Great response. As a CT resident, I’m proud! I also think that Lieberman drank the kool-ade, and he won’t change his stance. Still, great effort.
Ask him why his President allows nuclear power in Iran and the UAE and not here.
Love ya for trying, but perhaps a better response would be:
“Support this legislation and we’ll run you and your fellow Senators out of town on a rail. Drill Here, Drill Now, or STFU!”
I had to stop after the first couple of words. I’d remove “First off I want to” and begin with “Thank you...”
When you are done with your letter, I can make edits. You are welcome to Freep mail me.
At least that is my understanding.
Is it wrong to wish to ask this:
“Given the recent explosive numbers in gun and ammo sales, can you explain what is so important about the Cap & Trade bill that you voted against it even when, according to reports, your phone lines were jammed with constituents imploring you not to vote for it? It seems to me to be a very foolish piece of legislation, considering you have probably not read it all, for which to gamble so highly on.”
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