I wrote my U.S. Representative recently because she was one of the eight Republicans that stupidly decided to vote in favor of H.R. 2454. I shared with you my E-mail to her in my article titled: Mary Bono Mack - One of Eight Republican Traitors. Today, she responded with a lengthy letter that addressed typical talking points, and erroneously indicated that HR 2454 does not contain "Cap and Tax," and that it is not the monster us constituents think it is in the sense of increasing the cost of energy across the board.
Her entire response is as follows:
Dear Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you for writing regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454. This legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, and now awaits action in the U. S. Senate.
I voted in support of this legislation to move the process forward and help our region realize the benefits of advancing clean energy technology, while at the same time recognizing that areas for improvement still exist. I appreciate your taking the time to express your specific views, as it will help guide our debate and facilitate important changes to H.R. 2454 as it moves to the Senate.
There are several reasons why we must take the issue of regulating greenhouse gases very seriously, and why we should grapple with this issue within Congress as opposed to leaving this to the whims of bureaucrats in Washington.
While some have debated the causes and even the validity of global climate change, few debate the need for our nation to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and other traditional carbon-based energy sources, and also develop more American alternative energy production so that our nation may become more energy independent. This is not just a matter of economic and energy security but truly a matter of our future national security as well.
If Congress does not take action to address regulating greenhouse gases, it is clear that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is already taking steps to implement new regulations on all domestic industries with little input from Congress or affected residents.
On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are a pollutant, creating the authority for the EPA to directly regulate these emissions. This decision instructed the EPA to look at these gases and determine if, as pollutants, they do in fact cause harm to humans and contribute to global climate change.
Shortly after President Obama was elected, it became clear his Administration would further examine this issue, as the guidance from the Supreme Court was clear in stating that if climate change threatens human health, they must consider actions to cut the gases they find to be explicitly harmful. Following this ruling, the EPA announced on April 17, 2009, that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are pollutants and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act of 1990, which was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. This decision is commonly called the "Endangerment Finding," and is the first signal that, in my estimation, the EPA was very serious about taking action to regulate our domestic businesses emitting greenhouse gases, even without Congressional input.
It is crucial, especially for our agriculture communities, that we do not stand idly by while a mechanism that results in the EPA regulating everything from major industries to small businesses, and even taking the right to regulate methane from livestock can occur. It is very important to note that H.R. 2454 actually removes the ability of the EPA to regulate emissions unilaterally under the Clean Air Act. This is vital, as our domestic businesses cannot and should not be forced to operate under the fear of the uncertainty that can come from the bureaucratic red tape created when EPA mandates aggressive and stringent regulations. Ensuring the EPA is not allowed to regulate these substances under the Clean Air Act, as they are currently empowered to do, is one of the primary reasons why this legislation was necessary. Without Congressional direction, new burdensome regulations will leave small businesses vulnerable to new emissions controls from the EPA that will go too far.
President Obama, in my opinion, sought the wrong approach to addressing this issue, an approach that was truly a "cap and tax" regime. Earlier this year, the President pressed for an auction of 100% of the emissions credits that the government would create and force domestic companies to purchase if they had emissions that exceeded certain levels. These payments would then revert back to the Federal Government's General Fund at the Treasury Department to pay for a series of other items including a government-run health care regime and expansion of other federal government programs.
H.R. 2454 does not use this approach, which would have significantly increased the price of energy for consumers. This approach was included in the President's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget proposal and is a component with which I strongly disagree. In fact, I opposed the Budget when it came to the Floor of the House on April 29, 2009. This Budget included tax increases of over $1.5 trillion that would hurt workers, families, and small businesses.
The proper legislative approach was never to raise federal revenues, but instead provide incentives directly to the companies that are interested in taking on the challenges of cleaning up their current emissions levels or implementing new technologies to make themselves more efficient - in effect reducing costs and improving their output.
Further compounding the complexity of this issue, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a greenhouse gases cap regulation to lower emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The emissions targets in H.R. 2454 are actually less stringent than those within California's A.B. 32. It is even more important to note that the more reasonable approach in H.R. 2454 pre-empts the California State law on the cap and trade portion so that, if properly addressed, the entire U.S. can more efficiently work to clean up our greenhouse gas emissions nation-wide over the next few years.
