Notify Your Representative

[Skull Pilot]

https://secure2.convio.net/cagw/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=605

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 -- “cap-and-trade” energy legislation that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving the federal government the power to limit the amount of oil, gasoline, coal, and other fossil fuels used by American utilities and industry.
In reality, this cap-and-trade plan is nothing more than a hidden tax that The Heritage Foundation has estimated could increase the average American family’s energy bill by $1,500 annually!

If you haven't already done so, I urge you in the strongest terms possible to tell your U.S. Representative to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

Introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the so-called Waxman-Markey bill will place a severe regulatory burden on American businesses, which will increase their costs and reduce their competitiveness, hurting our nation’s economy.

These higher operating costs for utilities, oil companies, and industry will ultimately trickle down to individual Americans, and you and I will pay an estimated 74 percent more for gasoline, 90 percent more for electricity, and 55 percent more on our natural gas bills. And that’s not the end of it. We’ll also pay more for every product that requires fossil fuels in its manufacture or transportation!

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade plan will also grow the size and cost of government by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a greenhouse gas (GHG) registry, create a GHG emission allowance transfer system, and set emission allowances from 2012-2050. This army of new bureaucrats will eventually control every aspect of industrial, commercial, and individual energy use. What’s more, the cap-and-trade program will necessarily be ripe for political favoritism and corruption, as politicians and bureaucrats manipulate the system for favored industries.

Climatologist Chip Knappenberger has estimated that the 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions mandated under Waxman-Markey by 2050 will result in a drop in climate temperature of only nine-hundredths of 1 degree Fahrenheit. That’s equivalent to just two years of avoided global warming.
In short, the Waxman-Markey bill will achieve virtually no environmental pay-offs, while imposing huge costs on our businesses, our economy, and each and every one of us as a taxpayer and consumer.

Please tell your U.S. Representative today to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill)!

 

[RodISHI]

Sent mine from your first link and added my two cents worth. Ours is a Republican rep here so I doubt he will have much say at this point.

 

[twogreen2c]

Just sent my message off to Mike Castle of Delaware. From what I read on his website, he is for a cap-and-trade plan, so I'm sure he won't give a crap what I think. Like most politicians, these a-holes forget who they work for and have tunnel vision. Of course, if I collected Castle's nice government paycheck, had the the best healthcare plan available for my lifetime and a fat pension to look forward to, I wouldn't feel the hurt this plan is going to cause. I just want to know what it is going to take before people rise up in great numbers and put some fear in these elected officials?

 

[Nik]

https://secure2.convio.net/cagw/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=605

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 -- “cap-and-trade” energy legislation that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving the federal government the power to limit the amount of oil, gasoline, coal, and other fossil fuels used by American utilities and industry.
In reality, this cap-and-trade plan is nothing more than a hidden tax that The Heritage Foundation has estimated could increase the average American family’s energy bill by $1,500 annually!

If you haven't already done so, I urge you in the strongest terms possible to tell your U.S. Representative to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

Introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the so-called Waxman-Markey bill will place a severe regulatory burden on American businesses, which will increase their costs and reduce their competitiveness, hurting our nation’s economy.

These higher operating costs for utilities, oil companies, and industry will ultimately trickle down to individual Americans, and you and I will pay an estimated 74 percent more for gasoline, 90 percent more for electricity, and 55 percent more on our natural gas bills. And that’s not the end of it. We’ll also pay more for every product that requires fossil fuels in its manufacture or transportation!

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade plan will also grow the size and cost of government by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a greenhouse gas (GHG) registry, create a GHG emission allowance transfer system, and set emission allowances from 2012-2050. This army of new bureaucrats will eventually control every aspect of industrial, commercial, and individual energy use. What’s more, the cap-and-trade program will necessarily be ripe for political favoritism and corruption, as politicians and bureaucrats manipulate the system for favored industries.

Climatologist Chip Knappenberger has estimated that the 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions mandated under Waxman-Markey by 2050 will result in a drop in climate temperature of only nine-hundredths of 1 degree Fahrenheit. That’s equivalent to just two years of avoided global warming.
In short, the Waxman-Markey bill will achieve virtually no environmental pay-offs, while imposing huge costs on our businesses, our economy, and each and every one of us as a taxpayer and consumer.

Please tell your U.S. Representative today to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill)!

Funny, the CBO found numbers significantly lower than the heritage foundation numbers. Why would you continue to use false numbers?

 

[Nik]

Oh, and thanks for the hint. I contacted them and told them to vote for it.

 

[sealybobo]

I do not approve of Cap & Trade, but I'll be damned if I am going to help Skull Pilot or any other right winger until they start helping us.

Help us:

Take back the Federal Reserve. (You cry about $2 trillion and the Fed spent $9 trill in the last 8 months)

Get Iraq to start paying for the occupation

Stop private companies like the oil companies and defense contractors from bankrupting the country.

Fix healthcare thru single payer reform

 

[Skull Pilot]

https://secure2.convio.net/cagw/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=605

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 -- “cap-and-trade” energy legislation that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving the federal government the power to limit the amount of oil, gasoline, coal, and other fossil fuels used by American utilities and industry.
In reality, this cap-and-trade plan is nothing more than a hidden tax that The Heritage Foundation has estimated could increase the average American family’s energy bill by $1,500 annually!

If you haven't already done so, I urge you in the strongest terms possible to tell your U.S. Representative to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

Introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the so-called Waxman-Markey bill will place a severe regulatory burden on American businesses, which will increase their costs and reduce their competitiveness, hurting our nation’s economy.

These higher operating costs for utilities, oil companies, and industry will ultimately trickle down to individual Americans, and you and I will pay an estimated 74 percent more for gasoline, 90 percent more for electricity, and 55 percent more on our natural gas bills. And that’s not the end of it. We’ll also pay more for every product that requires fossil fuels in its manufacture or transportation!

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade plan will also grow the size and cost of government by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a greenhouse gas (GHG) registry, create a GHG emission allowance transfer system, and set emission allowances from 2012-2050. This army of new bureaucrats will eventually control every aspect of industrial, commercial, and individual energy use. What’s more, the cap-and-trade program will necessarily be ripe for political favoritism and corruption, as politicians and bureaucrats manipulate the system for favored industries.

Climatologist Chip Knappenberger has estimated that the 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions mandated under Waxman-Markey by 2050 will result in a drop in climate temperature of only nine-hundredths of 1 degree Fahrenheit. That’s equivalent to just two years of avoided global warming.
In short, the Waxman-Markey bill will achieve virtually no environmental pay-offs, while imposing huge costs on our businesses, our economy, and each and every one of us as a taxpayer and consumer.

Please tell your U.S. Representative today to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill)!

Funny, the CBO found numbers significantly lower than the heritage foundation numbers. Why would you continue to use false numbers?

I am not using anyone's numbers. This letter is from the Citizens Against Government Waste site

And what were the CBO numbers. if you care to refute a post please back it up with a link.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I do not approve of Cap & Trade, but I'll be damned if I am going to help Skull Pilot or any other right winger until they start helping us.

Help us:

Take back the Federal Reserve. (You cry about $2 trillion and the Fed spent $9 trill in the last 8 months)

Get Iraq to start paying for the occupation

Stop private companies like the oil companies and defense contractors from bankrupting the country.

Fix healthcare thru single payer reform

I'm no right winger and you know it.

everything i do is in support of smaller, less expensive, less intrusive government. So getting rid of the Fed, I'm all for it.

I never supported Iraq and we should get out of Afghanistan too.

Government meddling in private companies, no help from me

Government gaining more control of my privacy via health care, no thanks.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh, and thanks for the hint. I contacted them and told them to vote for it.

Only an idiot like you would vote to increase the size scope and cost of government and in the process increase your own cost of living.

 

[Nik]

https://secure2.convio.net/cagw/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=605

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 -- “cap-and-trade” energy legislation that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving the federal government the power to limit the amount of oil, gasoline, coal, and other fossil fuels used by American utilities and industry.
In reality, this cap-and-trade plan is nothing more than a hidden tax that The Heritage Foundation has estimated could increase the average American family’s energy bill by $1,500 annually!

If you haven't already done so, I urge you in the strongest terms possible to tell your U.S. Representative to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

Introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the so-called Waxman-Markey bill will place a severe regulatory burden on American businesses, which will increase their costs and reduce their competitiveness, hurting our nation’s economy.

These higher operating costs for utilities, oil companies, and industry will ultimately trickle down to individual Americans, and you and I will pay an estimated 74 percent more for gasoline, 90 percent more for electricity, and 55 percent more on our natural gas bills. And that’s not the end of it. We’ll also pay more for every product that requires fossil fuels in its manufacture or transportation!

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade plan will also grow the size and cost of government by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a greenhouse gas (GHG) registry, create a GHG emission allowance transfer system, and set emission allowances from 2012-2050. This army of new bureaucrats will eventually control every aspect of industrial, commercial, and individual energy use. What’s more, the cap-and-trade program will necessarily be ripe for political favoritism and corruption, as politicians and bureaucrats manipulate the system for favored industries.

Climatologist Chip Knappenberger has estimated that the 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions mandated under Waxman-Markey by 2050 will result in a drop in climate temperature of only nine-hundredths of 1 degree Fahrenheit. That’s equivalent to just two years of avoided global warming.
In short, the Waxman-Markey bill will achieve virtually no environmental pay-offs, while imposing huge costs on our businesses, our economy, and each and every one of us as a taxpayer and consumer.

Please tell your U.S. Representative today to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill)!

Funny, the CBO found numbers significantly lower than the heritage foundation numbers. Why would you continue to use false numbers?

I am not using anyone's numbers. This letter is from the Citizens Against Government Waste site

And what were the CBO numbers. if you care to refute a post please back it up with a link.

Yeah well maybe you should examine facts before you just post shit, eh?

CBO: Cap-And-Trade to Cost $175 Per Household · Environmental Leader · Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives

CBO says $175 per household.

 

[Nik]

Oh, and thanks for the hint. I contacted them and told them to vote for it.

Only an idiot like you would vote to increase the size scope and cost of government and in the process increase your own cost of living.

I know, who cares about the environment, eh? Companies should be able to use public resources and fuck them up, and who cares about the consequences!

Where do you live...I want to buy the land next door and start making asbestos next to you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh, and thanks for the hint. I contacted them and told them to vote for it.

Only an idiot like you would vote to increase the size scope and cost of government and in the process increase your own cost of living.

I know, who cares about the environment, eh? Companies should be able to use public resources and fuck them up, and who cares about the consequences!

Where do you live...I want to buy the land next door and start making asbestos next to you.

the environment?

cap and rape is not about the environment

Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) — MasterResource

Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate), the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit, or two years of avoided warming.

and you might be surprised at how green I run my home and business. In fact i expect to spend 30% less on energy this year than i did last year because of my efforts.

we don't need the government collecting and redistributing more of our income via cap and trade. so go ahead and breathe in your asbestos. i hope you get lung cancer.

The High Cost of Cap and Trade: Why the EPA and CBO Are Wrong

The EPA Is Wrong

* False Assumptions: Proponents of cap and trade point to the low cost estimates by the EPA and CBO as a reason to pass Waxman-Markey. The EPA underestimates that the bill would cost households an additional $140 a year.
* Based on Consumption: The EPA's numbers are based on consumption changes, which are typically less than income changes, as families respond to income losses by saving less.
* Uses Discounting: Discounting is a reasonable approach for comparing costs and benefits that occur at widely different times. However, costs of climate change rarely use a discounted rate this high. Without discounting, the impact per household is $1,288 in 2050. Adjusting household size to reflect a family of four raises this cost to over $1,900.
* Assumes Rebates: The EPA assumes all the allowance proceeds will be rebated directly to consumers. This clearly isn't the case, since most of the allowances have been promised to industry.
* No New Taxes?The loss that the EPA calculates doesn't include the cost of the energy tax to consumers, since the EPA assumes that all of the money is rebated. The cost of the energy tax is actually $4,600 per family of four in 2035.

The CBO Is Wrong

* False Assumptions: CBO underestimates that the bill would cost households $175 in 2020. They assume that the carbon tax isn't a tax if the government spends the money. When have Americans ever seen all of a tax returned to them? It's like suggesting your tax rebate will be as large as the amount taken from your paycheck every year.
* Numbers Don't Add Up: The CBO's allowance cost numbers don't add up. They say the allowance price will be $28. Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year, that implies a $141 billion gross cost. They list $91.4 billion.
* Hard to Believe: In the CBO's June 5 analysis, they projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, $129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion and $152.9 billion for the years 2015-2019. It's hard to believe that the next number in that series would be $91.4 billion.
* Ignores Economic Damage: The CBO doesn't include the decrease in GDP as a result of the bill. The GDP hit in 2020 would be $161 billion (in 2009 dollars) according to our analysis. For a family of four, that is $1,870 that they ignore.

so much for the $175

And hell if it was really only going to cost taxpayers $175, the government should just take back its rebates of the past couple years and apply them to greening up. wouldn't that make more sense than some convoluted tax and rebate scam?

 

[sarahgop]

i oppose this massive tax as well.

 

[code1211]

Oh, and thanks for the hint. I contacted them and told them to vote for it.

Why?

 

[code1211]

Oh, and thanks for the hint. I contacted them and told them to vote for it.

Only an idiot like you would vote to increase the size scope and cost of government and in the process increase your own cost of living.

I know, who cares about the environment, eh? Companies should be able to use public resources and fuck them up, and who cares about the consequences!

Where do you live...I want to buy the land next door and start making asbestos next to you.

Does Cap and Trade have anything to do with asbestos?

 

[slackjawed]

Only an idiot like you would vote to increase the size scope and cost of government and in the process increase your own cost of living.

I know, who cares about the environment, eh? Companies should be able to use public resources and fuck them up, and who cares about the consequences!

Where do you live...I want to buy the land next door and start making asbestos next to you.

Does Cap and Trade have anything to do with asbestos?

One can not "make" asbestos as it is a naturaly ocurring element and must be mined. Usually the mineral ore is called actinolite. You may manufacture goods from asbestos, although a permit will likely be required to do so on any scale.
The bottom line here is you may only mine asbestos next door to that guy if there is a deposit of actinolite in that location, and further, unless he lives in an area zoned 'heavy industrial', it is doubtful that you would be successful in starting a facility to make items from asbestos. I'm just saying.........

 

[KittenKoder]

Cap and Trade = Legalized Bribes.

 

[midcan5]

Bravo Folks, fluck the future, who cares if they all die of cancer and who cares if they starve. We got ours, we'll be dead, fluck em all. Children grandchildren who cares!

Interesting how tools can preach the party line and know nothing. Someone once wrote that the best slavery is slavery that is so hidden that it becomes part of the person. An acceptance of a world that they are unable to step back from. Really sad and tragic.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/What-Leave-Behind-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1583228675/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246013791&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: What We Leave Behind: Derrick Jensen, Aric McBay: Books[/ame]

The Cap and Trade Success Story - Global Warming - Environmental Defense Fund
Cap and Trade 101
Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer — Sightline Institute

For those still not slaves to corporate power - tell them to examine it and to do what's best for the future generations as well as the greedy current one.

 

[Douger]

What ? All of a sudden somebody represents me ? Since when ? I never owned a mega corporation .

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bravo Folks, fluck the future, who cares if they all die of cancer and who cares if they starve. We got ours, we'll be dead, fluck em all. Children grandchildren who cares!

Interesting how tools can preach the party line and know nothing. Someone once wrote that the best slavery is slavery that is so hidden that it becomes part of the person. An acceptance of a world that they are unable to step back from. Really sad and tragic.

Amazon.com: What We Leave Behind: Derrick Jensen, Aric McBay: Books

The Cap and Trade Success Story - Global Warming - Environmental Defense Fund
Cap and Trade 101
Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer — Sightline Institute

For those still not slaves to corporate power - tell them to examine it and to do what's best for the future generations as well as the greedy current one.

Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) — MasterResource

Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate), the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit,

Yeah that .09 degree reduction in temperature will save the planet and ensure a home akin to paradise for our progeny. that alone makes it worth crippling businesses and increasing the cost of living for everyone.

hey they'll be out of work and broke but the planet will be safe