Congressman Sensenbrenner brought up Senate bill S. 2191, the Lieberman/Warner "America's Climate Security Act of 2007" at his Town Hall meeting Sunday. He described it as a "disaster for Wisconsin."

Information on S. 2191 from Congressman Sensenbrenner's website:

“S. 2191 proposes a nationwide cap-and-trade program for the emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, an important component of the manufacturing industry.  By setting a limit and capping carbon dioxide emissions by businesses, the Lieberman/Warner bill would thrust a highly regulatory regime on our nation’s economy, making electricity more expensive for businesses and consumers.  In Wisconsin, which relies heavily on the use of coal for electricity, this bill would have a catastrophic effect as we would be especially hard hit.

“This point is underscored in a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers to assess the potential impacts of S. 2191 on Wisconsin’s economy…and the results are scary.

The Congressman discussed that study at the meeting and on Charlie Sykes show. The predictions were "scary."

“According to the study, electricity rates in Wisconsin could increase by as much as 163% in 2030 - nearly tripling today’s costs - and gas prices could increase by as much as 176% in 2030, again, almost tripling today’s cost of natural gas.

Not only will we be paying more for utilities, a figure of a 145% increase in gasoline prices was also given on Charlie Sykes show Monday, April 28, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

So not only do we get to pay for higher energy costs for our own use, but we will pay more for every item and service produced in Wisconsin too.  

Who would ever want to live in Wisconsin or locate their business here if that is the case?

The National Association of Manufacturers report estimated that by 2030, 74,000 jobs would leave Wisconsin and a whopping 4 million jobs would leave our nation, because businesses naturally seek the cheapest and easiest place to manufacture their products.

What exactly is a cap-and-trade and why does it have such a negative impact on Wisconsin? 

Cap-and-trade is another term for Carbon Credit (or indulgences). Congress or bureaucrats set a cap or maximum on greenhouse gases that can be emitted by a company--be it a corporation or a utility company. Companies that do not comply with the standard must then have to purchase carbon offsets from companies that do comply. It is like a type of stock market that deals in these special credits.

According to Congressman Sensenbrenner, since Wisconsin gets 2/3 of its electrical power from coal fired plants, but Illinois obtains 60% of its electric power from clean nuclear power plants that emit 0 CO2, we will have to purchase these carbon offsets from Illinois just to keep producing our needed electricity! Illinois in effect gets their energy costs subsidized by Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin ends up paying 176% more for our electricity. OUCH! (At present, only 20% of Wisconsin electric comes from nuclear plants.)

Think no one in their right mind would agree to a system like this? Think again. Europe has been doing this for nearly 3 years now. Europe's greenhouse gases continue to rise as do their electricity rates. It has done nothing to lower emissions according to a publication from Sensenbrenner's office. I believe Australia just signed on to a system of carbon credits too.

Since businesses will just relocate to third world countries to manufacture their goods, these carbon credits will do nothing to lower CO2 emissions worldwide. The pollution will just move to the far east.

The increase in costs due to cap-and-trade fees are estimated at $1,300 a year / household for Wisconsinites.

Please contact Senators Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill. 

Representative Zipperer informed the Town Hall meeting atendees that the Wisconsin Assembly recently passed legislation that lifted the moratorium on nuclear power plants last session. The Senate however did not. He said they would try again next time. 

Contact your state representative and senator about the moratorium.

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9180

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120

Congressman Sensenbrenner's contact info:Email  Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101  

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

I attended Congressman Sensenbrenner's Town Hall Meeting Sunday. Attendance was light--maybe 2 dozen people (mostly men). Perhaps the early start time kept people away?

Wisconsin's Representative Rich Zipperer was also there to answer questions.

I missed the first question. The second dealt with Common Ground, a group that has been appealing to churches for support. Is it truly bi-partisan?

Both Congressman Sensenbrenner and Rep.Zipperer expressed their doubts of bi-partisanship since Common Ground did not seem to be interested in tax relief, school choice, etc.

A reader had emailed me about this group 2 weeks ago after Vicki McKenna talked about Common Ground on her radio show. The reader was "taken aback" that their St. John's church bulletin urged people to attend the Common Ground conference. Many people might be surprised to learn their church supports Common Ground.

Energy and taxes were the topic of the remaining questions.

One man inquired if the direct donation from retirees' IRAs to a charity option would be renewed (this would then satisfy the distribution requirement). Mr. Sensenbrenner said that there would be an effort to bring that donation option back since donations to charity support groups that often help others without any additional government funding.

The next question asked about the Congressman's opinion of nuclear power. He said he was "All for it--it emits 0 greenhouse gas." He added that Chernobyl's defective design for nuclear power plants has never been used in the U.S. There was more discussion about Wisconsin's rising energy costs, which the Congressman also discussed on Charlie Sykes show Monday morning. It is a subject all unto itself, so I will get to that in a later post.

The last question was on Ethanol. Mr. Sensenbrenner said it was "Bad stuff--not energy efficient, and the blend reduces gas mileage." He also mentioned that there is engine damage and increased pollution because of it, and the 51 cents per gallon subsidy was passed 20 years ago!  Add to that the economic and social impact of food into fuel and it is time to "Get off the ethanol kick!"  (Amen)

"The real problem is politics", he said. Iowa is the first caucus in the primary process. For any candidate to succeed, they must first "Worship at the altar of ethanol!" That is why we have it, the Congressman explained.  (I was aware of that, were you?)

He closed by mentioning he would be discussing the N.A.M. report (National Association of Manufacturers) on energy and the business climate in Wisconsin and the United States, Monday morning on Charlie Sykes radio show. Catch the podcast, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

From what the Congressman said at the town hall meeting, Wisconsin's energy costs in the near future will be sobering if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill passes. More about that later.

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

We've heard the term: Frankenstein Veto, and we have seen what it can do: Doyle's raiding the transportation fund to give to the general fund, comes to mind. But before any Republicans start acting smugly, Tommy Thompson created Frankenstein monsters too. But do you know what it really is?

Mark Belling explained this monster the other day. The Frankenstein Veto uses the trick of the veto pen, altering legislative language, to create something totally unintended. It allows the Governor to eliminate numbers, words, phrases, or sentences from legislation that crosses his desk, and those eliminated parts allow him to alter the intent of that legislation.

Fictitious Example: All monkeys must be licensed by April 15th. The license fee of $10.00 is payable to the City of Brookfield to offset costs incurred by the police department and Elmbrook Humane Society. 

On April 1st, voters will have the power to end the Frankenstein Veto through a Constitutional Amendment. If you want to end this practice, vote YES. You are saying, Yes, we want to alter the state constitution. Of course they don't call it the Frankenstein Veto, they call it the Partial Veto. (Thanks FairlyConservative.)

Both sides of the isle are generally in favor of ending this practice, Belling said. Doyle probably would not want it to end, however, since it gives him the power to create something uninteneded out of legislative language.

Eliminating this type of Partial Veto would still allow a governor to veto certain parts of a law, just not transform the intent of a law.

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

A: A commercial for Governor Doyle's Global Warming Task Force probably funded by OUR tax dollars.

Have you heard this ad? I caught it twice on the radio yesterday. It really sickened me.

The commercial features a little child asking her mom a question. (Read this in your best concerned innocent child voice.) Mommy, What's Global Warming?

The mother then answers, It's the way we're leaving the planet...But there are things we can do. She then starts with touting compact fluorescent light bulbs, reducing this and that, not building coal fired power plants, etc.

The commercial is really promoting the Public Hearings today on Doyle's Global Warming Task Force. The ad does not state where and when, at least not that I could catch from the commercial.

I googled the task force and found the cleanwisconsin web page. None of the recommendations look favorable to Wisconsin businesses. One included a "Carbon Tax: a tax on all significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions that are not large stationary sources covered by the cap and trade program."

The web page urged, "The Task Force needs to hear from the public; if you support Wisconsin doing its share to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level needed to avoid disastrous effects of climate change it will require a great deal of public involvement."

Following a link from that page, I found the Task Force Meeting Date page. If you had any interest, our area's hearing is at MATC from 4-7pm. 

Another related web page from John Vrieze, member of Gov. Doyle's G.W. Task Force was full of doom and gloom predictions for Wisconsin's future. One prediction in particular was laughable when put into the context of our snowiest winter in years, "Popular winter pastimes in Wisconsin such as ice fishing and snowmobiling will be reduced or eliminated."

