Dear Congressman Hoekstra

Your recent "Perspective" is an interesting example of empty political posturing. You express your opposition to a cap-and-trade program that would regulate CO₂ emissions, which you call a "job-killing National Energy Tax." Yet you also want to promote renewable energy to reduce both our dependence on foreign oil and pollution to the environment.

I agree that we should encourage clean energy, but how exactly do you propose to do this? We could discourage carbon-emitting energy sources by taxing them or instituting a cap-and-trade program, but you clearly believe that would kill jobs. Alternatively, we could subsidize clean energy, but we would have to institute a "job-killing" tax to pay for it to avoid being irresponsible and increasing our national debt. Or we could mandate that utilities must produce a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable energy in a one-size-fits-all regulation. But that would ignore regional and other differences and would not allow companies to behave as rational, economic actors.

As your constituent, please tell me how you plan to promote clean, renewable energy. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too just because it's an election year.

Sincerely,

Wolverine

Note: This is not the first example of Hoekstra's disingenuousness.

Dear Congressman Hoekstra

Your recent "Perspective" on the EPA's decision to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant is worryingly disingenuous. First, you write that the "ruling makes it even more difficult for businesses seeking to grow and create jobs to predict what future energy costs will be, therefore discouraging growth." On the contrary, the designation indicates that the future price of fossil fuels will be higher, creating a market incentive to develop clean-energy technologies.

Second, three sentences taken out of context from thousands of private emails do not "cast doubt" on the science behind global warming. The much ballyhooed phrase "hide the decline" refers to the divergence problem: Tree ring data suggest that temperatures have been declining since the 1960's, even though we know from actual temperature readings that the planet has gotten warmer since then. Indeed, the last ten years were the warmest decade on record.

The science is clear: The planet is getting hotter, and human greenhouse-gas emissions are to blame. If you disagree with the Obama Administration's actions, please tell me what positive action you think we should take instead of misinforming your constituents.

Sincerely,

Wolverine