C
Corki
Guest
Actually, only one bishop and one lay president of Catholic Social Services.
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
Thanks for the correction. It surprises me that a bishop and the head of a Catholic relief agency would so blithely buy in to a bill whose economic impact could well make the plight of the poor even worse.Actually, only one bishop and one lay president of Catholic Social Services.
H
human_being
Guest
So are you saying that the site I linked is a liberal source? Or a non-credible source?
H
human_being
Guest
I think I got the link through EWTN as one of their news sources.
Feature Stories
US Catholic hierarchy shows support for legislation requiring massive tax hike (Subscribe to RSS Feed)
Jun. 26, 2009 (CWNews.com) -
The US bishops have given their enthusiastic support to the Waxman-Markey bill, a piece of legislation designed to address climate change, which Republican opponents have characterized as entailing “the largest tax increase in American history.”
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 proposes a complicated series of schemes known as “cap and trade,” ultimately imposing taxes on the carbon-dioxide emissions that are cited as a major factor in global warming. Even before the 1,200-page legislation was made available to Congress, the members of the House of Representatives received a letter from two leading representatives of the American Church, giving their strong endorsement for the bill.
Bishop Howard Hubbard, who chairs the US bishops’ committee on international justice and peace; and Ken Hackett, the president of Catholic Relief Services, welcomed the introduction of the Waxman-Markey bill. They criticized the legislation only because, in their view, it did not include adequate funding to protect the poor-- in the US and abroad-- from the bill’s economic impact. Bishop Hubbard and Hackett argued that “the funding resources committed to international adaptation fall fundamentally short of what is needed.” Their letter also suggested measures to protect churches and non-profit agencies from the adverse economic effects.
The bishop chairs an important commitee. But why does it say that the U.S. bishops have given enthusiastic support and only list one?
Code:
Catholic World News (CWN)US Catholic hierarchy shows support for legislation requiring massive tax hike (Subscribe to RSS Feed)
Jun. 26, 2009 (CWNews.com) -
The US bishops have given their enthusiastic support to the Waxman-Markey bill, a piece of legislation designed to address climate change, which Republican opponents have characterized as entailing “the largest tax increase in American history.”
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 proposes a complicated series of schemes known as “cap and trade,” ultimately imposing taxes on the carbon-dioxide emissions that are cited as a major factor in global warming. Even before the 1,200-page legislation was made available to Congress, the members of the House of Representatives received a letter from two leading representatives of the American Church, giving their strong endorsement for the bill.
Bishop Howard Hubbard, who chairs the US bishops’ committee on international justice and peace; and Ken Hackett, the president of Catholic Relief Services, welcomed the introduction of the Waxman-Markey bill. They criticized the legislation only because, in their view, it did not include adequate funding to protect the poor-- in the US and abroad-- from the bill’s economic impact. Bishop Hubbard and Hackett argued that “the funding resources committed to international adaptation fall fundamentally short of what is needed.” Their letter also suggested measures to protect churches and non-profit agencies from the adverse economic effects.
The bishop chairs an important commitee. But why does it say that the U.S. bishops have given enthusiastic support and only list one?
P
PetoOfVerum
Guest
We have a new winner for ignorance on Catholic Answers folks. Climate change is 100% scientifically proven, and no, I am not a Democrat, not a liberal, or a socialist communist, I am just an EDUCATED PERSON. Global warming is no longer a debate people it is a scientific truth, if you are well educated and understand scientific principles you get this, if you have been raised be self professed “Neo-con” crazzies, well, I feel oh so bad for you. The Government actually invented the “war on terror” to gain control of its citizens and tries to keep them in check with a “threat level system”.
C
Corki
Guest
I know you are new but here at CAF, it is generally frowned upon to attack other posters. This thread has gone several pages and remained civil so please don’t ruin it for the rest of us. Thanks.
J
JimG
Guest
Your source seems to be accurate, but it does not give any indication of just how many bishops might support the bill, since it names only the one. Whether it is one or many, I am still surprised that a bishop concerned for the poor would support a bill that has the potential to drag down the global economy for years to come. But bishops can have political biases just like the rest of us.
R
RobbyS
Guest
From the 14th to the 17th Century, Europe was in a cooling phase. One reason why the Black Death took such a toll was that harvests were way down from what they had been 100 years before. As the weather began to war, as Europe began to important new crops–eg. the potato–food production grew and a population boom began. Evidently, something like this happened in America, too. The population increase of both white and blacks increased at a faster rate than any place on earth today. The rapid increase in the American colonial population was one cause of the Revolution. It has an unsettling effect on France, as well. Population increase was one reason by food production fell the demand, causing social unrest, and contributed to the French Revolution. The growing numbers frightened the aristocracy everywhere, and we have Dr, Maltus warning about the population explosion. The elites are still frightened.
H
human_being
Guest
I’ve not been big on environmental issues lately,I kind of thought it was just a political thing…But…here is another comment from another EWTN newssouce link Ctholic News Agency. When the Church’s leaders start making comments I start to think otherwise
“As Catholic pastors and teachers, we have a special concern for how climate change impacts the poor,” they wrote, endorsing “concrete commitments” to “mitigate” further climate change.
From these writings I would actually think there is a climate problem…I don’t think they were American bishops because the story is about not letting the bad economy being even worse for the poor. A G-8 or G-20 summit I think.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16375
This is what makes me so aggravated.Who is lying? The republican news shows,the democrat news shows,the catholic press? Who’s lying? Where in the world is the TRUTH?
.
Code:
The archbishops and bishops also said that poor countries that are least at fault for the human sources of climate change face the most risks from its consequences.From these writings I would actually think there is a climate problem…I don’t think they were American bishops because the story is about not letting the bad economy being even worse for the poor. A G-8 or G-20 summit I think.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16375
This is what makes me so aggravated.Who is lying? The republican news shows,the democrat news shows,the catholic press? Who’s lying? Where in the world is the TRUTH?
.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Visit www.sepp.org and check out their TWTW newsletter, if you want to read some current reporting on the science.
H
human_being
Guest
This is what makes me so aggravated.Who is lying? The republican news shows,the democrat news shows,the catholic press? Who’s lying? Where in the world is the TRUTH?
. I’ve been so frustrated with this nonsense listed above that i posted a new thread on credibility. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5382825#post5382825
. I’ve been so frustrated with this nonsense listed above that i posted a new thread on credibility. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5382825#post5382825
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
How?
By destroying the economy for something that doesn’t exist? By continuing to give more power to the government and persecuting Christians?
Tell me how that will help the poor.
His policies are about as far from Christian as is possible to be. The Church has soundly condemned socialism. And since socialism has already earned a bad name, “Climate change” is its new disguise.
There was a thread here on the EPA suppressing a report that debunked global warming. Hope I can find the link.
The left’s policies do the opposite of what they say they want them to do, yet they keep doing the same thing, more repressively with each iteration.
H
human_being
Guest
I didn’t get to much into the reports yet but this is good right at the top:
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. – …Abraham Lincoln, 16th president (1809 - 1865)
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Apologies in advance; the June 27 TWTW newsletter at www.sepp.org has not yet been posted to the Web site. So here it is [shortened to 6000 characters; the full text is about 9000 characters;]:
You can get your own subscription by writing to info@sepp.org
FW: TWTW_June 27, 2009
PLEASE NOTE: Occasionally TWTW will be sent from Ken@Haapala.com.
The Week That Was (June 20, 2009) brought to you by SEPP
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
SEPP invites readers to submit Waxman-Turkey (Ration &Tax) bill idiocies to comments@sepp.org
– utterly ridiculous items like, ‘all houses have to pass an energy conservation inspection by a government auditor before they can be sold.’ Be sure to add Title and Section, or page numbers.ernor of Illinois
THIS WEEK
It’s been an eventful week: On June 23, the EPA closed its Comment period. Last time we looked there were nearly 4000 comments on EPA’s all-encompassing (and flawed) Endangerment Finding (EF) that is supposed to pave the way for highly intrusive regulation and rule-making of six greenhouse gases. One comment that didn’t make it was from within the EPA itself: Dr Alan Carlin (physics degree from CalTech and PhD in economics from MIT) submitted a devastating critique of the scientific base of the EF, which was quashed by his superiors; Carlin was prohibited to do any further work on climate issues. The e-mail exchange that documents this “muzzling” makes revealing reading and will come back to haunt the Obama White House. [SEPP says: We are waiting for Dr Jim Hansen of NASA to speak up for Dr Carlin.]
The other big event was passage of the Waxman-Markey (energy rationing & tax) bill. In a triumph for President Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation calling for the nation’s first-ever limits on emissions linked to global warming. The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, saying it would cost jobs in the midst of a recession. House Minority Leader John Boehner lambasted the Democratic bill for more than an hour Friday evening before the final vote. He mocked provisions covering everything from energy-efficient loan standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the definition of “renewable biomass” to the establishment of “green” banking centers. “Is there anything we’re not regulating in this bill?” he asked.
Summary of H.R. 2454 govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454&tab=summary
WSJ story online.wsj.com/article/SB124610499176664899.html#printMode
SEPP Comment: ACES lacks any scientific basis, is hugely expensive, yet ineffective, and needlessly complicated. The simplest policy would have been to impose a carbon tax that would raise prices so much that households and businesses would use less energy from coal, oil and natural gas. Proceeds from the tax could then be rebated to consumers or used for other government purposes. Even a ‘simple’ carbon tax has its complications; enviros would likely oppose it because it gives a cost advantage to nuclear energy.
