Clean sources are key to energy independence

Letter below was published in the Star-Ledger on March 23, 2022.

Clean sources are key to energy independence

There is much hand-wringing today about rising gasoline prices and finger-pointing about our failure to achieve energy independence in the United States. Many argue that if we drill more crude oil here, we will see lower and more stable prices at the gas pump. They forget that oil is a commodity that is traded globally, and that domestic and world prices rise and fall together.

Clean energy sources — wind, solar, nuclear, and hydroelectric — are not imported and rarely traded globally. If a person recharges the battery of his electric vehicle from an electric grid powered by clean energy, his or her cost will not go up appreciably when a dictator goes to war with his neighbor.

U.S. Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-7th Dist., lays out this argument in his excellent op-ed published in the Star-Ledger on March 15. His closing comment was “But the best way to lower energy costs for good, while telling Putin and his ilk to go to hell, is making America the world’s clean energy superpower.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Bill Allen, Basking Ridge

Posted in Energy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Let’s talk about today’s issues

Letter below was submitted to the Bernardsville News on February 13, 2022 and published on February 18.  

Editor:

Let’s talk about today’s issues

“How about we talk about today’s issues?”

These words led the last paragraph of a letter here on January 27.  The writer is a supporter of our last president and I usually don’t read what he writes.  But the letter’s title indicated it was a critique of President Biden’s press conference on January 19, and I wondered what filled the letter’s 36 column-inches.

The writer and I are on different sides of the political spectrum and I disagreed with most of what he wrote.  But I do agree that a voter should have an ID card, so long as it is issued at no cost to the voter and requires only common-sense evidence of voter eligibility.  I expect the writer and I can probably find common ground on some things.

This is an election year and there are lots of issues.  Most important for me is what I have been writing about since 2010:  We must act to slow and eventually stop global warming and the associated problems of climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.

I am a member of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby.  We propose a system of Carbon Fee and Dividend (CFD), in which a fee is imposed on each fossil fuel where it enters the US economy–at a mine, well, port, or pipe across the border.  Start the fee low and raise it each year.  Divide fee revenue into equal shares, and return it each month to lawful residents as dividends.  One full share for each adult and one half share for each child.

House bill 2307, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, will implement CFD.  It is a stand-alone bill and has 94 co-sponsors.  We are currently lobbying to make it part of whatever budget reconciliation bill is ultimately passed.

CFD is not a silver bullet.  Multiple strategies will be required to stop global warming.  But CFD is the best strategy to implement now.  It is simple and can be employed most quickly.  It will require the least government regulation.  It can engage all members of the public—consumers and business community– in a national effort.  It will give each person the opportunity to decide how best to reduce his or her carbon footprint and contribute to the national effort.

I recommend that we ask all candidates for local and national office to state their positions on this strategy.  And I invite everyone to do the same in letters to this paper.

Let’s have a calm and constructive discussion of the most important issue in this election year.

Bill Allen

Posted in Climate | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Carbon fees, dividend, will help climate best

Letter below was submitted to the Star Ledger on 03-14-21, published on line on 03-15-21 with the title above, and in the print edition on 03-15-21.

In a letter on March 12 Gary Stewart closed with the recommendation that Congress pass legislation for a system of Carbon Fee and Dividend (CFD).

CFD was incorporated in HR 763, that was introduced in the House in the last session.  It had 86 co-sponsors, including Representatives Albio Sires, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Donald Payne, Jr and Tom Malinowski from N.J.

The Citizens’ Climate Lobby has promoted CFD for twelve years.  We expect an updated version of HR 763 to be introduced in the current session.

CFD will put gradually rising fees on fossil fuels at their sources.  Fee revenue will be divided into equal shares and distributed each month to members of the public as dividends.  CFD is a revenue-neutral price on carbon.

Senator Dick Durban recently introduced a bill that also puts a price on carbon and distributes most of the revenue to the public.  If Senate filibuster rules are revised to permit a vote after minority voices have been heard, there is evidence that most Democrats and some Republicans can muster a majority for climate legislation.

A carbon fee with revenue returned to the public is the best strategy today.

Readers:  Let your members of Congress know that you support this strategy.

Bill Allen,  Basking Ridge

 

Posted in CCL-CFD | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Fix the Filibuster

Letter below was sent to Senator Bob Menendez and to Senator Cory Booker on 03-10-21.  It was submitted and published in the Bernardsville News on 03-11-21.

Dear Senator …

Passage of the Virus Relief Bill was a great accomplishment.  I urge you to now assign high priority to changing Senate rules for the filibuster.

Senator Joe Manchin has frequently said that he will not agree to eliminate the filibuster.  In a recent interview on Meet the Press he argued that the minority should always have the opportunity to make its case and be heard.  This makes sense to me.

But then he said he would be willing to make it “a little bit more painful.  Make them stand there and talk.”  This used to be a requirement and also makes sense.

Another suggestion is to change the definition of an affirmative vote for cloture from 60% of the full Senate to 60% of those present and voting.

Please work with your colleagues to change the rules, so that essential legislation like the Voting Rights Act can be passed in time to block laws now being enacted by states to suppress voting in the 2022 election.  Thank you.

Bill Allen    03-10-21

 

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What is Carbon Fee and Dividend ???

Letter below was submitted to the Star Ledger on 03-08-21

Editor:

Thank you for the excellent editorial by Tom Moran on March 7.  He outlined present efforts in Congress to enact badly needed climate legislation, with focus on work of Rep. Frank Pallone, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Rep. Pallone is quoted with regard to a carbon tax that “it’s time to try something new.”  I agree.  Below are key features of something new to try:  a system of Carbon Fee and Dividend (CFD).

[1] Put gradually rising fees on fossil fuels at their sources.  Divide fee revenue into equal shares and distribute them each month to members of the public as dividends.  CFD is a revenue-neutral price on carbon.

[2] Rising prices on fossil fuels will send price signals throughout the economy and encourage conservation of energy and moves to clean energy.

[3] CFD is a simple program that can be implemented quickly at relatively low cost.

[4] Decisions on how to reduce use of fossil fuels will be made by actors in the private sector:  consumers and members of the business community.

[5] All of us can participate in the program to ReEnergize America and drive greenhouse gas emissions towards zero by 2050.

Bill Allen    03-08-21

 

Posted in CCL-CFD | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ocean City is Getting Wetter / Sea Level Rise

Letter below was submitted to the Star Ledger on 03-02-21.  The Rutgers report cited in the letter is here:  STAP_20191204_Sea Level Rise

Editor:

You published a very interesting article on March 1 on how Ocean City is getting wetter.  A main roadway already floods 24 times a year, and Rutgers researchers project sea level rise of 1.4 feet by 2050.  Unfortunately, that’s not the end of the story.

The Rutgers projection is in a report published in 2019.  It contains a table of sea level rise estimates to 2150.  These are categorized by probability and three global warming scenarios.  The 1.4 foot rise estimate has a likelihood of 50%.  Projected rises for 2100 with 50% likelihoods range from 2.8 to 3.9 feet, and for 2150 are 4.2 to 6.2 feet.

Most of us don’t worry much about life in 2150.  But if we have young children or grandchildren, 2100 does not seem very far away.

We can’t stop sea level rise in our lifetimes, but we can slow it by slowing global warming.  The best strategy today is a system of carbon fee and dividend (CFD), also called revenue-neutral carbon pricing.  I urge your readers to ask their members of Congress to pass legislation in this session to implement CFD.

Bill Allen  03-02-21

 

Posted in Climate | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Top Down or Bottom Up ???

Letter below was submitted to the Bernardsville News on 02-19-21.  It was published on line on 02-22-21, and in the print edition on 02-25-21,  with the title “Strong climate legislation needed to ReEnergize America” and with some small differences.

Editor:

With new political leadership in Washington, it is near certain that Congress will address the climate crisis during this session.  It is likely that it will adopt legislation of some kind.  The question now is what kind of legislation it will be.

