My response from Senator Feingold, May 2, 2008 (I don't hold out much hope here of a NO vote.)
Dear Mrs. Prast,
Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. The United States is the largest emitter of
greenhouse gases, and it is time for the federal government to provide leadership on this issue.
As you may know, S. 2191 was introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) on October 18, 2007. It would direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a maximum greenhouse gas emission allowance for 2012-2050 that would gradually decrease over time. Facilities could participate in a carbon cap-and-trade program, which would allow for selling, exchanging, transferring, submitting, retiring, or borrowing emission allowances. The EPA would establish the Carbon Market Efficiency Board to oversee the carbon cap-and-trade market. S. 2191 has been referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. While I am not a member of this committee, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate debates ways to combat global warming.
You may also be interested to know that I am an original cosponsor of S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) introduced S. 309 on January 16, 2007, and it has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. This bill provides the leadership and the comprehensive, scientific-based approach to addressing global warming that Americans demand and deserve.
The bill recognizes the importance of taking an economy-wide approach to addressing global warming, and not one that targets a single sector. Industry, power, transportation, and building sectors all have a role to play in reducing global warming-causing emissions. As many of my colleagues and I wrote to the President last year, by sending the right market signals and supporting the "development of existing technologies and development of new technologies to reduce emissions," we can keep U.S. businesses competitive in the emerging carbon-conscious global marketplace.
I look forward to the full Senate considering legislation to significantly reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. As I told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in written
testimony on January 30, 2007:
I think we all agree there is no use in a plan that does little to reduce global warming-causing emissions and makes our economy vulnerable. I do not pretend that the decisions before us are going to be easy. However, with each passing year that we fail to act, the challenge of addressing global warming and reducing emissions becomes increasingly difficult and costly - not only economically but environmentally. The time to act is now.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please feel free to do so in the future on this, or any other issue of concern to you.
Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator
If you wish to contact me again, please visithttp://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html
.Senator Kohl's response from May 16, 2008 (Not much hope of a NO here either, unless he is feeling the heat of a Paul Ryan for Senate campaign?)
Dear Mrs. Prast:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I value the correspondence I get from people in Wisconsin, and I welcome this opportunity to address your concerns about global warming.
Greenhouse gasses and global warming are a real threat to our environment and our way of life. Changes in climate have far-reaching effects on agriculture, forestry, ecosystems, water
resources, and weather patterns. Americans are bearing the costs of rising sea levels and more destructive storms, not to mention the enormous cost to the public health and quality of life. The changes to our environment are real. Our job now is to decide what to do about it.
Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) introduced "America's Climate Security Act (ACSA)" on October 18, 2007. ACSA is projected to reduce total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 19% below the 2005 level in 2020 and by as much as 63% below the 2005 level in 2050. This bill would also improve America's energy security by promoting energy efficiency technologies.
Because the U.S. economy is so dependent upon energy, and so much of U.S. energy is derived from fossil fuels, reducing these emissions poses major challenges. However, I believe that ambitious environmental protection laws do not have to be sacrificed for robust economic growth. In the long run, economic growth and environmental protection are fully compatible goals.
On December 5, 2007, the Environment and Public Works Committee passed ACSA. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as the global warming debate moves forward.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
Please do not reply to this message; to make further comments or to find additional information, please
visit my web site at http://kohl.senate.gov/
Practically Speaking, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Vicki Mckenna