Senator Webb,
I wish to raise your attention to the crime against the American people perpetrated today in the US House of Representatives.
If we permit the so-called clean energy bill to pass in any form, only harm can come to Virginia and the US. There are no benefits or returns to Virginia that could justify your vote on this bill. No so-called "jobs created" or fiscal return could be great enough to pay for the harm in this bill.
The real crime is that the bill is based on what, at best, is questionable science. At worst, the science is a total sham. Why on earth are we trying to reduce the amount of a rare trace gas that is essential to our biosphere!?
Additionally, cap-and-trade has not worked in any country it has been tried. There is no reason to expect it to work here.
I have heard people apply the Pascal's Wager to this argument: if we are right about anthropological greenhouse warming, wouldn't it be better just to be safe? This argument is just as wrong as the science it is trying to advance.
The facts are that this bill will raise taxes and expenses on everything. Our economy is in enough trouble already!! Anyone who says I am wrong on this is calling President Obama a liar. He himself said that his plan (the plan being advanced in this bill) will "necessarily raise" energy costs.
Please keep in mind that you campaigned as a moderate to conservative candidate. Voting for this bill would show you to be a liar. However, I am certain you are a man of honor. I hope I can count on you to do the right thing: vote against any and all bills reported to address greenhouse gases or climate change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
His reply:
ReplyDeleteThank you for contacting my office with your concerns regarding climate change and legislative proposals for addressing it. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me.
Legislation to address climate change has potentially large repercussions for our economy, and as such, it deserves to be fully vetted and debated. Some of the current proposed mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including cap and trade, suffer from inefficiency, potentially high consumer costs, and would require excessively large bureaucracies to administer. These concerns should be addressed prior to the enactment of cap and trade legislation.
The centerpiece of any climate policy must encourage the development of clean energy sources and carbon-mitigating technologies. We should explore mechanisms to combat global climate change that will incentivize factory owners, manufacturers, and consumers to become more energy efficient. We should also fund research and development for technologies that will enable clean use of this country’s vast fossil fuel resources.
Climate policy must also be fair. This problem is global, and a comprehensive solution must include all major emitters. Whatever climate policy we pursue, it should not undercut and displace American workers in the global marketplace. Here at home, we must ensure that the policy is fair across all regions of this nation, does not disadvantage the citizens of one state against another, and does not become a regressive tax on those facing economic hardship.
As the U.S. Senate considers various proposals, I believe strongly that these principles can be applied in a way that preserves our environment while simultaneously fostering jobs and economic growth. Please be assured that my staff and I will keep your views in mind. Thank you for your correspondence on this issue of national and global importance. Please do not hesitate to contact me and my staff in the future.
I would also invite you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.
Thank you once again for contacting my office.
Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator
And my response to that:
ReplyDeleteSenator Webb,
I recently sent you a letter begging you to put any legislation aimed at carbon where it belongs: in the recycle bin.
Your response said that legislation must move towards "clean energy sources and carbon-mitigating technologies." Why do we want carbon-mitigating technologies?
CO2 is a rare trace gas that is essential to our biosphere. CO2 levels, while higher than a century ago, are at relatively low levels for our planet's history.
On top of this, why on earth is it that the EPA gets away with lying to Congress by withholding critical data regarding global warming but the CIA is pilloried for the perception that they may have lied?
Thank you for your time,
I have listened to many people comment on global warming. Their argument generally boils down to two points: 1) a bunch of smart people say it is so, so get in line!, and 2) the folks who say it is not so are on the payroll of evil people.
ReplyDeleteWell, the only "evidence" on the plus side comes from computer models. There is nothing physical to support these models. In fact, these models cannot even "predict" the past climate. How can we count on the for the future?
As for funding conflict of interest... The entire global warming research and offset industry's very existence depends on self promotion. If a global warming researcher announces that he has discovered there is little if any man-made global warming (anthropological global warming, or AGW), he would immediately be out of a job. Look to the polar bear expert who was barred from a GW meeting because his anti-gw stance was "extremely unhelpful."
