Congressman Tom Perriello
313 2nd Street, SE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Congressman Perriello:
I thank you for your letter of July 15, 2009 and the ACES Fact Sheet.
You state that “Americans have had no choice…but to send our hard-earned dollars overseas to petro-dictators, who are enemies of our great nation.” Do you consider Canada and Mexico to be enemies of the U.S.? Perhaps you are not aware that our oil imports from Canada and Mexico total twice those from third place Saudi Arabia.
Americans had expressed their choice last year by strongly supporting off shore oil exploration and drilling, including Virginia. Your Democratic Party cohorts have repeatedly blocked attempts to develop our domestic oil energy resources. It is those actions which force Americans to send our dollars abroad. It is those actions which send thousands of potential oil exploration and oil refining American jobs elsewhere. These actions by the Democratic Party have taken away choice from Americans.
You claim that this ACES legislation shifts dollars from our “enemies”…and gives us a competitive advantage over China and India.” Please let me know what is the “next generation of technology” and when is it scheduled to come on line and in what quantity. At present the U.S. generates over 50% of its electricity from coal, not oil. Wind and solar contribute 1-2%. Meanwhile, while you offer the promise of some future, magical form of “energy independence”, the Chinese are helping finance the development of one of the largest offshore oil fields, the Tupi field of Brazil. Brazil is famous for its beautiful beaches, and yet they have the confidence to drill for oil while you put our offshore fields off limits. There were reports last year that the Chinese had approached Cuba with an offer to drill off the coast there, close to Florida. By using modern slant drilling techniques, they could siphon off our own offshore oil. China may or may not be “racing for the next generation of energy technology”, but they are smart enough to utilize current technology, both oil and coal.
Sprinkling some federal dollars around in Virginia for biofuels will aid the lucky individuals who qualify. However, the goal of making America as a whole energy independent is not going to be powered by manure.
You mention nuclear energy as one of the energy sources “we can produce in our region.” Would you please make a clear and unequivocal public statement that you fully support nuclear power plant construction and will work to remove the impediments thrown up by environmentalist organizations? Please make it clear to the Sierra Club, both locally and nationally, that you want nuclear power. The expansion of the North Anna Nuclear power plant by Dominion Power has been attacked by the environmentalists. Just this past week, the Sierra Club has filed legal objections to the expansion of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant in Tennessee. The next time I meet the local Sierra Club president, I will be please to let him know of your strong support for nuclear power here in Virginia.
What is “clean energy”? Is that a code expression for non-carbon dioxide producing energy sources? Manmade carbon dioxide has been blamed for global warming and/or climate change. Are you aware that all four global temperature monitoring agencies have documented a ten year global temperature plateau, and six plus years of global cooling, in spite of increases in carbon dioxide emissions? There is no positive correlation between the two. The term “climate change” is itself an oxymoron as no one can claim a time when the climate has not changed. The famous American climatologist, Edward Lorenz, wrote a paper in 1964 questioning if such a thing as a (stable) climate even exits.
It is a puzzle to me that you claim to have read the entire H.R. 2454 bill, including the midnight 300 page addition, and yet your letter to me states that the act “represents a victory over the oil companies.” The final bill is widely acknowledged, even by environmentalists, to be riddled with special exemptions for oil and coal interests. An army of industry lobbyists (I thought that President Obama had promised to eliminate these influence brokers.) spent weeks crafting the bill to favor their clients. The final bill will have an infinitesimal impact on global temperatures by 2050.
You mention “border adjustments on imports from polluting nations.” This is a transparent euphemism for import duties. Advocating restrictive tariffs and a potential trade wars is an odd policy position by you, if you wish to improve America’s international trade success.
Charles Battig, M.D.