Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Ridgerunner]

Now, I’m a simple gal, and I just don’t see it this way - I don’t have the same opinion of the Bishops or the USCCB that you do, but reading your opinion I can see why you would not be pleased that they are putting out any information on this topic. I’ve had a chance to see programs from the USCCB doing wonderful things both domestic and internationally - so, while there could always be improvement I’m really proud of our Church and it’s leadership — Peace!

One needs to make a mental distinction between one’s own bishop and the USCCB. We have a terrific new, young bishop; a very good man, and I pray for his success. He would be so out of place in the USCCB, though, it’s hard to picture them even allowing him in the door. He, himself, is critical of USCCB policies, precisely because so many are political, not religious or truly charitable.

The USCCB can no more be equated with our bishops than the IRS can be equated with people who donate to Goodwill Industries. It has, unfortunately, become a bureaucracy with its own agenda; doing a certain amount of worthwhile stuff, but also pursuing political goals of the Democrat party.

I used the ACORN donation as simply an example. One of our local priests is from Haiti. He had an extraordinarily difficult time being able to attend the seminary because of lack of funds; both on his own part and on the part of the local diocese there. That million dollars USCCB voted for ACORN to pursue political agendas in the U.S. could surely have been spent better on seminaries or convents in Haiti or Africa, where there are more candidates than there are places.

AIDS is a serious problem in both places. We all know that. There are not nearly enough charitable workers to help the AIDS-afflicted adults and children there. At the very same time, there are young African women wanting to get into convents that serve the poor, the sick and the orphans, but they can’t get in because there are insufficient funds to support the effort. So the USCCB gives a million dollars to a U.S. organization that is also massively funded by billionaires and the government, in order to shake down businesses and political organizations. That million dollars would have done a lot in Africa. And what about housing? I see those ads where $2,000 will build a decent home for destitute people in Haiti. A million dollars would have built 500 of them. But no, the money was earmarked for ACORN, so it could badger banks into making loans people can’t repay right here in the U.S.; loans that we see go sour daily, thus actually harming the poor. The USCCB’s priorities are terribly misplaced.

And now, it seems, they want to persuade voters to encourage their legislators to vote for cap and trade; a program that would indisputably increase the cost of everything consumed in the U.S., including for the poor; while simultaneously aiding the Godless dictatorship of China, which builds a coal-fired facility every ten days and has already surpassed the U.S. in CO2 emissions. And how will increasing the cost of energy in the U.S. help U.S. workers, whose jobs are already moving to those countries that laugh at silly things like “cap and trade”.? Also, the USCCB wants to ship dollars to overseas dictators, (the like of which rule most of the world) and for what? So they can think themselves charitable by employing state power to force Americans to pay foreign dictators to suppress the development of their own countries? There is no charity in that. It’s just arrogant.

The USCCB has been infected by “Liberation Theology Lite”, the watered-down U.S. version of that statist philosophy which has been condemned by both the current Pope and the previous one. Many good bishops have been appointed by our current Pope, and someday, one hopes, the USCCB will actually be converted into a Catholic organization.

 

[4elise]

One needs to make a mental distinction between one’s own bishop and the USCCB. We have a terrific new, young bishop; a very good man, and I pray for his success. He would be so out of place in the USCCB, though, it’s hard to picture them even allowing him in the door. He, himself, is critical of USCCB policies, precisely because so many are political, not religious or truly charitable.

The USCCB can no more be equated with our bishops than the IRS can be equated with people who donate to Goodwill Industries. It has, unfortunately, become a bureaucracy with its own agenda; doing a certain amount of worthwhile stuff, but also pursuing political goals of the Democrat party.

I used the ACORN donation as simply an example. One of our local priests is from Haiti. He had an extraordinarily difficult time being able to attend the seminary because of lack of funds; both on his own part and on the part of the local diocese there. That million dollars USCCB voted for ACORN to pursue political agendas in the U.S. could surely have been spent better on seminaries or convents in Haiti or Africa, where there are more candidates than there are places.

AIDS is a serious problem in both places. We all know that. There are not nearly enough charitable workers to help the AIDS-afflicted adults and children there. At the very same time, there are young African women wanting to get into convents that serve the poor, the sick and the orphans, but they can’t get in because there are insufficient funds to support the effort. So the USCCB gives a million dollars to a U.S. organization that is also massively funded by billionaires and the government, in order to shake down businesses and political organizations. That million dollars would have done a lot in Africa. And what about housing? I see those ads where $2,000 will build a decent home for destitute people in Haiti. A million dollars would have built 500 of them. But no, the money was earmarked for ACORN, so it could badger banks into making loans people can’t repay right here in the U.S.; loans that we see go sour daily, thus actually harming the poor. The USCCB’s priorities are terribly misplaced.

And now, it seems, they want to persuade voters to encourage their legislators to vote for cap and trade; a program that would indisputably increase the cost of everything consumed in the U.S., including for the poor; while simultaneously aiding the Godless dictatorship of China, which builds a coal-fired facility every ten days and has already surpassed the U.S. in CO2 emissions. And how will increasing the cost of energy in the U.S. help U.S. workers, whose jobs are already moving to those countries that laugh at silly things like “cap and trade”.? Also, the USCCB wants to ship dollars to overseas dictators, (the like of which rule most of the world) and for what? So they can think themselves charitable by employing state power to force Americans to pay foreign dictators to suppress the development of their own countries? There is no charity in that. It’s just arrogant.

The USCCB has been infected by “Liberation Theology Lite”, the watered-down U.S. version of that statist philosophy which has been condemned by both the current Pope and the previous one. Many good bishops have been appointed by our current Pope, and someday, one hopes, the USCCB will actually be converted into a Catholic organization.

Well, my friend - I really don’t come to the same conclusion about the USCCB based on a couple of funding choices that you rightly point to as poor choices. I also don’t assume a political motivation in their actions. I can see where the partisan views can skew a view of their choices from both sides - the right point to some choices as bad, the left point to others as bad ---- and this is where they belong — inviting the faithful and the larger community to strive to live other centered lives.

*P.S. — If you know of any sisters who are being denied entrance to a religious order based on funds in the missions please let me know about it… *

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, my friend - I really don’t come to the same conclusion about the USCCB based on a couple of funding choices that you rightly point to as poor choices. I also don’t assume a political motivation in their actions. I can see where the partisan views can skew a view of their choices from both sides - the right point to some choices as bad, the left point to others as bad ---- and this is where they belong — inviting the faithful and the larger community to strive to live other centered lives.

P.S. — If you know of any sisters who are being denied entrance to a religious order based on funds in the missions please let me know about it…

I would say that giving a million dollars to a leftist political organization that is amply funded instead of using it for the truly needy goes well beyond a “poor choice”. It demonstrates how they think of “charity” in “Liberation Theology” terms. Never mind direct aid to the poor. Use resources Catholics THOUGHT they were donating to benefit the poor, in order to support organizations whose purpose is to force them to pay more in taxes that may or may not go to the poor, and probably won’t. It’s elitist, deceptive and arrogant. It’s particularly odious when the USCCB (or some subdivision thereof) pushes the support of the cap and trade tax which even this government admits will increase the costs of everything and which will not affect worldwide CO2 emissions whatever. If one is fundamentally a statist, I guess that’s okay. If one cares about the poor, it’s not okay.

It has been some time since I read about the lack of funds for seminaries and convents in Africa. If I run across any of them, I’ll post it here. As to lack of funds for seminaries in Haiti, that was told to me by a Haitian priest. Since U.S. seminaries also lack funds (we get their fundraisers about once a year) I don’t have any reason to doubt him.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Occurrence of malaria at higher altitudes is due to a variety of circumstances, none of which relates to climate change/global warming.

Read on:

junkscience.com/news2/reiter.html

Rather than just fish around, here are Reiter’s comments:

The global warming notion is far from being universally accepted.2 Moreover, as a medical entomologist, I am disturbed by the tangle of syllogistic delusions in the health aspects of the debate, and the Machiavellian way in which they are presented to the public. For example, at his Kyoto press conference, Epstein stated: “Malaria is now occurring in the . . . highlands of Papua New Guinea. This is exactly in the same area where glaciers are retreating and plants are migrating up mountains”. True, but even in the 1940s scientists warned that "with the march of civilization into the highlands there was every chance that the malaria problem could become . . . severe"3. They described large populations of malaria-free so-called stone-age peoples who had been discovered in a unique state of isolation in these highlands. To protect them, labourers entering from the malarious lowlands were held in compulsory quarantine for 2 weeks and given curative malaria therapy. The eventual failure of this measure was exacerbated by anopheline populations that increased rapidly after forest clearance and other human activities.4,5 Malaria transmission was never attributed to climate change, by malariologists.

In the context of global climate change, Andrew Haines’ arguments are equally misleading. For example, the article he cites on malaria in Tanzania clearly states: “There was a pronounced warming . . . at Amani during the 1960s when considerable forest clearance occurred on the Amani hills, followed by a cooling trend as re-forestation progressed”. The statement is supported by a graph of mean annual temperature that shows a steady decline (total 3°C) from 1970 to 1976. Clearly this was an effect of the local environment on the local meteorology, not a global impact on the regional climate.