The oil companies will be around with or without cap-and-tax. It's the rest of us who will suffer.
The typical "warmer" argument hinges on the two foundations you used: argument from authority and ad-hominem attacks. They play the person, not the ball.
I am a computer scientist. My specialty is understanding all things computer. I have not been doing this as long as you have been doing your job, but I have been at it a while. I do not trust computer models.
Now that I have spoken from my area of expertise, here is what I have learned from outside:
First and most importantly: CO2 is a rare trace gas that is essential to our biosphere. Plants need it to grow. They also exhale oxygen. We need oxygen to breathe.
Additionally...
CO2 is not a one-way mirror that passes IR in, but blocks UV from going out. It is a gas heavier than air.
H2O and CO2 are UV "sponges" that only absorb UV energy at a very limited frequency. There is more H2O and CO2 UV absorption capacity than UV energy to absorb.
Having more sponges under a faucet does not cause water to be absorbed any faster - especially when you have more sponge capacity than water.
I sent the same letter to my other Senator, Mark Warner. Here is what he said:
ReplyDeleteThank you for contacting me about global warming and related
legislation. I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue.
In order to best protect America's citizens and environment, I believe
that we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that both reduces
our emissions and utilizes alternative sources of energy. Doing so
would not only help to preserve the environment, but would also create
green jobs and ultimately lower domestic energy costs. Any discussion
of our national energy policy must also consider the international scope
of this challenge as individual nations confront problems such as the
finite supply of fossil fuels, overhauling outdated energy
infrastructures, and many other important environmental challenges.
Members of the relevant Congressional committees are currently working
on legislation that would address climate change on a national level,
and I look forward to participating in this debate during the 111th
Congress. Though the science surrounding this issue supports the need
for dramatic changes in policy, any comprehensive legislation to address
climate change must balance this interest with the need to keep our
economy viable during this challenging time.
Thank you again for your input on global warming. Please be assured
that I will continue to monitor related legislation and will consider
your views as the Senate debates and votes on relevant legislation. I
very much look forward to serving the Commonwealth during the 111th
Congress.
Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator
Well, he may be looking forward to serving us, but we don't look forward to being served. Here is my response:
ReplyDeleteSenator Warner,
From what are protecting our environment? CO2 is a rare trace gas that is essential to our biosphere. You know, the Aztecs used to sacrifice what they held dear to control the heavens as well. I was hoping our Congress would have moved beyond that.
CO2, even according to quashed EPA reports, is not a factor. There is no debating this.
Additionally, a statistical analysis of CO2 to temperatures will demonstrate no coefficient of correlation. This can be found using US government data!!!
This crime of a bill that went through the House, even accepting the theories behind the bill, does not address the stated purpose of this bill. It taxes our treasuries and interferes with every aspect of our lives.
Imagine the damage to the housing market if young couples can no longer buy fixer-uppers. This bill requires all homes being sold to pass strict energy inspections based in rules that are subject to change. Gone will be the days of my negotiating with the seller because the oven is old. Gone will be the days of people even being able to afford to sell their homes. Folks are having enough trouble breaking even as it is on home sales. Now they have to put tens of thousands of improvements in order to pass inspections.
Still on the subject of home rules... The bill says that the regulations are subject to change by consensus. So if I spend the capital to get my home up to standards today, they standard could have changed by the time I sell my home.
The problem with counting on this bill to create "green jobs" is that it destroys two real jobs for every green job. Even if it were a 1:1 trade-off, are the folks who have been working for years in a given field going to be able to transition to the new jobs? NO.
This is the first time I have heard the line about cheaper energy costs down the road. Do you want to sell me the Willey Bridge, too? The technologies being investigated are all weak and have severe problems. The pay-off will be decades down the road at a cost that will reach into the next century, if our nation lasts that long with this all-encompassing tax-and-spending spree.
I am not a politically active man. However, I will invest my time, energies and treasure into campaigning to remove from office any Virginia politician who votes for any form of anti-global warming bill. I am not the only Virginian who feels this way.
Thank you for your time,
Frank Doss