(Another) Open Letter to My Representative
Time for another round of contacting the powers that be. Please take the time to read, and if you agree, copy and change accordingly, then send to your own representative. They are trying to get a vote together by Friday. Time is short if you want to let them know how you feel.
You can write them here.
Congressman -
I have come to understand that you and your colleagues will likely be voting on HR 2454 (the "Climate Change" bill). I would like to express my wish that you vote "NO" on the passing of this bill when given the opportunity. Over the past several months I have seen several pieces of information come to light only to be quickly buried by major media outlets. It is seeming more and more like this is a highly politically charged bill being rushed through to a vote with very little regard for honest debate. Again, I strongly urge you to consider your vote when it presents itself, or, if you are so inclined, push for more exposure to these other views so that you and your colleagues can execute a more informed vote, and not a simple 'party-line' vote.
The latest piece of news has come out today and centers around certain EPA emails that were sent in March of this year. I'm including the link to the emails, but the essence is that one of their researchers wanted to submit new evidence that did not support Endangerment. This researcher was essentially silenced and his information was not passed on for consideration. It is now coming to light and I encourage you to at least view the emails in question.
You can find them at:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf
I wanted to also enumerate some of the other exposed information which has led me to infer that the House is simply not doing their due diligence in voting on this bill.
- The primary sponsor of the bill, Henry Waxman, was unable to answer basic questions about his own bill.
- The Democratic Majority hired a speed-reader to read through the bill - an utter MOCKERY of our legislative system.
- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton was first invited to debate with Al Gore in April, but was then barred from the debate after landing in the U.S.
- More than 700 scientists have signed on to a Senate report disputing claims that man is primarily responsible for global warming. As an aside - this is over 13 times the number of scientists who authored the IPCC 2007 report; the major report cited by those claim the opposite, and a primary source document for this bill.
- Senator Barrasso revealed a 9-page White House internal memo that showed that the EPA's Endangerment decision was primarily political and not scientifically based.
- There is a real risk that businesses will move offshore as a direct result of this bill and continue to emit the same levels of carbon that they do today. It implies that Congress is apparently OK with the carbon emission as long as it doesn't occur on our land. I remind you that the claim is 'global' climate change, not American climate change.
- In Sections 425-427, it is spelled out that workers who are displaced will receive THREE years of compensation, plus healthcare coverage, job search funds, and moving assistance. That is the single best severance package that I've ever heard of. One almost *hopes* that his job is displaced because of this bill.
- 'Fuzzy math' was used to imply that the average American household's cost for this bill would be 800/year. I say 'fuzzy' because this calculation assumes that the 'average American household' will benefit from other government services paid for by money raised from credit auctioning. In essence, the Republicans are more correct with their $3900/year estimate because the household will still be put out by that amount; they'll just be receiving other 'benefits' for it. Energy companies *will* pass on these costs to consumers; anyone who thinks otherwise is simply mistaken. Furthermore, due to the credits outlined in sections 431 and 432 to low income families, this will disproportionately affect the middle class.
- Carbon dioxide *is* a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases *do* trap heat. These are scientific facts and are not in dispute. However, did you know that most environmental reports only take into account those greenhouse gases that humans primarily contribute to (namely, CO2 and Methane)? They always seem to omit the one greenhouse gas for which we have practically zero control over: water vapor. As a matter of fact, when taken into account, human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions drops from 5.5% to about 0.28% when you factor in water vapor! Don't you think that's rather significant? With regards to just CO2, man-made contributions are only 0.117% of the entire Earth's greenhouse effect, i.e. INSIGNIFICANT.
You get the picture. Where is the upfront and public discussion about these (and more I didn't mention) items?
Taxing coal companies and forcing us out of SUVs is *not* going to have a significant effect on the global climate, though I would hate for you to come to the conclusion these facts support after you've already cast your vote to the contrary. What it will have a significant effect on is the average American's energy expenditures and the American job market.
You're probably going to be asked to vote on this bill this week. Again, I urge you to consider these pieces of information when deciding how to vote. Look, nobody is saying we don't want clean air. Nobody is saying we should intentionally destroy our planet. What I *am* saying is that this bill seems as though it's being rushed through the system, and any voice of opposition or public discourse about the bill seems to vanish almost as soon as it comes up. If you have considered the items I mentioned, please let me know your thoughts, your intended vote, and how you have arrived at your decision.
Thank you very much for listening.