But this statement really concerned me: "To prevent the worst impacts of global warming, Wisconsin, the United States and the world must act.  There is broad scientific consensus that to avoid the worst impacts of the problem we must reduce global warming emissions in the United States at least 15-20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050." (Emphasis added)

Now I don't believe in Global Warming (or as they now call it, Climate Change as being caused by carbon emissions) any more than I believe in the Great Pumpkin. I am grateful that as more and more data comes out, some scientists finally are feeling free to speak out against the concept of Global Warming. In light of the true scientific data, all of this government interference and expense becomes all the more irritating.

Maybe the mother should have answered, Global Warming is why we now have an increase in mercury poisoning as a result of the CFL mandate, or Global Warming was a hoax fostered by people who could make a lot of money by promoting bio-fuels.

How would you answer the question? 

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe 

The Great Global Warming Swindle 

The Faithful Heretic-A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions 

UPDATE: The Ethanol bill is on the Senate floor right now. Reportedly, Senator Jim Sullivan is on the fence regarding this bill. Please let him know what you think. If passed, the bill goes to the Assembly. There Assembly Speaker, Mike Huebsch is said to also be on the fence.

I heard that Senate Bill 380, commonly referred to as the Ethanol Bill, made it out of State Senate committee with a 4-1 vote. State Senator Ted Kanavas cast the only NO vote on the measure. (Thank you, Ted.)

The bill now heads to the Senate possibly as early as this Thursday, January 31st.

"This bill generally subjects a refiner to a penalty if the percentage of renewable fuel sold by the refiner, beginning in 2009, is less than a percentage set in the bill. The percentage of renewable fuel sold is determined by dividing the total volume of wholesale sales of renewable fuel in a year by the refiner’s five year rolling average volume of wholesale sales of all motor vehicle fuel, other than diesel fuel, and multiplying by 100. The percentage begins at 10 percent and increases to 25 percent in 2025 and thereafter." (Emphasis added)

Like so many of these Going Green bills and measures, they sound good but are NOT environmentally friendly--nor are they practical or economically feasible. Ethanol is not an efficient fuel*. In fact, many scientists believe it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it provides.The miles per gallon with ethanol are not as high as without ethanol.

The only thing Green about this renewable fuel bill is when you follow the money to the ethanol manufacturers and corn growers.

If contacting your state representatives about ethanol mandates seems familiar, it is because we defeated this once before back in 2006(?)

Sometimes I feel like we are playing that old arcade game called Whack-a-Mole with these bad bills that keep returning. (Whack-a-Mole is a game where the player takes a mallet and tries to hit a plastic mole who pops out of various holes in the game play field.) But call or email we must; it is only weapon against oppressive legislation like this. 

Contact your representatives:
State Senator Jim Sullivan, Democrat, 5th District
Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2512,  866-817-6061

State Senator Theodore Kanavas, Republican, 33rd District
Sen.Kanavas@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9174, 800-863-8883

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-282-3614

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120 

Governor Doyle
608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Majority Leader), from Horicon. Counties: Columbia and Dodge
Rep. Michael Huebsch (Assembly Speaker), from West Salem. Counties: LaCrosse and Monroe
Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (Senate Minority Leader), from Juneau. Counties: Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Jefferson, and Waukesha

With gas prices rising, people naturally are looking toward purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. The free marketplace is addressing fuel efficiency and experimental fuel vehicles. We don't need to mandate the use of such an expensive carbon footprint fuel like corn ethanol.

And let's not forget that taxpayers (us) subsidize the price of each gallon of ethanol blended gasoline. From the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

"Motorists pay 51 cents less in federal gasoline taxes for every gallon of ethanol purchased, and Wisconsin pays ethanol makers 20 cents for every gallon produced. If ethanol were such a great deal for consumers, it would not need market-distorting tax breaks and subsidies, much less a market-rigging mandate, to compete with conventional gasoline."

 Be sure to read The Ethanol Fallacy in February 2008's Popular Mechanics issue.

* "Among the various ethanol sources, sugarcane is by far the most efficient in both land and energy use. The ethanol yield of sugarcane per acre is roughly 650 gallons, whereas for corn in the United States it is 350 gallons, scarcely half as much. The net energy yield of 8 for sugarcane offers an overwhelming advantage over that of the 1.5 for corn."

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative