Showing posts with label cap-and-trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap-and-trade. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Is the Senate's climate change all-nighter more than a one-night stand?



By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN
updated 12:52 PM EDT, Tue March 11, 2014




Calved icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers are seen floating on the water on July 30, 2013, in Qaqortoq, Greenland.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Senate Democrats held all-night session to draw attention to climate change
The issue has fallen off the radar with the help of wealthy opponents
Wealthy environmentalist Tom Steyer has put it back in the spotlight


Washington (CNN) -- It might not have had the drama of a Sen. Ted Cruz overnight talk-a-thon, but some Senate Democrats hope their all-night effort draws similar attention to their issue that has been stalled in Congress: climate change.

Mirroring a tactic employed by Cruz during his marathon effort aimed at derailing Obamacare, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts read from Dr. Seuss during his turn speaking just before midnight Tuesday.

He chose the children's book "The Lorax," which touches on the environment.

"But now says the Once-ler, now that you're here, the word of the Lorax seems perfectly clear. Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better," Markey read, then added his own thoughts: "So to my colleagues here in the Senate and everyone watching and following tonight thank you for caring a whole awful lot."

Twenty-eight Dems participate

The effort by 28 Democratic senators was launched in part by Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse, who credits warming oceans for the state's disappearing idyllic and populated coastline.

Whitehouse has spoken about the issue every week the Senate has been in session for the past two years, culminating in 60 speeches that have gone largely unnoticed by the public.

He and fellow Democratic members of the climate change caucus hope their all-night session propels the issue back into the spotlight since it has been on the back burner for several years.

"There's a group of senators who have not given up on getting something done on climate change and aren't willing to just sit quietly through the current status quo," Whitehouse told CNN in a phone interview on Monday.

After climate change legislation, one of President Barack Obama's top three priorities entering office, failed in 2010, the issue fell off the radar. The President rarely talked about it. Congress did little to address it.

"If you were looking for reassurance that somebody took this seriously in Washington, you weren't finding much," Whitehouse said.

Why the renewed focus on climate change?

The third rail

Climate change turned into an issue that few wanted to touch, especially those facing difficult reelection campaigns.

When Democrats tried to pass legislation that would have capped carbon emissions, skepticism around climate change reached an all-time high.

According to Gallup, 48% of respondents said the issue on its face is exaggerated.

Opponents, led by organizations and businesses involved in the fossil fuel industry, successfully turned public opinion and stopped any efforts in its tracks.

The death of climate change


Opponents successfully renamed cap and trade, which referred to legislation that placed limits on carbon emissions by power plants and other major polluters, to "cap and tax."

Amid recession, they argued the proposal would kill jobs and raise energy prices.

Key players in changing the dynamic of the debate were the Koch Brothers, billionaire businessmen who made their fortune in the oil and gas industry and have also spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to defeat Democrats.

Cap and trade would have cut into Koch industries' revenue, which is estimated to hover around $100 billion per year.

Tim Phillips, the President of Americans for Prosperity, the political organization backed by the Kochs, said that killing climate change legislation in a Democratic-controlled Washington was his organization's major accomplishment.

"Stopping cap and trade was a crucial policy victory that most folks would have thought impossible at the time," he said during a recent interview. "Defeating that was an enormous policy victory that has lasting policy repercussions in a good way."

Not only did they kill the legislation, they successfully helped to elect a crop of new lawmakers who don't believe that human activity is the cause of global warming.

According to the League of Conservation Voters, 100 lawmakers currently fall into their ranks.

Whitehouse had this response: It's "something that his grandchildren will be very ashamed of."

Opinion: Why are we still debating climate change?

The top Republican in the Senate, Sen. Mitch McConnell, took to the floor Monday afternoon to deride the climate change talkers as "cruel."

"Families are losing work because of government attacks on the coal industry," McConnell said, referring to his home state of Kentucky. "And tonight you're going to hear 30 hours of excuses from a group of people who think that's OK. Well it's not OK. It's cruel."

A revival?

The death of cap and trade triggered new fears among environmentally friendly legislators.

"It is unfortunate," Whitehouse said. "History will look back at the propaganda effort of the carbon polluters as one of the most sophisticated and complex propaganda efforts that human kind had to withstand."

But since then, the public has started to shift its opinion.

According to Gallup, 41% now say that climate change is exaggerated -- 7 points lower than its high in 2010. And the number of those who say the seriousness of the issue is underestimated is on the rise.

Now Whitehouse thinks it's his side's turn to make a move. He has buy in from the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who told reporters last week that it is "the worst problem" the world faces.

But they have to start at Square One by working to convince the public that climate change is real.

The Senate's all-night session is well-timed.

Wealthy former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer is willing to spend Koch-like money to push the issue of climate change and defeat skeptics in the 2014 midterms.

Whitehouse, who has known Steyer since college, said if he can make good on his pledge to infuse the effort with $100 million, he would "help to neutralize an incredibly one-sided spending."

"We can change the conversation very quickly."

The absentees


But not all Democrats - and no Republicans - are on board. Notable senators were absent from the overnight session Monday into Tuesday.

They include those who have difficult election campaigns, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska.

Republicans aren't letting Landrieu's absence go unnoticed.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which aims to get Republicans elected to the Senate, put out a web video Tuesday, criticizing Landrieu for allowing the talk-a-thon to take place. The video also argues she doesn't stand up enough for American energy.

Tiernan Sittenfeld, a senior vice president of the League of Conservation Voters, said the fact that just over half of the Democratic caucus is willing to speak in the wee hours of the night about climate change is "incredibly exciting" and "good politics."

In fact, Whitehouse is working to ensure that climate change is a topic in the 2016 presidential race by traveling to Iowa next week to talk to voters and activists.

He insists he is not running for President but wants to make sure those who do talk about the impact of climate change.

Obama's engagement


After a hiatus post 2010, the Obama administration is also back in the climate change game.

President Barack Obama proposed his Climate Action Plan this past summer that would create carbon pollution standards for power plants and expand renewable energy production. And in his new budget plan, the President proposed funding to study the impacts of climate change.

Secretary of State John Kerry said last month that climate change is the "greatest challenge of our generation."

Whitehouse is optimistic that the tide is turning. So much so that he traveled to Sea Island, Georgia, this past weekend to speak at the conservative American Enterprise Institute conference.

"I think it went pretty well," he said.

Is it time to agree on climate change?

CNN's Ted Barrett, Ashley Killough and Jonathan Helman contributed to this story
.


Source
.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Cap-And-Trade



Related:
Carbon Cap-And-Trade Law Can't Pass, Rockefeller Says‎Washington Post - Simon Lomax - 1 day ago
July 14 (Bloomberg) -- Legislation that cuts carbon dioxide from power plants with a cap-and-trade program can't pass the US Senate this year ...Circumventing Cap and Trade with an Another Bad Energy Bill‎ - Heritage.org (blog)Utilities, Signaling Support for Carbon Caps, Want 'Relief' on ...‎ - New York TimesUS Election-Year Pressures Might Sink Carbon Caps‎ - BusinessWeekPolitico - USA Today all 78 news articles »

Kalk off on cap-and-trade‎Bismarck Tribune - Paul Everson - 3 hours ago
I cannot allow Brian P. Kalk's recent letter to the editor about cap-and-trade ...
8 Brave Republicans Who Did Vote for Cap and Trade Climate Bill ...‎CleanTechnica - Susan Kraemer - 11 hours ago

Not a single one of these was successfully primaried out of office by the fossil-funded Tea Party to their right, despite the fact that cap-and-trade helps ...Don't like "cap and trade" for GHG emission control? How about ...‎ - MLive.comNewsflash! CO2 is Green! and, um, I have this bridge for sale, you ...‎ - Green Jobs Ready (blog)Reduce carbon by making it dear, energy economist argues‎ - Creamer Media's Engineering Newsall 12 news articles »

AISI Opposes Electric Utility Cap-and-Trade Proposals‎American Iron and Steel Institute - 15 hours ago
Washington , DC – The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) today expressed its opposition to proposals for a cap-and-trade program directly regulating ...US industry against cap-and-trade for utility sector‎ - Steel Business Briefing (subscription)all 3 news articles »

Cuba, cap-and-trade, EPA and atrazine‎Delta Farm Press - David Bennett - 15 hours ago
This is “epitomized,” said Goodlatte by the “nefarious” cap-and-trade bill passed by the House in 2009. The legislation is “really a cap-and-tax proposal, ...

