Climate Change Bill Reply from my Congressman

Thank you for contacting me regarding climate change policy. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.

Alaska is the focal point in the global warming debate. However, calling what is taking place a debate is a bit of a stretch because, all too often alarmists, such as Al Gore, declare the debate over without it ever having taken place. I do not challenge that climate change is occurring, but the central question awaiting an answer is to what extent man-made emissions are responsible for this change. Contrary to popular opinion, that question remains unanswered. Those who claim otherwise perpetrate a tremendous disservice to science and society, and I am shocked by the continued marginalization of dissenters.

Our state is witnessing the effects of climate change more so than any other state in the Nation. This has caused some in Congress to use Alaska as an example for the need to act to curb these effects. However, these proposals seek to legislate a solution to a problem we do not fully understand, and if enacted, could result in drastic consequences for our State's economy and the Nation's energy, economic, and national security. The earth has gone through nearly two dozen warming and cooling cycles over the last several thousand years. For instance, the National Academy of Sciences has documented the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about the year 900 to 1300 and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. It is interesting to note that both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or the advent of human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate.

On March 31, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee introduced H.R. 2454, which would impose a cap and trade system on carbon emissions. In addition to laying out a cap and trade scheme, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) includes broad mandates for a renewable electricity standard (RES) and subsidies for unproven energy technologies.

With a goal to reduce carbon dioxide by 20 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and by 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050, the cap and trade scheme presented in this bill will be nothing short of an economy killer. A carbon mitigation plan as currently proposed would be an exercise in futility at the expense of the American economy and would lead to the ultimate de-industrialization of America.

The simple fact is that curtailing carbon emissions in the U.S. doesn't change the behavior of India and China, who are quickly overtaking America as the world's largest carbon emitters. Regardless of where greenhouse gases originate, they mix in the atmosphere. This legislation, and proposals like this, amount to little more than a tax on the American people, with the intent to needlessly raise the cost of energy to unattainable levels-forcing the American people to turn to unproven an uneconomical renewable energy sources.

I am thankful that we live in a nation so prosperous that we have the luxury of choosing to worry about a "problem" that some of the world's most respected scientists don't think exists. However, before plunging head first into potentially ruinous policies, we ought to be sure, so that we do not needlessly jeopardize our economic standing in the world.

In an article published last year my friend, Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the world-renowned climatologist and former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Fairbanks, said, "A truly environmentally friendly policy would invest in innovation - in order to increase energy efficiency - and not try to stifle whole economies by attempting to do away with CO2 based on faulty science and wild assumptions."

I agree with Dr. Akosufo, and I look forward to the day when a legitimate debate can occur amongst the scientific community. For these reasons, I believe we must proceed with extreme caution on any global warming legislation. We must not legislate based on uncertain science and media hysteria - none of which takes into account natural climate change cycles - particularly when doing so could have drastic impacts on our nation's economy.

Unfortunately, H.R. 2454 passed the House on June 26 by a vote of 219 to 212. For the reasons outlined earlier, I was pleased to be among the "no" votes for this legislation.

Once again, thank you for expressing your views on this issue. (snip) Doing so will allow me to provide you with updates on this and other important issues. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

You’re lucky. Here’s what I got from MY Senator:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about proposals to address global warming. It is an honor to serve as your Senator, and I appreciate hearing from you.

I believe that global warming is one of the most important issues our nation will face in my lifetime. I understand, however, concerns that constituents have raised about a cap-and-trade program or other approaches to combat global warming. I am particularly cognizant of concerns regarding the possibility that such legislation would increase energy costs for consumers and businesses.

Any approach to addressing climate change should be designed to protect working families and small businesses from bearing disproportionate cost impacts, and to maximize job creation and other benefits. I believe that a comprehensive clean energy jobs plan, which invests in clean energy strategies in addition to a cap-and-trade program or other policy, can be enacted in a manner that limits costs while creating new jobs and directly reducing pollution. Some measures, such as energy efficiency renovations for homes and businesses, can actually reduce energy costs because consumers use less energy even as rates increase. Similarly, more fuel-efficient vehicles save consumers money because they need less gas even as gas prices rise.

We can also do more than maximize cost savings. By moving quickly to build a clean energy economy and address climate change, we can create thousands of jobs for Oregonians and create business opportunities for companies in Oregon and across the U.S. that establish leadership in meeting clean energy needs. Oregon companies are already leaders in energy efficiency strategies, as well as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy. With the help of strong renewable energy policies at the state level, these companies have been able to grow and create jobs.

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me. Please know that I will keep your concerns in mind as I work to build a clean energy economy. I hope you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.

All my best,
Jeff Merkley
United States Senate

From Thad McCotter, along with my reply:
—

Dear Friend:

Thank you for informing me of your opposition to cap-and-tax legislation. Your thoughts on this important matter are most welcome and appreciated.

I agree with you.

As you know, in this recession, we must defend our auto industry and manufacturing base from the so-called ‘cap-and-trade’ system. This massive tax and regulatory imposition upon our painfully restructuring auto industry and manufacturing base would compel the arbitrary limitation of carbon emissions through a system of carbon credits which can be sold and traded among companies emitting carbon gases. This cap-and-tax intends to reduce pollution but in reality would be a multi-billion dollar tax hike on Michigan families, small businesses and manufacturers. This new tax would not only decimate those companies who, by the very nature of what they produce, emit carbon; this new tax would unavoidably be passed on directly to working families and small businesses.

On March 31, 2009, Representative Henry Waxman (CA), introduced H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. If enacted, this legislation would aim to cut United States greenhouse-gas emissions by 83% compared to 2005 levels by 2050, but then sets more aggressive short-term targets, such as a 20% reduction by 2020 and a 42% cut by 2030. Importantly, this legislation amounts to a cap-and-tax bill which would cover about 85% of the United States economy, requiring businesses like power companies, steel mills, and our domestic auto manufacturers to get permits to cover their emissions. After 2020, the net could get wider allowing the President to make even smaller industrial operations subject to the cap. To cushion energy intensive industries from these requirements, this proposed legislation would provide wealth transfers to cushion the higher energy bills brought about by climate legislation. The rebates aren’t open-ended, when 70% of the global production in an energy intensive industry is covered by similar climate-change programs, the rebates go away. Despite my opposition, on June 26, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2454 by a vote of 219-212. At present, H.R. 2454 awaits action in the Senate.

Obviously, this new tax would hit Michigan particularly hard. With our automobile industry and manufacturing comprising the engine of America’s economic prosperity, it remains as we warned before: what happens to Michigan will happen to America.

As an alternative to this crippling cap-and-tax legislation, on June 12, 2009, Representative John Boehner (OH) introduced H.R. 2846, the American Energy Act, which I have co-sponsored. If enacted, through the extension of tax incentives and the elimination of wasteful bureaucratic regulations and frivolous litigation, H.R. 2846 would facilitate energy independence, affordability, conservation and job creation by maximizing all American-made energy. Importantly, this legislation would increase environmentally-safe energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the Arctic Coastal Plain, and the oil shale; promote the use of alternative fuels which would reduce carbon emissions such as nuclear, clean-coal, and renewable energy technologies; and encourage increased efficiencies and cutting edge technologies to make the most of America’s energy potential. At present, H.R. 2846 awaits action in the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Rest assured, your opposition to cap-and-tax legislation will be well remembered during the 111th Congress. Again, thank you for contacting me; and for all you do for our community and our country. Should you have any further comments or questions on this or any other issue, please contact me at the Livonia or Milford district, or Washington, D.C. office.

I work for you.

Sincerely,

Thaddeus G. McCotter
Member of Congress

—

> I work for you.

Amen to that. Now how do we convince more of our public servants that this is the case? How do we remind Senators and Representatives, regardless of party, that they owe allegiance to the Constitution and representation to We the People?

Thank you for the courtesy of a response. It is very much appreciated.

The things going on in Washington are truly frightening, but I know you are one of the precious few there who really get it. I’m proud to say that you represent me.

If there is anything I can do for you from this end, now or at any time in the future, please do not hesitate to ask.

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.