The principal reasons for the rise in malaria were carefully described: (1) a sizeable influx of people from malarious lowlands, and (2) major ecological disturbance–deforestation, road construction, proliferation of dams, ditches, pools, &c–which opened up the area to Anopheles gambiae and An funestus, the classic African malaria vectors. Moreover, the altitude (600-1000 m) was well below the 2600 m maximum for transmission in neighbouring Kenya, first observed in the early half of the century. Last, Haines’ mention of a mathematical model is a classic example of irrelevant proof, for it has long been common knowledge that vectorial capacity is a function of temperature. The model is based on this relation, so, inevitably, it indicates that incidence might increase with warmer climate.

Like Epstein, I worry about climate change, but my concern is with the dissemination of fallacious logic to journalists who are more likely to focus on crisis than on reason. I stand firmly by my original message: however worthy the cause, the distortion of science to make dramatic predictions of unlikely disasters is not in the public interest.

Paul Reiter

---

Interested folks can read more about malaria and DDT and the political issues here:

junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html

 

[TEPO]

now which card is that?

-4elise

This will be my last post. I am exhausted, and am starting to show signs of distress in other areas of my life because of the amount of energy I have focused on this thread. You have stated that you work through the Holy Spirit. I know you do. I can see that you do your best to please God. I also devote my life to God, and feel I am working through the Holy Spirit. I think we all do.
With this said, let us all do what we can and hope that our actions are what God expects, and if it is not, pray for Gods Almighty correction. That is why I feel that we are both right. Believe me, all that was said on this thread will make its way into the Church, and members higher than me will use all the information presented to save as many souls on earth as possible. We were all here for a reason.
I am just thankful that I was able to be a part of it all. This is a touchy subject you know, for a lot of people. The church will analyze and fix the problem I have no doubt of this, So that both sides can meet in the middle.

God Bless.

 

[4elise]

-4elise

This will be my last post. I am exhausted, and am starting to show signs of distress in other areas of my life because of the amount of energy I have focused on this thread. You have stated that you work through the Holy Spirit. I know you do. I can see that you do your best to please God. I also devote my life to God, and feel I am working through the Holy Spirit. I think we all do.
With this said, let us all do what we can and hope that our actions are what God expects, and if it is not, pray for Gods Almighty correction. That is why I feel that we are both right. Believe me, all that was said on this thread will make its way into the Church, and members higher than me will use all the information presented to save as many souls on earth as possible. We were all here for a reason.
I am just thankful that I was able to be a part of it all. This is a touchy subject you know, for a lot of people. The church will analyze and fix the problem I have no doubt of this, So that both sides can meet in the middle.

Bless you to TEPO! Let us keep each other in prayer!

God Bless.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Perhaps the best test of truth is to figure out who the enemy of the church is for. Communism destroyed the Catholic faith on a large scale. What do the communists want?

To render unto Caesar what is God’s.

 

[walker_p]

You keep repeating this phrase as if it somehow distinguished your intention from the intentions of others; it does not. You are concerned for the needs of the poor; so are we all, but the dispute is not whether we are concerned but whether we know how to solve problems, in this case the “problem” of global warming. Concern for the poor is of no particular help in resolving a scientific dispute.

Parents are concerned for the needs of their children but that concern doesn’t translate into knowledge about how best to meet those needs, as any parent who has agonized over an important decision will tell you. Wanting to do the right thing and knowing what the right thing is are two entirely different issues. It is not the needs of the poor that are at the heart of the discussion, it is the scientific debate about the validity of the theory of AGW. If I love the poor but am wrong on the scientific question there is no possible way my actions can be beneficial no matter how noble my intentions.

Ender

Thank you. This constant nonsense about the poor is just crazy. We all want to help the poor as much as possible, but helping the poor has no relation whatsoever to the myth of man-made global warming. It is a continuous non sequitur.

 

[4elise]

I would say that giving a million dollars to a leftist political organization that is amply funded instead of using it for the truly needy goes well beyond a “poor choice”. It demonstrates how they think of “charity” in “Liberation Theology” terms. Never mind direct aid to the poor. Use resources Catholics THOUGHT they were donating to benefit the poor, in order to support organizations whose purpose is to force them to pay more in taxes that may or may not go to the poor, and probably won’t. It’s elitist, deceptive and arrogant. It’s particularly odious when the USCCB (or some subdivision thereof) pushes the support of the cap and trade tax which even this government admits will increase the costs of everything and which will not affect worldwide CO2 emissions whatever. If one is fundamentally a statist, I guess that’s okay. If one cares about the poor, it’s not okay.

It has been some time since I read about the lack of funds for seminaries and convents in Africa. If I run across any of them, I’ll post it here. As to lack of funds for seminaries in Haiti, that was told to me by a Haitian priest. Since U.S. seminaries also lack funds (we get their fundraisers about once a year) I don’t have any reason to doubt him.

While I know you and others take exception with the USCCB’s support of ACORN - because of the scandals - and I do understand - if you look at what ACORN says they strive to do - ONLY in their actions to help provide low cost housing, etc… otherwise the Church is getting involved in an area that would actually nullify the tax exempt status as well.

But to vilify the USCCB over this is something I am just not willing to do. They are individual bishops that make up the USCCB - so to say as individuals they are ok, but together??? That doesn’t make sense to me. I think what they are talking about is a much larger issue than how climate change will impact the US alone, but speaking for the world’s poor and as Catholics this very counter cultural thinking - but I think it is fantastic, and something that makes me very proud to be a Catholic! As I’ve said before when it comes to specific policy action I believe that the short-term loss must be weighed against the potential long-term gain - OBVIOUSLY if you don’t agree that there is MMCC there is no potential long-term gain.

And I’ll agree that seminaries here and abroad struggle for funding - but I would be shocked if any vocation to a seminary or convent were turned away for lack of funds - I know how hard the Mission Church has to work to cover these expenses, but I also know this is one of the first things that gets funded. That is why your statement that young women were being turned away from a convent and that the USCCB should have been supporting that sounded like a leap to make your point.

 

[4elise]

Thank you. This constant nonsense about the poor is just crazy. We all want to help the poor as much as possible, but helping the poor has no relation whatsoever to the myth of man-made global warming. It is a continuous non sequitur.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=763

Climate change is a hot topic this election year. A growing majority of Americans believe that climate change is real and that steps must be taken now to address it. This is one reason that climate change has become a key issue in this election. The Catholic Bishops of the United States insist in Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good that “the debate about how the United States is responding to questions and challenges surrounding global climate change is a test and an opportunity for our nation.”

Our response to climate change raises fundamental questions of morality and justice, fairness and shared sacrifice. As Catholics our faith calls us to care for all of God’s creation, especially the “least of these” (Mt 25:40). Caring for God’s creation means not only saving the animals and trees, but protecting humanity as well. Of particular concern to the Church is how climate change and the response to it will affect poor and vulnerable people here at home and around the world. The bishops’ document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship urges Catholics to consider environmental issues before going to vote.

In the bishops’ statement, Global Climate Change, the Bishops present three ethical priorities as the foundation for debate on this issue in this election year:

* prudence, which requires wise action now to address problems that will grow in their magnitude and consequences;
* "bold and generous action on behalf of the common good" rather than the demands of narrow interests, and

** * a clear priority for the poor, who will bear the greatest burdens and pay the greatest price for the consequences and costs of climate change. **

Significant levels of scientific consensus demonstrate that climate change is real and that the consequences of inaction are serious. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time as average global temperature increases (IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007). IPCC projected impacts of climate change include:

* increased drought, storm intensity, disease, species extinction, and flooding
* increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts
* hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress
* increases in malnutrition and other disorders, with implications for child growth and development.

Developing countries are expected to suffer most severely from the negative effects of climate change. Increased drought, storm intensity, disease, species extinction and flooding will only exacerbate the living conditions of those already impoverished. As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “The real ‘inconvenient truth’ is that those who contribute least to climate change will be affected the most and have the least capacity to cope or escape. The poor and vulnerable are most likely to pay the price of inaction or unwise actions. We know from our everyday experience their lives, homes, children, and work are most at risk.”

Although experts may not fully agree about the long-term effects of climate change, most believe that action is needed to slow its current impact and arrest its future effects. The Catholic community’s distinct moral perspective on this issue will enrich the debate in this election and benefit our nation. Many resources are available reflecting the moral and ethical dimensions of climate change (See www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/climate and www.catholicsandclimatechange.org ).

Protecting God’s creation and “the least of these” requires urgent, wise and bold action. The good news is that both presidential candidates agree that climate change is real and requires a serious and sustained effort to mitigate and reduce future damage. The bad news is that discussion of climate change’s disproportionate effect on poor people is still missing from the debate. Catholic voters should urge candidates to address the needs of the poor and vulnerable in climate change policy and decisions.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The proposals that we tax Americans to end world poverty and raise the state of the poor would result in creating more poverty.

Anyway, here is yet another voice speaking out:

---

hvjournal.com/hurricane-local-news/43-local-news/7599-lies-global-warming.html

Lies, More Lies and Global Warming Statistics

By Randy Parker, CEO, Utah Farm Bureau Federation
People are beginning to recognize the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill before Congress will increase energy costs, hurt our economy and likely do precious little, if anything, to reduce global warming.

Tom Tripp, a Utah magnesium specialist and member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently spoke about global warming to a statewide gathering of farmers and ranchers in Provo at the Farm Bureau Mid-year conference. Tripp, along with 2,000 members of the IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

“Despite what you hear in the media, there is no scientific consensus regarding global warming.” Tripp said. “The atmospheric data is not overwhelming and even with increased levels of carbon dioxide it is still only a miniscule portion of the atmosphere. If there are warming trends today, man may not be the prime suspect. For instance, 700 years ago global warming halted the Ancestral Pueblo civilization and it probably wasn’t caused by SUVs,” he noted.

We all use and enjoy the benefits of carbon based energy. It is the affordable foundation of our health, wealth, standard of living and quality of life.

Bottom-line, the current cap-and-trade debate is about increasing the cost of energy in America to reduce use. In Utah, 90 percent of our electrical power comes from coal-based energy production. Waxman-Markey will increase your power bill by 50 – 100 percent. Imagine July in Utah and you can only afford to set your air conditioner at 85 degrees. Rural citizens use 58 percent more energy that urban residents. Cap-and-trade could further isolate them from health care and other critical services.

Increasing energy costs will hurt Utah and America’s farm and ranch families and could damage our nation’s future food security. Less than 1.5 million farmers and ranchers feed 300 million Americans and another 150 million globally. Food production is heavily energy intensive requiring electricity, fuel and fertilizer for planting, cultivating, irrigating, milking, harvesting, transporting and processing. For Americans to continue enjoying the safest, most abundant and affordable food in the world will require access to reasonably priced energy. Do Americans want to rely on China, India or Mexico to meet our most basic need?

The Waxman-Markey climate bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives was an embarrassment to America’s public policy process and what the Founding Fathers envisioned in the Constitution. The 1,200-page bill narrowly passed on a 219-212 vote, only after 300 pages were added at 3:00 a.m. the morning of the House vote, a combination of political backroom deals and arm-twisting by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Before voting, do you really think any member of Congress read the bill?

Government picking winners and losers through carbon rationing or restricting successful energy technologies will ultimately damage America’s free enterprise system and will weaken our global leadership. Starting new businesses or expanding existing ones will be more difficult in a carbon-constrained, cap-and-trade economy. Increased energy costs will ultimately reduce the use of coal and oil, but what energy source will plug the hole?

The scientific community is split on recent global temperature trends. In the 1970s, a cooling of the planet led to scientific concerns of another ice age. The 1990s warm up and former Vice President Al Gore’s factually misleading “Inconvenient Truth” focused attention on anthropogenic global warming. Declining temperatures since 2002 have the alarmists morphing the global warming crisis into climate change, claiming both sides of the man-caused debate.

Is carbon fraud the white-collar crime of the future? Or should we all take comfort that Gore and Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs are already lined up to manage the American ‘market-based carbon trading system?’ As Wall Street companies prepare to trade the ‘thin air’ be aware climate criminals are already cashing in globally on carbon credits and trading schemes.

Waxman-Markey provides U.S. dollars to foreign countries to purchase carbon credits for avoided deforestation and tree plantings. Money to be made from questionable practices or illicit carbon markets coupled with American companies desperately needing credits to offset emissions will be irresistible to organized crime.

Imposing unilateral cap-and-trade legislation that disarms our economy or places us at a competitive disadvantage in global trade makes no sense and is ‘a fool’s errand.’ The burgeoning populations and economies of China, the world’s premier carbon dioxide emitter, and India have both said no to emissions mandates.

Politically, Waxman-Markey supporters see the carbon credits to be sold by the federal government as the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time and provides for a redistribution of America’s wealth and resources.

America needs to do all we can to expand our energy portfolio. Continued reliance on Middle East oil does not make sense, and we all want clean air. Americans interest in energy independence and clean air should not be confused with a radical climate change agenda and costly cap-and-trade policy

 

[4elise]

Bottom-line, the current cap-and-trade debate is about increasing the cost of energy in America to reduce use.

Politically, Waxman-Markey supporters see the carbon credits to be sold by the federal government as the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time and provides for a redistribution of America’s wealth and resources.

