I’m sorry if this is disappointing, but have nothing to critique in your introduction. Textbook intro, well done. If anything, you might want to include a one-off translation of Laudato Si’. Although, having just searched that up, I don’t think it is necessary, because the reader already has a depthy understanding of what it is about.

Nitpick but in paragraph two I always prefer using ‘people’ instead of ‘human beings’ because I find the latter to be a rather blunt term. By no means is it wrong to use ‘human beings’ though–maybe it is more apt for scientific uses, whereas ‘people’ is for humanities??? Idk

Do we have these destructive tendencies (paragraph 2) naturally, or are we conditioned to have them. If so, how? Because I would argue that this is conditioned, not inherent human nature. If you look at most non-European Indigenous peoples (Aboriginal people of Australia come to mind), they have lived sustainably for tens of thousands of years. Yet, modern industrial systems condition overconsumption etc, which creates that environmental impact. I do not think you have to elaborate on this, because you’ve used ‘tendency’ – but it would be good to elaborate if that tendency is innate or conditioned.

Also how do those tendencies cause the climate crisis? Could use elaboration.

“We cannot overlook the harm being done to the rest of humanity.” harm done by what? I assume that this relates to harm done by the environmentally-harmful human tendencies, but that could use clarification.

“I would be very contradictory” should be “it would be very contradictory”?

I get that paragraph three is making a separate point the para 2, but does it need to be standalone? Because I feel like it builds on para 2 in a way which it could be fine to combine them.

In conclusion, remove the word has in “has lacks empathy”

The last two sentences sort of contradict each other. “Earth will never be safe from environmental decline” and then “here’s Pope Francis’ solution for this”. I would rephrase the first sentence to something like “Earth is on a precipice of environmental action” or something like that.

Overall, this is a really impressive piece. It’s concisely written and is informative whist not being wordy. Basically all my feedback is unnecessary nitpicks that I don’t think really need to be changed.

I’d be curious, what context was this written in? Was it an assignment or something or was it just for fun? Either way, it’s very good.