Whitehouse Reply to Call for Program to ReEnergize America

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Bill Allen

A letter from the Whitehouse follows that is a response to my letter to President Obama on June 28 [posted below with that date]. It outlines the current administration thinking but does not respond directly to my proposal.  The last paragraph cites two websites.  The first contains helpful information on policies and actions.

Bill Allen, 08-03-10    <>    OFFby2050

Letter from the White House, Washington, July 28, 2010

Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing me. I appreciate hearing from you, and I share the vision of millions of Americans who want to make our country the world leader in developing new sources of clean energy. This is a challenge that has gone unaddressed for too long, and it is time to take steps to create millions of clean energy jobs, move towards energy independence, and reduce pollution and the effects of global warming.

Together with Congress and private industries, we are making critical investments to grow an American clean energy economy and achieve energy independence. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act puts Americans to work weatherizing homes and buildings, doubling our supply of renewable energy, and advancing scientific research in clean energy solutions. We are working to develop and deploy technologies like wind and solar power, advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built here in the United States. In addition, my Administration is pursuing comprehensive legislation to move toward energy independence and prevent the worst consequences of global warming, while creating incentives to make clean energy profitable in America.

Achieving these goals will require a sustained and shared effort by government, business, labor, and your community. A sound energy policy is a long-term investment in our national security, economic prosperity, and natural inheritance.

Thank you again for writing. I encourage you to read more about my energy agenda and share your views at www.WhiteHouse.gov/issues/energy-and-environment. For more information on government grants, please visit e-center.doe.gov.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

Posted in Economy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Carbon Cap-and-Trade vs Fee-and-Dividend; EDF Response

Posted on July 27, 2010 by Bill Allen

Message below on July 27 is the 2nd in an exchange between EDF [Environmental Defense Fund] and me.  Others are posted on July 12 and July 29.  The writer is a Climate Policy Analyst for EDF.

Hello Mr. Allen,

EDF supports a cap and trade policy because we believe that a carbon cap is the best path to climate security: it guarantees reductions in global warming pollution at the lowest possible cost. Cap and trade puts a price on carbon (the critical step in terms of economic incentives, as you mentioned) while also putting a limit on pollution (the crucial piece for the environment). A tax or fee on carbon emissions might make pollution cost more, but can’t guarantee that emissions will go down because setting the fee at the right level is a guessing game (we do not know how high it has to be to discourage enough pollution to stabilize the climate).

We agree that simplicity is needed in whatever approach we take, though the history of tax legislation in this country indicates that instituting a tax/fee will not necessarily be any simpler. In the context of cap and trade, we have been advocates of a simpler approach to distributing allowances that emphasizes protecting consumers, largely by returning a significant portion of the value back to consumers through a ‘dividend’ and other mechanisms. So a dividend is not mutually exclusive from cap and trade (recent legislative proposals, like the American Power Act (APA), have included some form of dividend that will give money directly to taxpayers). Other revenue generated from the cap and trade program in APA funds policies that protect consumers from price increases in their electric bills and help us transition to clean energy through investments in efficiency and low-carbon technologies. A carbon cap will spur innovation and investment in new technologies and will let the market pick winners and losers. The benefit of the ‘trade’ part of cap and trade is that it grants businesses flexibility to meet their emissions reduction requirements either by purchasing allowances from others who can reduce emissions more cheaply or by purchasing emission “offsets.” Offsets are a valuable emissions reduction tool that can help reduce deforestation and incentivize best practices in forestry and agriculture.

I hope this background on EDF’s position is helpful. Please feel free to email me any other questions you may have!

Best regards,

Mandy Warner

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

ReEnergize America; request on July 24

Posted on July 24, 2010 by Bill Allen

Message below was emailed to President Obama on July 24.

Bill Allen, 08-03-10    <>    OFFby2050

Dear Mr. President:

The PBS NewsHour last night showed a clip of a speech you made in February 2008.  An excerpt follows:  “No business will be allowed to emit any greenhouse gas for free.  Businesses don’t own the sky;  the public does.  If we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution.”

I agree entirely.  In a letter to you on June 24 I urged you to call for ” bold program to phase out fossil fuels and build a sustainable 21st century economy powered by clean energy.” John Kennedy challenged the country to land a man on the moon and bring him back “before this decade is out.”  I urged you to challenge the country and set the goal to stop burning fossil fuels by 2050.

