Climate plan in line with Utah's founders

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Dave Isaksen
    May 31, 2009 4:34 p.m.

    So, let me see if I get this right. Even non-LDS get to use my church to further their political agenda. What a country!

  • Joe
    May 31, 2009 3:26 a.m.

    Leading Republicans are claiming that President Obama's proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions would cost households as much as $3,100 per year. The Republican National Committee calls it a "massive national energy tax." But the $3,100 figure is a misrepresentation of both Obama's proposal and the study from which the number is derived.

    Republicans say they base their figure on a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But one of the authors says that the GOP's use of the study is "simplistic and misleading" and that it ignores key provisions designed to cushion the impact on consumers. The author puts the true added cost of a cap-and-trade system at closer to $800 a year.

  • Rich
    May 29, 2009 3:30 p.m.

    Cap-and-trade is the only way we'll ever pay off the $100,000 per person spending increases we recently have adopted. Here's how it works. Energy prices skyrocket. That leads to out-of-control inflation because higher energy prices mean everything costs more. Thus, a $100,000 debt tomorrow could be as easy to handle as a $10,000 debt today. The investors who financed the $100,000 debt will take a beating, but who cares about the Chinese, right?

  • Cosmo
    May 29, 2009 2:46 p.m.

    Re:Dave; God's kingdom is not the Earth, this is only one of his creations. My point was simple, in that, there is God's agenda, and then there is Man's agenda. The two rarely, coincide.

  • AloysiusMiller
    May 29, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    These comments get moderated but was this self serving article moderated?

  • Reason
    May 29, 2009 1:49 p.m.

    Actually, the Rock is RIGHT, as are Derek Monson and several others. The original letter writer, John Kateel, is attempting a huge, unworkable leap of logic connecting Utahs majority religion with support for a blatant abuse of governmental authority in the form of cap and trade. And, judging by the name of his business, it appears that Kateel is attempting to convince us for his own monetary gain. If Brigham Young and other early prophets were alive today, my guess is that theyd be appalled at this government assault on liberty.

  • ustraveler
    May 29, 2009 8:42 a.m.

    What I continually find disturbing is not the desire to protect our environment. I firmly belief that curbing pollution such as mercury, particulate emissions, etc will help society and cut down on the cost to our health and well being. However, believing that CO2 should be part of that and should be regulated shows not only a lack of common sense but a misunderstanding of the big picture.

    Plants like CO2. Recent studies show that with higher CO2 amounts, the earth actually increased its biomass by 6%. CO2 only forms a relatively small part of our atmosphere. It's effect hasn't been shown as a direct cause of global warming, despite millions of dollars in research. Many scientists are looking at other causes of warming and now ceased warming in the past 8 years. Even scientists on the IPCC panel have come out against the released study saying they were pigeonholed into one small area and they do not agree with the overall result.

    Why do we want to spend so much money on something that we haven't even determined is a root cause and may not cause that much harm?

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 7:40 p.m.

    As usual
    the right-wing in their ignorance, refuses to believe anything is wrong with our environment.

    So what?

    The liberals are taking action to correct the problems with or without them.

  • a reader
    May 28, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    AS Usual,

    Anonymous has nothing of value to contribute, but name-calling,

    And his intolerance and hate for anyone who has views right of his.

  • liberal point of view
    May 28, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    As a liberal, I always focus on leaving the campground a tad nicer than how I found it.
    And I couldn't care less if any conservative would slam me with a "tree-hugger" or "enviro-wacko" moniker.

  • KM
    May 28, 2009 4:44 p.m.

    The cap and trade scam is just more of this 'got to do it now' power grab. It will just take more of my hard earned money away from my providing a living for my family. I'm sure that the church would want me to keep more of what I earn and use it for good purposes, purposes that I decide are right not what Obama and the socialists in charge think is right and good.
    The church has always taught moderation in ALL things, I think this would apply to this global warming scam. be good stewards of the earth, but don't worship said earth.

  • Matt
    May 28, 2009 4:44 p.m.

    Also, what does cap-and-trade have to do with pollution? The main purpose of c-a-t is to reduce carbon emissions, not necessarily air and water particulates that damage people's bodies.

