intended starvation to populations in time of war) would be a sin, because it would be targeting things that noncombatant populations need for their survival.”
Hmm, what does the Bible say about that?:
“3 Samson then said to them, “This time I shall be blameless in regard to the Philistines when I do them harm.” 4 Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, and turned the foxes tail to tail and put one torch in the middle between two tails. 5 When he had set fire to the torches, he released the foxes into the standing grain of the Philistines, thus burning up both the shocks and the standing grain, along with the vineyards and groves.” (Judges 15:3-5)
God apparently approved of this action by Samson, since when the Judahites went to deliver him to the Philistines for justice, God miraculously intervened to free him:
“13 So they said to him, “No, but we will bind you fast and give you into their hands; yet surely we will not kill you.” Then they bound him with two new ropes and brought him up from the rock.
14 When he came to Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him mightily so that the ropes that were on his arms were as flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds dropped from his hands.”
(Judges 15:13-14)