July 6th, 2004
Chats with a Member of Congress

* Jul. 6th, 2004 at 10:35 PM


June 23, 2004

Dear Mr. Krieger:

Thank you for contacting me in support of the "Climate Stewardship Act'
[H.R. 4067]. Your views are important to me.

I share your concern over global warming. Most climate scientists agree
that certain gases, especially carbon dioxide, trap heat in our planet's
atmosphere, much in the same way that your car's windows trap heat in your
vehicle on a hot summer day. While there is still some debate over the
causes of global warming, there is no longer any doubt that the warming is
taking place.

Recently the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report that
warns that the United States will feel substantial climate change in the
next few decades. EPA said the impact very likely would include the
disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the
permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes,
among other changes. Despite this grim forecast, EPA and the Bush
Administration refuse to call for any step beyond voluntary action by
industry to deal with the problem.

I believe more should be done to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. A
good place to start would be for Congress to pass a sensible and balanced
energy policy. In my view, the Bush Administration is wrong to place all
of the emphasis on increased energy production, with little or no
attention on energy conservation or greater energy efficiency.

You mentioned your support for the Climate Stewardship Act [H.R. 4067],
which would roll back greenhouse gas emissions of several major sectors of
the U.S. economy – including electricity, industrial, commercial and
transportation supply sectors – to 2000 levels over the next 6 years. I
have two concerns about this proposal: 1) It is probably not realistic to
require this magnitude of emissions reductions in just 6 years. It would
doubtless take significant time and financial resources to re-tool these
industries; 2) I am concerned that this legislation focuses exclusively on
U.S. emissions. It could be that U.S. factories would simply move to
India or China to avoid the emissions reductions called for under H.R.
4067. The global warming emissions (as well as the manufacturing jobs)
would simply be transplanted to other countries.

Thank you again for writing. Let's continue to keep in touch on issues of
concern.

Sincerely,
Sander M. Levin
Member of Congress


I encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/levin to sign up for
my e-newsletter or for information on my work in Congress.