As you know, the next battle on the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill will be fought in the Senate. Maybe then they’ll read those 300+ pages added at 3:09AM the day before the house vote.
PaulM writes in “Tips and Notes to WUWT”:
At 10 am, JULY 7 there will be a Full SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL and PUBLIC WORKS Committee hearing entitled, “Moving America toward a Clean Energy Economy and Reducing Global Warming Pollution: Legislative Tools.”
Please contact your/the Senators on the Committee with your opinions. This is another important opportunity to contribute to the GW debate that we must take to the AGW’s through our politicians – as they hold our futures in their votes. If you have a Senator on the Committee at least contact him//her as well as the leaders.
Senate Majority Committee Members:
Barbara Boxer (Chairman)
Max Baucus
Thomas R. Carper
Frank R. Lautenberg
Benjamin L. Cardin
Bernard Sanders
Amy Klobuchar
Sheldon Whitehouse
Tom Udall
Jeff Merkley
Kirsten Gillibrand
Arlen Specter
Senate Minority Committee Members:
James M. Inhofe
George V. Voinovich
David Vitter
John Barrasso
Mike Crapo
Christopher S. Bond
Lamar Alexander
I suggest giving them an ear-full, quickly and often, supporting Dr. ALAN CARLIN and his suppressed “Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
You will also like to contact The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee members.
all you need to know about “global warming” (aka “climate change”)
And all you need to know about Waxman/Markey.
Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (…) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (…) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (…) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. …
Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (…) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (…) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.
excerpt from “Mein Kampf”
Well, Benedict Arlen is from PA, I’ll go after him and the rest, but I doubt this can be killed. This is why we never should have gone to popular election of senators.
Sorry to sound like a pessimist, but after watching the debate on the bill in the house, I don’t think anybody will listen nor care. The democrats were all saying “we are all gonna die”. The republicans were all saying “Despite the fact that we are all gonna die, we can’t afford it”. There were precious few seconds of rational argument, and it was overwhelmed in a sea of ignorance.
Is there anybody left who truly believes that the Senate listens to the American People? Come on, y’all. This will pass and will be signed into law. It’s the new America, the Land of Oppressive Taxation, where petty bureaucrats will come into our homes and ensure we are following the letter of the law.
Jeff Malarkey, the twit from Oregon, is on this committee. I emailed him. The response was an obvious cut and paste from some kind of paper on global warming and green-earth economic stimulus incentive talking points that will save the planet and put people back to work in manufacturing plants right here in the US and that will put us back into first place in economic recovery and job development for US citizens and…yadda, yadda, yadda, yak, yak, yak. I would advise all committee members of this: do NOT drink the water from the table jug. Bring your own.
Oh. I’m sorry. Did I misspell his name? My bad.
I see two basic approaches in fighting Waxman-Markey.
The first it to argue the science. Unfortunately, minds are pretty closed about this. Our politicians constantly hear about “consensus” and doomsday scenarios. They are easily swayed by the MSM misrepresentations of AGW and are not likely to be open to arguments about the science being unsettled.
The second approach is economic issues. This is likely to get your senator’s attention because nobody wants to be blamed for losing more jobs. You can mention that cap-and-trade is all pain for no gain and the promise for green jobs has not paid off in other nations where schemes like this have been tried.
Probably the best approach is to combine these two, with emphasis on job loss and economic impact. Politicians tend to be swayed by public opinion, so include results from the latest polls showing the public does not support the AGW agenda and does not believe it is a serious problem.
If your senator feels enough pressure and anger from his constituents, then he may just put that above all the pork he is going to be promised in return for supporting Waxman-Markey.
Here it is. It will help us to see what the Democrats (yes, my party and I voted them in) are thinking:
“Dear Pamela,
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”
“Senate Majority Committee members:
…
Arlen Specter
…”
GAG.
While these bozos push through cap and trade, they’re burning jet fuel to jet-set all over the globe.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124650399438184235.html
We need a French-style revolution.
If the senators are now elected by popular vote, don’t forget to include the poll results which show a majority don’t believe the hype, and point out they will likely use their vote accordingly at the next election if they pass the bill.
The senate chairman, Boxer from California, is incredibly dismissive of any evidence and condescending to any witness who conflicts with her ingrained convictions that man-made CO2 is the culprit for all weather and climate occurrences. Thank goodness for the common sense of Inhofe from Oklahoma; perhaps his staunch and continued presentation of current science and economic impacts of these proposals will prevail. That being said, I will continue to contact all the committee members.
Rob Wykoff,
I don’t share your pessimism. An e-mail may be a waste of time.But a call with a strong word of protest based on good arguments and the threat to become active to unseat them should they vote for that pile of sh*t will surely unnerve them.
James Inhofe is a strong, rational voice against AGW. We need to encourage him to bring the suppressed “Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act” to the committee with the rest of the minority members behind him.
The problem is: the chair is not very bright. If Inhofe’s reasoning can catch the ear of the rest of the majority party members of the committee, there’s a chance the thing will die and a very good chance that, if not killed, it will be watered down significantly.