UK ISP Slams Proposal for Piracy “Cap and Trade” Levy‎Zeropaid - Jared Moya - 19 hours ago
The former is a “cap and trade” approach that would impose a fine based on the rise and fall of piracy, while the latter would mean the acquisition of a ...UK Royalty Group Wants Piracy “Cap and Trade” ISP Levy‎ - ZeropaidISP Music Levy, Legal P2P Back On Royalty Agenda‎ - paidContent.orgBritain's PRS calls for ISP 'pirate tax'‎ - p2pnet.netall 39 news articles »

Reid: Cap-and-Trade to Senate floor by end of the month‎Examiner.com - 1 day ago
... that he intends to officially introduce Obama's time-disproven Cap-and-Tax economic suicide plan on the Senate floor during the week of July 26th. ...Cap-and-Trade Will Be Part of Senate Climate Change Bill‎ - Politics Daily (blog)As Reid Prepares Energy Bill, Emissions Cap in Doubt‎ - The Washington IndependentEnergy Bill May Cut Power-Plant Pollution, Reid Says‎ - BusinessWeekPolitico - New Republic (blog) all 676 news articles »

State GOP starts anti-Manchin ads‎Charleston Gazette - Phil Kabler - 16 hours ago
Barbara Boxer on issues such as the cap and trade bill and federal ... He said it is laughable for Republicans to imply that Manchin supports cap and trade, ...Majority Leader Harry Reid offers a realistic energy bill‎ - Washington PostW.Va. GOP continues anti-Manchin ad campaign‎ - The Hill (blog)GOP ad aimed at Manchin‎ - Parkersburg NewsSolveClimate (blog) - Wheeling Intelligencer all 621 news articles »

Cap and No More Trade‎Wall Street Journal - Mark Peters - 4 days ago
After more than a decade of slashing air pollution from power plants, the original US cap-and-trade market has ground to a halt. ...Sulfur Dioxide Cap and Trade Program Collapses‎ - American Spectator (blog)Acid Rain, Smog Rules to Spur CO2 Law, Traders Say‎ - BusinessWeekMarket Solutions to Environmental Problems‎ - Big ThinkNew York Times - Canada Free Press all 20 news articles »

.

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Hurricane Expert Rips Climate Fears


By: Dr. William Gray


The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU) and originally published this article on ClimateDepot.com.

Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.

There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

Rising levels of CO2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO2's influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.

The last century's global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.

The recent "Climategate" revelations coming out of the University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.

The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.

The cap-and-trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA's just announced decision to treat CO2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty.

.

Climate Deal Likely to Bear Big Price Tag

Protesters dressed as aliens in Copenhagen on Tuesday demanded action on climate change, as more than 190 nations gathered for the second day of the climate talks. The delegates heard appeals for urgent action from the United Nations and from officials of countries endangered by warmer temperatures, rising sea levels and other damage such as melting glaciers.
Photo: Johan Spanner for The New York Times



Climate Deal Likely to Bear Big Price Tag

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: December 8, 2009

WASHINGTON — If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.

Recent developments on the politics of global warming with background, analysis, timelines and earlier events from NYTimes.com and Google.


Multimedia

Related

Times Topics: Copenhagen Climate Talks (UNFCCC)
More From the Blogs: Dot Earth Green Inc.


So what is all this going to cost?

The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world’s total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the United Nations climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.

As scary as that number sounds, the agency said that the costs would ramp up relatively slowly and be largely offset by economic benefits in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies and a reduced danger of climate catastrophe. Most of the investment will come from private rather than public funds, the agency contends.

“People often ask about the costs,” said Kevin Parker, the global head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management, who tracks climate policy for the bank. “But the figures people tend to cite don’t take into account conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And they don’t look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period.”

Whatever global warming’s effects — and most scientific projections are less dire — there are also varying estimates of the economic costs of failing to act to address the problem soon, some of them very high.

In Copenhagen, some of the most intense and difficult discussions for negotiators center on any potential agreement’s near-term financial arrangements. Some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations are calling for a gigantic transfer of wealth from the industrialized world to island nations and countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are most likely to feel the ravages of a changing climate.

Many poor nations are insisting that wealthier nations make deeper cuts in their emissions and contribute more money to help the poorer countries, a split that widened in Copenhagen on Tuesday as competing documents of a potential agreement circulated.

Over time, some of the hundreds of billions of dollars the poorer countries are demanding will begin to flow, as global carbon markets become established and governments in rich countries begin to open the spigot of public spending.

But in the meantime, the industrialized countries have proposed a relatively modest fund of about $10 billion a year for each of the next three or four years to help poorer countries adapt. Even that effort remains the subject of conflict over which countries should contribute how much, what body should oversee the spending and how to determine which projects qualify for finance.

President Obama’s spokesman said last week that the president supported a short-term fund to aid developing nations and that the United States would pay “its fair share.” In many multilateral efforts, the United States picks up a quarter to a third of the tab.

“Providing this assistance,” the White House statement said, “is not only a humanitarian imperative — it’s an investment in our common security, as no climate change accord can succeed if it does not help all countries reduce their emissions.”

