Voters are Responsible for Shutdown~Lesson Learned~BlameGame

Yes I said and do mean that.  The Tea Party and their fellow GOP cronies were elected by the People.  So I point the finger in the blame game back at 'We the People' the Voting Public for electing these clowns into office.

I will admit that when I first learned about the Tea Party. I believed they were making a few valid points.  Though it was not enough for me to contribute $Money$ to support their political endeavors.  Some of the info was at least worth looking into.

Like any informed Voter studying the Issues that are affecting the USA and its Interests.  I want the facts-not the hype from the Media Networks.  I learned long ago when I started studying the effects of Climate Change that it was the Humans Fault. (IPCC-The IPCC report shows the Man Made CO2 is creating warming temperatures Worldwide )

I've written many green blog posts on Climate Change and the Causes and never understood why more efforts to end wars over Oil, Clean Energy Jobs, and protecting America's Greatest asset "We The People" were not adopted and enacted by our Elected Officials.

I had to know why wouldn't any elected official who campaigns on what's best for the American Public and then FAIL to:create and enact laws and regulations to support the endeavor.  To understand and research this topic I luckily found the websites: Open Secrets and Follow the Money.

I had the Ah-hah Moment. 

I honestly couldn't believe the amount of money Big Business and the Oil Industry was giving to our Elected Officials.  And when I look at the Government Shutdown created by the GOP and the Tea Party Members.  I realized these are the same people who are taking the most money from the Fossil Fuel Industry.

Coincidence or Fact learn for yourself from the people at: Open Secrets and Follow the Money.

I rest my case.

Sincerely,
Scotty
Scotts Contracting, StLouis Renewable Energy


Roy Blunt Missouri Senator is a perfect example of Big Business and Dirty Energy Money in Politics

Roy Blunt Missouri Senator is a perfect example of Big Business and Dirty Energy Money in Politics

Thank you for stopping by St Louis Renewable Energy. Feel free to comment in the section below or contact Scotts Contracting- St Louis Home Improvement Projects and Energy Reducing Needs Get Your Green Building Tips and Resources at St Louis Renewable Energy Green Blog

Res 37 Toxic Air Bill by Sen J.Inhofe

I am writing you today in vehement opposition to the toxic air bill offered by Senator James Inhofe, S.J. Res 37.

The Online Petition I signed via the Environment Defense Action Fund is listed to follow and emailed to Sen R.Blunt and Sen C.McCaskill.

• My notes to Dirty Oil Roy Blunt are at the bottom of the Post.

This bill would use the obscure Congressional Review Act to block EPA's new emission standards for hazardous mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. If enacted, this bill would also forever prohibit the EPA from adopting substantially similar clean air standards in the future.

These standards, which the 1990 Clean Air Act specifically authorizes, have been in the works for more than two decades. They will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths every year and protect our kids from dangerous exposure to toxic mercury pollution, which can cause brain damage in infants and young children.

They will also save the American economy tens of billions of dollars in avoided health costs while likely leading to the creation of 117,000 jobs installing pollution control technologies between now and 2015.

Last year, more than 800,000 Americans submitted public comments in support of this rule. But now, a few of America's largest corporate utilities have launched an aggressive campaign to block these standards. And Sen. Inhofe's toxic air bill would do just that.

Please stand up for the health and safety of our kids and communities and reject the Inhofe bill.

Please take action today. Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA's life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.

My Notes:

Mr Blunt in an email I received yesterday from you.  You wrote:

"Job creators in Missouri tell me that overreaching new regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency are one of the biggest obstacles to getting our economy back on track.  Regulations like these threaten to make the cost of electric power skyrocket for most Americans and will sack families and workers with new costs, reducing their disposal income and ultimately threatening their standard of living."  

I'd like to point out the simple fact that-

"All the jobs in the world won't help when Pollution kills the world."  

As you know here in St Louis- Ameren UE (Union Electric) uses Coal for producing our Electricity.  This pollution from Coal Fired Power Plants is a leading cause of Asthma and Cancer.  WebMD just reported last week that St Louis is Number 7 on the list  of leading cities with Asthma Problems.

"The study also points out that recent statistics indicate asthma causes more than 3,300 deaths annually in the U.S. and is a factor in another 7,000."  

It  would seem to me the more healthy people there are working equals more people paying taxes- ie: Income for the US Government.

If you are serious about creating jobs consider this: Energy Efficiency and Renewable "Non Polluting" Energy.

Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:

"If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."

 (This was a St Louis Post Dispatch Article that talked about making homes energy efficient through weatherization.)

On another note about Energy Efficiency and Nuclear Energy- I'd like to share this info:

"For 1/2 the cost of replacing one nuclear power plant, we can retrofit 1,600,000 homes for "Energy Efficiency" and create 220,000 new jobs- which is 90 times more jobs than you'd get from a power plant replacement."  

ie: how much taxes that are needed for the USA would come from the 220,000 employees?

So basically I'm asking you to do the right thing and leave the EPA alone as the USA is making strides to curb its energy use which reduces the Pollutants in the Air, Land, and Water.

Through the various reporting agencies on Political Contributions. (1 & 2) I know you receive the bulk of your money from Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Business.  In the future who will be left to buy their products if the population is killed off from Fossil Fuel Pollution.  I'm not even going to mention the fact that we can reduce our reliance on Foreign Oil (which is the root cause of the ongoing wars in the Middle East.  ie: if they don't have any money they cant fight us).

Thank you, looking forward to your Reply.

Sincerely,
Scotty

Please take action today. 

Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA's life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.

Thank you for stopping by St Louis Renewable Energy. Feel free to comment in the section below or contact Scotty for any Home Improvement Projects or Energy Reducing Needs and Scotty, Scotts Contracting will respond ASAP. Company Web Address: http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Climate Change and Republican Views

How Republicans Talk About Climate When No One's Listening

— By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Jun. 16, 2011 5:29 AM PDT

Photo by Gene1138.

Sarah Palin may now dismiss global warming as a "bunch of snake oil science," but just a few years ago, back when she was governor of the state melting into the sea, she was inclined to care about the subject. It's well-known that she established a task force to address climate change in the state, but later flip-flopped on the issue. Yet as one exchange in the trove of emails released by the state of Alaska last week shows, Palin at one point actually took climate science quite seriously.

In an email exchange from July 2007, Palin discussed global warming with her brother, Chuck Heath Jr., who was taking part in a climate change study program for science teachers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the state's environment commissioner. Heath wrote:

Sarah, I'm just about done with my 80 hour course on global climate change. Most of it has been focused on coastal erosion which is probably a bigger deal than you're aware of … I have met some of the top scientists in the world on the subject and if you'd like, I can organize another advisory task force (which would include scientists, economists, citizens who live in these areas) who can give recommendations to the state. The problem is accelerating quickly so it would be good to get a handle on it now.

Palin forwarded the message to Lawrence Hartig, the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. She mentioned her hope that the state is "really getting serious about dealing with climate change impacts." She added: "I'm getting more and more enthused about digging into the subject and working on it."

None of this is to say that Palin's administration was all that progressive when it came to climate change policy. She created the climate task force but then ignored its recommendations. Her administration also sued the federal government for listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, due to the impacts of global warming.

What's most interesting is that Republicans—particularly the GOP's presidential contenders, declared and otherwise—have widely been written off as anti-science by their foes on the left. It's little wonder, with Michele Bachmann arguing that carbon dioxide is nothing more than plant food and Rick Santorum maintaining that he's never been fooled by science. But in the case of Palin, it's not that she refudiates the science, as she might say. What's more likely is that she's made the calculation that caring about global warming isn't particularly politically advantageous right now. She's not alone of course—both Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich have taken similar approaches. But in her case, Alaska's email dump contains an interesting insight into what she believes when she's not running for national office.