Ok, so I just filled my tank up and it cost me $75 and I check my web news when I get home and see this. Guess what … pledges aren’t going to help fill my gas tank. Someone better tell Onder that us common folks who also happen to be Republicans want real ideas and real solutions not worthless paper pledges.

This is Onder’s first major campaign so you can’t blame him for thinking that the more stupid pledges he signs the more votes he’ll get.

Craig - This pledge may not cut prices, but it will keep them from going even higher. The carbon taxes proposed by environmental extremists would significantly increase the cost of gasoline, as well as natural gas and electricity. Good for Dr. Onder for signing this pledge.

If we have more energy tax hikes we might have to start paying what the majority of the world has to pay for energy. That’s just not fair, we are Americans.

Onder seems to have become more “blindly conservative” since he announced his bid for congress.

So this guy was a state rep? Never heard of him. He can sign all the pledges he wants. What is this guys motivation for wanting to go to D.C.? I am a college educated union member with a highly technical job. As a republican he does not have my interests at heart. Being a useless state rep definitly doesn’t give him any qualifications to be a congressman. Just go away Dr. Onder.

The “rest” of the world has been and is already being taxed to do the same kind of things that Dr. Onder has wisely agreed not to support. The following includes the failure their policies have been in achieving climate change as well as the impact of such actions on the US and Missouri.

Capping and Trading our Economic Well-Being

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act was yanked in the Senate on Friday, June 6, 2008. Senate Democrats in favor of the bill could not muster up the 60 votes to end a filibuster because legislators on both sides of the isle were questioning the far-reaching scope of the over 400-page bill. As it turns out, their questioning was with good reason.

Lieberman-Warner tried to introduce a “cap-and-trade” system on greenhouse emission, what the Washington Post referred to as a “pithy marketing gimmick.” The bill would have set a quota on the amount of greenhouse gas a company could produce. But it would have also created a government-run corporation to auction off emission allowances that companies could buy and “trade.” This cost would have eventually been passed on to the consumer in the form of back-door taxes, creating a larger government surplus where “cap-and-trade” really means “tax-and-spend.”
Gouging the American people’s pocketbooks with higher prices for everything from energy to plastic bottles would ultimately mean economic calamity. According to a study by the American Council on Capital Formation, the price of gasoline would increase as much as 67% by 2020 here in Missouri alone. That, and Missouri would loose 34,000 jobs after just 8 years of the bill being in effect, while seeing a $3.7 billion reduction in our state’s economy.

Europe has already implemented a cap-and-trade system that is hurting their economy and having no positive impact on their CO2 emission. In fact, according to the think tank Open Europe, CO2 emissions have actually gone up, while the United States has seen a reduction. And what do European consumers pay for it? Well, in Britain, the price of gasoline is twice what it is here, ringing up at $8 a gallon.
Even if the emissions targets were met, and not replaced by increases in other countries, there would be no discernible effect on global average temperature. The National Center for Atmospheric Research found that the Kyoto Protocol would reduce global average temperature 0.07 degrees Celsius in 50 years, and 0.15 degrees Celsius in 100 years. This bill aimed to do substantially less than Kyoto, and would have had an even smaller effect.

It makes sense to take care of our environment, but this bill would have done nothing but hurt the home environment of many hardworking Missourians.

Lieberman-Warner’s bill was killed with good reason. Missouri Senators Kit Bond and Claire McCaskill deserve our praise for standing up against Lieberman-Warner and seeing through the murky “cap-and-trade” scheme. It did not put a “cap”-on or “trade”-off anything but our nation’s economy. Feel good symbolism is never worth trillions of dollars in high-energy taxes.

You can click here for an easy link to write your legislators and voice your opposition to this and other flawed tax policy that hurts Missourians. http://www.noclimatetax.com/?page_id=6

There is a new economy to be found in “going green”. If Beard and Onder really cared about the future of Missourians and the jobs they will hold, they would put us at the forefront of these types of jobs.

Instead, they choose to ignore our dependence on a limited resource and add to the bill we will be giving future generations. (But, then again, perhaps Onder and Beard do not have children.)

“There is a new economy to be found in “going green”.”…..Suzyjax

No kidding!! There is a mint being made off all the hype. Marketing experts love the “green” movement. It’s the next best thing since Hannah Montana. Like the Hannah Montana phenomenon, the green movement is making beaucoup bucks off emotionally charged numbskulls.

suzyjax - Declining to further increase energy prices by levying taxes doesn’t constitute opposition to “green” technologies. Most of us would like a long-term shift away from petroleum. It’s just that some, like Dr. Onder, don’t think we ought to go broke while we get there.

Al Gore agrees that there is a killing to be made in “going green”. He is doing quite well and is all for the $1.2 trillion tax increase in Lieberman-Warner because it will force the rest of us to us to make him even richer. All the while, his home in Nashville consumes more than 19 times annually what an average American family’s home consumes. He apparently believes what is good for some is not good for him.

The bottom line is this, members of Americans for Prosperity do not object to a “green economy” except that it is attempting to be accomplished using government coercion rather than free market approaches. It is being sold as the only “viable” way to solve our current situation when that is the furthest from the truth.

There are several reasons “alternative energy” sources are not currently viable. One of those reasons is that the technology does not yet exist to mass produce them. Another is that many of those “alternatives” are not economically viable. Both of these are used as reasons why the government needs to implement a $1.2 trillion tax increase and destroy America’s already weakened economy.

Those who champion this government involvement say that it is necessary so that the resources to develop alternatives is made available and people must be forced into buying these alternatives because, well they won’t have an alternative. It is an undeniable fact that there is plenty of energy resources available right here in our own country. It is not necessary to sacrifice our quality of life just to insure alternative energy sources are developed. Yes, it does mean continued use of oil, coal and other natural resources placed here for that purpose but it does not mean that alternatives cannot be developed in conjunction with these resources. If altenatives are truly what people want, they will buy it.

These “champions” complain that it will be 5 - 10 years before any of the new oil that may be drilled for becomes available. With advancing technology that may or may not be the case. However, alternative energy sources that will make signficant impacts are no closer.

Let the American people decide which they prefer to use. When alternative energy becomes economically viable, consumers will buy it. Until then, free enterprise and American “homemade” energy should be put to use for our citizens. The force fed alternatives being proposed will not improve the quality of our lives, just prolong the misery.