Now is the time to go to low-carbon energy

Tri-City Herald "In-focus"

By Jim Amonette and Steve Ghan

May 16, 2014 

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/05/16/2976048/in-focus-now-is-the-time-to-go.html#storylink=cpy

Many people respond to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and National Climate Assessment warnings of dire consequences from human-caused global warming with either despair or dismissal. Perhaps they assume that replacing fossil fuel, as the world’s primary energy source will be economically, technically or politically impractical. While such assumptions had some validity a decade or two ago, recent developments in low-carbon energy sources have expanded the world’s energy options. This change is highlighted in the most recent IPCC report, with its focus on mitigating climate change. In that report, the IPCC concludes that “many renewable energy technologies have demonstrated substantial performance improvements and cost reductions, and a growing number of renewable energy technologies have achieved a level of maturity to enable deployment at significant scale ... renewable energy accounted for over half of the new electricity-generating capacity added globally in 2012.” Similar optimism from The Solutions Project, a renewable energy nonprofit, outlines how the energy infrastructure of each state in the U.S. could be completely transformed to renewable energy by 2050.

Nevertheless, to avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to quickly transition to low-carbon energy. Further delay narrows our options and significantly boosts the eventual economic and social costs of mitigation. How to begin? Economists across the political spectrum agree that putting a price on fossil-carbon emissions is the best first step.

The most promising proposals involve a revenue-neutral fee that is collected at the mine, well-head, or port-of-entry, and then returned to households as dividends. For example, the Citizens’ Climate Lobby proposed that revenue collected be returned in a uniform monthly dividend payment. Initially, the fee would be a modest $15 per ton of carbon. The fee would increase annually by a fixed amount ($10 per ton) until the necessary drop in CO2 emissions is observed.

Another revenue-neutral proposal returns the carbon fee collected by reducing taxes. Recent studies for the states of California and Washington show that this approach stimulates slightly more economic growth overall than the fee and dividend approach, while still giving the poorest families reasonable protection. The gradual increase in the fee gives businesses the opportunity to adjust their business models and stimulates investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy and emissions mitigating technology, such as carbon capture and sequestration. At the border, carbon-fee-equivalent tariffs and rebates ensure U.S. goods remain competitive at home and abroad.

Initially, the dividend would be about $650 per household per year, and grow to as much as $8,700 a year after 23 years. As with businesses, this gradual increase allows families to pay for increased food and fuel costs, home insulation, alternative energy sources (such as solar panels), or a highly fuel-efficient or entirely electric vehicle, for example.

The home construction and energy retrofit industries will lead the way in new job creation and economic growth. Regardless of which approach is adopted, our CO2 emissions will drop. In so doing, we will have shifted to a path that reduces the risks outlined in the IPCC and NCA reports and avoids the worst effects of climate change, while stimulating economic growth and innovation.

Our congressman, U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, could propose legislation to accomplish this before he leaves office. So long as we act soon, there is no need for despair or dismissal.

Jim Amonette is a geochemist working on climate-change mitigation technologies. Steve Ghan is a highly published climate scientist and contributing author to three different IPCC reports. Both volunteer with Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/05/16/2976048/in-focus-now-is-the-time-to-go.html#storylink=cpy

My Response to a Newspaper Editorial

Our local paper, The Tri-City Herald, recently published this editorial on the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S.649). I responded as follows:

I have several issues with your editorial.

First, the bill, Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S.649), was not “defeated” in the Senate. It never got to a vote because of a threatened Republican filibuster that the bill’s proponents didn’t have enough votes to overcome.

Second, even if the NRA’s claim that it has 4.5 million members is true (and that’s debatable, as the Washington Post has pointed out), that’s under 1.5% of the US population, and if the 2010 elections were any gauge, the NRA’s real get-out-the-vote effectiveness may be overstated. The NRA spent $10.3 million in its unsuccessful effort to defeat President Obama. According to the Sunlight Foundation, in the 16 contested senate races that the NRA poured money into, the organization lost 13 of them. There’s no question however, that Republicans see the NRA as an essential part of their shrinking base, and are clearly willing to do anything to retain it.

Third, it’s true that the NRA is effective in “rallying the troops” to rail against lawmakers who dare to speak positively about any and all gun control measures, but all the hate-filled vitriol spewed by the fringe elements of the NRA mean little without the money the NRA and gun industry pour into congressional coffers. If the American people ever see the light and reform campaign financing, the NRA and its constituents will find themselves on the wrong end of the gun barrel.

Finally, parroting the NRA claim that expanded background checks wouldn’t have stopped the Newtown mass shooting, furthers the misconception that this oft repeated assertion by the NRA is true. In fact, it’s the logical fallacy of negative proof. The statement that expanding background checks won’t reduce gun violence in America, because there’s no proof the statement in false, takes the form X is true because there’s no proof X is false. And angels exist because there’s no proof they don’t.

Furthermore, every time there’s a mass shooting, in Aurora, CO, or Tucson, AZ, or Seattle, WA, etc., the NRA makes the same faulty assertion, and on that basis opposes any strengthening of gun control. That’s not just illogical, it’s stupid and cruel.