The fact is, California already utilizes generally cleaner energy resource inputs for its electricity production. In recognition of the current economic challenges we face, the House bill does not take effect until 2012. This legislation ensures that California is rewarded for taking those early actions, as we should not be penalized for our role as an innovator in new technologies, especially in alternative energy industries with the potential to create jobs.
It is that forward-thinking approach to our nation's energy future that brought major U.S.- based companies like Johnson & Johnson, DuPont, and Conoco Phillips to support legislation like this over the years. Such legislation provides the certainty that companies need to invest in new clean energy solutions and bring us closer to realizing the benefits, including job creation, from these new technologies. These are the companies that will help provide new jobs in our own region as we begin to push to revive our economy. Investors and entrepreneurs will clearly see the opportunities for leading the world in new energy technology manufacturing and ideas that can be exported around the globe.
Our region is in a unique position: we have vast potential for more wind, solar, and geothermal energy production facilities to be built in Riverside County. Due to the state of the economy, it is crucial that those who are seeking new employment opportunities have options that include jobs created from more green energy production in the area.
I fully appreciate that H.R. 2454 needs continued improvements. That is why during the debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, I voted in favor of the Rep. Forbes (R-VA) substitute amendment, based on the text of the New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, H.R. 513. The Manhattan bill set a goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 50% in 10 years and 100% in 20 years. The bill pushes incentives for renewable energy, clean coal, and other low emissions energy sources. It enhances research, especially in fusion, bio-fuels, carbon-capture systems and efficiency upgrades. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated by a vote of 172 to 256.
There is no reason why we cannot advance our domestic energy production and incorporate them into this legislation, from streamlining energy industry permitting processes, opening up drilling for oil in ANWR, aggressively pursuing clean coal, and removing government red tape that prevents us from using more oil resources like the oil shale reserves throughout the western United States.
Nuclear energy also plays a crucial role in our domestic energy future, as it is highly-efficient and emissions free. H.R. 2454 recognizes this by creating the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, which will provide loans and loan guarantees for large nuclear power development projects. The nuclear energy industry will see serious growth in a model where we seek to reduce carbon emissions in the electric sector. Studies have shown this legislation's goals will require 30-40 additional nuclear plants by 2030, and an additional 86 new plants by 2040. This is vital, as the last new reactor to come on-line was in 1996, and we actually have fewer generating units in our country today then were operating in 1994.
As someone who chose not to cosponsor this bill, I look forward to further debate in the Senate, as there is clearly more work ahead to refine and improve this legislation. That is why I so deeply value your continued input. California is recognized as a world leader in technological advancements and must continue to be a leader on this front, as we have an obligation to make a cleaner energy economy a reality in the decades ahead.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write. For your convenience, you can sign up to receive regular email updates from me on issues important to the 45th District at www.bonomack.house.gov/emailsignup. Please feel free to contact me on other matters of mutual concern.
Sincerely,
MARY BONO MACK
Member of Congress
Well, that is all and good, but most of what she wrote (actually her office staff probably wrote it, and sends the same letter out to everyone) is in error, or does not address the issue properly. My response, of which I sent today, is as follows:
Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack,
Thank you for responding to my Email that detailed my anger over you voting in favor of H.R. 2454. Your response was filled with talking points, most of which were false, and unsubstantiated.
Your response does not take into account the fact that man-made Global Warming has been proven to be a myth, does not address that global temperatures have not been rising for the last decade, and fails to recognize the underhanded actions of the Obama Administration in concealing the EPA's official findings.
Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is not achieved by taxing energy - that will increase our dependence on oil from overseas as domestic companies, to avoid the Cap and Trade portion of this bill, move their operations out of the country. Domestic alternative energy industries are costly, and not ready to go online, and the government should not force them to hurry. New technology emerges best when left to the private sector, and inventions appear as the consumer requires them.
You stated in your response that Congress should regulate greenhouse gases. The primary producers of greenhouse gases are the oceans, and volcanoes - so my question is, when will Congress decide to tax the oceans and volcanoes for existing too?
