I took C4L's advise and contacted my congressmen. I've done this before on various issues but never got a response.
Jim McDermott: Dear Cliff: Thank you for contacting me about global climate change and about HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) of 2009. I voted for the legislation because I, too, am deeply concerned about this critical issue. The scientific community has established conclusively that global warming is a result of human activity. The time for "waiting and seeing" has passed. Major corporations as well as elected officials across the political spectrum now recognize the urgency of immediate action to overcome the damaging consequences of global climate change and to slow its progression. It is incumbent upon us to move swiftly to effect fundamental change in our systems of forest management, transportation, and energy production. The United States emits more greenhouse gases than any other country in the world - about 20% of the total worldwide. We have a responsibility to our international neighbors and to all generations to come to prevent this looming global catastrophe. Many of us in the Congress are committed to moving ahead with the policy initiatives this requires. In 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act which, for the first time in three decades, raised fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, and will reduce the carbon emissions from our nation's transportation sector. I am proud to say that I, along with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, now have taken another crucial step and passed ACES, legislation designed to combat global climate change.As you know, HR 2454 contains many complex and far reaching provisions, several of which provoked strong debate among members representing different areas of the country. From the beginning, I, along with many of my constituents and colleagues, had serious reservations about particular elements of the legislation. Specifically, I was deeply concerned about the potential for another financial meltdown in America if the legislation did not contain strong consumer protections, strict market regimens, and robust oversight of any derivatives market associated with reducing carbon emissions through carbon trading. The final legislation reduces carbon emissions by requiring polluters to purchase limited permits that correspond with the amount of pollutants they are allowed to emit. The permits could then be bought and sold in a newly established, sufficiently regulated, carbon market. In the draft version, the language regulating the trading of carbon credits in the newly established carbon market was, in my judgment, far too vague, and I raised my concerns to the White House and the Congressional committee chairs. As a result, the final legislation contains stronger provisions for regulating the carbon markets associated with carbon trading. Additionally, I felt that America's most vulnerable people needed more financial assistance than was included in the working draft legislation to neutralize any financial impact from market changes to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, my concern is to avoid policy choices that impose upon low income Americans additional financial burdens; I fought for greater financial allocations within ACES to achieve that objective. In the end, I supported the legislation because it is a good first step in combating global climate change and because the time for America to demonstrate its global leadership and commitment to address climate change is long overdue. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the issue, and hope you will continue to contact me in the future.
Dear Cliff:
Thank you for contacting me about global climate change and about HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) of 2009. I voted for the legislation because I, too, am deeply concerned about this critical issue.
The scientific community has established conclusively that global warming is a result of human activity. The time for "waiting and seeing" has passed. Major corporations as well as elected officials across the political spectrum now recognize the urgency of immediate action to overcome the damaging consequences of global climate change and to slow its progression. It is incumbent upon us to move swiftly to effect fundamental change in our systems of forest management, transportation, and energy production.
The United States emits more greenhouse gases than any other country in the world - about 20% of the total worldwide. We have a responsibility to our international neighbors and to all generations to come to prevent this looming global catastrophe. Many of us in the Congress are committed to moving ahead with the policy initiatives this requires. In 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act which, for the first time in three decades, raised fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, and will reduce the carbon emissions from our nation's transportation sector. I am proud to say that I, along with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, now have taken another crucial step and passed ACES, legislation designed to combat global climate change.As you know, HR 2454 contains many complex and far reaching provisions, several of which provoked strong debate among members representing different areas of the country. From the beginning, I, along with many of my constituents and colleagues, had serious reservations about particular elements of the legislation. Specifically, I was deeply concerned about the potential for another financial meltdown in America if the legislation did not contain strong consumer protections, strict market regimens, and robust oversight of any derivatives market associated with reducing carbon emissions through carbon trading. The final legislation reduces carbon emissions by requiring polluters to purchase limited permits that correspond with the amount of pollutants they are allowed to emit. The permits could then be bought and sold in a newly established, sufficiently regulated, carbon market. In the draft version, the language regulating the trading of carbon credits in the newly established carbon market was, in my judgment, far too vague, and I raised my concerns to the White House and the Congressional committee chairs. As a result, the final legislation contains stronger provisions for regulating the carbon markets associated with carbon trading.
Additionally, I felt that America's most vulnerable people needed more financial assistance than was included in the working draft legislation to neutralize any financial impact from market changes to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, my concern is to avoid policy choices that impose upon low income Americans additional financial burdens; I fought for greater financial allocations within ACES to achieve that objective.
In the end, I supported the legislation because it is a good first step in combating global climate change and because the time for America to demonstrate its global leadership and commitment to address climate change is long overdue. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the issue, and hope you will continue to contact me in the future.
Not even sure where to start picking this thing apart. Last I checked the scientific community was still undecided but certain scientific Cliq's however had made up their minds.
He also seems to forge that if we make this sacrtifice I highly doubt China and other country's will. Others will grow while we shrink due to the cost of this thing.
Any one have any advise on how I should respond?
Statism is a religion.
I am a trouble maker, so what I would do, is write a letter to the editor of each of my local papers, and include his quote about conclusive science and point out that 30,000 people have signed a petition against the mainstream conclusion and thus he probably has not studied the pros and cons of the global warming debate, and may not be informed enough to be voting on the issue.
If you write him back, ask him if he read the bill before he voted for it (he didn't, no one could have). You might want to include that in your letter to the editor.
By the way, this was a form response to you. They almost never dictate anything that long to a constituent.
You can challenge your politicians, but as HR1207 is showing, even if you get your congressman on your side, the oligarchs will block the bills ever being heard, let alone passed. You have to inspire your fellow citizens.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Ask him why he disagrees with 31,000+ American scientists including 9,000 PhDs.
Thanks Liberty Student. I'll send a response and see what happens. If he hits me back I'll post it here.
liberty student: http://www.petitionproject.org/ Ask him why he disagrees with 31,000+ American scientists including 9,000 PhDs.
The 31,000 is unverifiable. I would not use it.
Here are some good ones though:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_hype/2009/07/03/231842.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
I enjoy criticism so here is my response to Mcdermott. Let me know what you think I can do differently to have a more positive impact.
The scientific community has established conclusively that global warming is a result of human activity.
to overcome the damaging consequences of global climate change and to slow its progression
Many of us in the Congress are committed to moving ahead with the policy initiatives this requires. In 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act which, for the first time in three decades, raised fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, and will reduce the carbon emissions from our nation's transportation sector. I am proud to say that I, along with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, now have taken another crucial step and passed ACES, legislation designed to combat global climate change.
As you know, HR 2454 contains many complex and far reaching provisions, several of which provoked strong debate among members representing different areas of the country.
Specifically, I was deeply concerned about the potential for another financial meltdown inAmerica if the legislation did not contain strong consumer protections, strict market regimens, and robust oversight of any derivatives market associated with reducing carbon emissions through carbon trading.
The final legislation reduces carbon emissions by requiring polluters to purchase limited permits that correspond with the amount of pollutants they are allowed to emit. The permits could then be bought and sold in a newly established, sufficiently regulated, carbon market. In the draft version, the language regulating the trading of carbon credits in the newly established carbon market was, in my judgment, far too vague, and I raised my concerns to the White House and the Congressional committee chairs. As a result, the final legislation contains stronger provisions for regulating the carbon markets associated with carbon trading.
Additionally, I felt that America's most vulnerable people needed more financial assistance than was included in the working draft legislation to neutralize any financial impact from market changes to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
Robert Murphy A
Robert Murphy B
Cost of Carbon Legislation
I hope you will consider the articles I have provided for you and see if or how they effect your current opinions. Thanks for your time.
-Cliff
Articles and notes
Global Warming
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Vehicles
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/105969/Top-10-Sellers-for-2008
Carbon Legislation
http://mises.org/story/3473
http://mises.org/story/3491
http://masterresource.org/?p=2658
Books
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247940656&sr=8-1
http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/
Your response is too disdainful to be taken seriously. They'll just write you off as a crank.
At best one of his stooges will read your response,and you will get a form response again, or no response at all. You definitely will not get a point by point defense. You are only 1 of 700,000 some constituents.
I really suggest if you feel this way about your representative, write to the local papers.
If you do really want to send him a letter, go through this, and take out all of the vitriol and finger pointing. Address it to him like he is a 5 year old child and explain where he is wrong. I'd recommend focusing on only 2 or 3 key quotes. The conclusive quote is begging for a response, but going off on the auto industry seems a sidebar to the bad science.
Someone who can't be reasoned with should be shamed and de-legitimized. Your representative seems like a good candidate for public humiliation and mocking.
This is just my two cents but if you are going to throw a punch, make it count.
Anyway, I wish you good luck.
I like this. And I sticking to the point is probably best. I'm confused by how you mean I should respond. Are you saying I should try to get my response and his published in a local newspaper? I'm afraid my entire life has been outside of mainstream media so I am kind of naive in this respect.
"You have to inspire your fellow citizens."
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap