Kill the Kerry/Lieberman Climate Bill Now

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Senate Gets a Climate and Energy Bill, Modified by a Gulf Spill That Still Grows. The long delayed and much amended Senate plan to deal with global warming and energy was unveiled to considerable fanfare but uncertain prospects. After nearly eight months of negotiations with lawmakers and interest groups, Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, produced a 987-page bill that tries to limit climate-altering emissions, reduce oil imports and create millions of new energy-related jobs. (nytimes.com)".

I strongly suggest that you not only vote against this bill if it ever comes to the floor, but that you now complain, protest, object, criticize, murmur, grumble, deplore, lament, whine, bewail repine, gripe, rail, remonstrate, and bellyache against it to a degree that all of your associates in the house understand the ridiculous nature of the proposal.

The major points of objection are:

1. The bill likely includes controls on emissions of carbon dioxide, which have NOT been proven detrimental to climate change. In addition, laboratory data show that carbon dioxide is not significantly more reflective to heat transfer, and increase of temperatures on the Earth's surface, than other atmospheric gases.

2. Any bill which has 987 pages has many things to hide, which is the purpose of its large volume. Another example is the healthcare bill. Conversely, the new immigrant control law in Arizona required only 10 pages.

3. Reduction of oil imports is a prophecy. My prophecy is that such a law will not reduce oil imports, unless the bill contains restrictions directly controlling import volume. Many millions of cars and trucks depend upon oil for their operation. That technology has been developed over a period of 100 years and will not be easily changed. The recent catastrophe of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico also has its ancillary effect that states adjacent to large bodies of water now consider eliminating the possibility of oil drilling off their coasts.

4. The law will not create millions of new PRODUCTIVE energy-related jobs. Jobs must always be looked at from a productive quality viewpoint. If I have a job digging holes and then filling them in, I make no productive contribution in the operation. Since it is a job, for which I am paid, the people paying me must have some productive operation, on which to obtain the money to pay me. If they do not, the whole system, falls into decline.

I may now have a job producing diesel for a consuming public and that operation is productive for low-cost transportation of goods. If I switch to a job involving production of electricity by wind energy, the job has not increased, and the results of my work are considerably less productive than if I had remained in my diesel job.