Many agree, probably most, that we need to slow the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases to near zero by 2050, and by doing this slow global warming, climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.  Most important will be to stop almost all burning of fossil fuels and the consequent production of CO2.

We will need to reduce our carbon footprints by learning how to use less energy and by switching to non-fossil, clean energy.  I call this the program to ReEnergize America.

There is less agreement on how to proceed.  People divide roughly into two camps:  those who prefer action from the top down, in the form of government regulations, and those who prefer action from the bottom up, using mechanisms of the free market.

I am a member of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby.  We are bottom-up people and propose a system of carbon fee and dividend (CFD).  This will put gradually rising fees on all fossil fuels, divide the fee revenue into equal shares, and each month send one dividend share to each adult and one half share to each child.

This proposal is sometimes characterized as a revenue-neutral price on carbon.  It has several attractive features.

  • It is simple and can be implemented quickly at relatively low cost.
  • Rising prices on fossil fuels will send price signals throughout the economy and encourage conservation of energy and moves to clean energy. Millions of decisions on how to do this will be made by actors in the private sector.
  • The business community will see opportunities and work to provide products and services to help this transition.
  • The Apollo space program in the 60s and 70s produced new technologies and new jobs. ReEnergize America will do this again.
  • Because dividends will be distributed equally, and because low income households have relatively small carbon footprints, the dividends they receive will be greater than the price increases for the things they buy. CFD will be fair.
  • By our actions and purchase decisions each of us can participate in the program to ReEnergize America. And we all can watch and applaud as we drive our national CO2 emissions towards zero.

Consider the example of energy consumed in homes.  This is about 12% of the total for our national economy.  Top-down advocates will try to reduce energy use by stricter regulations for insulation, heating and cooling equipment, and appliances.

The system of CFD will put funds in the hands of individual households.  They can use them and work with local contractors and suppliers to find the best ways to reduce energy consumption in their homes.

CFD was the basis for the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act that was introduced in the House in the last session.  It had 86 co-sponsors, including our District 7 Congressman Tom Malinowski and three others from NJ.

For a climate strategy to be successful over the long term, it must have bipartisan support, both in the short term and in the long term.  With the closely divided House and Senate, passage of legislation will require support from both sides.

Supporting a bottom-up strategy with carbon pricing are people like businessman Bill Gates, investor Warren Buffet, former Secretary of Treasury and State George Shultz (whom we lost two weeks ago), current Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellin, virtually all economists, and organizations like ExxonMobil and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

There is also, however, strong support for a top-down strategy, principally on the Democratic left.  I believe that it will be possible for moderate Democrats to reach across the aisle and find sufficient Republican support to adopt climate legislation using a bottom-up strategy.  But our members of Congress need to know that this is what we want them to do.

I urge all readers–both Democrats and Republicans–to contact their senators and representatives and ask them to enact strong climate legislation in this session.  Legislation that will incorporate a revenue-neutral, carbon pricing system like CFD, and that will put us on a path towards zero CO2 emissions by 2050.

Bill Allen    02-18-21

 

 

Posted in Climate | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

With Nature There Can Be No Compromise

Letter below was submitted to the Bernardsville News on 01-24-21.  It was published on line on 01-26-21 and in the print edition on 01-28-21.

Editor:

The elections are over and the winners are in their places. Our NJ Congressional delegation has not changed. Leadership in Washington is profoundly different. A new president occupies the White House, and control of the Senate has passed from Republicans to Democrats. Some are happy with these changes; some are not.

We still have huge problems that have not changed, except to get worse. My hope is that most of us will focus our attention and effort on what must be done to solve them, and not waste time looking back and pointing fingers of blame.

I expect all agree that conquering Covid-19 is our first priority in the near term. Next we have domestic terror, the economy, immigration, income and wealth inequality, racism, and more. There is probably little agreement on which of these is most important.

These second-tier problems do have something in common. Each exists because people hold conflicting positions. Each can be resolved whenever sufficient people on all sides of the issue come together for discussion, negotiation, and compromise.

