Dear Senator,
Thank you for your response. While 1-1/2% per year seems like very little, at least it appears to be progress. I hope it is adequate. I’d sure like to see a much more aggressive program. As for the unilateral arguement, it sounds l ike my two little kids squabbling so I’ll respond in my accustomed fashion: someone needs to start, to set an example, to do the right thing, to stop making absurd excuses. Comparing a Kansas or American family, with their typical energy/waste/consumption/money budget, with a typical family in any other country would likely indicate that we have a vastly greater room for improvement. If we apply the monies now spent on trying to steal foreign oil to technology dedicated to avoiding the need for it, we might see the weather improve in our lifetimes, not to mention an enormous bounty of other benefits.
Sincerely,
Michael Slavin
Correspondence_Reply@roberts.senate.gov wrote:
May 29, 2008
Dear Mr. Slavin:
Thank you for writing regarding climate change. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
In October, Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) introduced S. 2191, America’s Climate Security Act. This legislation reduces greenhouse gas emission by 18 percent to 25 percent in 2020 and 62 percent to 66 percent in 2050 through a cap-and-trade program. The bill covers emissions from transportation, electric power, manufacturing and natural gas sources. S. 2191 was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) where Chairwoman Barbara Boxer held several hearings. S. 2191 was approved by the EPW Committee and awaits further consideration by the Senate.
While global warming is a complex and controversial issue, there remains uncertainties concerning the cause and the effect of climate change. It is difficult to address national and international environmental issues and policies because of the lines built up by proponents and opponents of climate change. Compromise on both sides of the issue will certainly be key.
I do not believe it is in the United States best interest to unilaterally undertake mandatory carbon dioxide emission reductions until other nations agree to do the same. Any unilateral U.S. reductions in greenhouse gas emission will simply be offset by China and India, thereby not improving the global environment at all.
Kansas plays an important role in climate change policies because farms and ranches naturally absorb carbon dioxide. In the past, I have introduced major legislation that encourages the “banking” of carbon by agriculture. This process, known as carbon sequestration, has been estimated to absorb the equivalent of all manmade carbon dioxide emissions emitted annually by the United States. Realizing Kansas’ unique role in providing a climate change solution, I successfully convinced my Senate colleagues to fund climate change research in this area for Kansas State University and the University of Kansas. As Congress continues to review climate change legislation, I will continue to keep your counsel in mind on this issue.
Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov. You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.
With every best wish,
Sincerely,
Pat Roberts
BlogoSquare