Posted on 06/30/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by ltrman61
I appreciate you taking the time to share with me your views regarding energy, climate change, and the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The views of my fellow Iowans are an essential component of my decision making process as a Member of Congress.
I believe the science is clear: carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to unprecedented climate changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned repeatedly that unless the industrial world acts soon, projected increases in emissions over the next fifty years will lead to drastic ecological changes, endangering countless species and human health.
However, experts predict that by expanding efficiency strategies using existing technologies, we could eliminate more than twenty-percent of the world's energy demand by 2020. This challenge also presents an opportunity to put Americans back to work in green-collar jobs that reduce our energy use while protecting our environment for future generations.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA was required under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, including CO2. This spring, the EPA issued an "endangerment finding", signaling their preparation to comply with the court's decision. Without Congressional action I believe EPA will move forward with regulation which would harm all Iowans, including farmers, businesses, and consumers
On June 26, 2009 the House passed the bi-partisan American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as ACES. While this bill is not perfect - few usually are - I am pleased that it will harness the most innovative workforce in the world to create a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs in the process. Energy independence is vital to our national security and economic future, and this legislation advances this goal while confronting the serious and real challenge of climate change.
News reports documented my early concerns with the bill. I made those objections known to Chairmen Peterson and Waxman, and am pleased that over 90 percent were remedied, and as a result, this bill is much better than it was before. However, one key concern remains. As currently written, this legislation provides local utility distribution companies with allowances through a formula equally weighted between historic emissions and retail sales. This is not good for Iowa or the Midwest!
I am still fighting to have the formula changed so that distributed allowances are based solely on historic emissions. Since the intent of the legislation is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the intent of providing allowances is to protect consumers from price increases, basing allowances on retail sales reduces the legislation's effectiveness. Coal-reliant states like those in the Midwest should not be disproportionately penalized. As a country we should be in this together and should not be picking winners or losers.
While this issue was not fixed in the House passed version of ACES, I have already been in contact with my colleagues in the Senate on this issue. I will continue to work to ensure Iowa is treated fairly by any energy and environmental legislation, and continue to work to ensure Iowa plays a prominent role in further negotiation.
Another reason I supported this legislation is that we must break our bondage to OPEC. This bill uses market incentives to move away from carbon-based energy. It makes historical investments in clean coal and Smart Grid Technology. This bill will also ensure that the U.S. biofuels industry can continue to provide us with domestically produced renewable fuels.
This bill is also an economic issue for Iowa's families. Estimates on ACES say more than 1.7 million new clean energy jobs will be created. Don't we want clean energy jobs? Of course we do. We live in a global world and the future of that world will belong to the nation's that develop renewable energy. China spends six times more on renewable energy than we do and Spain, Denmark, and Portugal produce more wind power than the United States. This bill incentivizes renewable energy production.
Finally, agriculture plays a pivotal role in ACES. After weeks of intense negotiations between members of the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture Committees a monumental deal was struck. There is a robust offset provision for agriculture and forestry producers which recognizes early adaptors. The offset program run by USDA creates a new market opportunity for farmers, ranchers and forestland owners who can play an important role in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Agricultural producers have been participating in conservation and carbon sequestration programs for many years, working to increase energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support a renewable energy industry. This legislation recognizes those efforts and encourages these important activities.
I appreciate you taking the time to allow me to explain why I supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This legislation creates a new energy policy and address the global climate crisis. I am glad that this legislation preempts potentially devastating regulation by the EPA and am also pleased that it would harness the most innovative workforce in the world to create a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs in the process. Energy independence is vital to our national security and economic future, and this legislation advances this goal while confronting the serious challenge of climate change.
The 111th Congress faces many significant challenges, and economic recovery is vital if we are to meet them. As a senior member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I will continue building upon the job creation opportunities that we have brought to the 3rd District in order to provide the stimulus Iowa needs. I periodically provide electronic updates on issues I think my constituents might be interested in. If you would like to receive the E-newsletter, please sign up at my Web Site at http://boswell.house.gov. As always, please feel free to contact me or my office if ever you think we may be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Leonard L. Boswell
Member of Congress
One word: traitor.
