 |
| What is Catholicism? |
Tony Abbott says "he cannot recall" consulting a Catholic bishop during an election campaign
TONY JONES, JOURNALIST (ABC TV, Lateline, 2004): Have you met Archbishop Pell during the election campaign?
TONY ABBOTT: Not that I can recall.
TONY JONES: Not that you can recall, because we believe that you've had at least one meeting with him quite recently.
TONY ABBOTT: Well, when? Where?
TONY JONES: You don't recall that? At the Presbytery in Sydney.
TONY ABBOTT: Actually, now that you mention it, I did meet with Cardinal Pell. So what?
TONY ABBOTT: Not that I can recall.
TONY JONES: Not that you can recall, because we believe that you've had at least one meeting with him quite recently.
TONY ABBOTT: Well, when? Where?
TONY JONES: You don't recall that? At the Presbytery in Sydney.
TONY ABBOTT: Actually, now that you mention it, I did meet with Cardinal Pell. So what?
Tony Abbott talks about Coalition Climate Change Policy, July 2009
Source: David Speers Sky News Interview with Tony Abbott, July 2009
TONY ABBOTT: If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more?
Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?
And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid.
It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden.
TONY ABBOTT: If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more?
Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?
And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid.
It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden.
Tony Abbott talks about Coalition Climate Change Policy after Labor adopts his proposal, March 2011
Source: Sydney Morning Herald, February 24, 2011 "Carbon price to start July 2012"
JULIA GILLARD: This is an essential economic reform, and it is the right thing to do. Carbon pollution is a threat to our country, and a threat to our future prosperity.
I do not believe that Australia needs to lead the world on climate change, but I also don't believe that we can afford to be left behind. That is why the time is right and the time is now.
Every cent raised from pricing carbon will go to assisting households, helping businesses manage the transition and funding climate change programs.
JULIA GILLARD: This is an essential economic reform, and it is the right thing to do. Carbon pollution is a threat to our country, and a threat to our future prosperity.
I do not believe that Australia needs to lead the world on climate change, but I also don't believe that we can afford to be left behind. That is why the time is right and the time is now.
Every cent raised from pricing carbon will go to assisting households, helping businesses manage the transition and funding climate change programs.
Source: Courier Mail, March 1, 2011 "Abbott will scrap carbon tax if PM"
TONY ABBOTT: We will oppose this in opposition. We will rescind it in government.
TONY ABBOTT: We will oppose this in opposition. We will rescind it in government.
Cardinal George Pell talks about Climate Change Policy, October 2011
Extract of -
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
2011 Annual GWPF Lecture
Westminster Cathedral Hall | 26 October 2011
One Christian Perspective on Climate Change
Cardinal George Pell
Archbishop of Sydney
Let me begin by thanking the Global Warming Policy Foundation for the invitation to deliver this lecture.
I first became interested in the question in the 1990s when studying the anti-human claims of the “deep Greens”, so I had long suspected that those predicting dangerous and increasing anthropogenic global warming were overstating their case. During the years 2008-09 it was dangerous for an Australian politician to voice dissent unless he was from a country electorate. Opponents were silenced.
As I was not up for re-election and I suspected the Emperor had few if any clothes, I made a few more small public statements.
In my view the evidence is insufficient to achieve practical certainty on many of these scientific issues.
The cost of attempts to make global warming go away will be very heavy. They may be levied initially on “the big polluters” but they will eventually trickle down to the end-users. Efforts to offset the effects on the vulnerable are well intentioned but history tells us they can only ever be partially successful. Will the costs and the disruption be justified by the benefits?
We must be sure the solutions being proposed are valid, the benefits are real and the end result justifies the impositions on the community, particularly the most vulnerable. You will gather that I have concerns on all three fronts.
Are there any long term benefits from the schemes to combat global warming, apart from extra tax revenues for governments and income for those devising and implementing the schemes? Will the burdens be shared generally, or fall mainly on the shoulders of the battlers, the poor? Another useful Latin maxim is “in dubio non agitur”: don’t act when in doubt. There is no precautionary principle, only the criteria for assessing what actions are prudent.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
2011 Annual GWPF Lecture
Westminster Cathedral Hall | 26 October 2011
One Christian Perspective on Climate Change
Cardinal George Pell
Archbishop of Sydney
Let me begin by thanking the Global Warming Policy Foundation for the invitation to deliver this lecture.
Why might a Catholic bishop comment?
We might ask whether my scepticism is yet another example of religious ignorance and intransigence opposing the forward progress of science as is alleged in the confrontations between Galileo and the Papacy in the early seventeenth century, when the Church party on the evidence of scripture insisted that the sun moved around the earth.I first became interested in the question in the 1990s when studying the anti-human claims of the “deep Greens”, so I had long suspected that those predicting dangerous and increasing anthropogenic global warming were overstating their case. During the years 2008-09 it was dangerous for an Australian politician to voice dissent unless he was from a country electorate. Opponents were silenced.
As I was not up for re-election and I suspected the Emperor had few if any clothes, I made a few more small public statements.
In my view the evidence is insufficient to achieve practical certainty on many of these scientific issues.
The cost of attempts to make global warming go away will be very heavy. They may be levied initially on “the big polluters” but they will eventually trickle down to the end-users. Efforts to offset the effects on the vulnerable are well intentioned but history tells us they can only ever be partially successful. Will the costs and the disruption be justified by the benefits?
We must be sure the solutions being proposed are valid, the benefits are real and the end result justifies the impositions on the community, particularly the most vulnerable. You will gather that I have concerns on all three fronts.
Are there any long term benefits from the schemes to combat global warming, apart from extra tax revenues for governments and income for those devising and implementing the schemes? Will the burdens be shared generally, or fall mainly on the shoulders of the battlers, the poor? Another useful Latin maxim is “in dubio non agitur”: don’t act when in doubt. There is no precautionary principle, only the criteria for assessing what actions are prudent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment