Bill to Reduce Greenhouse Gases

Related Issues: Energy Policy , Environmental Policy , Global Warming , Green Initiatives

Tags: environment , reduce , greenhouse

Similar Letters: Search for letters similar to this one

Thursday, 06/25/2009 @ 11:01 AM

To whom it may concern:

Regarding Nancy Pelosi's bill to reduce green house gases.

Please do not vote for this bill.

The information for this bill should be posted on the White House website, I can not find it.

The informaiton for this bill should be posted on Nancy Pelosi's website, I can not find it.

I can only imagine that this bill would mean higher energy costs for each American household. American's can not afford another increase in anything. We've lost retirement funds, home equity and had our earnings have been reduced.

If Ms. Pelosi and Pres. Obama would like to actually particiapte in reducing green house gases, may I suggest Pelosi give up the private jet that tax payers provide and Obama discontinue his publicity tours while burning through thousands of gallons of fuel on AF1.

Bills such as this need to be thought through more clearly and postponed until the economy has improved. I do not want another bill deceitfully shoved down my throat. I can not afford it.

Sincerely

Escalade

Total Comments: 36

Write your own comment on this letter!

	harmont, on 06/25/2009 @ 04:42 PM wrote:
		Amen CAP and Trade will cost 1M manufacturing jobs pushing more jobs overseas. It will cost average house hold $1600/yr In turn it will increase the cost of goods as the cost of manufacturing increases.

	harmont, on 06/25/2009 @ 04:47 PM wrote:
		This vote is on Friday - send a letter to your state officials!!! STOP CAP and TRADE

	Escalade, on 06/25/2009 @ 05:49 PM wrote:
		I hope everyone will call their Congressman at their 202 area code. If this bill is passed it will be the largest tax increase in American History. Congress voting tomorrow (Fri.) It's urgent that they get the msg. VOTE NO AGAINST THE ENERGY BILL

	The_Guru, on 07/02/2009 @ 08:29 AM wrote:
		What we can't afford is to do nothing. The history of this planet is clear. CO2 levels go up causing an initial warming phase. Once the planet reaches a warm enough point, the frozen methane sitting on the ocean floor turns to gas and then the real fun begins. You're worried about jobs, I'm more worried about the global extinctions that define the history of this planet. In the past, these atmospheric CO2 increases typically came from periods of high volcanic activity. Now they are coming from human activity. Intelligence dictates that you actively do something about problems you can affect. Doing nothing indicates a significant lack of intelligence. Is cap and trade the answer? Of course not. But is it a part of the answer? Quite possibly. You talk about what you can afford...can you afford to have you, your family and ever person you've ever known to die because of inaction?

	sfbaygirl, on 07/02/2009 @ 10:49 AM wrote:
		We can no longer afford to postpone the costs of our energy consumption while destroying the environment for future generations. Recessions may come and go but we have only one planet.

	rjnaz, on 07/02/2009 @ 10:50 AM wrote:
		how do we go about with the fundamental changes needed in the race to protect our environment (and ourselves) without paying some of the price. After all, our consumption of fossil fuels is what has gotten us where we are. inaction and obstruction are not policies.

	harmont, on 07/02/2009 @ 11:01 AM wrote:
		Inconvenient Truths: Last 10 years planet is getting colder while CO2 levels increase. 13:1 Experts say their is NO global warming. NASA just said we were in a solar cycle in the 90s. During Cap and Trade talks the EPA reports were suppressed saying the CO2 increase has no effect on planet. ASLO this bill will not help even if everything I wrote above was false!!!! Remove 1T on pollution here in US and move that industry over to China and they will make 2T of pollution doing the same thing. FOLLOW the money!!!! 85% of these taxes goes to special interest groups. Congress keeps special interest groups happy and the continue to get votes. PEOPLE they are buying votes with your money!!!

	Titopoet, on 07/02/2009 @ 11:41 AM wrote:
		The earth is suffocating and you want to do nothing. Yeah, lets keep our foreign oil addiction. It's been so good to us so far (Irony)

	earthjiva, on 07/02/2009 @ 12:56 PM wrote:
		I agree that we shouldn't punish taxpayers by reducing gases and therefore costing more money to people who pay utility bills. On the other hand, the environment and greenhouse gases are a real issue that need to be dealt with some time in the future. I would argue that we continue using gases at the same rate we have been, with the stipulation that we take strong steps in funding for alternative fuel sources (even if this temporarily spikes our taxes). Instead of just cutting back on gas emissions that punishes the people directly, we need to think of long term solutions.

	jcarryl, on 07/02/2009 @ 01:21 PM wrote:
		So what do we wait for the fuel to dry up and the sun to go out? At what point can we afford to change? We're killing ourselves. When are we going to change?

	Scoobey, on 07/02/2009 @ 01:30 PM wrote:
		The cost of the bill must be weighed against its benefits. If you had cancer but couldn't afford the operation, would you wait for surgery until you saved the money? This is the only planet we've got; protecting it is a critical priority.

	Maco, on 07/02/2009 @ 01:54 PM wrote:
		Every day that goes by without a change in energy policy brings us one day closer to a barren world that will be inhospitable to all life. I'll gladly pay a few dollars more per month to reverse the damage that the oil/automotive industry has done to this point. If we don't do anything now, it's purely out of selfishness.

	Zwiggle, on 07/02/2009 @ 02:28 PM wrote:
		"Wait till the economy is better?", said Chicken Little. Not saying the sky is falling JUST DO SOMETHING.

	MICKU28, on 07/02/2009 @ 02:31 PM wrote:
		Its really the need of the hour, these gases are ruining the life conditions and will end life in some 100 years.

	bbaughman, on 07/02/2009 @ 02:41 PM wrote:
		Yes... let's see this bill on The White House website and Ms. Pelosi's website. That's where my support for this letter ends. This always seems to be the rallying cry when it comes to legislation protecting the environment: It's going to cost us more! Perhaps we've been able to pay disproportionately less by letting industry get away with more.

	nmcocco, on 07/02/2009 @ 03:34 PM wrote:
		The Ethics of Climate Change, right and wrong in a warming world by James Garvey. Read it and weep.

	libanbekele, on 07/02/2009 @ 03:36 PM wrote:
		What we really need is to implement new and more renewable sources of energy. Such methods could not only boost the economy but become beneficial for the planet

	calcondor123, on 07/02/2009 @ 03:37 PM wrote:
		absolutly, a leader should sacrifice right along with his people. why not solar power the white house? or give it up in favor of something more efficient?

	triangular, on 07/03/2009 @ 10:59 AM wrote:
		Energy costs need to be higher. Nothing else seems to motivate people to stop wasting so much energy.

	choweric2005, on 07/03/2009 @ 11:00 AM wrote:
		I think Congress should make the bill more clear so the public actually know the full detail about it. Really, there are always bills with hidden clauses that we the public know about!

	tallguyryan, on 07/03/2009 @ 11:27 AM wrote:
		I think that it is such a waste to have all of the private jets flying around while normal citizens are fine taking regular flights. Wouldn't it help the airline industry for less corporate jets flying around and more money into regular flights? honestly!

	fellowpacker, on 07/03/2009 @ 01:07 PM wrote:
		We all have to pitch in to reduce the pollution. But in return we get better air to breath and a healthier life.

	chelsme12, on 07/03/2009 @ 05:27 PM wrote:
		The information for this bill should be made easily available for the public. As it is not posted on the White house website or Nancy Pelosi's website, one can only wonder what is so horrible to keep from the american public

	iblim06, on 07/03/2009 @ 07:01 PM wrote:
		Instead of pointless attacks about jets and AF1, how about you deal with the actual issue at hand. There is a need to do something about the increasing strain on the environment. Please try suggesting an actual solution to the problem. Thanks.

	Edwardab, on 07/03/2009 @ 07:43 PM wrote:
		I dont know... I have very little knowledge of this bill. But I do know that eventhough I love making green choices, i can't afford to do all the necessary changes. I think the government should help out by making earth friendly choices more affordable.

	meofcourse80, on 07/03/2009 @ 08:02 PM wrote:
		this bill will really hurt businesses and drive up costs of electricity, especially for those of us who live in coal-dependent states.

	Treas, on 07/05/2009 @ 05:29 AM wrote:
		Don't vote for any bill that Nancy Pelosi supports. In my opinion she is only concerned with power and not with what is good for the country.

	allygirl, on 07/05/2009 @ 07:43 AM wrote:
		From what I have read about this bill it will most definitely increase energy costs for all American households and businesses (which will of course increase the costs of their products).

	mturk, on 07/05/2009 @ 07:51 AM wrote:
		I don't think it makes sense to oppose a bill based on what you "imagine" it might say.

	Escalade, on 07/06/2009 @ 04:21 PM wrote:
		Mturk, This 1500 page bill was handed to Congress on Thurs. In the wee hours on Fri. there was a 300 page amendment added to it. Congress voted that Fri. Most Congressmen admitted they did not read it all before voting. How could they? Obama promised to post all pending Bills before the public for 5 days. Once again he broke his word. It was reported that this Bill included Cap and Trade. When Obama was Senator. He was interviewed and asked about Cap and Trade. Obama said Cap and Trade would cause electricy rates to SKYROCKET. This interview has aired several times during and since the election. Based on this information, one does not have to stretch to "imagine" the cost to each American. Pardon the semantics.

	zx147, on 07/15/2009 @ 10:27 AM wrote:
		Sorry America, but it turns out that externalities have a cost and we have to pay them. and the GAO, which is non-partisan by the way, has debunked the $1,600 per household cost figure.

	kkeyzers, on 07/15/2009 @ 07:24 PM wrote:
		Although we are in a ressecion and cannot fully afford it that hasnt stopped the government from spending huge sums of money on non sense. This is our planet and if we do not watch out for it were going to be left with nothing so whats more important loosing so money or loosing your planet

	catchley269, on 07/16/2009 @ 02:43 PM wrote:
		We also need to place the solor panels back on the white house. They were removes by a past president who thought global warming was a crock.

	mattbuzaman, on 09/08/2009 @ 10:11 PM wrote:
		The current climate bill is nothing more than big business backed regulations to further cartelize industries, forcing out weaker and smaller competition, in the end increasing market share. Do you think GE cares about saving the polar bears? You should question any bill where big business and government are working hand and hand. It's almost guaranteed that you are getting shanked.

	snguy, on 09/09/2009 @ 11:22 PM wrote:
		Author gives no information on what costs this bill would actually make her incur. Hmm save the world from melting, or maybe possibly pay something more but how much we don't know.... which to choose?

	momof_2, on 09/10/2009 @ 04:25 PM wrote:
		Well said! Those with more need to cut back on being so wasteful and not tax those who are trying to make ends meet.