[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;
charset="iso-8859-1"
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 =
the
Energy Bill when it is revoted on after Congress reconvenes this month.
They voted (primaryily) for this very bad piece of legislation because =
of=20
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 =
202.224-1193
senator@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 224-2043 =
224-7776
dayton.senate.gov/webform.html
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 =
to
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 =
bill
when it comes up for a revote later this month for the following =
reasons.
1. Much more lucrative benefits to South Dakota farmers and ranchers =
would
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 =
often
there is more energy "in" than "out."
2. As a Lesley Stahl segment on Sixty Minutes pointed out last fall, =
the
$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 =
a
penny.
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, =
later
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 =
debt
without doing much at all for ordinary people and the energy future of =
the
United States.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
----- 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 =
the
Senators asap after they receive them. The letter "form" I used is
attached. Also included the "Bottom of the Barrel" article for
enclosure.
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 =
that
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 =
happened
> > 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
up
> > with a hopeful thought. This is sort of how it went: if we continue =
to
...
-- 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