The money would be used to help developing nations reduce emissions by switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar and by compensating landowners for not cutting down or burning forests, a major source of carbon dioxide emissions. Other funds might be used to adjust to effects of a changing climate, like rising sea levels, by building flood walls or relocating settlements to higher ground.

Mr. Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 18 to attend the final day of the meeting, a sign that the White House believes that a far-reaching accord, including deals on some of the sticky financial issues, is possible.

“This is the question that is being posed in Copenhagen,” said Robert N. Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard University. “How much money do the developed countries have to put on the table to bring developing countries into the conversation?”

Mr. Stavins said that the bulk of the money would have to come from private investment because, he said, it was “inconceivable” that the governments of the wealthy countries would come up with adequate financing and also because private entities spent money much more efficiently.

The climate and energy legislation passed by the House in June sets aside roughly $8 billion a year for assistance to developing countries by 2030, Mr. Stavins said. That figure, he suggested, represents the upper limit of public financial support from the United States.

The perspective from the developing world is, not surprisingly, somewhat different.

Álvaro Umaña Quesada, the leader of Costa Rica’s climate delegation, said that it was important to the developing world to have early resources and a predictable flow of long-term financing. He said that the $10 billion in so-called quick start financing that was now on the table was adequate but that such spending had to rise to roughly $80 billion and as much as $150 billion a year by 2020.

“That is not very much compared to the size of the world economy or the financial crisis bailouts,” he said. “There are great needs for adaptation, where the small island nations are really at risk. Some of them are one severe weather event away from disappearing.”

The European Union has endorsed a fund of that size; the United States remains noncommittal. The Obama administration has asked for $1.2 billion in climate-related financing in the 2010 budget, far below the needs being discussed at Copenhagen. But administration officials said they would seek more money for international climate programs in future years.

Perhaps the most detailed analysis of the financing needs of any climate change agreement comes from Project Catalyst, an initiative of the European Union and ClimateWorks, a foundation-supported policy group based in San Francisco. The group’s work has helped shape the negotiations in Copenhagen.

The group estimates that roughly $100 billion will be needed by 2020 to finance climate-change programs in the developing world. About half could come from the growing global market in carbon emissions credits under a cap-and-trade system, which would be worth an estimated $2 trillion a year by 2020.

A cap-and-trade system is already operating in Europe and is under consideration by Congress. Such a system sets a ceiling on the carbon emissions of a given country or industry and allows trading of pollution permits within the cap. As the overall limit on emissions grows tighter, the price of pollution permits rises, creating a sizable market in carbon credits.

Countries would grant some of the carbon market allowances directly to energy and environmental programs in the developing world, with other funds coming from a relatively small fee on each transaction.

An additional $10 billion to $20 billion would come from taxes on fuels used in aviation and shipping. The rest, perhaps $25 billion to $35 billion, would be loans and grants from industrialized nations to poorer countries, split roughly three ways among the United States, the European Union and Canada, Japan and Australia.

“The good news is that everybody now is supporting our proposal for financing,” said Dr. Umaña, the Costa Rican delegate. “The bad news is that it’s happening 15 years too late. Without real money on the table, this will be a disaster.”


.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Vatican Backs Obama’s Global Agenda


Photo (Courtesy)http://www.usasurvival.org/images/pope_obama2.png


AIM Report By Cliff Kincaid November 18, 2009

In fact, the bishops believe that “health care is a basic human right,” which is the premise of the Obama plan and it is driving the campaign to have the federal government take over the health care sector.

Some pro-life Catholics reacted with shock to the news that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don't seem to understand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues. This is the untold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called a New World Order.

Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement over abortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration agree on major aspects of so-called health care reform.

These topics are mostly taboo in the liberal and conservative media. Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby.

But the facts should not be much of a surprise. A majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite the fact that his pro-abortion record was well known, and when he was honored at Notre Dame, the premier Catholic University in the U.S., only about one-third of U.S. Catholic Bishops publicly objected.

The Nobel Committee's award to Obama has been viewed by many, on the left and right, as a surprise. But it makes perfect sense. The committee noted that Obama "has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play." All of this is true. Obama has built up the power of global institutions at the expense of the United States.

While the Vatican statement congratulating Obama was also seen by some as a surprise, it too makes sense. The Vatican expressed the hope that "this most important recognition will ultimately encourage such a difficult but fundamental commitment for the future of humanity, so that it might bring the expected results."

The "expected results" are evident when one considers that Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, had endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world government, in his recent encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." This world political authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to "manage the economy," bring about "timely disarmament," and ensure "food, security and peace."