I don’t suggest this will be easy or will be done quickly. I do contend that people have created these problems, and that people of good will can reduce them to tolerable size.

There is another group of problems, that includes global warming, climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification. They are different. People are on one side and nature is on the other. With nature there can be no discussion, negotiation, or compromise. Nature will follow its laws. Nothing we do will alter them.

These problems affect many of us today. They will continue to get worse until we stop adding carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and draw down the excess that is already there.

There are actions we should take now, and the longer we delay the worse and more difficult these problems will become.

There is reason to be optimistic that in Washington’s new political climate, officials will take constructive actions re nature’s climate. I will return to them in my next letter.

Bill Allen    01-24-21

Posted in Climate | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

RAWLS: Why Doesn’t Everybody Do It?

Message below was sent to some members of the CCL Raritan Valley chapter and to other persons on 01-03-21.  It is the third in a series on regenerative agriculture with livestock (RAWLS).  Click tag “RAWLS” to see all.

Bill Allen    01-12-21

Hello All:

I return here to regenerative agriculture with livestock, what I call RAWLS, and begin with a review of some differences between it and conventional “industrial” agriculture.

Industrial agriculture is what you see in a picture of neat straight rows of corn stretching to the horizon on a farm in Iowa.  The land has been plowed for planting, and it will probably lie bare thru the fall and winter.  The farmer will have used fertilizers and pesticides.  The soil quality is poor and erosion carries some of it away every year.

A RAWLS farmer never plows the soil.  To plant seed he uses the “no-till” method, where a sharp disk is rolled over the soil and seeds are dropped into the slit.  He never uses synthetic fertilizers or pesticides;  he rarely uses herbicides.  He usually plants a cover crop after harvesting the cash crop (eg corn) in early fall.  Livestock graze this in the fall and winter.  Their droppings fertilize and help build healthy soil.  As the soil becomes more healthy it stores more carbon, that was in the CO2, that was inhaled from the atmosphere by plants.

RAWLS is the closest thing to a silver bullet that I know.  Except for the large corporations that dominate the farm and food industry, it’s a win for nature and all who live in it.  It is fair to ask, however:  If RAWLS is so great, why are more farmers not practicing it?

I can think of several reasons.  I will not try to judge which are most important.

[1] Habit, Tradition, Resistance to Change, Peer Pressure:  I am my best example.  I live in the house that my wife and I moved into with our first daughter 52 years ago.  I use a phone with a line the runs down the street, across the yard, into the basement, up to the study, and up to the handset that I hold to my ear.

Many farmers work land that has been in their families for generations.  They grew up learning from their fathers.  Following habit and family tradition, they continue doing the same thing.  They may hear of some potentially better practice, but they resist change from something they understand and are comfortable with.

Peer pressure is also important.  Gabe Brown, who farms 5,000 acres in ND, is a successful practitioner of RAWLS and an important advocate for it.  In his book Dirt to Soil he quotes a farmer in central Kansas:   “Peer pressure in agriculture is our biggest hurdle to converting to regenerative agriculture.”  Gabe has experienced this himself and handles it this way:  “People laugh at me and say that I’m different.  I laugh at them because they are all the same.”

Note:  RA is an acronym used for regenerative culture, and does not always include livestock grazing.  I use RAWLS to specify RA that includes livestock grazing.

[2] Lack of Information  Many farmers, perhaps most, don’t know about RAWLS.  Their farm neighbors are probably not practicing it.  They may have attended an agricultural college where only conventional farming was taught.  Gabe Brown’s son attended an ag college in ND, and complained that he was being taught practices that his dad had already abandoned.

The NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), an agency in the Dept of Agriculture (USDA), has representatives who have for years promoted RA to farmers who will listen.  Writer and film maker Josh Tickell introduces Ray Archuleta in his book Kiss the Ground.  Ray travels the country and gives lectures on RA to groups of farmers.  The fraction of those who are sent notices and who attend is small.  Rays says this about those who do:  “If I get one in ten (to convert), I’m a happy boy.  Because farmers watch their neighbors, and that guy is gonna affect his whole community.”

[3]  Intellectual Limitation I have watched dozens of YouTube videos with RAWLS farmers and ranchers.  They say that each piece of land is different—because of features like soils, underlying minerals, topography, and climate—and that success requires studying these features and adjusting to them.  There is frequent examination of the soil and effort to understand what is happening there.

Gabe Brown began his RAWLS journey in the 90s after conventional farming and four years of weather disasters drove him to near economic ruin.  He now manages a very complicated and successful business with plants and livestock.  He learned how to do this by talking to scientists and other farmers, and by close observation and experiments on his own land.

In his book he shows a table of a “ten-way cover crop blend.”  It contains ten seed types and the quantities that are mixed together and planted as a cover crop after a cash crop of grain has been harvested.  Each is selected for what it will contribute to the quality of forage his cattle will graze during the fall and winter, or to the health of what he calls the soil “biology,”  the millions of macro and micro organisms that live in that ecosystem.

I suspect that some of today’s farmers and ranchers lack the intellectual curiosity and capacity for RAWLS success.  We may need a new class of smarter and better educated men and women, who will enter the profession with the freedom and commitment to observe, experiment, and learn.  I hope we will give them the respect that their profession deserves.

[4] Fear: Most farmers have families who depend on the income produced by their farms.  They may be afraid to leave something they know and count on, to something about which they know little, and in which they have no track record.

[5} Federal Subsidies: Many farmers, particularly those who grow commodity crops like corn and soy with conventional practices, lose money and are kept afloat with federal crop insurance and price subsidies.  These programs provide little incentive to change.

Example:  Land left bare after a cash crop is harvested is at risk of soil loss from high wind and heavy rain.  Cover crops reduce these risks and improve soil health, but they receive very little subsidy.  In 2017 only about 4% of US cropland was planted with a cover crop.  20% of land used no-till.  This left 76% of crop land bare and exposed during the fall and winter months.

In 2019 federal subsidies nationwide were 32% of all farm income.  RAWLS farmer Gabe Brown reports that he does not participate in these subsidy programs and is profitable every year,

[6] Influence of Large Corporations: As he was leaving office President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the growing threat from a “military-industrial comples,” that lobbied Congress to influence military policy and spending.  We have today what I will call a “farm-food complex” (FFC) of large corporations, that dominate the farm and food industries and lobby Congress to support the industrial farming system that enriches them. 

A typical Iowa farmer may practice industrial agriculture and alternate between growing corn and soy.  He is on a treadmill driven by the FFC.  Each year he will buy seed, fertilizer, and various biocides that cost him about $180 per acre on a farm of 400 aces.  He will probably have to borrow the $72,000 to pay for these “inputs” before he receives any crop revenue.  Total annual sales for farm inputs in the US is about $60 billion.

A major farm bill is adopted by Congress every five years.  About $75 million was spent for lobbying by Agricultural Services & Products organizations during the two years leading to the 2018 farm bill.  This group includes multinational corporations like Archer Daniels Midland (processor grain and other farm products), Bayer/Monsanto (seeds and pesticides), Deere (farm machinery), and Mosaic (fertilizer).

The same group contributed $22 million to political campaigns in 2020.  What do these large FFC firms get for their lobby and campaign money?

  • $22 billion in 2019 for federal subsidies that mostly support industrial agriculture.
  • Ethanol program that uses about 40% of corn production.
  • About $2 billion in research funds that lean towards industrial agriculture.

Wrapup:  It’s easy to see why most farmers don’t practice RAWLS today.  This is not an argument against it.  I will outline the arguments for RAWLS in another message.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.  Please copy them to our whole group.

Bill Allen

Posted in Agriculture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

RAWLS: How It Works

Message below was sent to members of the CCL Raritan Valley chapter and other persons on 12-06-20.  It is the second on the subject of regenerative agriculture with livestock (RAWLS).  Click tag “RAWLS” to see all.