A long-winded form letter. Alot of these people in Congress are just plain dumb they believe everything some “panel” tells them.
Boswell is an E/ Iowa Dem turd/
Five words: Fool kool aid drinking moron.
Dumber than the post or the hole ... he must think everyone is as dumb as that guy in Kenya hanging on the door of that cardboard hut sweet hut.
When government lies, they are up to no good.
The government always lies.
Ergo, the government must always be up to no good.
True ...
I agree..how could he know all that..he didn’t read the bill..NO ONE DID!!!!!!
Somebody needs to follow the money. This is a typical canned response. This guy was paid off.
Leonard Blowswell is in every parade in Iowa. (We go to two per year) Every year, when I see the morons with the “vote democrat” stickers I BOOOOOO [very loudly]. Every year, my husband tells me, Blowswell is a war vet so I shouldn’t BOOOOOO him.
This year for the INDEPENDENCE DAY parade, I’m going to make up big signs and hope that Tommy “The Commie” Harkin is there!! WHEEEEEEEE!!!!
What hath the illustrious Johnson said of climate change and ACES, that the assiduous Boswell respondeth thusly?
:-)
A few notes for reference:
The views of my fellow Iowans are an essential component of my decision making process as a Member of Congress.
I call bullshit. The views of his Des Moines activists and party hacks are the essential component of his decision making process.
I believe the science is clear: carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to unprecedented climate changes.
Science isn't about beliefs its about the search for truth. Either you have the facts and understanding to back up your beliefs or you are a fool waiting to be played. Pop quiz - which temperature station in his district shows global warming? None.
However, experts predict that by expanding efficiency strategies using existing technologies, we could eliminate more than twenty-percent of the world's energy demand by 2020. This challenge also presents an opportunity to put Americans back to work in green-collar jobs that reduce our energy use while protecting our environment for future generations.
His supporters killed a new coal fired power plant project in Iowa. While it still would have been that evil coal, it would have generated electricity 20% more effiiently than most existing coal plants in the state, nation, or world. That means an off the top 20% reduction in CO2 emissions on a kilowatt provided basis. Why won't he support new, more efficient coal plants - he could get 20% reductions in CO2 emissions from existing technologies.
Wait, I forgot - that is a real solution to his percieved problem that he believes in becuase an intergovernmental panel which wrote a report that neglected much scientific input.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA was required under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases
And this chump gets to vote on laws... The Supreme Court ruling did not require in any way shape or form that the EPA had to regulate CO2. Whoever is whispering this into his good ear is lying to him, kind of like the IPCC. The Supreme Court simply said that EPA had to decide whether or not CO2 was an air pollutant that was appropriately regulated under the existing clean air act. Nothing more, nothing less. Only a nitwit with a complete absence of intelligence regarding the function of the Supreme Court would state that the Supreme Court would make a technical finding - the only make specific legal findings, usually of a constitutional nature or when lower courts have a disagrement about something very legally or constitutionally important.
This spring, the EPA issued an "endangerment finding", signaling their preparation to comply with the court's decision. Without Congressional action I believe EPA will move forward with regulation which would harm all Iowans, including farmers, businesses, and consumers No shit Sherlock. They did that because they are using their bully pulpit of the clean air act to manipulate nitwit congresspeople. That craptastic piece of legislative garbage you voted for will harm all Iowans, including farmers, businesses, and consumers. Come on man, we get the vast majority of our energy in Iowa from coal - how the hell would he think that it wouldn't. Why vote on a law that tells EPA to put the brakes on this issue until Congress has the time to actually learn something about it and it's potential impacts?
Who runs the show in DC? I never thought it was EPA. Looks like EPA figured out how to either play nitwits congressthings like a fiddle or actually have more power than them and will walk all over the House if they don't snap into line. Pathetic.
I am pleased that it will harness the most innovative workforce in the world to create a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs in the process. Energy independence is vital to our national security and economic future, and this legislation advances this goal while confronting the serious and real challenge of climate change.
