He warns that technology cannot be relied upon to solve environmental problems, chastises those people who cite Genesis in the Bible as evidence that humankind's "dominion" over the Earth justifies environmental exploitation and destruction. Indeed, it is the Pope's demands for swift action to phase out fossil fuel use and for the world's richer nations to make greater efforts to fund and enable the transition to renewable energy sources that are probably the least uncontroversial part of Laudati Si.

That the encyclical was subtitled "on care for our common home", and addressed to "every person living on this planet" (not to the Catholic laity as is usually the case) offers a clue to the Pope's thinking: he has clearly intended it to be more than just a document heralding a change in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. His denunciation of mankind's greed and destructive capacities and his plea for the environment to be accorded greater respect and reverence are sweeping in scope and ambition, and for that reason, criticisms of it are likely to more caustic than might have been the case.

Pope Francis may have once earned a master degree in chemistry, but his scientific understanding of the intricacies and nuances of climate science and whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon or not is necessarily limited. Entrenched climate sceptics have already discounted the encyclical's importance and value on that particular score. The Pope's criticisms of the use of cap and trade schemes to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions have been similarly dismissed by economists as being out of step with informed policy analysis. Harvard University environmental economist Robert N. Stavins characterised his approach as similar to that of a "small set of socialist Latin American countries that are opposed to the world economic order, fearful of free markets, and have been utterly dismissive and uncooperative in international climate negotiations". It's highly probable, too, that the Pope's demand for fossil fuel use to be phased out will be characterised as a denial of the rights of people living in the developing world to a more prosperous future.

The criticism that cannot be levelled at the Pope is that his encyclical lacks scholarly rigour (German climate scientist Professor John Schellnhuber played a leading role in its drafting) or that it is out of step with the majority view of climate science, which is that global warming is a fact and that its environmental, economic and social consequences will be profound if left unchecked. And there is plentiful evidence to back the Pope's claim that carbon emission credits create new forms of financial speculation and enable large corporations to buy their way out of having to make meaningful efforts to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. The Pope's questioning of other economic orthodoxy might upset advocates of market-based solutions as being the best and only way to tackle global warming, but the evidence that it is a leading driver of hunger, poverty and population displacement is steadily mounting.

For the spiritual leader of one of the world's richest, most conservative institutions to be openly criticising the rich and powerful will strike many as ironic and perhaps even sanctimonious. His disregard of population growth – a key factor in global warming – is also passing strange. But for an individual of his background and predilection – his oft-stated aim as Pope is to lead "a poor church, for the poor" – Laudati Si is in keeping with the Francis papacy. It needs to be taken as seriously as any of the church's other momentous encyclicals, if not more so.