Bill Allen    01-11-21

Hello All:

This is follow-up to a message sent out a week ago:  RAWLS and DAC:  Scoping the Challenge

I lack interest in, and knowledge of many subjects:  Until recently these included diet, food, and health.  I recently learned, however, that there is a strong link between them and the subjects that interest me most:  global warming, climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.  The link is agriculture and my interest in diet, food, and health is growing.

A week ago I introduced a kind of agriculture and called it RAWLS.  This stands for “regenerative agriculture with livestock.” I wrote that it is the best method known today for drawing down CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil.  I need to explain how RAWLS works and provide evidence that it does work.

I will begin by asking you to watch a video of a TED talk given by Gabe Brown.  He runs a 5000-acre ranch in ND and is the best practitioner of regenerative agriculture with livestock that I know.  The video runs 16 minutes and the YouTube link is here:

I recommend that you read the introduction and interesting comments under the video.

My message last week generated several good comments.  I have attached them to this message and will comment on them below.

John and Eric observed that RAWLS comes in two flavors. 

Allan Savory, in his TED and other talks, describes land that has once supported livestock, and that is now severely degraded and largely unused.  He argues that the primary cause was the removal of wild and domestic grazers, and shows that returning grazers to the land regenerates it.

Gabe Brown, whom I introduce above, shows how existing pasture and crop land can be improved with regeneration methods using livestock.

In both cases there is intensive grazing on a relative small section of land for a short time, followed by a much longer time in which the land lies idle.  The soil biology (aka life in the soil) will have been stimulated by the grazing.  It will utilize the nutrients in the droppings left behind, and the sugars produced by photosynthesis in the grass remaining on the surface, to grow the grass back up and the roots further down.  The roots will contain carbon, that will remain sequestered in the soil.

Eric and I both grew up on farms in NJ, but at different times and places.  We are both alumni of RCA semiconductor operations.  He has a garden.  I have planted trees and shrubs on my home property, but never a garden.  He has more practical knowledge of farming and soils than I.  I have had an intellectual interest in farming over the years, and may fairly be called an “armchair farmer.”

It’s important to identify potential obstacles along a path before deciding to take it.  Eric did this.  I agree with every one he described and will comment on a few.

[1] Most farmers like those in Iowa practice what is called industrial farming. Example: corn alone on a huge field, using synthetic fertilizers and biocides, and getting by with federal subsidies.  Middle-aged and older farmers who practice this will probably never change.  But they will get older and retire or die.

Young men (and sometimes women), who have learned about RAWLS in college, see the opportunities to be their own boss, make a good living, and help the environment at the same time, can come along and make the transition from industrial farming to RAWLS.

Remember that our optimistic goal for net zero CO2 emissions is three decades down the road.  Gabe Brown started learning and practicing RAWLS in the 90s, and was doing it very well in two decades.

[2] Huge obstacles will be the collection of large corporations like Cargill, ADM, and Monsanto (aka Big Ag), that dominate US agriculture, and their customers like Tyson Foods.  But if people like those in CCL are willing to take on firms like ExxonMobil and Shell, then surely we can find people who will take on the farming/food corporations.

[3] Adoption of RAWLS in the US will probably not be enough to achieve the drawdown requirement that I estimated in my first RAWLS message.  We will need other countries to use RAWLS too.  Good progress here will stimulate similar work abroad.

[4] Eric said his comments “are rather negative.”  He knows more about farming than I, so I am pleased that he found no real farming problems with RAWLS.

Using photosynthesis to capture CO2 is great:  Tom wrote this and suggested planting more trees.  I agree with this.

He made some other excellent comments, that were not related to RAWLS, so I won’t comment further on them here.

Frankly, I was blown away by Allan Savory’s material:  Frank  wrote this and John, Bill K, and I had similar reactions.

The only novel contributions in my first msg were the acronym RAWLS and my estimate that we need to draw down 12 tons of carbon for each acre of global farm land.  I have not seen this estimate made by others.  Frank said that my “calculation is directionally correct.”  I can live with this.

Wrapup:  Thank you who have commented on RAWLS.  I invite others to join you.

I have added an old friend to this distribution.

Bill Allen

Posted in Agriculture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment