My Congressmen actually responded to me!?

Miscellaneous General
1

I took C4L’s advise and contacted my congressmen. I’ve done this before on various issues but never got a response.

Not even sure where to start picking this thing apart. Last I checked the scientific community was still undecided but certain scientific Cliq’s however had made up their minds.

He also seems to forge that if we make this sacrtifice I highly doubt China and other country’s will. Others will grow while we shrink due to the cost of this thing.

Any one have any advise on how I should respond?

2

I am a trouble maker, so what I would do, is write a letter to the editor of each of my local papers, and include his quote about conclusive science and point out that 30,000 people have signed a petition against the mainstream conclusion and thus he probably has not studied the pros and cons of the global warming debate, and may not be informed enough to be voting on the issue.

If you write him back, ask him if he read the bill before he voted for it (he didn’t, no one could have). You might want to include that in your letter to the editor.

By the way, this was a form response to you. They almost never dictate anything that long to a constituent.

You can challenge your politicians, but as HR1207 is showing, even if you get your congressman on your side, the oligarchs will block the bills ever being heard, let alone passed. You have to inspire your fellow citizens.

3

Ask him why he disagrees with 31,000+ American scientists including 9,000 PhDs.

4

Thanks Liberty Student. I’ll send a response and see what happens. If he hits me back I’ll post it here.

5

The 31,000 is unverifiable. I would not use it.

Here are some good ones though:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_hype/2009/07/03/231842.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

6

I enjoy criticism so here is my response to Mcdermott. Let me know what you think I can do differently to have a more positive impact.

Congressmen McDermott,

I am very grateful and deeply respect the time you spent into contacting me. I feel privileged to accept this message but equally feel obligated to send my response. There are some discrepency’s with which I take issue with. Some of which I think you may be misinformed on. I commend you for having such a warm heart and willingness to create such a large sacrifice for the betterment of mankind, however, I’d just like to remind you of a popular expression, “The Road to hell is paved with good intentions”. And so has many of our history’s economic blights been paved with similar warm hearted intentions. Please see my inline responses below.

The scientific community has established conclusively that global warming is a result of human activity.

With the utmost respect I believe that you are either mis-informed on this fact or are being dishonest. To my knowledge this topic has been nothing other then debated. I suppose if you only talk to like minded individuals and ignore the opposition in your own secluded world it would seem as if it was absolutely concluded. The fact is however that there has been no widespread consensus other then a political one. I have no doubt that there are clique’s in the scientific community with their opinions. Looking at the academic community as a whole reveals that the community has not decided on any type of consensus other than climate change happens, be it naturally or unnaturally. I am curious as to whether or not you have heard of the Oregon Petition Project? Here is a large pool of scientists who feel that the debate is not over and that there is no such consensus.

Additionally one of today’s leading climatologists regularly speaks out about these absurdities. Spending less than 5 minutes you can read up on it here and here.

to overcome the damaging consequences of global climate change and to slow its progression

I’d like to point out that these so called damaging consequences have not yet occurred, it’s a wonder if they ever will at all. We also haven’t considered the consequences which are not yet seen, the economic consequences. I’d encourage you to read a book titled, Economics in One Lesson. Which presents a moral obligation to consider the consequences which may not be obviously known. Or purchase it here.

Many of us in the Congress are committed to moving ahead with the policy initiatives this requires. In 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act which, for the first time in three decades, raised fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, and will reduce the carbon emissions from our nation’s transportation sector. I am proud to say that I, along with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, now have taken another crucial step and passed ACES, legislation designed to combat global climate change.

I applaud you at your contribution to the demise of the domestic automobile industry and open willingness to admit it. Even if Man Induced Global Warming is true as you advocate I hardly believe this act will make a noticeable difference. Instead we have domestic cars that cannot compete. Any one can do a little research and find that the top 10 best selling cars of 2008 are not hybrids or extra fuel efficient vehicles. Additionally 2009 is shaping up in the same fashion. Despite the political push from your team, consumers casting their ballets of best vehicles via the purchasing process shows that your Security Act may have encouraged the production of vehicles not desired by consumers and pushing the industry in the wrong direction away from consumer demand.

As you know, HR 2454 contains many complex and far reaching provisions, several of which provoked strong debate among members representing different areas of the country.

Congressmen McDermott, I have to ask. Are claiming that you read the bill before voting?

Specifically, I was deeply concerned about the potential for another financial meltdown in****America if the legislation did not contain strong consumer protections, strict market regimens, and robust oversight of any derivatives market associated with reducing carbon emissions through carbon trading.

Who is going to protect the consumers against crony capitalists in Washington? Favoritism and corrupt lobbying which will grant privileged amounts of carbon credits to the backdoor buddy? It’s no mystery or conspiracy that Washington is run this way. That is the whole underlying premise of lobbying.

The final legislation reduces carbon emissions by requiring polluters to purchase limited permits that correspond with the amount of pollutants they are allowed to emit. The permits could then be bought and sold in a newly established, sufficiently regulated, carbon market. In the draft version, the language regulating the trading of carbon credits in the newly established carbon market was, in my judgment, far too vague, and I raised my concerns to the White House and the Congressional committee chairs. As a result, the final legislation contains stronger provisions for regulating the carbon markets associated with carbon trading.

This seems like a blanket approach to a problem that we’ve had for a long time where our government does not strictly enforce the protection of private property. However if this cannot be handled at a local level I fail to see the success at a national level. That however is my own opinion.

Additionally, I felt that America**'s** most vulnerable people needed more financial assistance than was included in the working draft legislation to neutralize any financial impact from market changes to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

America’s most vulnerable people probably are not aware of this bill but it will do far more harm to the poverty than help. Cheap energy prices makes accessibility to various things in society that the poor otherwise wouldn’t have access to. A car is just one example. Changing this is a huge blow to the poor, not a help. You are backwards on this one. Basic economics shows us that when you create false scarcities in commodities all you actually do is promote criminals, black markets, and hurt those who need the commodity the most. False scarcitie create less wealth, not more as they stifle production. When less things are built that means less for everyone. I encourage you to read the following articles which will give you more foundation with which to base your future opinions on. The articles focus less on the environmental impact and more on the economic impact we will inflict should it pass.

Robert Murphy A

Robert Murphy B

Cost of Carbon Legislation

In the end, I supported the legislation because it is a good first step in combating global climate change and because the time for America to demonstrate its global leadership and commitment to address climate change is long overdue. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the issue, and hope you will continue to contact me in the future.

Just a quick reminder. You may or may not be aware of this but we are far from being global leaders with this bill. Countries in Europe and others around the world have already, un-successfully, attempted similar ideas. They have all been met with failure in accomplishing the goal of reducing carbon emissions and have equally been successful in destroying business and harming the economy. We have enough global examples of this to make us want to run from this bill.

I hope you will consider the articles I have provided for you and see if or how they effect your current opinions. Thanks for your time.

-Cliff

Articles and notes

Global Warming

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_hype/2009/07/03/231842.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Vehicles

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/105969/Top-10-Sellers-for-2008

Carbon Legislation

http://mises.org/daily/3473

http://mises.org/daily/3491

http://masterresource.org/?p=2658

Books

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247940656&sr=8-1

****http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/

7

Your response is too disdainful to be taken seriously. They’ll just write you off as a crank.

At best one of his stooges will read your response,and you will get a form response again, or no response at all. You definitely will not get a point by point defense. You are only 1 of 700,000 some constituents.

I really suggest if you feel this way about your representative, write to the local papers.

If you do really want to send him a letter, go through this, and take out all of the vitriol and finger pointing. Address it to him like he is a 5 year old child and explain where he is wrong. I’d recommend focusing on only 2 or 3 key quotes. The conclusive quote is begging for a response, but going off on the auto industry seems a sidebar to the bad science.

Someone who can’t be reasoned with should be shamed and de-legitimized. Your representative seems like a good candidate for public humiliation and mocking.

This is just my two cents but if you are going to throw a punch, make it count.

Anyway, I wish you good luck.

8

I like this. And I sticking to the point is probably best. I’m confused by how you mean I should respond. Are you saying I should try to get my response and his published in a local newspaper? I’m afraid my entire life has been outside of mainstream media so I am kind of naive in this respect.

9

“You have to inspire your fellow citizens.”

The Bread and Circuses of today’s festivities are brought to you by Mises.org.