Reply to Congressman Hodes' Concord Monitor Piece

Regarding Congressman Hodes' Washington Memo published in the July 4, 2009 Concord Monitor, I believe New Hampshire residents, and Americans at large, need considerable clarification on the many inaccuracies in his communique. He gave us his thoughts on the energy bill that recently passed the House on an extremely close vote. I contacted Mr. Hodes prior to his vote and encouraged him to vote against it. He voted for it.

Mr. Hodes thinks that the consequences of our ailing economy were created by Wall Street greed. He doesn't explain this allegation and fails to mention any of the real reasons for our current state of economic malaise: government interference in the housing market causing its collapse, and lack of oversight on financial institutions, to point out just a couple failures of government. The free market suffers when government meddles in it. Our nation's lawmakers need to learn from America's businessmen, and they should always avoid demonizing them. Politicians may not realize it but small businesses are the economic engine for our country.

Without referencing his sources, Mr. Hodes clearly fails to validate many preposterous claims. Many of the data he cites are dubious at best. He attempts to link what I assume he believes to be the future-condition of New Hampshire's climate and the perils it will present because of issues including global warming. He uses a list of fear-inducing examples to support his hypothesis. Pretty scary stuff, if it were true.

Do you believe Mr. Hodes? Is he correct in his assumptions about energy, the environment, and our economy? Have you read any differing opinions about the entire issue of man's affect on global environmental conditions, the direct and indirect impact the Cap-and-Trade bill will have on our economy, our ways of life, and our personal property and resources? Is this a bill that has a moral purpose, or is it in fact the opposite: nothing more than a huge new tax on Americans to satisfy the insatiable appetite our government has for money? Is global warming truly a crisis, or just another ideological platform for groups who have agendas that don't represent Americans' best interests? These are just a few of my questions.

I am not an expert on most issues raised in Mr. Hodes' piece. I assume he is not either. He claims, without any supporting evidence, that the Waxman-Markey bill will result in good things for America, and for you and your family. There are many credible opinions on the opposite side of that argument. For example, the Heritage Foundation's analysis of the bill "found that unemployment will increase by 2 million in 2035...Total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slows, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035."

The same organization did exhaustive research on how the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill would affect the states by Congressional district. New Hampshire, by their estimates, would suffer badly: our Gross State Product (GSP) would lose $1.3 trillion between 2012 and 2035 (this is the average economic destruction for the bill's 24 years); average personal income will drop $552 million (this is the reduction of consumer spending power); and, NH will lose over 6,000 jobs between 2012-2035.

With respect to climate change (and at a time the EPA quietly publishes its analysis showing that there will be no reduction in emissions by 2020 under this bill), the Heartland Institute (a 25-year-old national independent non-profit organization) contends that "global temperatures haven't increased in the past ten years..that scientists believe high levels of carbon dioxide will actually benefit wildlife and human health, and that an international survey of climate scientists found that fewer than half believed that climate science was sufficiently established to give policymakers a sound basis for passing laws." The Institute continues: "Despite these facts, politicians across the nation are taking measures that will destroy more than a million good American jobs and increase the average family's average energy bill by at least $1,500 a year. Yet, more than 31,000 American scientists say reducing greenhouse gas emissions isn't necessary, and may even be harmful to the environment and human health."

Dr. Richard Tol, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Virje Universiteit and Dr. Freeman Dyson, senior scientist at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, respectively called the fear of global warming "preposterous" and grossly exaggerated." Dr. John Christy, Alabama's State Climatologist and Distinguished Professor of Atmosperic Science at the University of Alabama used the non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models to calculate that the climate bill standards would result in a "minuscule" 0.01 degrees Celsius reduction in the earth's temperature by 2100. If the entire world adopted the stringent standards, the effect would be less than 0.04 degrees Celsius by 2100, "so tiny we couldn't measure it."

Should we reduce our use of foreign oil? Yes. Should we lift our government's ban on exploration for and production of oil, natural gas, oil shale, coal, and nuclear to fuel our automobiles, heat and light our homes, to power our industries? Yes. Should we be good stewards of our environment and encourage the private sector to create new ways to satisfy our need for energy? Absolutely. Let's do all of it without scaring people about foliage, skiing, and becoming a rain forest. That is uncalled for and attempts to instill false beliefs based on who-knows-what kind of science. We deserve more from our elected representatives.

We are owed full disclosure on the provisions of this bill, not just political talking points. If enacted as written, will our government force us to adopt the California building codes for new house construction? Will we be subjected to a government-appointed agent assigned to our state whose duty to government is to enforce the provisions of this bill and to track people and industry to see how much CO2 we generate? Will this legislation adversely affect our liberty, our individualism, or our rights to personal property, our sovereignty? Is this bill constitutional?

I, for one, look at this so-called energy bill for what it is: a government ruse whose intended purpose having nothing to do with energy, the environment, or national security. To me, it is a draconian measure that empowers our government to impose massive new taxes on you, your family, and future generations. It would make you poorer and less free. It is a government's betrayal of its citizens. In my opinion, this bill is un-American. How ironic it is that Mr. Hodes' article was published on the 4th of July.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/New-study-debunks-global-warming-claims-8043388-52097707.html

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2580.cfm