Last of all, considering your long, knowledgeable (in your opinion) response to my concern, I have one more question. Did you read the bill? Or did you assume the talking points the Democrats gave you were honest and accurate?
Douglas V. Gibbs
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Her entire response is as follows:
Dear Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you for writing regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454. This legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, and now awaits action in the U. S. Senate.
I voted in support of this legislation to move the process forward and help our region realize the benefits of advancing clean energy technology, while at the same time recognizing that areas for improvement still exist. I appreciate your taking the time to express your specific views, as it will help guide our debate and facilitate important changes to H.R. 2454 as it moves to the Senate.
There are several reasons why we must take the issue of regulating greenhouse gases very seriously, and why we should grapple with this issue within Congress as opposed to leaving this to the whims of bureaucrats in Washington.
While some have debated the causes and even the validity of global climate change, few debate the need for our nation to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and other traditional carbon-based energy sources, and also develop more American alternative energy production so that our nation may become more energy independent. This is not just a matter of economic and energy security but truly a matter of our future national security as well.
If Congress does not take action to address regulating greenhouse gases, it is clear that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is already taking steps to implement new regulations on all domestic industries with little input from Congress or affected residents.
On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are a pollutant, creating the authority for the EPA to directly regulate these emissions. This decision instructed the EPA to look at these gases and determine if, as pollutants, they do in fact cause harm to humans and contribute to global climate change.
Shortly after President Obama was elected, it became clear his Administration would further examine this issue, as the guidance from the Supreme Court was clear in stating that if climate change threatens human health, they must consider actions to cut the gases they find to be explicitly harmful. Following this ruling, the EPA announced on April 17, 2009, that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are pollutants and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act of 1990, which was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. This decision is commonly called the "Endangerment Finding," and is the first signal that, in my estimation, the EPA was very serious about taking action to regulate our domestic businesses emitting greenhouse gases, even without Congressional input.
It is crucial, especially for our agriculture communities, that we do not stand idly by while a mechanism that results in the EPA regulating everything from major industries to small businesses, and even taking the right to regulate methane from livestock can occur. It is very important to note that H.R. 2454 actually removes the ability of the EPA to regulate emissions unilaterally under the Clean Air Act. This is vital, as our domestic businesses cannot and should not be forced to operate under the fear of the uncertainty that can come from the bureaucratic red tape created when EPA mandates aggressive and stringent regulations. Ensuring the EPA is not allowed to regulate these substances under the Clean Air Act, as they are currently empowered to do, is one of the primary reasons why this legislation was necessary. Without Congressional direction, new burdensome regulations will leave small businesses vulnerable to new emissions controls from the EPA that will go too far.
President Obama, in my opinion, sought the wrong approach to addressing this issue, an approach that was truly a "cap and tax" regime. Earlier this year, the President pressed for an auction of 100% of the emissions credits that the government would create and force domestic companies to purchase if they had emissions that exceeded certain levels. These payments would then revert back to the Federal Government's General Fund at the Treasury Department to pay for a series of other items including a government-run health care regime and expansion of other federal government programs.
H.R. 2454 does not use this approach, which would have significantly increased the price of energy for consumers. This approach was included in the President's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget proposal and is a component with which I strongly disagree. In fact, I opposed the Budget when it came to the Floor of the House on April 29, 2009. This Budget included tax increases of over $1.5 trillion that would hurt workers, families, and small businesses.
The proper legislative approach was never to raise federal revenues, but instead provide incentives directly to the companies that are interested in taking on the challenges of cleaning up their current emissions levels or implementing new technologies to make themselves more efficient - in effect reducing costs and improving their output.
Further compounding the complexity of this issue, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a greenhouse gases cap regulation to lower emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The emissions targets in H.R. 2454 are actually less stringent than those within California's A.B. 32. It is even more important to note that the more reasonable approach in H.R. 2454 pre-empts the California State law on the cap and trade portion so that, if properly addressed, the entire U.S. can more efficiently work to clean up our greenhouse gas emissions nation-wide over the next few years.
The fact is, California already utilizes generally cleaner energy resource inputs for its electricity production. In recognition of the current economic challenges we face, the House bill does not take effect until 2012. This legislation ensures that California is rewarded for taking those early actions, as we should not be penalized for our role as an innovator in new technologies, especially in alternative energy industries with the potential to create jobs.
It is that forward-thinking approach to our nation's energy future that brought major U.S.- based companies like Johnson & Johnson, DuPont, and Conoco Phillips to support legislation like this over the years. Such legislation provides the certainty that companies need to invest in new clean energy solutions and bring us closer to realizing the benefits, including job creation, from these new technologies. These are the companies that will help provide new jobs in our own region as we begin to push to revive our economy. Investors and entrepreneurs will clearly see the opportunities for leading the world in new energy technology manufacturing and ideas that can be exported around the globe.
Our region is in a unique position: we have vast potential for more wind, solar, and geothermal energy production facilities to be built in Riverside County. Due to the state of the economy, it is crucial that those who are seeking new employment opportunities have options that include jobs created from more green energy production in the area.
I fully appreciate that H.R. 2454 needs continued improvements. That is why during the debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, I voted in favor of the Rep. Forbes (R-VA) substitute amendment, based on the text of the New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, H.R. 513. The Manhattan bill set a goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 50% in 10 years and 100% in 20 years. The bill pushes incentives for renewable energy, clean coal, and other low emissions energy sources. It enhances research, especially in fusion, bio-fuels, carbon-capture systems and efficiency upgrades. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated by a vote of 172 to 256.
There is no reason why we cannot advance our domestic energy production and incorporate them into this legislation, from streamlining energy industry permitting processes, opening up drilling for oil in ANWR, aggressively pursuing clean coal, and removing government red tape that prevents us from using more oil resources like the oil shale reserves throughout the western United States.
Nuclear energy also plays a crucial role in our domestic energy future, as it is highly-efficient and emissions free. H.R. 2454 recognizes this by creating the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, which will provide loans and loan guarantees for large nuclear power development projects. The nuclear energy industry will see serious growth in a model where we seek to reduce carbon emissions in the electric sector. Studies have shown this legislation's goals will require 30-40 additional nuclear plants by 2030, and an additional 86 new plants by 2040. This is vital, as the last new reactor to come on-line was in 1996, and we actually have fewer generating units in our country today then were operating in 1994.
As someone who chose not to cosponsor this bill, I look forward to further debate in the Senate, as there is clearly more work ahead to refine and improve this legislation. That is why I so deeply value your continued input. California is recognized as a world leader in technological advancements and must continue to be a leader on this front, as we have an obligation to make a cleaner energy economy a reality in the decades ahead.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write. For your convenience, you can sign up to receive regular email updates from me on issues important to the 45th District at www.bonomack.house.gov/emailsignup. Please feel free to contact me on other matters of mutual concern.
Sincerely,
MARY BONO MACK
Member of Congress
Well, that is all and good, but most of what she wrote (actually her office staff probably wrote it, and sends the same letter out to everyone) is in error, or does not address the issue properly. My response, of which I sent today, is as follows:
Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack,
Thank you for responding to my Email that detailed my anger over you voting in favor of H.R. 2454. Your response was filled with talking points, most of which were false, and unsubstantiated.
Your response does not take into account the fact that man-made Global Warming has been proven to be a myth, does not address that global temperatures have not been rising for the last decade, and fails to recognize the underhanded actions of the Obama Administration in concealing the EPA's official findings.
Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is not achieved by taxing energy - that will increase our dependence on oil from overseas as domestic companies, to avoid the Cap and Trade portion of this bill, move their operations out of the country. Domestic alternative energy industries are costly, and not ready to go online, and the government should not force them to hurry. New technology emerges best when left to the private sector, and inventions appear as the consumer requires them.
You stated in your response that Congress should regulate greenhouse gases. The primary producers of greenhouse gases are the oceans, and volcanoes - so my question is, when will Congress decide to tax the oceans and volcanoes for existing too?
Last of all, considering your long, knowledgeable (in your opinion) response to my concern, I have one more question. Did you read the bill? Or did you assume the talking points the Democrats gave you were honest and accurate?
Douglas V. Gibbs
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment