Sen. Kerry's Climate Bill Is a Boogie Man Tax

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Energy Measure Would Cut Deficit by $19 Billion, Report Says. Senator John F. Kerry's signature energy and climate change legislation would cut the deficit by $19 billion, according to an estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office. The legislation faces strong opposition from Republicans and some Democrats from energy-producing states, but the report gives the Massachusetts Democrat and his allies a compelling financial argument amid concerns about the implications of a burgeoning deficit. (boston.com)".

I refer to this as the $19 billion Boogie Man tax disguised as Fairy Godmother deficit reduction. If you don't pay the tax, the Boogie Man will getcha! Only young children and halfwits believe in the Boogie Man and that is about the same belief level as those believing that current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes significantly to global warming.

If Kerry and his deceptive or misguided associates are unsuccessful in pushing this through, maybe they need a more honest or practical approach. How about everybody with income above $10,000 per year kick in $1000 to a kitty? We then take $500 per donor and distribute it to the low income group. We then take a $250 per donor reduction against the national debt. Finally, we take the last $250 per donor and apply it to new dreamed up spending to get the economy rolling.

Obama's Hard Sell of Cap & Trade to Senators

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "President Obama's 'Moment of Truth' for Energy Bill. With time ticking away before the midterm elections, President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan group of senators at the White House in the hope of finding some consensus on capping greenhouse gases. (politico.com)".

The consensus for this idea must be to kill it in the womb, as if it were Rosemary's Baby. The proposal is stupid and nonsensical. I previously had a high regard for the English, but this theory of carbon dioxide significantly contributing to global warming takes my regard down many notches.

I normally take a negotiating attitude in resolving a problem, but this is no problem. It is an absurd proposal. The outcome of the negotiation must be that Senators will collectively fight tooth and nail against the Administration on this proposal to destroy the American economy.

Climate Change Bill Will Radically Reduce American Lifestyle

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Support for U.S. Climate Regulation Growing, Poll Finds. A growing number of Americans want the United States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as the largest oil spill in U.S. history helps boost interest in petroleum alternatives, a poll by two universities found. (reuters.com)".

I suppose the public may be thinking that by reducing carbon dioxide emission, we will reduce the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. If we don't use gasoline and diesel fuel, we won't need crude oil from the Gulf or anywhere else and this will eliminate the possibility of oil spills.

Even though there is no relation between carbon dioxide emission and climate change, there are some other favorable aspects to the proposal. The noise level from automotive vehicles will be significantly reduced. People will be more healthful by walking and bicycle riding. People will spend significantly less money on purchase of automobiles and their upkeep.

Unfortunately, there will be some downsides. There will be no pleasure from driving an automotive vehicle. More time will be spent traveling to and from the grocery store. Visiting friends or relatives in other parts of town or the country will be eliminated. Jobs for making and maintaining automotive vehicles will be eliminated. Jobs for producing and refining crude oil will be eliminated.

Everything has its upsides and downsides. I like my automobile. It is very helpful to me for my standard of living. I am willing to spend the money on its upkeep. Any carbon dioxide emitted in its operation will have no effect on climate change.

As a Representative, I suggest you be careful of what people say they want. In many cases "they know not what they do".

Lieberman/Kerry Climate Bill Is a Fraud and Deception

E-Mail to Congress:

Senators Lieberman and Kerry introduced their climate-change bill in the Senate last month. (Chemical and Engineering News, May 17, 2010, page 10). The bill is nearly 1000 pages long.

The purpose of very lengthy bills is to hide something within and/or include enough "goodies" that Representatives and Senators will pass the bills in consideration that the negative aspects will likely do little harm.

In this case, the inclusion of Cap & Trade will do irreparable harm to our economy.

In addition to the questionable ethics of deviously promoting a negative aspect, there is another consideration. The bill includes start of CO2 compliance in 2016. If this is an urgent matter, why the postponement for six years? Answer: No one really knows what the situation will be 6 years down the road and most people realize this. Therefore, it is another incentive to pass the bill, because most Representatives and Senators will take the attitude that they can vote positively on the bill now, since nothing bad will happen for six years.

This bill is a fraud and deception. I realize you and other Republicans will vote against it, but you are outnumbered. The only opportunity to kill it is to obtain the cooperation of some Democrats. Not all Democrats are committed to the World-Order, with the distraction of the United States. Many of them have just not yet seen the World Order program of the Obama administration. Many are also uneducated on aspects of climate, including global warming, and do not realize that it has no scientific basis. It is your job to educate as many of these Democrats as possible. Do not talk with Republicans, other than to form a coordinated educational program for Democrats. Then, educate the more reasonable Democrats on this subject. If you need scientific facts for the convincing, I am available.

Fuel Cells Do Not Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN New says, "Fuel cell to provide clean power for downtown complex".

This is a deceptive announcement bordering on fraud.

The deception lies in the claims that "the building’s low energy use has carbon dioxide mitigating benefits equal to planting 180 acres of trees" and "the apartments will have 18 percent of the carbon footprint of a typical single-family home in Connecticut."

If the claimed energy saving results from improved heat insulation, the claim is legitimate, but the implication that most people will accept is that there is a reduction in carbon dioxide emission, which is not true. Carbon dioxide emission is insignificant from a geophysical viewpoint, but many people have grabbed this fad.

Fuel cells consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished. Many combinations of fuels and oxidants are possible. A hydrogen fuel cell uses hydrogen as its fuel.

Other fuels include hydrocarbons and alcohols. If hydrogen is the source fuel, it is generated externally usually from electrochemical decomposition of water, which requires fossil fuels to generate the electricity. If methane is used directly in the fuel cell, its direct by-product of use is carbon dioxide.

Congress Must Control the Actions of the EPA

E-Mail to Congress:

Congress established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a watchdog organization to protect the American public from hazardous chemicals, particularly from intentional or accidental synthesis by private industry. It passed the control of the agency to the Administration, where such control resides at present.

Because of the resent Administration's political perspective with respect to global warming, the EPA has forsaken its responsibility for objective analysis of "hazardous chemical" control and has extended the interpretation of "hazard" beyond a reasonable level for political reasons. It has defined carbon dioxide as a hazardous gas in the atmosphere, on which there is no scientific basis to support this decision. It further plans to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing combustion of fossil fuels, which will decimate an already
fragile economy.

EPA's your baby. You set up,, and you should control it. If you don't you will be aiding and abetting further destruction of the US economy to establish a world order, which is the obvious intention of the Obama Administration. Reference: Chemical and Engineering News April 5, 2010, page 9.

Eliminating Use of Fossil Fuels Akin to Drinking Cyanide Laced Kool Aid

E-Mail to Congress:

The St. Petersburg Times says, "Grandparents, support clean energy for your grandchildren's sake". The article goes on to condemn carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant, which can only be controlled by eliminating use of fossil fuels.

This is an emotional appeal to a ridiculous undertaking. There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant.

The article reminds me of Rev. Jones convincing his followers to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid in Guyana.