The general thrust of Monsignor Girotti’s opinions are that sin has (to quote one tabloid) “gone global”. Or to put it better, the consequentialist outlook regarding morality is beginning to see the bigger picture of social intersubjectivity and not just personal culpability.

Thus although environmental pollution itself per se is not sinful or morally wrong – i.e. any CO2 releases such as breathing – non-regulated and unnecessary pollution would be cited as socially damaging, particularly where the consequences are ignored.
Example: Factory producing non-essential (luxury) consumer items, churning out toxic waste damaging both its immediate environment but also the ‘greater’ environment.
Further example: the same factory refusing to change its manufacturing methods on the grounds of lost profits.

Genetic Manipulation again I think a distinction is being drawn between selective breeding and what could be termed interventionist approaches. Where the latter is hybrid embryo development in the laboratory and outside of the context of “nature” (as defined by the Church, in other words the womb). But further clarification is needed, for we could ask but whats so wrong with genetic manipulation in the case of disease prevention? (Good point).
If we remember that the specific thrust of these new sins is the social rather than personal consequentialist view then it is concerning eugenics, and non-autonomous manipulation of genetic material to conform to externally set standards (i.e. the state saying we need more workers less disabled).

Drug trafficking and consumption, again it is talking about social consequentialism. And it would actually cover all drugs including alcohol (thereby including communion wine – which incidentally does not have to be alcoholic depending on circumstances). Again it is condemning the social consequences that drug addiction has, not only is the individual physically or mentally ravaged but in the context of families and friends (not to mention complete strangers) issues arising out of the addiction can have enormous consequences:- violence, lying, theft, physical and mental abuse (the list goes on).
Similarly with drug trafficking and peddling, quite aside from the individual sin taking place the knock-on effect of residual violence, the abuse and exploitation of the vulnerable and addicted, general social deterioration and so on.

Finally Morally Debatable experiments, although I need not mention any other examples than those you have, again the principle being extolled here is social consequentialism.

Its vagueness, actually isn’t all that vague, because really all he is doing is restating well publicised existing Catholic teaching. Whether it be the contemporary concern for environmental pollution or the centuries old doctrine of the summum bonum (the highest and common good). All this is (and the media as per usual have made it into something bigger than it really is) is the opinions of one theologian and his intepretation of doctrine.

The original seven deadly sins have not been retired, nor do these “new” fangled ideas represent a break with the ten commandments.

One interesting point to make as a comment. If indeed the Church is moving towards reaffirming the Thomistic doctrine of the common good, and a socially consequentialist view of ethics – does this mean it is engaging in an internal dialogue on certain extraordinary issues such as the ban on artificial contraception in the age of the Aids pandemic?
A socially consequentialist view and a reinterpretation of the doctrine of the common good, could see a reevaluation of a moral proposition (banning condoms – individual sin with personal moral culpability) with regards a sense of proportionality (infection of the partner and their offspring if the moral proposition is obeyed and abstinence is unnacceptable/undesirable).

Although I understand that these are generally just questioning comments being made by someone who feels perhaps their scientific language game is being threatened, I would suggest that you applaud this shift in the Church’s doctrine. Its authority (whether you accept it or not) is large enough that it can be an influential force for the good.