Letter to Mel Martinez, Say NO to Cap-n-Trade

updated today, 06/20/08

Dear Senator Martinez,
I have to respectfully ask if you have seriously looked at the global warming issue, because voting for the Warner-Lieberman bill was a huge mistake. One only has to research this matter for a short while to realize that man has nothing to do with the warming of the earth and that increasing Co2 levels have never, in the data that man has accumulated via ice cores or sedimentary analysis, shown a time when Co2 PRECEEDED a rise in global temperatures. Please see this Cap-n-Trade program for what it is, redistribution of wealth and a giant leap forward for the powers that be to intrude on the daily life of every man, woman and child in this country.

If you continue to follow this line of thinking and voting I will no longer be able to support you in the next election. I am a life long Republican and conservative. I care deeply about our environment but also about the economy that makes it possible for us to lead the world. I have supported you in the past, but on this issue, Cap-n-Trade, I will withdraw that support for always if there is no change in your support for this bill or anything like it.

Governments in Europe and elsewhere are turning away from this type of bogus legislation because it simply does not work. And even if it did, the reduction in Co2 emissions would be of such little importance or impact that it would all be for naught. Don’t let political correctness or the desire to look like an environmentalist cloud your judgment on this issue.

Please remember, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. 50 miles off the west coast of Florida is some of the richest natural gas reserves available, and you and Mr. Nelson keep thinking that the people of Florida don’t want there to be drilling there. You are absolutely wrong. If there is natural gas or oil field off the Gulf coast we want you to drill, not just so we can have $2.00 gas back again, I think that’s gone forever, but for National Security. I know we will never be energy independent, we get much of our oil form Mexico and Canada. But keeping the money here in our county instead of in the hands of those that would do us harm is vital to our security. We would also be less vulnerable to serious import issues, such as Iran cutting off the Straits of Hormuz or damage to vital pipelines. Oil is life to this country, and until we figure out how to live without or much less of it, it will remain so, so drilling and pumping more is our only option today. I agree with you that we need more nuclear power plants, please read:

http://capmsblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/drill-now-nuclear-later.html .

I think it’s the only thing that will allow us to really have the security we seek, security from Islomo-terrorists and security from powers that would cut off the flow of oil to us and the rest of the world.

So please Senator, do more research, and if you find that I am wrong on about an increase in Co2 never preceding an increase in global temperature, I will change my mind about you and support your efforts. But if you can’t find a study that clearly shows increasing Co2 coming first, then please keep looking, look into this subject and find what I know you’ll find, that this is hype and misinformation on a level we have never seen before.

God Bless you and yours Senator and God Bless America!

Senator's response:

Below is a response to the recent comments I received from you:

Dear Mr. Kirk:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the expansion of domestic drilling in our nation. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

The United States faces a fundamental need for increased domestic energy supply in the face of increased global demand to reduce energy prices. I share your concerns with the high price of fuel and its effects, particularly the unprecedented wealth reallocation resulting from our nation's dependence on foreign oil.

I helped design the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (S. 3711), which was passed into law in 2006. This bill opened 8 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf in the western Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas exploration while securing environmental protection for Florida's beaches. Although this opened OCS area contains trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and millions of barrels of oil, no new production has begun. Production in this area is the most immediate option we have for a large-scale increase in domestic energy supply. We must take advantage of this available asset before considering expanding coastal drilling that may jeopardize our beaches.

In order to increase domestic energy supply, I have consistently supported an environmentally responsible approach for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I have also promoted coal-to-liquids technology, the development of cellulosic ethanol and other non-food-based renewable fuels, tax incentives for renewable energies, and the extraction of vast oil shale deposits in America's West. To reduce demand, I have consistently supported increases in fuel efficiency standards and investment in mass transit. I am committed to both increasing domestic supply and decreasing domestic demand of energy in order to alleviate these factors that contribute to high fuel prices.

I am working closely with the Administration and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that Florida’s voice is heard as we address the need for increased domestic energy supply. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional comments or questions. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov/.

Sincerely,Mel Martinez

United States Senator

The Senator still did not address the issue of Cap and Trade and defend his vote on that. All these other items are in the past, I want to know what he will do in the future.

My responce:

Senator,
Thank you for your response to my email, but you didn't answer the question about your Cap-n-Trade vote. I do appreciate the efforts to open more areas to drilling. But voting for Cap-n-Trade will only hurt our economy, and hurt the consumer. It's just another tax on business and commerce. And corporations don't pay taxes, you know this, they just pass them along to you and me in the form of higher prices, lower employment growth or lower dividend payouts, to your 401K and my IRA.

27 Billion Tons of CO2? No, I don't think so!

This an email that I sent to the USGS (US Geologic Survey) to let them know of this mistake I found concerning the 27 Billion tons of CO2 supposedly being dumped in to the air by us humans every year. If you can find where I can see an actual report or paper showing that we do this I will write an apology.

Dear Sir:
I am concerned that a mistake in the article on Volcanic Hazards http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html#reference has created a wide spread misunderstanding in regards to the amount of CO2 released by man into the atmosphere each year. Here in the article you will see the reference to the 27 Billion tons of CO2 released;

From "Volcanic Gases and Their Effects"

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Then there is a footnote, (Marland, et al., 2006) I saw the link (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm) , and went there. Seeing nothing that stated 27 Billion tons of carbon released I proceeded to the bottom of the page and linked to the CDIAC page http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm , which lead me to the "On Line Trends" page. I looked under the global http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm , and Keoto page http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/annex.htm and only found information that would lead me to see that only 7.9 Gt of CO2 were released. This is too much, but nothing like the 27Gts that is stated in the above reference article.
Please tell me where the "27 billion tonnes per year" comes from. As you can see, the paragraph is not structured well and can create confusion. Look at the sentence right after the highlighted segment. "The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003'. Does this mean that the 27 Billion tonnes is what was released up through 2003, meaning including all the years hence? Or just for 2003. If it is just 2003, it flies in the face of the IPCC and Keoto numbers of 5Gts to 8Gts.
Where did the 27 billion come from, I see no reference to it in any footnoted article or in any of my research?
Please respond as soon as you are able. Thank you for your time and efforts.