[az-leader] National energy bill--revote

  • From: "Roland W James" <roland.james@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@freelists.org>
  • Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:32:43 -0800

Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Happy New Year and it would be a whole lot happier if the=20
Energy Boondoggle Bill is defeated.  The vote will be close.
A few of us in  northern Ca are trying to get the  5 Democratic
Senators from the "wind states" (ND, SD, and MN) to change their vote on =
Energy Bill when it is revoted on after Congress reconvenes this month.
They voted (primaryily) for this very bad piece of legislation because =
the ethanol subsidies for their states' farmers. =20
We would especially like to get Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle to
change his vote.   Letters may be sent to any Senator, but letters=20
from voters of South Dakota to Daschle and
Senator Tim Johnson would especially be very helpful; and from ND to=20
Senator Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, and from MN to Sen. Mark Dayton.
Also letters to the
editor of newspapers in those states.   One letter is
attached and pasted below.
Snail mail, if done within next week, or fax are probably best.
You may also try your own state's senators.   McCain voted against
the bill the first time and called it the "hooters and polluters" bill.  =

Thanks for any help you can provide.

tom_daschle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx fax:  202.224-7895   phone 202.228-5765
mail:   509  Hart Senate Building,   Washington  D.C.    20510

tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   fax:  202.228-5765   phone:  202. 224-5843
mail:  U.S. Senate,   Washington D.C.   20510

senator@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      phone  202.224-2551      fax   =
senator@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       224-2043                 =

January   2004

Senator Tom Daschle
U.S. Senate
Washington  D.C.   20510

Dear Senator  Dashle:

I  urge you to vote against the  U.S. Energy Bill.   You probably want =
protect the ethanol provision to benefit the farmers of  South Dakota.
While I laud you for such concern,  I'd like you to  vote against this =
when it comes up for a revote later this month for the following =

1.  Much more lucrative benefits to South Dakota  farmers and ranchers =
come from provisions for Wind Energy.   On the other hand, as Richard
Heinberg points out in "The Party's Over:  Oil, War, and The Fate of
Industrial Societies," ethanol has a very low energy profit ratio and =
there is more energy "in" than "out."

2.  As a Lesley Stahl segment on Sixty Minutes pointed out last fall, =
$18 billion in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline through Alaska is a
waste when hooking onto a Canadian pipeline wouldn't cost the taxpayers =

3. There are billions of dollars in coal and oil subsidies in the bill.
They don't do  anything about a major problem with oil and coal,  CO2,
which leads to global warming, including a rising snow line and the "
permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows,"  2002  EPA report, =
squelched  by the Bush administration .

4.  Less than 10% of the $26 billion in energy bill tax credits are for
energy efficiency, conservation, solar, and wind.

5.  This bill adds billions of dollars to an already humungous national =
without doing much at all for ordinary people and the energy future of =
United States.

Thank you for your consideration.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland W James"=20
To: "Thora G Lares"=20
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: nat eng bill

> Hi Thora,    I sent the 3 Heinberg books I was assigned (Dorgan-ND;
Conrad, ND; Dayton, MN)yesterday by priority mail (2 day delivery) to 2 =
people in
ND and 1 in MN--all with priority envelopes for them to forward on to =
Senators asap after they receive them.      The letter "form" I used is
attached.  Also included the "Bottom of the Barrel"   article for

 I've also sent letters to be forwarded to a number of people in those
 states, as well as Iowa (Grassley) , Colorado (Campbell),  ...

> I will talk to Mary Ruthsdotter in Rep. Patricia Wiggins office on =
Monday re
the status of the licensing bill proposal and will get back to you on =
after that.

Happy New Year

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thora G Lares" <thoralares@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <roland.james@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 8:50 PM
> Subject: meetings
> > Hi Roland,
> > Thank you for all of your help with last week's meeting.  It was an
> > interesting process we all went thru and it would never have =
> > without you and your intriguing idea about the 'Wind State' =
Senators. I
> > think we may be onto something. Read on:
> >
> > Ty Cashman and I discussed the evolution we all went through that =
day and came
> > with a hopeful thought. This is sort of how it went: if we continue =

-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: application/msword
-- File: natenergybill.doc

You are subscribed to AZ-LEADER. To post to this mailing list, simply send 
email to az-leader@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to
az-leader-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.

Other related posts:

  • » [az-leader] National energy bill--revote