  • Matt
    May 28, 2009 4:42 p.m.

    "The collectivism of the 19th-century prophets would be derided as socialism today."

    Actually, several different apostles of the LDS Church (e.g. David O. McKay, Marion G. Romney, and Ezra Taft Benson) have give many addresses on the difference between socialism/communism and the "collectivism" or United Order of the Church. Search for "Socialism and the United Order Compared" by Romney.

  • Dave
    May 28, 2009 3:57 p.m.

    Cosmo, We're not building God's kingdom - we're destroying it. The Earth is God's artwork and look what we're doing to it. Don't be so sanctimonious.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 3:28 p.m.

    The Rock is a crock!

    Another freaky right-winger gone beserk.

  • Publius
    May 28, 2009 3:25 p.m.

    It is rather astounding when you read comments on an article like this to see how many avowedly devout LDS people are willing to throw their actual religious heritage, with its heavy communitarianism, completely overboard when they sense it conflicts with their modern-day right-wing greedy notions of political capitalism. They really do prefer their possessions and the things of this world to any of the spiritual truths of their religious forefathers. The Sutherland Institute really ought to be the Hypocrites Institute.

  • Do it NOW
    May 28, 2009 3:20 p.m.

    Yes, let's drop the income tax and adopt the energy tax.

    That way rich and poor are all taxed fairly!

    Under the current system the poor pay no tax.

  • Cosmo
    May 28, 2009 3:04 p.m.

    John, is prostituting religion, for his own self interest. It is an old story, in human history.
    Anyone that falls for this scam, should evaluate, who's kingdom they are helping to build, God's, or
    a man, that seeks to profit from larger government.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 2:53 p.m.

    That's right, Neocons.
    Do nothing.
    As always.


  • Dave
    May 28, 2009 2:27 p.m.

    The Rock is wrong. Global disruptive weather patterns caused by CO2 are no longer in dispute, except by those too blind, lazy, or invested in oil to see the truth. Read Thomas Friedman's book, 'Hot, Flat and Crowded' for a well-researched and candid approach to world problems such as global climate disruption, poverty, and renewable energy systems. There are solutions to all these problems, but it will take awareness and a willingness to change the way we do things before things can get better.

  • The Rock
    May 28, 2009 1:12 p.m.

    "John Kateel of North Salt Lake works with J.M. Alexander Eco Friendly Products."

    It would appear that Mr. Kateel has a conflict of interest. He could stand to profit from cap and trade.

    The LDS united order was based on personal liberty, not government force.

    Global Warming is a crock! Watch a movie called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" It is on Google Videos and is 75 minutes long. Produced in England, it should open a lot of eyes. Cap and trade is the biggest single tax ever proposed and it is a response to a problems that does not exist.

  • gp
    May 28, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    Cap and tax (or ration and tax, RAT for short)is based upon a false premise, and that is that CO2 is a terrible pollution, and must go. The idea is that the new tax will help to kill fossil fuel use. The early prophets and saints never for once ever thought for a minute that burning fossil fuels would kill the earth. Just the opposite, the Saints were always taught that Earth's resources were God given, and were to be used with prudence and principles of frugality and virtue, and that every man on earth had the right to use earth's resources for his fulfillment and happiness (within the bounds of righteous principles). It is an unrighteous agenda that says C02 is a pollutant and will kill the earth. It purely, and simply is not true, and the spirit of that belief comes from none other than Master Mahan himself. This agenda, if followed, to the extent to limit mankind and his prosperity will ultimately lead to ruin.

  • Amazed
    May 28, 2009 12:41 p.m.

    I am amazed at the twisting, turning and forceful cramming of early Mormon doctrine and Utah history into this neat little box supporting "Obama's cap-and-trade centered environmental policy" and stating that it is "well in line with the values of the pioneering founders of the great state of Utah."

    Mr. Kateel better go back and re-study Mormon and Utah history. Cap and Trade goes against the spirit of early Utah entrepreneurship and certainly does not fit into the early Mormon concept of a Zion society.

    Mr. Kateel, stop twisting history to get people to agree to a concept foreign to early Mormon leaders and etxremely harmful to the present and future economy.

  • Aaron
    May 28, 2009 12:41 p.m.

    The writer forgot one thing and that's choice. The past prophets honored the individual's choice and did compell anyone to do anything.

  • Westlake
    May 28, 2009 12:23 p.m.

    Collective living as organized by Joseph and Brigham had one thing that "Obama-ism" does not. The free choice to belong or not belong. No one was ever forced to live the United Order. It was voluntary.

    Where is the opportunity to not participate in the president's plans if one chooses?

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 11:54 a.m.

    I've yet to figure out just what it is that conservatives aim to conserve?
    All they do is obsess about one ideology after another.
    And that's it!

  • Oh Please
    May 28, 2009 11:30 a.m.

    JS and BY both did their best to get the Saints to cooperate economically, but that was the one thing they would NOT do. Thus the downfall of Zion in Missouri and the end of the United Orders in Utah. BY said this was the saddest thing in his whole life, that he couldn't get the Saints to stop the greed.

  • @Invisible Hand
    May 28, 2009 11:30 a.m.

    "I love the idea of taxing energy use, since it has a societal cost."

    Energy use also has huge societal benefits. Everything we now take for granted (internet, increasing life expectancy, leisure time, abundant food, shelter, clothing, and water, standard of living, and environmental quality) is possible only because we have abundant, cheap, and reliable sources of energy. Take that away and we're back to a subsistence life style with no time and resources for such things as ecotourism.

  • Derek Monson
    May 28, 2009 11:20 a.m.

    To Check your sources@8:38 am--

    If you invested more time learning about our (Sutherland Institute's) positions on energy and the environment, and less time hatching conspiracy theories about who our donors are, you would know that we are not against a clean energy economy. You would find out that we think that all energy sources are needed, particularly in the near future, to meet the basic needs of a growing state population and to provide opportunities for prosperity and happiness to our children.

    Further, you would learn that we think that clean air, clean water, and a healthy respect for the environment are crucial to Utah's well-being. You would also discover that we consider the free market and private initiative to be the best primary ways to bring about these necessities.

    Lastly, you would learn that we think that if government becomes the primary vehicle to deliver these outcomes, it will not only fail but will unnecessarily burden hard-working families and individuals in Utah, and take away some of the very liberties that make this state such a wonderful place to live.

    But as they say, ignorance is bliss...

  • No problem with conservation
    May 28, 2009 11:05 a.m.

    Personally... I have no problem with conservation. I think it's the right thing to do (always have). It's in line with my personal philosophy and I think with Utah's founders.

    What I DO have a problem with is the agenda to turn control over to international power broakers (who don't necesarrily have Utah or the United States interests at heart).

    Washington DC is too out of control and too distant from me and my values to trust to know my concerns and to do things in a way that takes local concerns into account. How out of control and out-of-touch do you think some UN-ELECTED power-group in the Hague or some cloistered haven in Europe or elsewhere will be???

    -Do they know the problems and concerns Utahns have? (I don't think so).
    -Do they CARE if they destry the US Economy? (I don't think so).
    -Do they KNOW what will SOLVE Global Warming? (I don't think so).
    -Will they be_able to balance the needs of impoverished_people, developing economies AND Free societies (like ours) as well_as_more_Socialist_systems (like_USSR_N_Korea_Europe_etc)? If_so_they_are_more_omniscient_than_God_himself.
    -Are they just out to control and manipulate other nations? (YES)!

  • Derek Monson
    May 28, 2009 10:50 a.m.

    John, I would respectfully argue that you're understanding and interpretation of the founding prophets is flawed. Those prophets would not be socialists today, because they taught and expected that people's private actions should be the primary vehicle to care for our communities, not the coercive hand of government.

    For example, you write:

    "Where the founding prophets and Obama converge is in realizing that externalities like pollution do have cost that is borne by the community without compensation. They both agree that the producer does have the right to a profit, yet this profit must not come at the uncompensated expense of the community as a whole."

    The big difference, however, is that the founding prophets believed in the idea of "teach[ing] the people correct principles and they govern themselves" (Joseph Smith), whereas Obama believes in using the state to forcibly teach and govern the people.

    The latter is socialism, and leads to cap-and-trade, a degradation of the reasoning capacity and moral agency of men and women, and a cynical view of human freedom. The former is wisdom, and leads to greater respect for freedom, human dignity, and the environment. They are worlds apart.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 10:50 a.m.

    There ain't no problem with the climate.
    There also ain't no problem with breathin' in that orange-brown air ever day. In-out. In-out.... deeper this time, in-out, in-out.

    This is just more of them liberal tricks liberal like to play on us stupid neocons... er I mean, us patriots.

  • Locke
    May 28, 2009 10:38 a.m.

    The writer is mistaken. He conveniently left out the overarching value of individual liberty and overlooked Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's numerous libertarian writings. They advocated LESS government intervention, not more.

    Equating the communal actions of a small religious society with those of the Federal government is a nonsequitor. They employ different values, have different goals, have different outcomes, and are based on conflicting political ideologies (religion-based liberty versus fascism). There is no logical comparison.

  • Invisible Hand
    May 28, 2009 10:32 a.m.

    I love the idea of taxing energy use, since it has a societal cost. Where I differ with the president is I think we should scrap the current dysfunctional tax system in favor of an energy tax. Overall taxation needs to be lower, but given that as a parameter, a carbon tax would be preferable to an income tax.

  • CB
    May 28, 2009 10:18 a.m.

    Talk about putting a square peg in a round hole. I've heard everything now. The wide streets of SLC testify to the advance thinking of the pioneers. We would have Atomic power if BY or JS were here, not the windmills or solar, both of which have to be subsidized to exist, neither of which will be cost effective nor sustainable. Dream on!

  • RE:Check your sources
    May 28, 2009 9:07 a.m.

    I think you are a bit naive...

    The big energy companies a are playing BOTH sides of the field. They will profit from oil OR alternate energy.

    It's the consumer that gets stiffed IN EVERY CASE.

    Fact is, they profit MORE from alternate energies.

  • Check your sources
    May 28, 2009 8:38 a.m.

    Please look at who finances the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, Sutherland Institute and others who are bending the facts and figures to scare everyone with them. That is, if you can find their contributors. On their web sites, they won't say... it is scary to think that for some reason, there are people out there who hide behind these organizations and try to create panic. Their numbers are completely skewed; my question is why they are so against a clean energy economy like this will create. Big oil? Probably.

  • Jason Bosarge
    May 28, 2009 7:58 a.m.

    Cont. "Because almost every industry and American uses some form of fossil fuel-based energy, the impact of an energy tax of this level will be disastrous to the American economy. For example, The Heritage Foundations Center for Data Analysis has found that by 2035 the Waxman-Markey bill will have the following economic impact:

    Reduce aggregate Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion
    Destroy up to 2.5 million jobs in some years
    Raise electric rates 90%, gasoline prices by 74%, and natural gas prices by 55% after adjusting for inflation
    Raise a typical familys average annual energy bill by $1,500
    With unemployment at 8.9%, now is not the time to subject our economy and American families to such a burdensome tax. The impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is thousands of dollars per year in higher energy costs, over $116,600 of additional federal debt (above and beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and more unemployment. And all for a change in world temperature that might not be noticeable." - Heritage Foundation

  • Jason Bosarge
    May 28, 2009 7:56 a.m.

    Mr. Obama's energy plan is a massive tax that will wreak havoc on the economy.

    "President Barack Obama described the plan best when he said [u]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. And skyrocket they will. In total, a typical family of four will see its energy costs rise by over $22,800 from 2012-2035. But it gets worse. When energy costs increase, the costs of all goods and services increase. Businesses have to pay a higher overhead, and they pass that on to consumers. Manufacturers, an energy-intensive industry, will have to pay more to produce their products, so the price of their products will rise to reflect the higher costs of production."

    "The $22,800 does not include this higher cost of living, nor does it include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling." - Heritage Foundation

  • Joseph
    May 28, 2009 7:40 a.m.

    Oh geeze... Tne enviro wackos are out in force today. THey'll do anything to justify a socialistic world.

    I think ALL of our founders believed in freedom first, not control...

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 4:31 a.m.

    Wow, that's a huge leap of logic in the last paragraph. Businesses have been paying taxes of all types for decades, but according to the author their profits have left society "uncompensated".