Image via WikipediaBungalow Bill suggested that I dig into Mark Kirk (R-IL), one of the Republican 8 who voted for the Wacky-Marxist cap and trade legislation. Much thanks goes out to him!
Mark Kirk is expected to announce that he is going to run for the Senate seat that will be vacated by Roland Burris, the man who bought, I mean was appointed to the seat vacated by Dear Leader. Burris has said he will not run for the job.
Kirk received no earmarks in return for his vote. Sounds great, eh? But in doing a bit of research on Mr. Kirk, I found a letter that was written to a constituent where Marky Mark decides to try and justify his decision to vote for the crap and tax. My comments on his reasoning (or lack thereof) will be in purple.
Congressman Kirk's letter to a constituent:
Dear ____________________ :
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), H.R. 2454.
For 2009, our top goal should be energy independence. I support exploring for energy off our coasts, expanding nuclear power and building a natural gas pipeline across Canada to lower heating costs in the Midwest--an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy.
As a Navy veteran, I think [it] is time to set America's policy towards defunding Middle Eastern dictatorships by cutting our foreign oil bill, giving our troops less to worry about. That is why during the debate on the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) bill, I voted for the Republican Forbes (R-VA) Substitute, based on the text of the New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, H.R. 513. Our "Manhattan" energy bill set a goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 50% in 10 years and 100% in 20 years. The bill cost $24 billion but would eliminate the $400 billion Americans currently spend on foreign oil. Our bill backs solar, wind, hydro, clean coal and nuclear power. It enhances research, especially in nuclear fusion, bio-fuels, carbon-capture systems and efficiency upgrades. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated by a vote of 172 to 255.
While less ideal than the Forbes Substitute, the underlying ACES bill would still lower our dependence on foreign oil by diversifying American energy production. It is time to break the boom and bust cycle of high gas prices and the need to deploy three separate armies to the Middle East (Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom). As you may know, I am a veteran of the Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom missions.
Blackandgoldfan: You're right. We do need to be energy independent, but not in the way you suggest. WE NEED TO DRILL!!! That's it. Bio-fuels would be too expensive to produce in the short-term, and there's not even evidence that the market sees an overwhelming demand for it. And in regards to your service to this country, thank you. The need for three separate armies in the Middle East would be nonexistent if we just drilled.
With regard to the main thrust of the ACES bill, I am also concerned about growing air pollution, both from our country and overseas. I do not think we should ignore this problem. While the ACES bill is overly complicated, I voted in favor of the legislation to address these problems, looking forward to major improvements in the Senate.
In 1998 and 1999, I served as part of the U.S. delegation to both the Kyoto and Buenos Aires UN Climate Change conferences. In those years, there was a significant debate about the amount and effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. I was a skeptic and spent hundreds of hours on the subject of 1990s climate science. In the Congress, our job is to learn as much as possible from the latest peer-reviewed non-partisan scientists and then plot the best course for our nation.
Blackandgoldfan: If you were a skeptic in the 1990's, you were on the side of science. Technology has improved since then, and it's all pointing away from the idea of global warming and the alarmist message the greenie wienies have touted. Kyoto was a bad idea, and we were right in not signing on to it. Bad enough we have you wonks trying to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist; the UN would've destroyed us. Your job, Mr. Kirk, is not to "learn as much as possible from the latest peer-reviewed non-partisan scientists and then plot the best course for our nation." Your job is to listen to the American people; you didn't.
There is now a growing scientific consensus that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide affects average temperatures. According to the National Academy of Scientists, carbon dioxide levels rose to a high of 290 parts per million 130,000 years ago, causing a 20 degree increase in temperature. As carbon dioxide levels fell, so did average temperatures. Both Presidents Bush and their advisors recognized this long relationship and put forward their own plans to reduce the recent rapid growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide, both here and abroad.
Blackandgoldfan: There is no scientific consensus, Mr. Kirk. The earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles since its creation by God. Anything man does cannot change it. It's the solar flare activity, you moron!!!
Blackandgoldfan: Why would the temperature begin to rise before the Industrial Revolution of the 1940's? If our emissions and exhaling are to blame, then answer that question for me. And what's with the "evaporation may be the cause of Lake Michigan's declining water level"? MAY? You mean there could be other factors? Please elaborate, Mr. Kirk.
According to NASA, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose from a pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million in 1850 to 385 parts per million today. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the rate of increase is accelerating, from 376 parts per million in 2004 to 385 today. The National Academy of Sciences reports that the Earth's average temperature already increased by 1.4° F, from 56.8° F in 1920 to 58.2° F in 2007. NOAA also reports that due to a 30% drop in winter ice covering the Great Lakes since 1972, evaporation may be the cause of Lake Michigan's declining water level.