SEPP Science Editorial #19-2009 (6/27/09)
Geo-Engineering (Part 1)
Humans’ changing the climate is not new. A growing world population has cut down forests for more cropland – and in the process has increased the earth’s albedo over the past centuries and also affected the hydrological balance. We can cite many other examples of inadvertent climate modification. But ‘geo-engineering’ deals with deliberate efforts to change the climate, not only locally but also globally. Around 1968, while serving as a deputy assistant secretary of Interior I organized a small symposium on purposeful modification of the regional and global environment, later published as a booklet by the US National Academy of Sciences.
NEWS YOU CAN USE
A reader comments on EPA-EF: The Supreme Court authorized EPA to treat CO2 as a pollutant. Scientifically, that’s madness. But it’s worse than that … the EPA muzzled at least one of its own analysts who disagreed with the party line.
These cover-ups are like cockroaches — if you see one, there’s probably hundreds around that you haven’t seen. Makes your skin crawl, don’t it?
‘White House War On Science’: The president’s Council on Bioethics is summarily dismissed when it disagrees on the need for more federally funded embryonic stem-cell research. The scientific method shouldn’t include firing those who disagree with you. [INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY, June 24, 2009]
[SEPP says: We are waiting for the Union of Concerned Scientists to denounce Obama – as they did Bush. And where are the NYT and Science mag when we need them?]
S. Fred Singer, PhD, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project
http :// www.sepp.org
You can get your own subscription by writing to info@sepp.org
FW: TWTW_June 27, 2009
PLEASE NOTE: Occasionally TWTW will be sent from Ken@Haapala.com.
The Week That Was (June 20, 2009) brought to you by SEPP
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
SEPP invites readers to submit Waxman-Turkey (Ration &Tax) bill idiocies to comments@sepp.org
– utterly ridiculous items like, ‘all houses have to pass an energy conservation inspection by a government auditor before they can be sold.’ Be sure to add Title and Section, or page numbers.ernor of Illinois
THIS WEEK
It’s been an eventful week: On June 23, the EPA closed its Comment period. Last time we looked there were nearly 4000 comments on EPA’s all-encompassing (and flawed) Endangerment Finding (EF) that is supposed to pave the way for highly intrusive regulation and rule-making of six greenhouse gases. One comment that didn’t make it was from within the EPA itself: Dr Alan Carlin (physics degree from CalTech and PhD in economics from MIT) submitted a devastating critique of the scientific base of the EF, which was quashed by his superiors; Carlin was prohibited to do any further work on climate issues. The e-mail exchange that documents this “muzzling” makes revealing reading and will come back to haunt the Obama White House. [SEPP says: We are waiting for Dr Jim Hansen of NASA to speak up for Dr Carlin.]
The other big event was passage of the Waxman-Markey (energy rationing & tax) bill. In a triumph for President Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation calling for the nation’s first-ever limits on emissions linked to global warming. The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, saying it would cost jobs in the midst of a recession. House Minority Leader John Boehner lambasted the Democratic bill for more than an hour Friday evening before the final vote. He mocked provisions covering everything from energy-efficient loan standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the definition of “renewable biomass” to the establishment of “green” banking centers. “Is there anything we’re not regulating in this bill?” he asked.
Summary of H.R. 2454 govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454&tab=summary
WSJ story online.wsj.com/article/SB124610499176664899.html#printMode
SEPP Comment: ACES lacks any scientific basis, is hugely expensive, yet ineffective, and needlessly complicated. The simplest policy would have been to impose a carbon tax that would raise prices so much that households and businesses would use less energy from coal, oil and natural gas. Proceeds from the tax could then be rebated to consumers or used for other government purposes. Even a ‘simple’ carbon tax has its complications; enviros would likely oppose it because it gives a cost advantage to nuclear energy.
SEPP Science Editorial #19-2009 (6/27/09)
Geo-Engineering (Part 1)
Humans’ changing the climate is not new. A growing world population has cut down forests for more cropland – and in the process has increased the earth’s albedo over the past centuries and also affected the hydrological balance. We can cite many other examples of inadvertent climate modification. But ‘geo-engineering’ deals with deliberate efforts to change the climate, not only locally but also globally. Around 1968, while serving as a deputy assistant secretary of Interior I organized a small symposium on purposeful modification of the regional and global environment, later published as a booklet by the US National Academy of Sciences.
- House passes Climate Bill
- Critique of Waxman-Markey bill
- Two EPA staffers question science behind climate ‘endangerment’ proposal
- CARBONGATE
- Climate Depot Editorial: Climate Bill’s passage represents ‘nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting and intimidation’
- Greenpeace opposes Waxman-‘turkey’ bill
- Action on climate change is overdue. But is this the best we can hope for?