On domestic matters, it is frequently reported that the Roman Catholic Bishops in the U.S. oppose the Obama health care plan. In fact, the bishops believe that "health care is a basic human right," which is the premise of the Obama plan and it is driving the campaign to have the federal government take over the health care sector.

The Bishops disagree with Obama on tax-funding of abortion, but on other matters-such as health care for immigrants and the poor-the Bishops are to the left of the plans introduced by Congressional Democrats.

The Bishops, who have a staff of 350 people, also agree with the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats on what is euphemistically called "immigration reform." On October 8, Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick told the Senate that a new bill should help bring illegal aliens "out of the shadows" and give them permanent residency and citizenship. Such a bill figures to be one of the next major Obama initiatives.

On the matter of a cap-and-trade energy bill, which would raise energy prices supposedly to combat global warming, the Catholic Bishops believe that the U.S. should adopt "mitigation and adaptation" approaches that mean "shifting behavior now to adjust to the near-term impacts of climate change." The Bishops explain that "Mitigation means cutting back on the emissions of harmful global warming pollutants and taking action to prevent further harm to the atmosphere."

Again, this is the Obama Administration position.

The Bishops have launched a "Climate Change Justice and Health Initiative" that promotes "legislative action," including "the transfer of such technologies and technical assistance that may be appropriate and helpful to developing countries in meeting the challenges of global climate change." This, too, is accepted and being promoted by the Obama Administration.

Decision On Afghanistan

On the controversial matter of what to do in Afghanistan, left-wing pressure has been applied on the Obama Administration by Pax Christi, a Catholic group which insists that the U.S. military presence has "fueled the spiral of violence and further destabilized the region." It says that the solution lies in "reducing the U.S. military footprint" and favors ending the use of air strikes and drones on terrorist targets. Its "solution" is more diplomacy and foreign aid.

On an equally serious matter, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Dave Robinson, executive director of PaxChristi USA, recently signed a letter endorsing "the administration's intent to engage Iran diplomatically..." Robinson favors more talking with Iran, not more sanctions and certainly not military action against the fanatical regime.

What's interesting is that you find the same Catholic personnel working on domestic and foreign policy issues.

For example, the executive committee on the Pax Christi national council includes figures such as Donna Toliver Grimes, a "Poverty Education and Outreach Manager" for the bishops who also serve on the staff of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). This is the entity funded by an annual collection authorized by the U.S. Catholic Bishops which is advertised as a charity to "break the vicious cycle of poverty" but which has poured millions of dollars into ACORN and related organizations over the years.

In an October 2 memorandum, Bishop Roger P. Morin acknowledged that the CCHD had also been funding several groups promoting public policy positions in violation of Catholic moral teaching. These were groups promoting homosexual rights and abortion. Morin claimed that the funding had been cut off.

However, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, which uncovered the scandal, says that Morin's response is unsatisfactory and "factually deficient in several areas."

Obama's Catholic Connection

Obama's community organizing days in Chicago began in an organization funded by the Catholic Church. In a Politico.com story about Barack Obama's friendly meeting with the Pope, reporter Josh Gerstein featured information that made it clear that the President's Catholic connection goes back to his days as a community organizer and that Obama's associates understand and appreciate this fact.

Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough was quoted as saying that Obama's work as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago "was funded partly" by the "Catholic Church campaign for human development..."-the CCHD.

McDonough, a former Senior Fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP), was the moderator of a May 10, 2006, CAP event on "How Catholic Progressives View the Role of Faith in Governance."

Conservative Catholics concerned about this problem have documented that millions of dollars of Catholic money over the last four decades have gone into Saul Alinsky-style networks which pursue their own brand of socialist direct action. CCHD itself acknowledges funding ACORN projects with grants totaling more than $7.3 million during the last 10 years.

Filling in more of the details of the story that Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough referred to, conservative Catholic writer and activist Stephanie Block has documented that Obama was lead organizer in Chicago for the Alinskyian Developing Communities Project. It received a $40,000 Catholic Campaign for Human Development grant in 1985 and another $33,000 grant in 1986.

While he was in Chicago, Obama was trained by top Alinskyian organizers. One was the ex-Jesuit, Greg Galuzzo, lead organizer for Gamaliel. The Developing Com-munities Project operated under the Gamaliel Foundation, a network of Alinskyian organizations that also received CCHD grants.

Gamaliel calls Obama a former Gamaliel organizer and boasts of connections to top White House officials such as Obama friend Valerie Jarrett.

The Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama as lead organizer, was an offshoot of the Calumet Community Religious Conference of Alinsky-trained Jerry Kellman. The network of community organizations Alinsky founded, known as the Industrial Areas Foundation, also received CCHD grants.

The grants are being used, however, not just to seize power, but to change the minds of traditional Catholics. Indeed, this is a necessary prerequisite for taking power.

Alinskyian training sessions in the religious context are designed not to develop or cultivate a personal relationship with Christ and promote traditional values and cultural institutions but to engage in Marxist political activity and radical change. Stephanie Block puts it this way: "Their worldview is marred by visions of class struggle and perpetual revolution. They are systematically trained to renounce moral truth in favor of consensus-based 'values.'"

What has happened over the years, some of these experts say, is that Catholics trained in Alinskyian thought have become confused about moral issues and problems. They think, for example, that opposition to the death penalty is on the same moral plane as opposition to abortion, even though Catholic moral teaching has never precluded capital punishment. They believe that fighting "global warming" is as important as saving the lives of unborn children or preventing the killing of the elderly. They are trained to fight for abortion and homosexual "rights" in violation of traditional Catholic Church teaching.

The BigGovernment.com videos of questionable ACORN activities have outraged taxpayers and members of Congress. Many Catholics will be angered by the revelations-if Fox News dares to publicize the evidence-of how their money has been funneled to ACORN and similar organizations by the official Catholic hierarchy.

The evidence of Catholic collaboration with Marxist and "progressive" networks is substantial. A documentary, "The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy," notes that "Alinsky envisioned an 'organization of organizations,' comprised of all sectors of the community-youth committees, small businesses, labor unions, and, most influential of all, the Catholic Church." A website devoted to the documentary cites the Catholic Campaign for Human Development as one of several organizations "actively practicing Alinsky's techniques."

The Citizen's Handbook to radical organizing notes that "Much of IAF [Industrial Areas Foundation] organizing occurs through Christian churches particularly the Catholic church."

Obama "worked in several Catholic parishes, supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, helping to address severe joblessness and housing needs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods of Chicago," noted the group calling itself Catholic Democrats. Another group, Catholics for Obama, says that "President Barack Obama reflects core values of Catholic Social Teaching, which informs how we live our faith in the world."

The president of Catholic Democrats, Patrick Whelan, serves on the board of Catholics for Obama and as co-director of Pax Christi in Massachusetts.

In the newsletter of Pax Christi Massachusetts, Whelan writes about flying to Chicago in May of this year, "where I attended a reunion of Catholic Priests and community activists who hired a young Barack Obama in 1985."

Whelan says that Obama, in his book, Dreams from My Father, "created a character named Marty Kaufmann, based on two real-life community organizers who attended this gathering on May 16, 2009."

Whelan also writes about Obama's meeting with the Pope. "Overall," he says, "it was clear that the common ground between the US Government and the Holy See-on poverty, the environment, international armed conflict and peace in the Middle East-far outweighed their differences."





PROGRESSIVES SUPPORT GLOBAL TAXES

While policymakers debate a few million dollars for ACORN and a few hundred billion dollars more for health care reform, those committed to one-world government are moving ahead with plans for a global tax that could extract trillions of dollars out of Americans' already depleted IRAs and stock holdings.

One can't exclude the possibility of such a tax being slipped into a health care or cap-and-trade bill that the Congress or the public could not have time to read before passage.

Bob Davis of the Wall Street Journal deserves a journalism prize for taking the time to read the recent communiqué issued by the G-20 countries meeting in Pittsburgh. He found they had assigned the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the job of studying how to implement a global tax on America and the rest of the world.

"The IMF assignment from the G-20 has been widely overlooked," Davis noted. His article ran under the headline, "IMF Mulls Global Bank Tax."

The "Leader's Statement" endorsed by President Obama and released at the event declares on page 10 that "We task the IMF to prepare a report for our next meeting with regard to the range of options countries have adopted or are considering as to how the financial sector could make a fair and substantial contribution toward paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the banking system."

The term "fair and substantial contribution" is code for a global tax. Other misleading terms for global taxes include "innovative sources of finance" and "Solidarity Levies."

While the global tax would affect the savings of ordinary Americans and be passed on to consumers, it is being packaged by the international left and its progressive allies in the U.S. as an assault on Wall Street and the big banks.

One proposal, popular at the United Nations for decades and long-advocated by Fidel Castro, is the Tobin Tax, named after Yale University economist James Tobin. Such a tax, which could affect stocks, mutual funds, and pensions, could generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Indeed, Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, says in his book, The Confidence Game, that such a proposal "might net some $13 trillion a year..." because it is based on taking a percentage of money from the trillions of dollars exchanged daily in global financial markets.