If we examine the lowest-case NASA projection, they expect the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to rise to 440 parts per million by 2020. I am a strong supporter of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. When they reported the Democratic health care bill cost $1.6 Trillion, we should take notice and rewrite that bill. That is why I have become one of the leading Republican authors of an alternative health care bill that will be the Congress's least expensive bill, costing our Treasury very little. I read their report on ACES carefully too. CBO reports that peer-reviewed scientists expect the world's average temperature to increase by 9 degrees by 2100, lowering U.S. economic output by 3% annually. In sum, they estimated the costs of the bill per household at $140 annually.
Blackandgoldfan: Number one, keep your hands off my healthcare, you jackass. Second, I'd gladly pay the extra $140 annually than the estimated $2000 annually that this cap and trade scheme is going to cost me.
The main section of the ACES bill affects entities that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon annually, roughly 7,400 sites across the U.S. (e.g. the current Clean Air Act already covers 22,000 sites). The best way to understand this bill is to look at its effect on our district's main source of electricity, the Midwest Generation electrical plant in Waukegan. If you go to any beach in our district, you will see it on the northern Lake Michigan shoreline. In sum, Midwest Generation burns coal to produce four million megawatt hours of electricity, serving 330,000 households annually in northern Illinois. Under ACES, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would issue permits for the four million tons of carbon this plant plans to emit in 2012. Half of the permits would be issued for free, half at a cost of $15 per ton, totaling $33 million in new costs (electricity generators using solar, wind, hydro and nuclear technologies do not emit carbon and would not pay such costs).
Midwest sells its electricity to Commonwealth Edison. Under ACES, EPA would refund to ComEd $30 million of the $33 million Midwest paid to EPA. The Act requires that this funding be used to reduce the cost of electricity to lower and middle income families. In the end, Commonwealth Edison would pass about $3 million in new costs on to northern Illinois consumers, or roughly $14 annually per home. As you can see, the costs of this bill are modest, mainly intended to move energy production in the United States to renewable technology. Midwest Generation also advised me they strongly supported the bill, as did Commonwealth Edison.
Blackandgoldfan: So let me get this straight: Commonwealth Edison would pass "only" $3 million a year on to their customers, right? Why the hell should there be ANY costs to be passed on? Oops...that $3 million more dollars you and your cronies would have to spend on much-abused social programs.Major emitters can also invest in plants and trees that remove carbon from the atmosphere. By planting nine acres of trees, an emitter can offset a ton of carbon emissions annually. Many of these investments will help farmers and may be arranged by the Chicago Climate Exchange, using our city's expertise in trading credits for agricultural products.
Blackandgoldfan: Farmers plant crops, not trees, you nitwit. And what if these "major emitters" don't have nine acres to plant trees on? Are you going to use eminent domain to take that land? The traders in Chicago are probably just loving your vote on this stuff. They'll stand to make a bundle off the consumers if it passes.
Under this legislation, we also expect total wind power generation to expand at an annual rate of 16%, doubling wind production from its current 3% of U.S. totals [sic] power to 6% over the next 10 years. Because the U.S. solar and wind production is still so small, the legislation also contains provisions to encourage the construction of new nuclear plants to power our economic growth. Recently, our country started building new nuclear power plants, with 17 applications for 26 new plants.
Blackandgoldfan: Regardless of what you and your environmental (stress on mental) cronies think, wind and solar will never be as cheap or efficient as coal. You want windmills? Then you deal with PETA and their minions when they start whining about the Bird-o-Matic. Nuclear power is going to take a while to get up and running. Then the consumers should have a CHOICE about their energy needs. Of course, you'll be there to make sure the choices are limited.
ACES also increases energy efficiency standards for homes and commercial buildings - but recently passed Illinois standards are already as stringent as the new federal standards. The effect of this bill will be to increase other states to the Illinois standards. By one estimate, such efficiency standards will lower household energy costs by $3,900 annually. This would cut our foreign oil bills substantially.
Blackandgoldfan: Why do we need MORE federal standards??? I know...more control. You make me ill, Mr. Kirk.
Blackandgoldfan: No need to fund those countries who hate us...JUST FRICKIN' DRILL!!! And acid rain? I've yet to see any evidence that increased sulfur output contributed to the acidification of the lakes in the Northeast. Got any?
In sum, I would have preferred a bill that focused more on energy independence and less on some of the complications in this bill. Nevertheless, the 1990 Clean Air Act signed by President Bush established a cap and trade system to reduce acid rain that proved to be a great low-cost success. Much of the poisoned lakes in the east and New England have recovered from acid rain. In the coming Senate debate, I hope we can repeat this environmental success and aggressively back a national program to defund Iran and Venezuela by reducing America's need for foreign oil.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this issue. Please feel free to visit my website, www.house.gov/kirk, or contact me again should other issues of concern to you come before the Congress. To stay better connected to current legislation please sign up for my e-newsletter at kirk.houseenews.net/mail.
Mark Steven Kirk
Member of Congress
Those of you in Illinois: KEEP THIS JOKER OUT!!! He didn't listen to your voices in the House, do you really think he'll listen to you in the Senate?