Filed under: Politics
When your congressmen are home for their August break (assuming that they are actually coming home), you may want to tackle them with some questions about their health care ambitions and their climate change fantasies. The facts about our health care are available here and at the link to NCPA.
Drew Thornley has written a dandy list of questions about the Waxman-Markey Climate bill that passed the House voted upon by large numbers of Democrats who had no idea what was in the bill, but were persuaded by the infusion of plentiful money into their campaign chests.
The Waxman-Markey energy bill will have innumerable consequences, few of them favorable. It is unnecessary, will accomplish nothing and is a pointless exercise in environmental fantasy that will kill jobs, damage the economy and enrich favored Democrat supporters.
Mr. Thornley said:
As the Senate prepares to take up the bill, opposition is understandably focused on the bill’s content and the economic fallout that will result from the bill’s becoming law. But I’ve got some front-end questions that bill proponents have yet to answer sufficiently. Before it’s too late to put on the brakes, the public deserves some straight answers.
- What are the reasons this legislation is necessary in the first place? Can you offer anything beyond emotionalism and muddled platitudes? Anything beyond cookie-cutter messages about a better future for our grandchildren? Where are the facts, numbers, and hard data?
- If this is about saving our planet, where’s the evidence that we’re at risk of destroying it? Why no mention of U.S. environmental successes, particularly relative to other countries? Why not tell the public that we’re breathing cleaner air than we have in decades? How forest area is not in peril? How great of an environmental track record our nation’s oil-and-gas drillers have? As our population continues to grow and adapt, why is the news only grim?
- If this is about global warming, can you prove the existence of a major threat and that this bill will counter it? Theories alone are inadequate bases upon which to pass legislation, particularly legislation as broad as that before you. Computer models can spit out any projections we want, depending on the inputs. They predict climate doom, yet their drastic projections have yet to be realized or observed in nature.
- If this is about greenhouse-gas emissions, where is the proof that carbon dioxide and other GHGs are, on balance, bad for the earth and humanity? Any real-world evidence that GHG emissions will lead us to catastrophe?
- Moreover, assuming CO2 and the other GHGs are, on balance, negative, then why noo acknowledgment that the U.S. controls emissions more successfully than the developing world and that the future emissions from the developing world will dwarf those of the industrialized?
For the 8 remaining unanswered questions of 13, go here. If your congressman holds a Town Hall meeting, you may want to take the list with you.
None of them have read the bill. They didn’t have time.
9 Comments so far
Leave a comment