Help!! I'm writing to my Senator regarding cap and tax and I could use input [VANITY]

Last Thursday after the cap-and trade vote I figured I'd write my senator (Joe Lieberman (RAT)(CT)) regarding cap and trade.

______________________________________________________
Thank you for writing to me regarding your opposition to climate change legislation. I respectfully disagree with your position and view climate change as the most important environmental challenge of our time.

Climate change is a very serious problem - not just for our environment, but for our economy and our national security, as well - and the way we produce and consume energy is making the problem worse. We need to pass legislation to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a clean energy economy. To do that, we will have to build a broad coalition.

To succeed, a bill will need diverse support, which means bringing everyone to the table and really listening to what they have to say. We have to sit down with the environmental community, the business community, and the scientific community. We have to talk to Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle about how best to address this crucial issue.

This could be a watershed moment. We have near scientific unanimity that humans are causing climate change, we have a Congress poised to take action, and we have a President pushing for progress. In his inaugural address, President Obama told us "each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet." He is absolutely right, and I look forward to working with the President to: (1) promote energy innovation so that we can produce and consume energy more cleanly and efficiently; (2) protect energy consumers from rising power prices; (3) prepare our communities to respond to the impacts of climate change; and (4) create jobs as we transition toward a clean energy economy. I also support including provisions in climate change legislation that would ensure a cap-and-trade system does not increase the deficit.

Climate legislation should improve our environment and grow our economy at the same time. In these tough financial times, some have asked whether it makes sense to focus on the environment. The fact is, ignoring climate change until our economic situation improves will ultimately be far more expensive - and destructive - than taking steps to address it now.

Climate change does not just threaten our environment, it endangers our economy and national security, as well. Left unabated, its impacts will ravage coastlines and coastal communities, destroy large swaths of roadways and railways, and seriously degrade land resources and biodiversity. Additionally, climate-induced droughts will cause famine, threatening already scarce resources and further destabilizing developing nations that are unable to quickly adapt. Every day we fail to reform our energy habits, we guarantee the solution will be far more expensive; and if we wait much longer, there may be no solution.

If we are able to pass climate change legislation this year, we will ensure the integrity of our environmental legacy for generations to come. I am working hard to make certain we move toward that important goal.

As you may know, on April 17, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a preliminary finding that carbon dioxide emissions harm human health and welfare. Though the finding has not yet been finalized, if and when it is, EPA will be able to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. One option the agency will have for doing so will be to set reduction targets. I believe strongly that cap-and-trade would be the better approach. It allows businesses to comply with reduction targets in the most economically efficient way possible, which, in turn, helps keep American-made goods competitive and keeps energy prices down.

Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit my website at http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR
__________________________________________________

So I penned a response and I'm getting ready to send it. What I need is any input from my fellow Freepers. Should I include something I missed? Should I reword or leave out something? Any constructive input would be appreciated.

First off I want to thank you for your prompt and courteous response to my opposition to the climate change (cap and trade) bill coming up for a vote in the Senate. Since this is one piece of legislation that is going to have long term consequences for all of the country as well as future generations of Americans, I feel that it must not be rushed through congress as seems to be happening. You stated your points as to why you agree with cap and trade, now I would like to state why I along with many Americans object to this bill. I will try to address your points one by one:

You state that “Climate change is a very serious problem - not just for our environment, but for our economy and our national security, as well - and the way we produce and consume energy is making the problem worse.”. Sir, with all due respect the science on this is far from settled. What we are taking as a timeline for global temperature change is a period of about 150 years. You must agree that even if accurate measurements were available for that amount of time, compared to the estimated age of the Earth at 4 billion years this is less than a nano-second in geologic time. Secondly, the fossil record and even written histories show that the Earth’s climate has been changing constantly. Greenland was originally called that by the Vikings because it was a land of green pastures, eventually the climate changed and Greenland froze over forcing the Viking settlement to be abandoned. This took place well before industrialization.

Your next point is “.We have to sit down with the environmental community, the business community, and the scientific community. We have to talk to Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle about how best to address this crucial issue.”. That in itself sounds fine, however one important group is left out of the coalition. The US taxpayer. He’s missing here. It’s the middle class taxpayer who will ultimately pick up the passed on costs in higher electric, gas and food bills. Doesn’t he get a say on this legislation? When companies have to shed workers to hold down costs will we just tell those unemployed to be happy because they’re saving the planet? Finally you are saying that this legislation will promote energy innovation and protect energy consumers from rising power prices. My question is how will this happen? President Obama has said he wants to close coal fired plants. 200 windmills on a typical wind farm do not produce 1/10 the power of a coal fired plant in the same land space. Where will the power shortfall be made up?

The questions I have not heard either congress or the White House address are, Why are China and India not going along with cap and trade? Do their governments know something that we don't? I would think they'd want to be part of the economic boom created by all of these "green jobs".

What about nuclear power? I haven’t heard that as part of the equation. It’s non polluting and the technology has greatly improved in the last 30 years. If it’s worked for 60 years aboard US Navy ships without mishap, it can work as a power source. Additionally, if Iran can be allowed to use nuclear power for “peaceful use”, then why does the US have to rely on windmills. Thank you in advance for your attention and I hope you will reconsider your position on cap and trade.

Any constructive input would be appreciated.

A couple thoughts for your consideration:

Energy is the basis for our standard of living. Our access to affordable and reliable sources of energy are what make this standard of living possible. Any increase in the cost of energy must be balanced with a decrease our standard of living. There are no two ways about it.

Our national security is best served, as it has been historically for any nation, by maintaining the capabilities, capacities and resources to provide for our energy, commodity and agricultural needs internally. Reliance on outside nations for any one of these items is a significant detriment to our national security. Increasing the cost of energy undercuts our ability to be self sufficient in any or all of these areas. We already import massive amounts of energy to fuel our nation and our economy. This legislation will increase that by procuring energy from sources with minimal environmental standards, raise the costs to produce our own essential commodities such as steel, aluminum, and concrete, and drive up the costs for producing our own foods.

We could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted from coal fired power plants by 20% by building new, more efficient plants to replace the existing fleet. This is a common sense solution that is a non-starter simply because issue advocates are more concerned with an all or nothing approach than finding real solutions.

Probably should have an english major fix the grammer if you choose to use any of these.

Perhaps it will help you to read the email response I received from my Democratic representative (who voted against it).

Dear xxxx,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the H.R., 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me on this important issue.

One of my chief priorities in Congress is to improve our nation’s energy policy. I strongly support an energy policy that fosters the development of clean, alternative domestic sources of energy. This will improve our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, boost our economy by creating jobs and spurring economic development while combating global climate change by reducing carbon emissions.

In considering how to vote on H.R. 2454, I focused on two key questions: First, will this bill fight global climate change and make the investments to deliver the results we need? Secondly, will this bill provide Arizona with the opportunity to develop our burgeoning green economy?

Unfortunately, the answer to both of these questions is no.

Despite my no vote, the measure passed by a vote of 219 to 212.

In my view, this legislation is an example of Washington at its worst. Instead of working to implement a transformative, forward-looking energy policy, this bill turned into a partisan political game, with concession after concession granted simply to round up votes for passage rather than strengthen the bill.

If enacted, the bill will literally re-commit the United States to coal. This is a step backwards at a time when it is so vitally important for us to move forward. Clean, renewable energy should be our chief priority, not fossil fuels.

H.R. 2454 would invest $60 billion in an attempt to develop technology to capture coal carbon emissions and bury them underground or in the ocean. The process known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), raises many troubling questions. First, we do not even know if such technology is possible. More disturbing, however, we do not know what the environmental consequences of burying all that carbon would be. The idea reminds me of the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, which was supposed to become a repository for our nation’s nuclear waste. It sounded like a good idea at first, but after billions of tax dollars spent, it raised serious safety and environmental questions.

I believe that investments in carbon-neutral energies like solar are ultimately a better use of our precious research and development dollars.

On this and other fronts, I believe that the bill is a bad deal for Arizona. It asks us to pay more for our energy, but fails to deliver what we need to help us grow our emerging solar industry.

Solar energy is an abundant and free energy source that generates energy during the hours of the day that electricity costs are the highest. Moreover, large-scale solar projects will stimulate our economy by creating jobs and boosting commercial development.

In Arizona, Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service are developing the world’s largest solar energy plant outside of Gila Bend. The Solana solar generating station will create 1,500 to 2,000 jobs and provide clean, emission-free energy for 70,000 homes. Solana is expected to ultimately spur $1 billion in economic development.

Finding financing for large-scale projects like these is difficult, especially in the current economic environment. I introduced an amendment to H.R. 2454 to make financing more available for solar energy, by allowing private and non-profit investors to participate in a grant program that assists with the financing of these kind of projects. Unfortunately, my amendment was blocked, did not receive a vote, and was left out of the final bill.

I am also deeply concerned by a provision stuck into this bill that would give the federal government the power to overrule Arizona’s decisions about where we choose to place our power lines. The Arizona Corporation Commission should retain control of these decisions, not regulators in Washington.

Finally, I am also concerned about the impact this legislation could have on our utility bills. I realize that addressing global warming will likely require an investment. However, I do not believe that Arizonans should be asked to pay more to double-down on coal, and leave its emerging solar industry without the help it needs.

I believe we can do better, and I am committed to working with my colleagues to achieve a better bill.

Since joining Congress, I have been proud to help move our country toward energy independence and build a green economy. I voted for the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will create more than 500,000 green jobs through alternative energy tax incentives and investments. I have also supported renewing solar investment tax credits, which are critical for the solar industry. Furthermore, I voted for the Energy Independence and Security Act, which increases fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This law will cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 24 percent by 2030.

Once again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. If you have additional questions or concerns on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

If you would like to receive email updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, I invite you to sign up for my newsletter at http://www.mitchell.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.