Senator Kerry Responds
In response to a letter from a constituent, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) responded:
Thank you for contacting me about alternative energy sources. I appreciate hearing your concerns on this issue.
Concerns over climate change and our continued dependence on foreign oil have made the switch to alternative energy sources imperative for our economic, environmental and national security. We must move toward a new alternative energy strategy that will stimulate the economy, create millions of new jobs, and assert America’s leadership in the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable future.
We need to implement new federal programs to assist in the transition away from fossil fuels and toward the production of clean, renewable energy sources. We should be following Massachusetts’ lead by implementing a Renewable Energy Standard, which would require a certain amount of U.S. power to be generated by clean, renewable electricity sources like solar and wind.
The 111th Congress has made clean energy a top priority. I supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which included approximately $67 billion to support the research and development of clean energy. According to the Energy Information Administration, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will increase wind generation 67 percent in the next three years and renewable electricity 93 percent in the next four years. It will avert the emission of 106 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from 2010 to 2012, and reduce annual household utility expenditures in future years. In addition, this investment will help update our nation’s electrical grid, promote the manufacturing of advanced batteries, and commercialize renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.
The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-8), which I supported, also makes significant investments to advance renewable energy and create green jobs. For example, the bill provides $204 million in additional funds for the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency which will further vehicle technology improvements, the deployment of solar technology, and increase the energy efficiency of homes.
Please be assured that I will continue to fight for legislation that encourages investment in cleaner, more efficient energy sources, helps address climate change, and supports a more sustainable future.
This response is typical of the princely class in our society, all of whom support more and more spending “on our behalf,” without the benefit of our having expressed our concerns to them–concerns which are often contrary to what that princely individual himself supports.
More importantly, we should challenge ourselves, and our self-appointed princes and princesses, to find the specific text within the Constitution that permits federal legislation of this type. Can you find it? If not, how do you propose that we rein in the elitism that exists in the Congress (and the other branches of government) and restore our once-great republic?
Tags: Publicus
“…..how do you propose that we rein in the elitism that exists in the Congress (and the other branches of government) and restore our once-great republic?”
Great question. Can the demise of our government be reversed? I’m afraid reversing it will look something like the revolution in Iran, at least, if it gets that far out of hand. Are term limits the answer? I say definitely maybe…LOL. In other words, I don’t know.
Spend, spend, spend! That’s all they know how to do! Vote in all knew reps. No lawyers (they spin) and no fat cats!!
I’m somewhat with you, I think we need more experienced businessmen. They have a better idea how this country grows and prospers which these fools don’t seem to have the slightest idea. I mean when you are sick you call a doctor, not a plumber!
I have been writing about many issues on congress.org. That might have some affect if many of us response. In my opinion we need to build more nuclear power plants in this country. The techonology has improved. If we can have nuclear powered subs, powerplants can be safe and DRILL baby DRILL…
IMS, the problem with that is the environmentalists would have an absolute meltdown,pardon the pun, but you know everywhere they would try to build it would be tied up in litigation for years.
IMS says:
June 23, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I have been writing about many issues on congress.org. That might have some affect if many of us response. In my opinion we need to build more nuclear power plants in this country. The techonology has improved. If we can have nuclear powered subs, powerplants can be safe and DRILL baby DRILL…
Reply
mart58 says:
June 23, 2009 at 9:19 pm
IMS, the problem with that is the environmentalists would have an absolute meltdown,pardon the pun, but you know everywhere they would try to build it would be tied up in litigation for years.
————
IMS – i totally agree.
And how is it the environmentalists can make things happen (or not) but an opposing group can’t? Why can’t we just force it to happen!!?
Unfortunately for us, they have an in with the courts now. So many judges are activists instead of interpreters of the rule of law,and that means if the wackos can find one reason like they have in the past, they win. Come on,look what is happening in California over a smelt. Millions are being lost in the produce industry now, Paul Rodriguez has been on shows siding with the conservatives and he voted and campaigned for BO,now he is mad.
enviromentalistc \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\European countries
Eurpeans are as much enviromentalists as we are and they have many nucleor plants in all countries.If BO wants to Europenize us,he
is confused.The Chenobyl melt down happened because that plant was poor design of the USSR periot.
,
he is confused.
are
I read up the lavish progressive use of Federal Government controlling stamp. Shame. WHERE IS PRIVATE ENTERPRISE?? I have nothing to do with Sen. Kerry and those like him. Your not the boss of US!! But you certainly want to b{. A worst nightmare for free market America.
correct: I read up to,,,
Originally posted by mart58:
mart58 says:
June 23, 2009 at 9:19 pm
IMS, the problem with that is the environmentalists would have an absolute meltdown,pardon the pun, but you know everywhere they would try to build it would be tied up in litigation for years.
====
And therein is your problem. When new plants are proposed, many companies just don’t have the stomach to wait out 4-5 years of litigation…often NIMBYism. For nuclear power, that is precisely going to be your problem, along with lack of available land, because most of the land is going to be acquired through eminent domain (such a court battle usually takes about 4-5 years).
While not a plant, a case in point happened here in NYC. Those suing “lost”, but the bottom fell out of the economy in the process and financing cannot be procured.
On an aside—the 20 or so oil-fired power plants should be converted to coal, and then cars and SUVs transistioned to diesel, which in my region has become CHEAPER than gasoline.
Adam…dang it I keep telling you this.
Deisel is much dirtier than gas. How can that fly in Obama’s green world? Not arguing deisels efficiency, just pointing out the duplicity of using more deisel in a world that’s trying to become green.
I feel we are being steamrolled. The small band of like minded free men are tread on by another small band of Government self interest powers.
What I find most puzzling is the stigma surrounding nuclear energy. I guess it’s because of the devastating effects of a nuclear bomb. However, the fact say otherwise. Nuclear power is BY FAR the safest form of energy. Too many people only remember Chernobyl, and maybe even 3 Mile Island. 3 Mile wasn’t even close to causing any health problems. There were 2 lines of defense still unbreached. Chernobyl (the only nuclear power plant with radiation related fatalities) was an anomaly. No plants in the West (then or since) have ever been built with such lax containment structures. Many experts think the even had the same string of unusual events of machine and human error, a modern plant would have held the radiation in containment. I think the argument could be made for nuclear power being extremely safe. The obvious issue is cost. A nuclear plant IS expensive, but most of that cost stems from liabilities. Thus, go back to my discussion about the stigma surrounding nuclear power. Get rid of the misplaced liability concerns and the cost goes way down.
In summary, we should be using the cheap, readily available, non-global warming causing fossil fuels like crazy right now. Future technology will produce alternative forms of energy in time for the oil to run out.
I agree. I think someones swindling us because they’ll lose money if we go this route.
Hello? No one here…
I’ll be back in later
This is what Kerry said in Sept.’08. What I expected!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNcDmWW0ZMs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewsmax%2Ecom%2Finsidecover%2Fkerry%5Fpalin%5Fmissing%2F2009%2F06%2F25%2F229028%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded
I guess we’re the flat earth caucus? LOL And THIS was their choice in ’04?? ewwwwwww
test/////////
test picture////////