I call bullshit again. This atrocity will kill jobs and slam our economy. Futhermore there is no way that taxing US based energy source - such as coal which we are the "Saudi Arabia" of will in any way shape or form help achieve energy independence. That is like me saying I can make monkeys fly out of my butt and expect people to believe me.
Wait I changed my mind - I call double bullshit on that one.
and am pleased that over 90 percent were remedied
Yippe skippee. Think it would be possible to work on the 10% that would destroy our economy and standard of living? I don't care how many sacrifical lambs were in the "original" bill to provide you with a cover of 90% fixes. I want the fix that says my energy bill won't go up and we won't run more manufacturing jobs out of this state and country. Nice try but not buying the spin.
Coal-reliant states like those in the Midwest should not be disproportionately penalized. As a country we should be in this together and should not be picking winners or losers.
Come on, this is getting to deep even for my hip waders...
You've got the winners and losers - screw the allowances. The losers are people who rely on fossil fuels for their energy needs. Your constituents are those people. No way around it.
Another reason I supported this legislation is that we must break our bondage to OPEC. This bill uses market incentives to move away from carbon-based energy.
I call bullshit again. If you really want to break our bondage to OPEC drill for our own oil here, now. It's not like planes, trains, and automobiles are going away anytime soon regardless of the green energy Utopia you have in mind. Come on man, get someone with some sense of the magnitude of energy needed and used to support our standard of living to give you a lunch and learn or something. Hoping that a miracle will happen won't change reality...
It makes historical investments in clean coal and Smart Grid Technology.
No it doesn't. Clean coal is here today. Replace our existing fleet of coal fired power plants with new more efficient coal fired power plants and we can reduce our carbon emission by 20%. Fact, not a belief. Solution, not a wish for a miracle.
Estimates on ACES say more than 1.7 million new clean energy jobs will be created. Don't we want clean energy jobs? Of course we do. We live in a global world and the future of that world will belong to the nation's that develop renewable energy.
Gonna have to call bullshit here again. 1.7 million new clean energy jobs will have to be balanced against many more million non-clean energy jobs lost as a result. Jobs like manufacturing jobs. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone - just take a look at Spain. Hell - they have people coming out of the woodword to show how their example of trying to "create" green jobs was an abysmal failure.
The future of the worl belongs to the nations that call bullshit on this whole issue and build up their industrial base to sell actual goods to other nations. Nothing new in economics here - you won't be able to sell wind energy to China, but we will buying more of their goods since they are actually investing in more energy resources - even the polluting kind. Who cares as long as it feels good right?
The offset program run by USDA creates a new market opportunity for farmers, ranchers and forestland owners who can play an important role in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Your environmental buddies would rather choke to death on a rare piece of CAFO raised steak than have the USDA be in charge of offsets. Hell - I saw the outrage when it was proposed, and they will do everything the will to kill that aspect while smiling at you and thanking you for your vote. Dude - buy a clue here. They will smack this one hard later, and if they lose here in the states - they will make sure their compatriots overseas will never recognize such an offset.
I would highly recommend taking a weekend to consider this to figure out just how hard you are getting played in this game, which is apparently much more sophisticated than you.
Common sense - a commodity lacking in DC apparently...
Excellent post!
bozwell is a senile old man
vulnerable with the right candidate against him
hammer him on this..
As climate change bill moves forward, Boswell remains skeptical:
As climate change bill moves forward, Boswell remains skeptical. Spokesman warns 'It will hurt Iowa utilities and ultimately Iowa families'
Democrats are pushing for a vote on federal climate change legislation, perhaps as early as Friday, despite continued misgivings from farm-state Democrats like U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell of Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District.
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House released a revamped, 1,201-page version of H.R. 2454, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi filed the legislation with the Rules Committee on Monday night, clearing the way for a vote by week’s end.
Boswell, along with the 28 other Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee, has vowed to oppose the bill unless changes are made.
“The goal is reducing emissions,” Boswell spokesman Mark Daley said. “Under the way it is written now, it will hurt Iowa utilities and ultimately Iowa families.”
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.