- Climate bill: U.S. threatens poor nations with trade war
- The Cap and Tax Fiction the biggest tax in American history
NEWS YOU CAN USE
A reader comments on EPA-EF: The Supreme Court authorized EPA to treat CO2 as a pollutant. Scientifically, that’s madness. But it’s worse than that … the EPA muzzled at least one of its own analysts who disagreed with the party line.
These cover-ups are like cockroaches — if you see one, there’s probably hundreds around that you haven’t seen. Makes your skin crawl, don’t it?
‘White House War On Science’: The president’s Council on Bioethics is summarily dismissed when it disagrees on the need for more federally funded embryonic stem-cell research. The scientific method shouldn’t include firing those who disagree with you. [INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY, June 24, 2009]
[SEPP says: We are waiting for the Union of Concerned Scientists to denounce Obama – as they did Bush. And where are the NYT and Science mag when we need them?]
S. Fred Singer, PhD, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project
http :// www.sepp.org
H
human_being
Guest
Maybe he’s doing something like this:
Code:
In this regard, Rerum novarum points the way to just reforms which can restore dignity to work as the free activity of man. These reforms imply that society and the State will both assume responsibility, especially for protecting the worker from the nightmare of unemployment. Historically, this has happened in two converging ways: either through economic policies aimed at ensuring balanced gand full employment,rowth or through unemployment insurance and retraining programmes capable of ensuring a smooth transfer of workers from crisis sectors to those in expansion.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
How do these sorts of FEDERAL rules and regulations help the poor. [They just make homes more expensive.]
The bill says it will be a violation to sell or occupy a building that doesn’t meet the energy standards.
Each day of occupancy will be a separate violation.
The effect of this regulation will be to REQUIRE, by lenders, that a Government Energy Audit be performed prior to sale. The people who do this will invariably be licensed by the State and doing an audit based on these new Government Energy Regulations, so for all intents, yes, they will be Government Energy Auditors.
From the bill (pg 214, of original bill):
8
14 made applicable under paragraph (1) of this subsection, if the building was constructed out of compliance with such code.
18
cepted by the Secretary
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.—(1) The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section, pursuant to subsection (d)(3), in accordance with the procedures described in section 333(d) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6303). The United States district courts shall also have jurisdiction to restrain any violation of this section or rules adopted thereunder, in accordance with the procedures described in section 334 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
21 U.S.C. 6304).
22
The bill says it will be a violation to sell or occupy a building that doesn’t meet the energy standards.
Each day of occupancy will be a separate violation.
The effect of this regulation will be to REQUIRE, by lenders, that a Government Energy Audit be performed prior to sale. The people who do this will invariably be licensed by the State and doing an audit based on these new Government Energy Regulations, so for all intents, yes, they will be Government Energy Auditors.
From the bill (pg 214, of original bill):
(3) VIOLATIONS.—It shall be a violation of this section for an owner or builder of a building to knowingly occupy, permit occupancy of, or convey the building if the building is subject to the requirements of— (A) a State energy efficiency building code with respect to which a certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B);8
(B) a local energy efficiency building code with respect to which a certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (e)(6)(B); or 12 (C) a national energy efficiency building code adopted under subsection (c)(1)(A)(i) or14 made applicable under paragraph (1) of this subsection, if the building was constructed out of compliance with such code.
18
(e) STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY 19 BUILDING CODES.— 20 (1) IN GENERAL.—Each State, or where applicable under State law each local government, shall implement and enforce applicable State or local codes with respect to which a certification was ac24cepted by the Secretary
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.—(1) The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section, pursuant to subsection (d)(3), in accordance with the procedures described in section 333(d) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6303). The United States district courts shall also have jurisdiction to restrain any violation of this section or rules adopted thereunder, in accordance with the procedures described in section 334 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
21 U.S.C. 6304).
22
(2) Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation. 24 (3) In the event a building constructed out of compliance with the applicable code has been conveyed by a knowing builder or knowing seller to an unknowing purchaser, the builder or seller shall be the violator.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Sheez. I own a 100 yearold house in a poor neighborhood. My house would have violations galore. I hope the grandfather clause applys here, or I’m hung out to dry.
J
JimG
Guest
Differences of opinion don’t necessarily mean someone is lying. It just means that there is a difference of opinion.
4
4elise
Guest
That is a very good point ---- and why I look to the Church to help me sort out these difficult issues. While some may disagree that the ‘Church’ has taken a position, from what I can see they have, and are calling each of us to both personal action and advocacy on the part of the most vulnerable.
Peace
J
JimG
Guest
And ironically, concern and advocacy for the most vulnerable is probably one of the few points on which their is little disagreement. But there is disagreement on what actions or inactions will hurt the poor the most.
- Status