Because the program will stimulate new technologies and generate good American jobs, I call it “ReEnergize America.”

A core component of the program should be a system of “carbon fee-and-dividend.”  Impose fees on all fossil fuels, collect them at the source [mine, well, port of entry], and return the revenues to the people as dividends.  This will fully satisfy the conditions you laid down in your comments above.  And it can be a very simple system with no concessions to special interests.  [I elaborate further on the system in my letter.]

The energy legislation that the Senate set aside would not have satisfied your conditions.  There were huge loopholes.  Because a system of carbon cap-and-trade is inherently complicated, it will always invite concessions to special interests.  If passed, it might serve as an excuse for several years to not do more, and would be worse than nothing.

I propose that you announce the program to ReEnergize America this summer.  Let Congress off the hook for legislation this year.  Declare the rest of 2010 to be a period for national dialog on the program and how to implement it.  Call for enabling legislation in 2011.

If you lead, Americans will follow.  If America leads, the world will follow.

Please lead, Mr. President.

Respectfully,

Bill Allen

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

Support Carbon Fee-and-Dividend, Withdraw from Cap-and-Trade

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Bill Allen

Message below was sent to EDF [Environmental Defense Fund] on July 12.

Leaders of EDF:

I am a long time EDF member.  I know that Fred Krupp and EDF and some other environmental organizations promote a system of carbon cap-and-trade, and that this is at the core of legislation passed last year in the House and now being considered in the Senate.  I also have believed for many years that this is the wrong way to go.  The book “The Climate War” by Eric Pooley confirmed this belief.

Cap-and-trade legislation is very complicated and it will require a new regulatory structure.  No one who thinks about the regulatory failures that led to the financial crisis and the Gulf oil spill should want to start down that road again.  The public wants to reduce the role of government, not increase it.

Cap-and-trade invites and even requires that concessions be made to special interests.  No one who watched the irresponsible Congressional deal-making that led to the adoption of the health care bill should want to go down that road either.

In a market economy, the best way to discourage use of fossil fuels is to raise their prices.  Business leaders and economists have for years advocated a carbon tax.  If it starts low and rises slowly and steadily in a way that provides clear price signals over the long term, all participants in the economy can plan and respond constructively.

I understand that a tax is a political non-starter at this time.  And I believe that this is the major reason that Congress is considering cap-and-trade.  A system of carbon fee-and-dividend will provide the same clear price signals and incentives as a carbon tax, but it will not be a tax and carry that stigma.  Impose fees on all fossil fuels, collect them at the source [mine, well, port of entry], and return the revenues to the people as dividends, say by checks in March and September.

I first learned the term “fee-and-dividend” in James Hansen’s book “Storms of My Grandchildren”.  I then read economist Steven Stoft’s book “Carbonomics”.  He uses the name “untax” for Hansen’s fee-and-dividend, and devotes his whole book to an explanation of how it works.  I note that economist Charles Komanoff of the Carbon Tax Center is now using the term fee-and-dividend and advocating this system.

So my proposal is this.  Withdraw your support for the complicated cap-and-trade legislation.  Introduce a new proposal for fee-and-dividend.  Keep the legislation simple and make no concessions to special interests.  There will be important consequences.

<> Fee revenue will remain in the private sector.
<> The market place, not the government, will determine winners and losers among providers of energy and products and services that use energy.
<> Government subsidies will not be necessary to encourage people to conserve or use clean energy.
<> Because there are no concessions to special interests, the system will fair and it will be seen that way.

If you still support carbon cap-and-trade, then please explain why you believe this is superior to carbon fee-and-dividend.  Thank you.

I have copied and read Fred Krupp’s op-ed in the WSJ on March 21, 2009, and I do not find it persuasive.

Bill Allen    (908-766-2876)    07-12-10    0240P 

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

Focus on Economy in 2010 and on Carbon Fee-and-Dividend in 2011

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Bill Allen

Below is a comment posted to an article on the website Climate Progress on July 11, 2010.

I have just finished Eric Pooley’s book “The Climate War”. This shows the enormous difficulty of designing and adopting complicated energy legislation in Congress that will actually do some good. The House bill passed last year might meet that standard, but it is highly unlikely that anything produced by the Senate this year would be better than nothing. In the process of getting a bill, there would be irresponsible deals like the one cut with Senator Ben Nelson for health care. As with health care, this would increase public opposition to a program we really need.

The public wants Washington to focus on the economy this year. Jobs and mortgages are more important than climate change.

I believe we need a bold national program to phase out fossil fuels and build a sustainable 21st century economy. The most visible reason today is the tragic oil spill in the Gulf. The most important reason is to slow climate change. There are many others.

This program should be our first priority. Because this program will stimulate new technologies and generate good American jobs, I call it “ReEnergize America.”

A bold program needs a bold leader. I have written to President Obama and urged him to call for the program to ReEnergize America. Set the goal to stop burning fossil fuel by 2050. Declare the rest of 2010 to be period for national dialog on the program and the means to implement it. It can become an issue in the fall elections. It can reenergize those who supported him in 2008. Call for enabling legislation from Congress in early 2011.

By doing this the president will provide the leadership for the energy issue that many believe is needed. At the same time he will let Congress off the hook for energy legislation this year.

The legislation currently being considered rests on a system of carbon cap-and-trade. This is complicated and makes many concessions to special interests. The public will probably see it as unfair and will not support it. This legislation should be withdrawn.

Many business leaders and economists believe that the best way to discourage the use of fossil fuels is to raise their prices. If done slowly and steadily in a way that provides clear price signals over the long term, all participants in the economy can plan and respond constructively. For many years this fee has been called a carbon tax.

A tax is a political non-starter today. A better proposal is for a carbon fee-and-dividend. Impose a fee on all fossil fuels, collect it at the source (mine, well, port of entry), and return the revenues to the people as dividends.

Legislation designed in 2011 should rest on carbon fee-and-dividend and not include cap-and-trade. It should be simple and make no concessions to special interests. This system has many advantages relative to current legislation. Most important: It will be fair and the public will see it that way.

It will be difficult to get a good energy bill thru Congress. With public support in 2011 this will be more likely than today.

If President Obama leads, Americans will follow. If America leads, the world will follow.

Bill Allen, 07-11-10

Posted in Energy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

ReEnergize America; request on July 3

Posted on July 3, 2010 by Bill Allen

The message below was emailed to President Obama on July 3.

Bill Allen, 08-03-10    <>    OFFby2050

Dear Mr. President:

We need a bold national program to build a sustainable economy powered by clean energy and to phase out fossil fuels.  Because this program will stimulate new technologies and generate good American jobs, let’s name it ReEnergize America.    

I urge you to call for the program to ReEnergize America with the goal to stop burning fossil fuels by 2050.  As with the Apollo moon program, Americans will rise to the challenge and solve the problems.  As with Apollo, the program will raise our spirits in the decades ahead and renew our confidence.     

A core component of ReEnergize America should be a system of carbon fee-and-dividend.  Impose fees on all fossil fuels, collect them at the source (mine, well, port of entry), and return the revenues to the people as dividends. 

Start the fees low, say by an amount that will add 10-15 cents per gallon to the price of gas at the pump.  Increase them by this amount each year.  The prices for products and services that depend upon fossil fuels will rise gradually.  Consumers, entrepreneurs, inventors, and investors will have increasing incentives and time to plan and act constructively.   The outcomes will include production of more clean energy, products that use less energy, and changes by people to use less energy.  

The carbon fee will not be a tax.  Except for a small administrative cost, all revenue will be divided and returned promptly and directly to legal residents. 

These dividends will help people adjust to higher prices and purchase products and services that use less energy.  People who do best in controlling their energy use will come out ahead.

The enabling legislation for carbon fee-and-dividend should be simple and make no concessions to special interests.  Some important consequences:    

Fee revenue will remain in the private sector.

  • The market place, not the government, will determine winners and losers among providers of energy and products and services that use energy.
  • Government subsidies will not be necessary to encourage people to conserve or use clean energy.
  • Because there are no concessions to special interests, the system will be fair and be seen that way.    

I propose that you declare the rest of 2010 to be a period of dialog on ReEnergize America.  Then call for enabling legislation in 2011.

If you lead, Americans will follow.  If America leads, the world will follow.

Please lead, Mr. President.

Posted in Nation | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Letter to Senator Menendez; ReEnergize America

Posted on June 28, 2010 by Bill Allen

The letter below was sent to Senator Robert Menendez on June 28 and posted here on August 23.

Dear Senator Menendez:

We need a national program to phase out fossil fuels and build a sustainable 21st century economy powered by clean energy.  Let’s call this program “ReEnergize America.”

Enclosed is a letter to President Barack Obama in which I urge him to call for this program, to set the goal to stop burning fossil fuel by 2050, to declare the rest of 2010 to be a period of national dialog on the program, and to call for enabling legislation from Congress in 2011.

A core component of ReEnergize America should be a system of carbon fee-and-dividend.  Impose fees on fossil fuels, collect them at the source, and return the revenues to the people as dividends.  Many economic and business leaders favor a carbon tax to discourage the burning of fossil fuels.  The fee proposed here will not be a tax, but will accomplish this goal.

I know that many have worked long and hard to produce an energy bill, and I regret to say that I believe the bill now before the Senate is seriously flawed.  I also doubt that it can be passed.  It will be a mistake for Democrats to spend a lot of time pushing this bill this year.  The country has more urgent and immediate needs, like producing jobs and reducing foreclosures.

If President Obama calls for the program to ReEnergize America, and if it becomes a subject of national dialog, it can become an issue in the fall election that should help Democrats and bring back many of those who voted Democratic in 2008.  You and other Democrats and Republicans should then proceed to pass stronger and simpler energy legislation in 2011.

Thank you for considering this proposal.

Respectfully yours,

Bill Allen

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

ReEnergize America

Posted on June 28, 2010 by Bill Allen

The letter below was sent to President Barack Obama on June 28, 2010, and is being distributed to others inside and outside of government. It was published in the Benardsville News on July 15.    

Dear Mr. President:

We need a bold national program to phase out fossil fuels and build a sustainable 21st century economy powered by clean energy.  The most visible reason today is the tragic oil spill in the Gulf.  The most important reason is to slow climate change.  There are many others.

Building this economy will stimulate new technologies and generate good American jobs.  This suggests a name for the program:  ReEnergize America.

A bold program needs bold leadership.  In 1961 John Kennedy called for a national program to land a man on the moon and bring him back “before this decade is out.”  This became the Apollo program.  Americans accepted and met the challenge.  Along the way they overcame difficult problems, invented new technologies, and produced good jobs.

The 60’s were troubling times.  Apollo raised our spirits and renewed our confidence.

I urge you to call for the program to ReEnergize America and set the goal to stop burning fossil fuels by 2050.  As with Apollo, Americans will rise to the challenge and solve the problems.  As with Apollo, the program will raise our spirits in the decades ahead and renew our confidence.

In a market economy, the best way to discourage use of fossil fuels is to raise their prices.  If done slowly and steadily in a way that provides clear price signals over the long term, all participants in the economy can plan and respond constructively.

For this reason a core component of ReEnergize America should be a system called carbon fee-and-dividend.  Impose fees on all fossil fuels, collect them at the source (mine, well, port of entry), and return the revenues to the people as dividends.  Assign fees so that all fuels are treated equally in terms of the carbon dioxide they produce.

Start the fees low, say by an amount that will add 10-15 cents per gallon to the price of gas at the pump.  Increase them by this amount each year.  The prices for products and services that depend upon fossil fuels will rise gradually.  Consumers, entrepreneurs, inventors, and investors will all have increasing incentives to act.   The outcomes will include production of more clean energy, products that use less energy, and changes by people to use less energy.

The carbon fee will not be a tax.  Except for a small administrative cost, all revenue will be divided and returned promptly and directly to legal residents, say by checks in March and September.

These dividends will help people adjust to higher prices and purchase products and services that use less energy.  People who do best in controlling their energy use will come out ahead.

The enabling legislation for carbon fee-and-dividend should be simple and make no concessions to special interests.  There will be important consequences.

  • Fee revenue will remain in the private sector.
  • The market place, not the government, will determine winners and losers among providers of energy and products and services that use energy.
  • Government subsidies will not be necessary to encourage people to conserve or use clean energy.
  • Because there are no concessions to special interests, the system will be fair and be seen that way.

 

The Gulf oil spill alerted Americans to serious problems in our energy supply system.  But there is no consensus on what should be done.  People need more time to learn, discuss, and decide.  Congress should not try to pass comprehensive energy legislation this year.  It should work to resolve problems that Americans care more about today, like jobs and mortgages.

Mr. President, I propose that you declare the rest of 2010 to be a period for national dialog on the program to ReEnergize America.  People in public and private settings across the country can discuss the merits of the program and how to implement it.  It can become an issue in the fall campaigns.  It can reenergize those who supported you in 2008.  Call for enabling legislation from Congress in early 2011.

If you lead, Americans will follow.  If America leads, the world will follow.

Please lead, Mr. President.

Respectfully yours,

Bill Allen,  June 28, 2010

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

Spill Takes Toll on Gulf Workers’ Psyches

Posted on June 20, 2010 by Bill Allen

From the June 17, 2010, NYT article by Mireya Navarro.

“It’s the fear of losing everything,” said Representative Anh Cao, a Republican from New Orleans who has assembled a response team to travel along the Gulf Coast to assess constituents’ needs. Mr. Cao said he had met two fishermen in Plaquemines Parish who told him they were contemplating suicide. While those cases are “extreme,” Mr. Cao said, they reflect how some people “are approaching a point of despair.”

Officials with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals said staff members had counseled 749 people in the last week of May and the first week of June to “mitigate” symptoms that could lead to destructive behavior.

This is one of those articles that in the past, I would have read, then dismissed the mental health impact as no news, totally understandable.

Researchers who studied the aftermath of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill said coastal residents of Alaska saw a higher incidence of suicide, divorce, domestic violence and substance abuse. To this day, many are still dealing with the effects of the environmental damage, economic losses and lawsuits.

Crises like the BP oil spill are inevitable in life, and often totally beyond our ability to influence or control. If we saw a therapist as often as we see a dentist, then in times of crisis, we will already have a relationship with someone we trust, who can help.

Bim Kimzey, June 20, 2010

Posted in Energy | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Quarry Park Does Not Require Public Funds for Land Purchase

Posted on May 6, 2010 by Bill Allen

Below is a letter that was published in the Bernardsville News on April 20.  It identifies an error in a news article on April 6 and outlines a plan for acquiring the land for Quarry Park.  It refers to a letter I submitted to the Planning Board on March 16 relating to the township master plan.  To see it click letter.

EDITOR:

An article on April 6 reported comments at the public hearing for the Bernards Township master plan on March 16.  Your reporter usually does an excellent job.  But he got a critical fact wrong when he wrote that I recommended that the township purchase the quarry land for a park.

I produced a detailed concept plan entitled “Quarry Park and Lakeview Village” in 2004 and have promoted it many times.  It does not require purchase of any land with public funds.

When I analyzed the rehabilitation plan submitted by MQI and Tilcon in 2003, I concluded that the best outcomes on the land would be townhouses on the buildable south slope and township ownership of the balance of the tract.  The latter would contain a lake and perimeter land with a few acres in a flat-bottomed canyon on the east side suitable for a park, bathing beach, and boat ramp.

I submitted the plan cited above to the Planning Board in 2004 and to the Township Committee in 2005.  Township officials have never engaged in any public discussion of this plan.  An updated version is on the website BernardsVoices.org.

The public hearing on March 16 wrapped up a process that began in 2008.  Planning Board members discussed the township master plan in great detail during many work sessions in 2009 and early this year.  On advice of their attorney and his concern for ongoing litigation, they skipped over the quarry land.

This was a mistake.  The quarry litigation deals with imported fill, not future land use.  There is no land in the township for which there is greater need for full review and discussion.  The master planning process was the right place for this.

I was blocked last September when I tried to submit a master plan proposal for the quarry land.  I was allowed on March 16 to submit a 2-page letter to the board and to read it into the record.  There was no comment from the board.

In my letter I argue:

  • The most likely outcome for the quarry pit is a lake.
  • Because people will live near the lake and some lake water will percolate to groundwater, township government has a responsibility to work to assure good water quality over the long term.
  • This will be easiest if the township owns the lake and the perimeter land, and manages the property for the benefit of all.

I have believed for many years that good-faith negotiation between township and quarry representatives can lead to a win-win-win outcome.  For the quarry owner, for the township, and for those who will live on what is now quarry land.

If the owner receives a fair quantity of development rights that he can exercise on the south slopes, then he can transfer the rest of the land to the township at no loss.

The township will acquire land for a public park with a lake and bathing beach at no cost.

The homeowners will be relieved of the burden of managing a large tract with a lake.   Because they will benefit from the lake over the long term, it will be fair to have them share in the costs of maintaining it.

I believe this plan will produce good outcomes for all and I strongly recommend it.

Bill Allen

Posted in Bernards | Tagged , | Leave a comment