America needs to do all we can to expand our energy portfolio. Continued reliance on Middle East oil does not make sense, and we all want clean air. Americans interest in energy independence and clean air should not be confused with a radical climate change agenda and costly cap-and-trade policy

Just to point to a counter conclusion on cap and trade: grist.org/article/epa-waxman-markey-will-lower-electricity-bills/

The main argument conservatives and big oil and coal companies use against the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is that it would cripple American households with a crushing energy tax. To make that claim, they have distorted cost estimates from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and conducted their own biased studies. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. The EPA estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:

As a result of energy efficiency measures,  consumer spending on utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the legislation.

That’s right — lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA’s analysis also found:

The overall impact on the average household,  including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).

We don’t have to just wish we were there — we can have a clean energy economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA’s analysis does not “take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.”

EPA’s findings are consistent with the independent Congressional Budget Office analysis released on June 19th. CBO determined “that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.” CBO did not evaluate the impact of the energy efficiency measures on consumer spending on utilities.

The bottom line is that independent analyses found that ACES would cut spending on utilities, as well as have minimal overall costs to the average household – somewhere between 22 to 48 cents a day. Hopefully, representatives will pay heed to these government studies and ignore conservatives’ counterfeit estimates when they vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act this Friday.

Update: Some more facts from the EPA analysis:

The bill would also spur investments in renewable electricity from the wind, sun and other sources. EPA projects:

Roughly 65% of the new generation built by 2025 will be renewable…Billions of dollars will be directed to states so that each state can create homegrown clean energy jobs.

EPA also found that the bill would benefit farmers by creating a domestic offset market “worth at least $4 billion annually through 2030.”

I just post to this to illustrate that there are positions that believe cap and trade can have a positive outcome for not just the companies but the consumers —

So, asking that ANY effort to fight climate change keep the needs of the poor at the heart even in the short run may be different that we consider.

 

[Ridgerunner]

While I know you and others take exception with the USCCB’s support of ACORN - because of the scandals - and I do understand - if you look at what ACORN says they strive to do - ONLY in their actions to help provide low cost housing, etc… otherwise the Church is getting involved in an area that would actually nullify the tax exempt status as well.

But to vilify the USCCB over this is something I am just not willing to do. They are individual bishops that make up the USCCB - so to say as individuals they are ok, but together??? That doesn’t make sense to me. I think what they are talking about is a much larger issue than how climate change will impact the US alone, but speaking for the world’s poor and as Catholics this very counter cultural thinking - but I think it is fantastic, and something that makes me very proud to be a Catholic! As I’ve said before when it comes to specific policy action I believe that the short-term loss must be weighed against the potential long-term gain - OBVIOUSLY if you don’t agree that there is MMCC there is no potential long-term gain.

And I’ll agree that seminaries here and abroad struggle for funding - but I would be shocked if any vocation to a seminary or convent were turned away for lack of funds - I know how hard the Mission Church has to work to cover these expenses, but I also know this is one of the first things that gets funded. That is why your statement that young women were being turned away from a convent and that the USCCB should have been supporting that sounded like a leap to make your point.

It’s more than just the ACORN scandals. And ACORN itself has many subsidiary 501c3 organizations that don’t lose their tax-exempt status, notwithstanding the reality of their political nature. It is only when churches directly challenge particular candidates or party positions that they have any threat to their tax status.

Are you seriously maintaining that there are no better charitable recipients than ACORN and people who tout global warming? Has poverty disappeared? Are there no AIDS orphans? Is everyone in Haiti, for example, well-fed and well-housed? Is the Haitian priest lying about that? Keeping in mind that U.S. adoption of cap and trade will have no effect on CO2 emissions but will only increase the costs of everything, for the poor as well as others, you think the USCCB has no better causes it could support? Are the missionary orders who come to the parishes talking about the dire needs abroad, and taking up special collections for it, lying? Is our bishop, who comes to our parish appealing for funds for seminarians, lying about the really difficult time they are having making ends meet?

As to people being turned away from convents for lack of funds, all you have to do is go into back issues of National Catholic Register (doubtless others) to see their appeals for funds, and their statements that they are, indeed, obliged to turn candidates away for lack of funds. That’s in the U.S. It’s no leap, it’s in the public domain, and anyone who fails to see it just doesn’t want to see it.

The USCCB is not operated on a day-to-day basis by the bishops. It is a bureaucracy that is largely supported by diocesan collections. I will grant that many U.S. bishops are content to see it remain a subsidiary of the Democrat party. Some are not.

But regardless, not all Catholics are persuaded that manmade global warming is real, and there are plenty of studies that make it very questionable. Manmade global warming (I realize they call it “climate change” now because it has been cooling) is one of those subjects that is NOT required belief on the part of Catholics. For the USCCB to press Catholics to press their representatives to support cap and trade taxation, is using its (admittedly shinking) prestige to support a political point of view as if it was a matter of faith and morals, which it isn’t. If they encouraged Catholics to encourage legislators to lower the marginal tax rates on high earners, I would say the very same thing because, while some would argue that it improves economic results for all, it’s a debateable secular proposition, just as global warming is.

 

[4elise]

It’s more than just the ACORN scandals. And ACORN itself has many subsidiary 501c3 organizations that don’t lose their tax-exempt status, notwithstanding the reality of their political nature. It is only when churches directly challenge particular candidates or party positions that they have any threat to their tax status.

Are you seriously maintaining that there are no better charitable recipients than ACORN and people who tout global warming? Has poverty disappeared? Are there no AIDS orphans? Is everyone in Haiti, for example, well-fed and well-housed? Is the Haitian priest lying about that? Keeping in mind that U.S. adoption of cap and trade will have no effect on CO2 emissions but will only increase the costs of everything, for the poor as well as others, you think the USCCB has no better causes it could support? Are the missionary orders who come to the parishes talking about the dire needs abroad, and taking up special collections for it, lying? Is our bishop, who comes to our parish appealing for funds for seminarians, lying about the really difficult time they are having making ends meet?

With restraint I reply that of course there are needs. I did not believe that the USCCB funded ACORN to do anything dishonest - in fact I am sure that there reasons for funding them was their work in poor communities, i.e. low income housing. YES, ACORN has been involved in a scandal but that was not the intent of the funders. It is kind of funny to me that you bring up the needs of the poor abroad in this thread, I’ve started three different threads here at CAF on the mission of the Church ad gentes and had almost NO response or discussion… OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT LYING ABOUT THE NEEDS - I am only replying to an accusation that said that young women were being turned away from convents for lack of funds… and asked for substantiation of that claim. Vocations are among the things EASILY to be funded for the Church in the missions - not school supplies, or medications as easily, but getting funds for vocations there are resources.

As to people being turned away from convents for lack of funds, all you have to do is go into back issues of National Catholic Register (doubtless others) to see their appeals for funds, and their statements that they are, indeed, obliged to turn candidates away for lack of funds. That’s in the U.S. It’s no leap, it’s in the public domain, and anyone who fails to see it just doesn’t want to see it.

The USCCB is not operated on a day-to-day basis by the bishops. It is a bureaucracy that is largely supported by diocesan collections. I will grant that many U.S. bishops are content to see it remain a subsidiary of the Democrat party. Some are not.

I trust that the Bishops would not put their stamp as the USCCB as something that they felt misrepresented them. I also do not see them a part of any political party.

But regardless, not all Catholics are persuaded that manmade global warming is real, and there are plenty of studies that make it very questionable. Manmade global warming (I realize they call it “climate change” now because it has been cooling) is one of those subjects that is NOT required belief on the part of Catholics. For the USCCB to press Catholics to press their representatives to support cap and trade taxation, is using its (admittedly shinking) prestige to support a political point of view as if it was a matter of faith and morals, which it isn’t. If they encouraged Catholics to encourage legislators to lower the marginal tax rates on high earners, I would say the very same thing because, while some would argue that it improves economic results for all, it’s a debateable secular proposition, just as global warming is.

I think the reason that people now call it global climate change is because many people look out their window and say ‘Hey it ain’t gettin’ any warmer (cooler) here!’ so hopefully this better clarifies that climate change may mean warmer in some places, cooler in others, underwater for others… so yes it may not sit well to think that we may have to pay a bit more in the short run, but since there are also predictions that the switch to green energy will also lower bills in mid range and lessen our need for foreign oil… sooner than anyone would expect…

 

[TEPO]

Sorry for breaking my word, but it is still unclear how paying money will make co2 go away. Think of it in the big picture. If you look at the track record of the “greedy capitalist” businessmen, I would have to say that they’re gonna go ahead and emit those co2’s whatever the administration has to say about it. Yup, those factories are still gonna pump them co2’s out, and I doubt the Obama Administration is gonna stop them, you can guarantee cover-ups will spring up. I would have to say that one would have to be pretty gullable to put their trust on preventing co2 smoke from entering the atmosphere. How can they monitor it? It’s invisible! It’s all smoke and mirrors anyway… Or am I wrong?

-not trying to be smart, I just want answers!

Wont the only ones really changing their ways be the automobile drivers?

I want clean environment too, but to what extent am I willing to go to achieve it?

Socialism is contradictory to all the sacrificed lives of Americans for hundreds of years!

I dont want to crush anyones dreams, but greed and goodness, will ultimately be placed on individuals and groups. I have said it before and I’ll say it again, it would be nice if everyone would follow the rules but they wont.

 

[TEPO]

Sorry for breaking my word, but it is still unclear how paying money will make co2 go away. Think of it in the big picture. If you look at the track record of the “greedy capitalist” businessmen, I would have to say that they’re gonna go ahead and emit those co2’s whatever the administration has to say about it. Yup, those factories are still gonna pump them co2’s out, and I doubt the Obama Administration is gonna stop them, you can guarantee cover-ups will spring up. I would have to say that one would have to be pretty gullable to put their trust on preventing co2 smoke from entering the atmosphere. How can they monitor it? It’s invisible! It’s all smoke and mirrors anyway… Or am I wrong?

-not trying to be smart, I just want answers!

Wont the only ones really changing their ways be the automobile drivers?

I want clean environment too, but to what extent am I willing to go to achieve it?

Socialism is contradictory to all the sacrificed lives of Americans for hundreds of years!

I dont want to crush anyones dreams, but greed and goodness, will ultimately be placed on individuals and groups. I have said it before and I’ll say it again, it would be nice if everyone would follow the rules but they wont.

Wait, I forgot, I forgot, I forgot.
The seven NEW sins, right. This is where they fall into place.
Never mind, never mind.

 

[walker_p]

With restraint I reply that of course there are needs. I did not believe that the USCCB funded ACORN to do anything dishonest - in fact I am sure that there reasons for funding them was their work in poor communities, i.e. low income housing. YES, ACORN has been involved in a scandal but that was not the intent of the funders. It is kind of funny to me that you bring up the needs of the poor abroad in this thread, I’ve started three different threads here at CAF on the mission of the Church ad gentes and had almost NO response or discussion… OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT LYING ABOUT THE NEEDS - I am only replying to an accusation that said that young women were being turned away from convents for lack of funds… and asked for substantiation of that claim. Vocations are among the things EASILY to be funded for the Church in the missions - not school supplies, or medications as easily, but getting funds for vocations there are resources.

I trust that the Bishops would not put their stamp as the USCCB as something that they felt misrepresented them. I also do not see them a part of any political party.

I think the reason that people now call it global climate change is because many people look out their window and say ‘Hey it ain’t gettin’ any warmer (cooler) here!’ so hopefully this better clarifies that climate change may mean warmer in some places, cooler in others, underwater for others… so yes it may not sit well to think that we may have to pay a bit more in the short run, but since there are also predictions that the switch to green energy will also lower bills in mid range and lessen our need for foreign oil… sooner than anyone would expect…

Wrong on two points: 1) Acorn is an organization committed to voter fraud and corruption and 2) The reason people who have been deceived into believing in man-made global warming now refer to it as climate change is because the earth has been demonstrably cooling since at least 2002. Sorry. The earth is not warming; it is cooling.

 

[4elise]

Catholic Relief Service —

usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/climate/2009-06-24-alert-climate-%20change.pdf

Poor people contribute least to the causes, but will suffer most from the effects of climate change:
Urge your members of Congress to significantly increase funding for international adaptation programs in climate change legislation

 

[Ender]

Poor people contribute least to the causes, but will suffer most from the effects of climate change {USCCB}

This drivel is exactly why so many people hold the USCCB is such contempt. This is not the reasoned conclusion of a convocation of bishops, it is the personal opinion of the members of some miscellaneous committee ostensibly working to apply the moral wisdom of the Church to current events when in fact these documents express nothing more than the political preferences of the authors.

The only part of their statement I would agree with is that poor people don’t contribute to global warming … but, since man is not responsible for global warming, neither do rich people. The only thing certain is that the poor would surely suffer the most under any scheme to reduce CO2 output which would only make energy less available and more expensive.

Show me the statement where the Church says we have a moral obligation to believe in AGW and I’ll accept that this is a moral issue. In the absence of such a statement, however, I will continue to believe not only that global warming is not a moral issue but those who claim it is simply don’t understand what the term properly means.

Urge your members of Congress to significantly increase funding for international adaptation programs in climate change legislation

As I said, nothing more than the political preferences of the authors.

Ender

 

[TEPO]

This is what the Pope thinks-

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501316/The-Pope-condemns-climate-change-prophets-doom.html

"The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501316/The-Pope-condemns-climate-change-prophets-doom.html#ixzz0NMIlQdPO