It’s interesting to note that the emphasis has moved from global warming, to climate change, to a clean energy economy.
The Senate will pass a watered down version, far more “moderate” to avoid a fillibuster (even with A.F., there may be some dissent). The conference committee with the House will reinstate most of the nonsense that just passed. The Senate will only need 51 votes after that, with no debate allowed.
This thing becomes law and we may well die.
What Chance Does ACES Have in the Senate?
Simply put – – very little.
On June 26, the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed the House 219 to 212 in a partisan vote that saw 44 Democratic representatives vote against the bill. 8 Republican representatives crossed party lines and voted for it. By the time Waxman-Markey bill got out of committee, it was a very different animal – loaded down with compromises, exceptions, and special favors. It was so compromised that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth urged progressive representatives to vote against it.
In fact, Dennis Kucinich and Pete DeFazio voted against the bill because it had become so bloated. DeFazio stated:
“There’s an unholy alliance of big business, some environmental groups and Wall Street” backing cap-and-trade, said DeFazio, comparing the scheme to the deregulation of the electricity markets that ultimately led to soaring rates in some states. “Wall Street is excited about another thinly regulated market.”
Here is a map of House members who voted contrary to their parties’ position:
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/9811/acescrosspartyvoting.jpg
And a list in a more usable form:
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1017/houselistaces2.jpg
http://clerk.house.gov/…
Here is a map of senators who come from states that voted for the other party’s candidate in presidential elections:
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5111/senateaces.jpg
Eight Democratic senators are almost certain to oppose ACES:
West Virginia – Robert Byrd
West Virginia – Jay Rockefeller
Alaska – Mark Begich
Louisiana – Mary Landrieu
Montana – Max Baucus
Montana – Jon Tester
North Dakota – Kent Conrad
North Dakota – Byron Dorgan
These senators all come from states that produce coal, oil, and/or natural gas. None of these states has voted Democratic in the past three presidential elections. Both of West Virginia’s Democratic representatives voted against ACES as well as Louisiana’s lone Democratic representative. Correct – Louisiana only has one Democratic Congressman, despite the national Democratic sweep. Begich only barely defeated a severely-tarnished Ted Stevens. Baucus, Tester, Conrad, and Dorgan also represent agricultural interests that are skeptical of ACES, as well.
There are five more Democratic senators who come from states that are Republican trending:
Nebraska – Ben Nelson
South Dakota – Tim Johnson
Arkansas – Blanche Lincoln
Arkansas – Mark Pryor
Missouri – Claire McCaskill
Although these are not major energy-producing states, their Democratic senators are very Blue Dog. McCaskill has been one of Obama’s strongest supporters, but she has consistently tried to distance herself from the Democratic left. Again, not one of these senators’ home states voted Democratic in presidential elections since 2000. Nebraska and South Dakota are bedrock GOP at the presidential level. Arkansas and Missouri have trended increasingly red since the Clinton years.
Then there are another eight Democratic senators – most recently elected – from states that have voted Republican in presidential elections with the exception of 2008.
Virginia – Mark Warner
Virginia – Jim Webb
Colorado – Mark Udall
Colorado – Michael Bennet
North Carolina – Kay Hagan
Ohio – Sherrod Brown
Indiana – Evan Bayh
Florida – Bill Nelson
Only Mark Udall is philosophically inclined towards supporting ACES. Warner and Webb have worked to reduce coal-fired plant emissions, but support coal generation. Bennet is an unknown, but faces Colorado voters in 2010 without presidential coattails. Hagan has shown ample Blue Dog feathers, already. Brown is sensitive both to Ohio coal production as well as energy-intensive industries in his home state. Bayh is openly hostile to many of the provisions of the House version of ACES.
And there are two more Democratic senators to consider:
Pennsylvania – Bob Casey
Pennsylvania – Arlen Specter
Although Pennsylvania has voted reliably Democratic in the past 5 presidential elections and although Pennsylvania had more House seats switch from Republican to Democratic than any other state in the past four years, Pennsylvania also had more Democratic House members vote against the ACES bill than any other state. Pennsylvania remains a significant coal producer. Pennsylvania still has energy-intensive industries that are likely to be negatively impacted by ACES. And Pennsylvania has significant refinery capacity that will be impacted by ACES legislation.
What about Republicans?
Only four possible Republican crossover votes are out there.
Maine – Olympia Snowe
Maine – Susan Collins
New Hampshire – Judd Gregg
Iowa – Charles Grassley
But Republicans are ideologically opposed to the American Clean Energy and Security Act, so such crossovers are unlikely. Only Gregg faces a reelection this fall in a state that is trending blue. Grassley faces reelection, too – but since corn ethanol is targeted in the ACES legislation, he may gain support by opposing it. Snowe and Collins are free to make their own decisions – which they usually do anyway.
<>
Where will the Democrats get 60 votes for cloture?
Even if one assumes that Al Franken is seated prior to the energy debate in the Senate, finding 60 votes will be well nigh impossible for Harry Reid. And Reid is looking forward to the energy bill as much as someone looks forward to a root canal. Nuclear power remained outside of the House version of the legislation, but any Senate bill that might get 60 votes for cloture will involve some ugly compromises. Support of expanded nuclear power is likely to be on the table. More nuclear means more pressure for Yucca Mountain. And that is the last thing Reid wants to bring up.
Could Reid even get the 50 votes necessary for the passage – with Joe Biden’s tiebreaker – of an ACES bill in the Senate? That is doubtful in its current configuration. In order to gain the support of energy state senators, the Senate energy bill would have to include so many structural compromises that it would be almost unrecognizable. The trickle of environmental groups that opposed the House version would become a flood. Thus, to accommodate energy state senators, Reid would likely lose support from more progressive East Coast and West Coast senators.
I suspect that Harry Reid will allow the energy bill to die in committee rather than risk embarrassment on the floor. Such is the fate of all such legislation. There will be a “heroic” fight with many sound bites for the media. But in the long run, there will be no American Clean Energy and Security Act on President Obama’s desk.
Reply: Unless you are johnnygunn who wrote the original, please post excerpt and link next time. ~ charles the moderator
If you find it hard to educate the general public, you will find it impossible to educate public servants if they have a hidden agenda.
Won’t this bill simply move the petroleum refineries overseas?
What debate? Obama wanted it, he got it. Just like Louie the 16th.
We all will certainly die. But it isn’t global warming that will kill us. Global cooling is far more deadly. And government, with it’s insidious powers of taxing us all into poverty and starvation, is far more dangerous still.
I will write to each member of that committee but I am so far beyond pessimistic that anything we say or do will change the course of this country (USA) prior to the 2010 elections. We are but voices in the wilderness of leftism / statism.
Our next trillion dollar bubble. Enron started trading futures 20 years ago. With the help of James Hansen, they got ramped up and started wind power in California which is now owned by GE. Goldman Sachs is in the carbon trading schemes and waiting for this to kick off. I realize you all are scientists, but this is being played and funded by merchant bankers. Wind, temps and moisture are going to go up and down but goldman is playing this one big time. Just like they did IPO’s for mortgage backed securities.
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html
Read and enjoy. There is enough chatter out there regarding “we are all gonna die” and It may be “too late to reverse” that we have legislation approved at night by lawyers that didn’t read legislation.
Goldman Sachs underwrote and sold mortgage packages that had loans without names and a net equity of .71% in the loans. Used to be we had equity of 20%. But these trilions were nasty.
The next bubble will again be commodities. with energy manipulation, we have to have speculation again.
Here is the web Contact form for the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the full Committee Members.
Majority Office
410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-8832
Minority Office
456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-6176
Note especially the Green Jobs and the New Economy. Jurisdiction:
and the
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Jurisdiction:
[more]
John: Don’t underestimate any politicians capacity to sell out the interests of his/her constituents for pork-barrel projects and promises of a committee chairmanship.
We are really going to have a hard time persuading anyone who thinks they are going to save the planet. You can not debate a fanatic, especially when they can then take on the role of savior by passing Waxman-Markey.
Somebody save us from the people trying to save us!
Full Committee hearing entitled, “Moving America toward a Clean Energy Economy and Reducing Global Warming Pollution: Legislative Tools.”
Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 10:00 AM EDT, EPW Hearing Room – 406 Dirksen
If you thought the EPA had a brick wall around it, try communicating with your senator:
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2009/07/your-us-senators-may-not-be-listening.html
Contacting my Senator got me this response…….
Dear Mr. Ward,
Thank you for contacting me about global warming and related legislation. I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue.
In order to best protect America’s citizens and environment, I believe that we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that both reduces our emissions and utilizes alternative sources of energy. Doing so would not only help to preserve the environment, but would also create green jobs and ultimately lower domestic energy costs. Any discussion of our national energy policy must also consider the international scope of this challenge as individual nations confront problems such as the finite supply of fossil fuels, overhauling outdated energy infrastructures, and many other important environmental challenges.
Members of the relevant Congressional committees are currently working on legislation that would address climate change on a national level, and I look forward to participating in this debate during the 111th Congress. Though the science surrounding this issue supports the need for dramatic changes in policy, any comprehensive legislation to address climate change must balance this interest with the need to keep our economy viable during this challenging time.
Thank you again for your input on global warming. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor related legislation and will consider your views as the Senate debates and votes on relevant legislation. I very much look forward to serving the Commonwealth during the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator
It would seem he is a “The Science is Settled” type of guy, who is trying to convince his constituents to just tow the party line. I guess the Goracle won him over when he had to debate him instead of Monckton. Oh wait…. he was sold before that, must have been one helluva debate.
REPLY: Demand a meeting with an aide. Bring copies of graphs, reports, etc. and make it clear. – Anthony