Such transactions are commonplace on behalf of Americans who have stock in mutual funds or companies that invest or operate overseas.

Meanwhile, President Obama used his recent speech to the United Nations to declare, "We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals." He left unsaid what this means. It has been calculated that this will cost the U.S. $845 billion to meet U.N. demands for a certain percentage of Gross National Product to go for official foreign aid to the rest of the world. Compliance with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was incorporated into the Global Poverty Act that Obama had introduced as a U.S. senator but which never passed.

A global tax of the kind envisioned in the G-20 document could help provide the revenue to fulfill Obama's promise to comply with the MDGs.

One of the leading cheerleaders for the global tax is economist Joseph Stiglitz, an Obama supporter and former Clinton official who has been working with the Socialist International Commission on Global Financial Issues. He played a key behind-the-scenes role in the June United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis. He was selected as a U.N. adviser by the then-president of the U.N. General Assembly, Communist Catholic Priest Miguel D'Escoto.

Over at the Huffington Post, a voice of the Obama-supporting left, Kyle G. Brown advised that such a tax is doable and that "a modest fee on every stock, every bond-in short, every financial transaction" could generate $100 billion a year at a rate of just 0.5 percent. He explains, "That would defray health care costs, and help struggling states restore social services that have been axed over the past two years."

Brown is not a policy maker but rather a self-described writer and broadcast journalist at the BBC and CBC.

The progressives know that such a rate could be ratcheted up quickly, bringing in hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars.

The AFL-CIO, the giant labor federation backing Obama, has already endorsed the Tobin Tax, as has Robert Kuttner, a leading liberal thinker who serves as co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. This is a pro-Democratic Party think tank that still includes ousted Obama green jobs czar Van Jones on its board.

As reported by The Hill newspaper, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the Highways and Transit Transportation Subcommittee, has "seized on the idea as a way to help pay for a new massive surface transportation reauthorization bill, estimated to cost $450 billion over six years," but wants to tax oil-based derivatives rather than stock transactions. DeFazio had previously introduced a House resolution to pass a Tobin Tax.

What is driving the global taxation agenda is a Marxist view that the U.S. is exploiting the people and natural resources of the world.

In his 2001 speech to the U.N. World Conference on Racism, Castro advocated the Tobin Tax specifically in order to generate U.S. financial reparations to the rest of the world. He declared that "the tax suggested by Nobel Prize Laureate James Tobin" should be imposed in order to generate "one trillion US dollars annually to save and develop the world."

The only thing that has changed is that the U.S. now has a President who agrees with Castro, and he and his progressive backers believe that they can obtain a slice of the revenue for their socialist projects here as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source:http://www.aim.org/aim-report/vatican-backs-obamas-global-agenda/

Monday, November 02, 2009

EU Proposes Global Wealth Redistribution


Written by James Heiser
Thursday, 10 September 2009 18:30


Member states of the European Union may soon find that the joys of environmental self-righteousness quickly fade when the bill comes due. According to a report from BBCNews, the European Commission is proposing that the EU provide billions annually to poor countries for climate-change adaptation. Yet the amounts proposed are a relatively small part of what the United Nations says poor nations will need and are considered insufficient by environmental alarmists:

The UN estimates that poor nations will need about $100bn (£60bn) per year for climate adaptation, with much of that coming from levies on carbon trading.

The [European] commission hopes its proposal will stimulate negotiations leading up to December's UN summit in Copenhagen. Campaign groups say the sums are less than the EU ought to be spending.

"With less than 90 days before Copenhagen, we need to make serious progress in these negotiations," said commission president Jose Manuel Barroso.

"I am determined that Europe will continue to provide a lead, but developed and economically advanced developing countries must also make a contribution."

The commission is proposing that the EU’s “share” of the $100 billion would be somewhere between $2 and $15 billion. Given the usual natural expansion of all governmental programs, one can easily imagine how such a figure will be adjusted upward time and again in the coming years if the precedent of making such transfers is established.

What must be understood is that what is being proposed is essentially a global welfare system that is inextricably linked to submission to the environmentalist ideology and administered by the United Nations. The entire program neatly combines several major tenets of the anti-Western creed: internationalism, radical environmentalism, and guilt-tripping over a history of Western/European “oppression.” It also means that even as the U.S. Senate is considering adoption of a “cap-and-trade” carbon-credit system which could further cripple the American economy, the United Nations is preparing to add its own level of carbon-credit taxation to further strip wealth out of the American economy and transfer it to “developing nations.”

With all welfare schemes, no matter how much wealth is transferred, the recipients — and their advocates — may be expected to lobby for more. Such is also the case with the proposed Copenhagen carbon-credit redistributionism. According to BBCNews:

Environmental groups have been pressing the EU to come up with a strong proposal, and were not impressed with the final figure.

"The EU is trying to get away with leaving a tip, rather than paying its share of the bill to protect the planet's climate," said Joris den Blanken, climate and energy policy director of Greenpeace-EU.

Environmental groups argue that western nations are historically responsible for causing man-made climate change, and so must bear the brunt of any "compensation money" for the developing world - a position that is shared by governments of many poorer countries.

Recently the African Union suggested that African countries alone should receive $67bn per year.

If $2 to $15 billion a year may be considered merely a “tip,” one may question what “bill” organizations such as Greenpeace-EU would like to see thrown at the European Union — and, in time, the United States. The bidding up of the price of imposing the environmentalist ideology on the entire world has only begun; one can scarcely imagine where it will be by the time of December’s conference in Copenhagen.

Photo of Jose Manuel Barroso: AP Images
.
.
.

Monday, August 03, 2009

Brasher: House bill's land use unsettles farming, food costs


by PHILIP BRASHER • pbrasher@dmreg.com • August 2, 2009


Washington, D.C. - Forget the food-vs.-fuel debate for a while. The new issue is carbon vs. food.

How this debate plays out could go a long way to deciding the fate of the Obama administration's effort to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The debate over a House-passed climate bill has focused on how much it will raise energy costs, including the cost of farming. When the Senate returns this fall to write its version of the bill, attention will turn to the impact on food prices.


This became clear at the Senate Agriculture Committee's first hearing on the climate issue. Senators from both parties demanded to know what impact a cap-and-trade system would have on land use and food costs. Economists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are working to learn the answers.

The issue is simple: A cap-and-trade program, such as the one approved by the House, would allow utilities and other polluters to comply with caps on greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing credits from landowners who plant trees on their property.

The question is how much land that's now in crops or pasture is likely to be converted to forests.

Quite a bit, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of the House-passed bill. The analysis predicted there would be less cropland as a result of the bill because acreage would be converted to trees to earn carbon credits.

Reducing the amount of available cropland likely would raise the price of commodities such as corn and soybeans, increasing feed costs and eventually food prices.

Estimate of affected acres
But the environmental analysis, based on work done at Texas A&M University, didn't say how land conversion would take place, and agency administrator Lisa Jackson, hasn't clarified the issue.

She told the Senate committee she had no idea how many acres of cropland would be affected.

Enter the American Farm Bureau Federation. The group, which flatly opposes the cap-and-trade program, came up with an estimate that 40 million acres could be lost to agricultural production. Some 320 million acres nationwide were planted to crops this year.

Senate Republicans seized on the Farm Bureau figures and used it to attack the House bill.

But Farm Bureau economists said the number is at best a guess. The number is based on the environmental agency estimate of the amount of emissions reduction that would be achieved through agriculture and forestry under the House's cap-and-trade program.

However, most of the emission reduction in the early years would come through improvements in managing existing forests - not through planting trees on land that's now in grass or crops.

Vilsack weighs in
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the lost acreage, however much it is, isn't likely to be good cropland, and farmers can make up for it with higher yielding crop varieties and more efficient feed use.

"I'm not willing to concede that (cap-and-trade) will necessarily result in an acre-for-acre reduction" in cropland, Vilsack said.

But without more economic analysis, Vilsack is trying to sell the climate bill on a "hope and a prayer," said Sen. Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican and former agriculture secretary.

A leading farm-state Democrat, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, told Vilsack and Jackson she needs to know more about the potential impact of the legislation on food prices.

In a first step to getting the answer, Agriculture Department economists huddled for two days recently with counterparts at Texas A&M who developed the environmental agency's analysis.

The issues the Agriculture Department economists have to sort through are complex and not unrelated to the food-vs.-fuel issue.

Biofuels mandates, for example, encourage crop residue to be used for ethanol, not left in the soil where the plant carbon can reduce greenhouse gas emissions - and earn carbon credits.

Mandates for energy
Then there's the issue of a new mandate for renewable electricity. Will that encourage land to be converted from food crops to switchgrass to fuel power plants?

If so, that could mean higher food prices, too.

The economists' goal is to come up with estimates of how much cropland and acreage will be converted to trees, not just nationwide but by region and commodity.

"If you can start doing that on a regional basis and commodity basis, you can get a little more complete story," said Joe Glauber, the Agriculture Department's chief economist.