Of all the places one might go for a scrupulous scientific analysis of the Earth's climate, the Vatican wouldn't and shouldn't be very high on the list. That's not their job, after all. Just as you wouldn't go to an auto repair shop for advice on dealing with a nasty head cold, nor should you look to the Pope for a dissertation on the Earth's climate and its history. People, Popes, and auto mechanics alike should really stick to their own areas of expertise.
No, the Vatican isn't a scientific organization. That's not what they do. But, it seems, that won't prevent them from some pretty fact-impaired climate scoldery. The Vatican has indulged in this more than once over the last few years, and now, they're doing it again.
The latest issue of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, is channeling, of all things, a UNICEF climate report. Remember that bit about sticking to one's area of expertise? The CO2 Coalition's Frits Byron Soepyan has done a great job of picking apart the Vatican's climate pretensions.
Drawing on UNICEF’s The Children’s Climate Risk Report 2026, the paper’s front-page, June 16 story, “Emergenze climatiche: Il cielo sopra i bam (Climate Emergencies: The Sky Above the Children),” claims that half of the world’s children are “threatened daily” by “extreme climate events.” The article lists the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as a way to mitigate “climate risks.” UNICEF’s report also urges the phasing out of fossil fuels in favor of “renewable” energy.
OK, I will admit that's a rather poetic title - "The Sky Above the Children" - and that, one might think, would be something that the Vatican would be good at. What they aren't good at is seeking out and examining solid data on the planet's climate.
Mr. Soepyan continues:
But are children, or anybody, really endangered by a climate crisis? Let’s see what the data say.
The EM-DAT database from the University of Louvain’s Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters confirms that natural disasters did not become more frequent from about 2000 onward. Before then, the system for disaster reporting was still in the process of being developed. That means that a rise in the stated number of disasters during the 20th century reflects better reporting from more stations, rather than an increase in disaster frequency.
For instance, the global percentage of land area affected by drought has been decreasing since 1950. Similarly, in the United States, heat waves peaked in the 1930s, and the severity and frequency of wildfires dropped significantly from 1926 to 2025. The area burned annually by wildfires declined by about 90% since its peak in 1930.
Note the source of his data: Not the Vatican, not UNICEF, but an actual research organization which has taken on an analysis of natural disasters, climate and otherwise. And their data is telling:
According to worldwide data compiled by Dr. Ryan N. Maue, tropical cyclones, tropical storms, and hurricanes are not becoming more violent or frequent. Since the 1920s, the decadal number of deaths from natural disasters dropped by more than 90% by the 2010s.
With no increase in the severity and frequency of natural disasters, and a dramatic drop in disaster-induced mortality, there simply is no basis for the Vatican newspaper’s sensationalism.
We've reported this before. It still applies. These impending predictions of climate doom are just wrong. And in channeling the UN to promote this horse squeeze, the Vatican is wrong. A few hundred years ago, this statement might have gotten me hung up by my thumbs, but that doesn't make it any less accurate.
Read More: Climate Alarm by Bloomberg Flops, As Food Production Hits New Highs
The Bad Old Days: Climate, and Why 536 AD Was the Worst Year Ever
What's more, the Vatican doesn't seem to have absorbed the facts about the positive benefits of a slight increase in CO2.
Although recent decades have seen increasing atmospheric concentrations of various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide, they cannot be blamed for causing “climate emergencies,” as there are none to begin with.
In fact, as an essential gas for life, CO2 better supports plant growth as its atmospheric concentration increases. Plants grow bigger, produce more food, and use water more efficiently, enabling them to better resist drought. NASA has confirmed that Earth has been greening for decades, with higher levels of CO2 responsible for 70% of new growth.
Given these benefits, it is foolish to attempt to reduce levels of carbon dioxide. If anything, more is needed.
Facts matter. And the facts just don't support the claims of UNICEF or the Vatican, at least, not where climate change is concerned.
I won't criticize the Vatican for anything it does in its core mission, which is running the Roman Catholic Church around the world. The Church and the Vatican have a long history, a long time to have learned how to carry out that core mission. They should stick to that core mission, and leave the analysis of the planets' vast, complex, and chaotic climate to people better trained and experienced to conduct such analysis, to the extent it's possible; the one thing the Vatican could do here would be to, frankly, stay in their own wheelhouse.
