Climate legislation we can believe in

The following article by CCL volunteer Mark Altgelt was published in the Times-Herald of Salano and Napa counties (California).

By Mark Altgelt

Increasing occurrences of deadly extreme weather like the rainstorm that swept through Arkansas are most certainly being caused by rising temperatures that are also melting our planet's polar ice caps, glaciers and permafrost.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are at unprecedented levels and steadily rising, so we need to mobilize as a nation to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by making the transition to clean, alternative energy.

Despite the urgency for effective action, our political leaders have introduced climate legislation that is complicated, convoluted and contradictory. It benefits fossil fuel companies and energy traders, is ineffective at reducing emissions and would not unite America to end our addiction to oil.

The American Power Act, introduced by Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, is overwhelmingly a fossil fuel and nuclear energy subsidy bill that provides billions of dollars to oil companies, "clean coal," nuclear energy and highways with little for alternative energy development. Astonishingly, after the Gulf of Mexico disaster, the bill provides financial incentives for expansion of offshore oil and gas drilling in previously protected areas.

The engine of the legislation is a "cap and trade" clunker that allows companies to buy and sell a limited number of permits to pollute. Companies exceeding the limit can purchase additional permits, or instead of reducing emissions, they can pay for "carbon offset" projects such as
Advertisement
planting trees.

The entire cap-and trade system is subject to gaming and fraud and would require continual policing. Cap and trade would create a volatile energy futures market that would benefit traders and create uncertainty in energy prices. That would discourage long-term investments in the development of new energy technologies and fuels.

The legislation would only reduce emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. A more realistic target would be three times that amount to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from the current 393 parts per million to a level of 350 ppm necessary to avoid ecological catastrophe.

The People's Climate Stewardship Act, offered by leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, would fulfill the urgent need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by gradually raising the price of fossil fuels, while refunding the fees to consumers, so clean alternative energy would become less expensive and a better investment than carbon-based energy.

The proposal would place fees on the carbon dioxide content of fossil fuels where they first enter the economy at seaports, mines and wells. The Internal Revenue Service would collect the fees and the total amount collected would be refunded to all American citizens and legal residents as dividends. The payments would be the same for everyone 18 and older. A maximum of two family members under 18 years of age per household would each receive one-half the amount paid to those over 18.

The cost of the fees included in the price of products would provide incentives for conserving energy and investing in the new generation of alternative energy technology, low- and no-emission vehicles and energy efficient appliances. Also for manufacturers to use non-petroleum based materials and energy-saving production processes.

The increasing dividend payments would reward conservation and energy efficiency because energy-saving investments would provide extra income for non-energy uses. The dividend payments would compensate for corresponding higher energy-related costs of products so the economy would not be disrupted as our nation transitions to clean power.

The United States is currently emitting approximately 6.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. The carbon fees would start at $15 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions and increase $10 per year to $115 per ton. If emissions were reduced by a third during those 10 years, the fees collected would increase from $195 billion per year to $460 billion. With a U.S. population of 309 million, the dividend payments for everyone 18 and older would increase over 10 years from $362 to $1,844 per year and for those 17 and younger from $181 to $922.

Under Dr. Hansen's proposal, new coal-fired power plants without carbon sequestration would not be permitted and the Department of Energy would establish equivalent refundable fees for other greenhouse gases including methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride. All of the fees collected would be combined for distribution in a "Dividend Trust Fund."

To assure equity in international trade, the Department of Commerce would establish "Carbon-Fee-Equivalent Tariffs" for goods entering the U.S. from countries without carbon fee pricing and "Carbon-Fee-Equivalent Rebates" to reduce the price of U.S. exports so they remain competitive.

The People's Climate Stewardship Act is a simple, transparent and effective approach to address the climate crisis that will give American consumers the leading role in making the transition to non-polluting alternative energy. The dividend payments would help pay for clean-energy products such as solar installations that would provide low-cost energy for a home and electric vehicle.

As green technology becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, the billions of dollars we send overseas for imported oil will instead be spent creating millions of new jobs and new industry in America.

The People's Climate Stewardship Act would bring America together in building a sustainable clean energy economy, becoming energy independent and creating a healthy environment.

To help in calling for Congress to enact the People's Climate Stewardship Act, go to the "Citizens Climate Lobby" website: www.citizensclimatelobby.org.

Mark Altgelt

Vallejo