Monday, July 21, 2008

Ignorance... so sad for America and the Earth

Dear Mr. Wood:

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's energy policy. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

I support a comprehensive energy strategy that combines conservation, the development of alternative sources of energy, and an increase in domestic oil and gas production. We are increasingly dependent on foreign sources of energy - importing over sixty percent of the oil we use today. Preliminary research data suggests there may be as much as 125 billion barrels of oil and over 565 trillion cubic feet of natural gas located in designated production areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) combined. The domestic oil reserves in both the OCS and ANWR, when coupled with existing U.S. reserves of 21 billion barrels, are more than Iran’s total oil reserve of 136 billion barrels. However, Congress has enacted a moratorium on production in these areas.

In order to bolster domestic production and reduce our reliance on foreign sources, I cosponsored the American Energy Production Act of 2008, which repeals current misguided policy and provides access to America's domestic energy supplies in ANWR and the OCS. The bill also allows access to alternative sources, such as one trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. These sources, which presently sit unused, are equal to three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.

I have also supported numerous initiatives to encourage alternative energy use through market- and incentive-based approaches. On March 28, 2007, I introduced the Creating Renewable Energy through Science and Technology (CREST) Act. It promotes the research and development of renewable energy sources, including wave, solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels. I am very proud to say that Texas is the nation’s leading producer of wind energy, illustrating our state’s commitment to alternative energy production.

Our nation’s energy policy must be proactive instead of reactive. Some of my colleagues in the Senate believe that imposing a windfall profits tax on oil producers or suing the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is the solution to our country’s energy crisis, when, in fact, neither of these proposed plans produces one more ounce of energy. The burden of this tax would be passed down to the consumer, causing record-high fuel prices to rise even higher. Additionally, a windfall profits tax would discourage oil companies from increasing refinery capacity and furthering exploration and production of our own domestic resources. These are not solutions. Instead, a comprehensive energy policy that combines conservation, the development of alternative sources of energy, an increase in domestic oil and gas production, and a safe nuclear energy program will lower energy costs and help our nation become energy independent.

You may be certain I will keep your views in mind regarding any energy legislation offered in the 110th Congress. I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will continue to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as it is not a valid e-mail address. Due to the tremendous volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at .

Thank you.

Dear Kay Bailey Hutchison; United States Senator,

So sad that the issue I intend (to get off oil as energy source) is lost to you 1 (one) second into your reply. Furthermore, you support ruining of more areas such as "misguided policy" of "the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)"!! Absolutely incredible that you would boast about backing such an effort!

You literally seem to really be concerned with putting band aids on a currently broken (in Oh, So Many Ways) "oil" system and the disasters to environment THAT posses and have proven. "Biofuel" by the way, is a growing nightmare in itself, and to the population as well. It proposes (and does) take farm land from feeding people to putting the polluting resources in a gas tank, water supply and air. Again, ignoring the current realities of electric car capabilities. Automobiles competitive with combustion engines now and charged from an outlet that can be supplied by solar energy.... even home solar units. All which could be made affordable and make a difference in our world at no detriment to any environmental position. Unless you are considering the oil company profits.

You state " nuclear energy..."! What are you THINKING?? Just where do you think all that nuclear waste is going!?? How long till there is nowhere else to put it but under your great-grand children's pillow? May I offer the following site for your enlightenment from The Union of Concerned Scientists.

After the page loads, click on the map icon that says "Show Inherently Safe Reactors". It is a short read. Then as long as you can afford to care and make the time, explore the nightmare of that energy source. The spills, "leaks" and the disasters that have already happened in that field.

Last thing anyone cares to hear about is tax. But, Why do oil giants get to make RECORD profits, while strangling the American citizen? No need for convoluted excuses here. Save it for the sheep. Bottom line, they are filthy rich, while some have to worry about weighing fuel or food, medical care, or other necessities.

These are not just "...any issue of concern..." to me. These are enslaving the average American and irreversibly polluting our mother, Earth.

This is proved by all the statistical jargon you flop out without one alternative energy "statistic" other than Texas uses wind power. Really? Where? Hot air mostly. I live in Texas and do not see it in use. The differences that solar, wind, "hydro" and ocean current technologies could really provide are near limitless and to forward thinking people absolutely imperative. Incorrectly put as "alternative".

Patrick Wood, United States Citizen

No comments: