Open Letter to KDHE (Ks Dept of Health and Environment)

KDHE... sustainably minded and environmentally conscious Kansans appreciate all your efforts in maintaining a watchful eye on our land, air and waterways.

One very important issue continues to be the Sunflower coal fire power plant project. And it remains an important issue because it hasn't gone away yet.

There is a laundry list of concerns hovering over this project, none the least of which is simply... no one has made any effort to make sure there will be sufficient supply of coal over the long-run to even justify the expense of building the plant.

In fact, recent studies of the Wyoming coal mines indicate the two largest sources have a max of only +/-20 years of available ore. The smaller of the two only has about 7 years left!

Jobs or no jobs, what good is a coal plant if there is not enough coal available for the projected life (+/-60 years) of the plant!?

Now, that's the rational, capitalist, business minded argument; focus on checking the impact with regards to the bottom line.

The other argument is more scientifically AND emotionally based. It has to do with the impact on ... get this... EARTHLINGS and THE PLANET. Yep, that's right... the environmental impact on our ecosystem.

Notice, I say 'earthlings', and not simply, 'humans'. This planet is home to many more creatures- great and small- than you and I.

Now, as 'earthlings', the idea of saving the planet is really a red herring. Seriously, this rock has been here long before we homo sapiens ever decided we were so very important. And it will be here long after.

In fact, it's rather ludicrous to think the plant really give a hoot, or differentiates between one parasite (inhabitant) or another.

BUT WE, AS HOMO SAPIANS, MUST CARE ABOUT WHAT CONDITION WE INFLICT UPON THIS PLANT BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES (ALONG WITH THE OTHER EARTHLINGS) WHO MUST LIVE HERE.

Coal, coal ash, soot, particulates, sulfur, mercury... this stuff is BAD in excessive quantities. The EPA says so. Heck, it's bad in small quantities, too. It just gets really bad, for the entire ecosystem, when it's continually pumped into the sky and allowed to rain down on us all.

So we don't need any more. Regardless of big business, shareholder, and profits, THE STAKEHOLDERS OF THIS STATE, COUNTRY AND PLANET deserve better.

What we need is to focus on is efficiency, reduction in consumption and adopting new technologies such as clean energy generation and storage concepts.

So please, even if you aren't worried about greenhouse gases, or climate change... think about the bottom line of consumption- someday, every consumable thing runs out. Consider this when when making your ruling on the Sunflower coal consumption project.

free and open markets all around...

in commenting about cap and trade on my facebook the other day, i posed a simple question wondering what exactly the end result of such a program would be- carbon reduction or capital market bubble creation?

my friend mike replied:

"Cap and Trade is a good concept, but can it work in the real world? who decides the total carbon amount? Who is grandfathered in? It is an incentive to reduce your carbon usage through technology by increasing the monetary compensation. Carbon commodity trading!! Will the government or free market control it?"

monetary compensation as an incentive to modify behavior? like giving my kid an allowance to clean her room?

so i thought i'd have a little fun with this one... my commentary:

i hear what you're saying mike; i suppose there are two ways to accomplish compliance- incentive or penalty.

for instance, speeding and other laws are enforced through penalty. but if we were to follow the logic of modifying behavior through monetary compensation... how about simply paying drivers not to speed?

of course, this would never happen in our world because speed limits are designed for public safety, right?

actually, i'd argue we've allowed speeding to be turned into a municipal revenue generating monster!

so following the logic any good "small-government/free open market/damn the public good/get mine now" proponent would employ... we should be wondering why cities and states get all the money from speeding!?

ok, just for fun, lets dive into this speeding thing...

why not open it up, and create a "street and driving market"? just like cap and trade will issue the original "permits" to polluters for free, simply issue all drivers permits to go fast! maybe all drivers should be allowed "x" number of speeding credits (the mechanics of this are unimportant for the current discussion; lets just say every driver gets "some").

this way the people who don't want/need to speed- even though they now have the right to speed because of the way the system is set up- can sell/trade their permits to others who want/need to go fast. the market pays them not to speed!

in turn, the "speeders" are in essence "pre-paying" the ability to go faster than posted limits.

and the seller of the permit, having been paid not to speed, won't speed because they no longer have the permit to do so... right?

come on... who's to say they won't speed at sometime in the future? do they go back to the market and buy a permit when they need to speed? and if they speed without a permit, who's to say they will actually get caught and be made to pay a penalty! do we need more speed traps and gestapo-like policing? or do we just trust people to do the right thing?

lets go one step further, and put the middle-man in place here; the broker of speeding permits. this guy matches speeders and non-speeders... for a fee. ah... economic growth!

how about this one... permits to kill people! we already permit for fishing and hunting wild animals to control population and generate revenue, why not permit human murder?

now you're speeding (because you have a permit), get in a wreck and kill someone... ok, simply use your speeding and murder credits to get out of it!

or maybe you truly hate someone, or are just really pissed off... buy a permit to knock-em off!

maybe you don't have the stomach for killing, so you SELL your permit to a professional assassin and have them do the dirty work. and lets say professional assassins buy up a bunch of killing credits. now they can legally operate their business! ah... more economic growth!

simply make it legal and generate revenue from it, rather than having it be illegal, and a financial burden on tax payers paying for prisons?

i can see all kinds of ways to make money on this thing; now the market supports brokers who specialize in bundling groups of assassins for, i don't know... hire by governments? special, military contractors? oh wait, we already have this!

of course, this is all absurd (or is it?)

if you really stop to think about it, aren't some things just too important for the common welfare? isn't our human health/well being too precious to allow it to be compromised by "permiting" something harmful, especially through profit seeking activity?

just like speed limits, carbon and other pollution regulations are designed for public safety (health and environment).

we don't get paid to drive the speed limit... why should there be a monetary incentive to do the right thing with pollution?

because it cuts into profits?

you see where i'm going with this. free markets and unregulated capitalism have limits on their ability to benefit the common welfare.

at some point, they become counter productive, reckless, bubble making implosion machines. and this typically happens at the detriment of society as a whole while benefiting a very select few. in other words, something/someone suffers great inequality or destruction.

examples of this go on and on: extinction of species, depletion of resources, loss of human life/quality of life, and greater spreads between socioeconomic status.

the bottom line... just because something can become a market, doesn't necessarily mean it should become a market.

therefore we use penalties- financial and physical (fines, fees, tariffs, surcharges, taxes, incarceration... and even death) for keeping things in check.

now lets look at cap and trade again...

just because a polluter no longer has enough credits to pollute, how do we know they won't continue to pollute?

just look at how enron was able to cook the books with off-balance sheet accounting! someone, somewhere is going to figure out a way to skirt the system, keep the "real" measure of emissions off the books, and be able to pollute/profit.

maybe they get caught, maybe not.

IN THE MEAN TIME... "WE" (THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD) SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE INCLUDING HEALTH ISSUES... LEADING TO MEDICAL PROBLEMS... LEADING TO INCREASED MEDICAL COSTS... LEADING TO DENIAL OF CLAIMS... LEADING TO LOWER QUALITY OF LIFE... LEADING TO MEDICAL INSURANCE PROFITS... LEADING TO GREATER DIFFERENCES IN SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS... LEADING TO UNIMAGINABLE HUMAN SUFFERING, IMBALANCE AND INEQUALITY.

is this the world you want to live in?

lastly...

THE BIGGEST EMITTERS OF CARBON EMISSIONS ARE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE MILITARY.

are these guys EXEMPT? or do they need carbon permits too? and if they have extra (print up a few more because they can!), should they be able to "sell" them on the open market?

if so, do these revenues REPLACE OR REDUCE some taxes, or become an additional "tax" on the people? or maybe the revenues are used to reduce the national debt or deficit?

or does this government activity in open markets actually aggravate the ability of markets to work freely, thus creating more of a bubble (just like fannie mae and freddie mac aggravated the housing bubble!)?

these are the tough questions and considerations we MUST address going forward in our global economy, global governance and global stewardship.

without dealing with these things, we are destined to repeat the failings every society from the beginning of time has eventually suffered... only worse, i fear.

all i know is cap and trade is a bad idea. anytime you put a for-profit motive above the common welfare, the welfare will suffer. period. peace.

to what end are we here on this rock?

this may be one of my most radical and anarchistic postings yet. as such, i cannot help but ponder what thoughts and motives the founders of our country (the original terrorists and traitors), must have been contemplating as they sought to break free from the royal tyranny of the british aristocracy.

fast forward to yesterday, and one of my facebook friends posted a sobering status update indicating her complete fear of our next presidential election cycle given the supreme court's latest ruling on campaign finance.

and while several comments were made on her posting, one caught my attention:

"The American people raised more than $10 million in five days, at $10 a pop, by texting the American Red Cross for Haiti. We can do anything if we agree to do it. Yes, this gives the corporations amazing power, but ... also unions and other groups, too. So we just have to fight back with our dollars. When the going gets tough, the tough ORGANIZE!!!"

in my mind, this is a very small, narrow, short-term and dangerous way of thinking which only perpetuates the problem.

big picture here... i would have hoped by now it is blatantly obvious (and painfully clear) that "more" money and "more" politics ARE NOT the solution, they are the problem.

we cannot seriously believe spending MORE of this already inflated and unstable indebted currency is a viable solution! and we cannot seriously believe that giving special interests cart-blanch influence on legislative process will solve anything!

first, the american people, and the rest of the world by and far, have no clue what a monetary system really is, what the currency represents and how money works. all they know is they have paper and coin "valued" at an agreed upon rate, and it is widely accepted in trade for goods and services.

you see, people say they "make money" when they work, but they have no real idea how it gets "created".

in fact, people don't make money, they trade their labor for money. it's only when two parties "agree" one thing is equal in value to another a trade can be made. we could trade our labor for anything else just as easily, but right now, our society tends to trade for money.

facts:

1. in reality, money is nothing more than debt
2. more money is "made" by creating/trading additional debt
3. the problem with an indebted currency is, because of compound interest, the debt can never be fully paid back
   

here's the skinny... the very second "money" is created/loaned by an issuing authority, and interest is charged, there is instantly NOT ENOUGH MONEY to satisfy the original obligation- ever- because it hasn't been created yet!

it can only be paid back in full (including interest) if the loan issuer accepts something tangible of agreed upon equal value, or by creating/injecting more money into the system.

in creating/injecting more money, more debt is created by default. this cycle repeats as everyone tries to pay back their loans.

btw, using loaned money to pay back loaned money IS A PONZI SCHEME! it will eventually collapse on itself. the fed knows this. the government knows this. bernie madoff knows this.

and because we are trading debt for goods and services, the value of goods and services are diminished even though the "price" may be increasing. this is inflation.

further, when no one will accept tangible items in trade, the value of money increases disproportionally with the tangibles we need. consequently, these become more expensive even though they are physically the same things they were the day before.

money has been the fuel of consumption in our mad-consumer society, and it has become synonymous with wealth and status.

i tell you, money does not equal wealth or status. in fact, i would argue that the more "money" one amasses, the more contempt one has for life and living.

now more than ever, the political machine, fed by "money", is being allowed to overtake our government and its ability to govern for the common welfare. the common good is obsolete, and profit motivated special interests reign supreme. anyone who believes otherwise has been blinded by false promises and narrow world focus.

while we are all chasing our tails in circles of debt and trying to reach the carrot at the end of the stick, the worlds natural resources and ecosystems are being ravaged by these very corporations who now have an unlimited voice, not to mention the supreme court's blessing, in our legislative process.

and i believe it is equally distasteful that with this new supreme court ruling, labor unions and any other group for that matter, will have the same obscene spending ability to promote their self-serving agendas unchecked.

it's bad enough they all do it through back-room lobbyists, but now with soft campaign contributions up until election day... ugh!

the only way to affect real change is to void the value placed in this false idol known as money (that jesus guy, a very radical community organizer, had it right when he ransacked the market in the synagogue), demand the debt be retired, refuse to be a "mindless consumer" and return our focus of value to people, community, health and wellness, personal accountability, unrestricted education and higher learning, innovation, craftsmanship, art, the pursuit of knowledge, and stewardship of our environment. this will only happen with a massive grass-roots effort. we cannot count on career legislative politicians to look out for the public good when their own jobs (and money) are on the line.

and moving on to the environment for a moment, please take note... cap and trade is nothing more than a money making scheme by for-profit corporations and investment bankers/traders to continue depleting resources, controlling the debt, and keeping apathetic "workers" on the treadmill under the fictitious impression of someday becoming "wealthy".

cap and trade will not lead to environmental repair. it will create an economic bubble (just as it did in europe), lead to increased pollution, and further concentrate control of debt in the hands of bankers and speculative traders (bookies and gamblers).

the only real way to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce carbon burning. the only way to clean up pollution is to let the planet heal and return to balance. the earth was here long before humans started thinking we were so important, and it will be here long after we learn how unimportant we are.

politicians, bankers, and now for-profit corporations treated as individuals have only self-interest at heart. yet these are who we allow to be our leaders.

we need a rise of a global "smart" party. we need a rise of global selfless leaders. we need to return focus on stewardship rather than consumption. we need to remove indebted currency from the equation. we need to promote exploration and research, and measure wealth in terms of knowledge instead of money.

we may never be able to remove the animal from human nature, but we can make conscious decisions to get past greed and fear of loss. really, there is enough for everyone, and the planet can sustain us if we steward our resources with respect.

the planet was here long before we were, and will be here long after we cease to exist. the question is, how long can we sustain our existence on the planet? what (if anything) will we be remembered for?

cap-and-trade

i've been a huge fan of annie leonard. she is positive. she is profound. she is engaged in her pursuit. she is open. and she won't drink the kool-aid.

her storyofstuff is an amazing project, and is "smart" enough to be provoking, but "simple" enough to be accessible.

enjoy the teaser video clip below and forget scare tactics such as rumors of $10-$15 per gallon fuel... the go directly to www.storyofstuff.com now and learn about the real reasons cap-and-trade is a bad idea.

first cost vs. lifecycle cost analysis

so i get an email today from an old friend who passes along some thoughts composed by someone i can only imagine is a kool-aid drinking, right wing nut job. after reading it a couple times, i felt compelled to draft a rebuttal. see the below exchange:


Original email
>
> I guess I must be on the wrong page on this "clunker" stuff ...
> A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
> A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
> The average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
>
> They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons per year.
> That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
> 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
> 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75 per bbl.
> So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion...to save $350 million.
> Hmmm! How good a deal was that?
>
> I'm thinking that they will probably do a great job with health care though!
>

And now it's my turn

Great analysis. But like most conservative and short term (instant gratification) mentality, the author is missing the point.

Lets talk about "first costs" vs "lifecycle costs", and do the same analysis. The basic premise for this analysis says your investment in the first 20% of your "project" (whatever it happens to be) determines the overall costs of the lifetime (remaining 80%) of the project.

For instance, by planning and spending wisely when constructing a house, building or other structure (efficient windows, roofing material, earth contact, insulation, appliances, hvac, smart grid circuits, geothermal/ground source, solar/battery/inverter, proper geographic positioning, good use of landscaping and shade, rainwater recovery, etc., etc., etc.), the overall costs of ownership in terms of utility, maintenance and other "operational" expenses are greatly reduced. Additionally, the resale value isn't dependent on market bubbles for increased valuation, but is inherently built into the property. And note, we haven't even talked about the GLOBAL implications such as reduced energy consumption necessitating less energy production and thus lower carbon emissions.

This mindset looks at overall sustainability of an effort and it's impact far beyond today's bank account balance and any short-term gain.

OK, now lets look at the clunker program in the same light.

The average age of the car being traded in was +/-14 years (http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/07/cash-for-clunker-trades-show-59-percent-fuel-economy-boost-hyundai-says.html)

So lets say the new, more efficient vehicle is going to be on the road for 14 years (not necessarily with the same owner, but at least for that many years.)

Note that one 42gal gallon barrel of crude oil yields 19.5 gallons of gasoline (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Oil-Gas-3147/Gallon-gas.htm)

So 19.5/42 = 46% yield.

Next, 14 years of better mileage * 224 million gallons = 3,136,000,000 gallons saved.

3,136,000,000 is 46% of what number? 6,817,391,304 (barrels)

At $75 per barrel = $511,304,347,800

So we spent 3 billion to save 511 billion over 14 years? Seems pretty good to me!!!

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENTAL (LIFECYCLE) SAVINGS OF BURNING 3.136 BILLION LESS GALLONS IN TERMS OF CARBON EMISSIONS...

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENTAL (LIFECYCLE) SAVINGS OF NOT HAVING TO FIND, EXTRACT AND REFINE 6.817 BILLION BARRELS...

NOT TO MENTION THE BENEFITS OF REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCY ON SAUDI ARABIA/FOREIGN OIL WHICH "CONSERVATIVES" SAY THEY ARE ALL ABOUT DOING!!!!

Now lets say that the buyers of the 700,000 new vehicles only keep them 5 years, then sell to someone who is still driving a clunker. But first, lets concede that 30% of these are taken out of commission due to wrecks and/or other salvage. This still takes ANOTHER 490,000 CLUNKERS OFF THE ROAD in 5 years! And since those 700,000 buyers will most likely need a replacement vehicle, you know they are buying one that gets at least as good or better MPG. Do the math, and that saves a bunch more gallons, barrels, emissions, and dependency on foreign oil!!!

HERE'S THE POINT...

TYPICAL SHORT TERM, NARROW MINDED AND INSTANT GRATIFICATION AMERICAN THINKING WILL KEEP US IN THE STONE AGES.

STOP A MOMENT AND CONSIDER SOMETHING BEYOND YOUR OWN DOORSTEP, AND YOU MIGHT SEE THAT THERE'S A WHOLE WORLD OUT THERE THAT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PASS ON (IN GOOD SHAPE!) TO THE NEXT GENERATION.

And as for the comment about healthcare... before anyone points fingers, you better take a look within as to WHY we are in the shape (physically) we're in. The concept of "healthcare" in the US is the biggest BS of the century! We need "well care" in terms of promoting nutrition, eating locally and in season, physical fitness, clean environment, lower consumption and pollution, and REAL education standards/values that enable sustainable, common sense living in terms of these considerations.

Get it?

ENOUGH! (again)

on a serious note... all the political fear tactics, spin, mis/disinformation and general bs about govt run "medical care/insurance", socialism, nazi/communist collaboration, elderly death planning/counseling, rationing and the care of our overall health... WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP!

first, we trust the govt to insure our banks and our most prize possession, MONEY... true?

we even trust the govt to manage our money (IRS and FED)... yes?

and we already trust the govt with our lives (EPA, armed forces FEMA, and any number of other bureaucratic institutions), right?

so why won't we trust them with our health insurance?

in my mind, this question actually contains the answer...

"our health"!

this country, (our people and our leaders) are generally REACTIVE rather than PREVENTIVE. we, as a society, do not take responsibility for PREVENTING health problems, we simply deal with them when they show up... AND THAT TAKES A LOT OF MONEY IN OUR CAPITALIST ECONOMY.

further, the basic reason we shouldn't trust our govt to insure our health care is BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PLAN TO PROMOTE OUR WELLNESS.

all, AND I MEAN ALL of our health problems- as a culture- are environmental in nature. we are what we eat. we are products of where/how we live. we are direct results of our choices.

eat growth hormones, pesticides, too much animal protein and processed starches, yellow number 5, etc., and you've got a recipe for A HEALTH DISASTER. add this to sitting static in front of the video game box and you've got a society that has no hope of ever being "well".

ENOUGH!

in all the debate about "health care" NO ONE is talking about "WELLNESS CARE".

if anything, our govt needs to be spending time and money promoting values such as smart nutritional education and eating habits, high standards of physical activity and fitness, sourcing food locally, eating in season, and general sustainable practices.

why won't this happen?

the govt and the corporation (big ag and big pharma- nearly one in the same!) have too much invested in keeping us down, sick, and "middle class poor". we buy drugs, we work to death, and we sustain the financial elite; the "upper class"

class isn't a state of financial position... it is a state of PERCEPTION based on a set of values. if society values money, but you don't have much, you are seen as "low class".

BUT, if society values education, intelligence, nutrition, healthy living and being around like-mined people- and you are educated, smart, eat well, live well and have similar friends, THEN REGARDLESS OF YOUR FINANCIAL POSITION, YOU ARE HIGH CLASS!!!

as a race (the human race!) achievement cannot be measured in money. we have to be smarter than that.

achievement must be measured in longevity of our existence. and this is a function of smart decision on WELLNESS, not health care or even insurance.

you know the old saying, "an apple a day keeps the doctor away."?

well... what if it true! wouldn't it be a super simple way to take command of our lives? here's some news... it won't hurt to try!!! i don't believe there is a documented case where having an apple a day has ever caused anyone any harm.

we must take command of our lives, as a nation and as a planet. we need to promote sustainable agriculture in each region, sustainable water systems (both fresh water AND sewage treatment), physical fitness, set HIGH standards for educational studies and generally work together in raising everyone up to a higher level across the board.

no doubt greed, fear and ignorance will get in the way. and not everyone is born with the same advantages/disadvantages as everyone else. but values of hard work (mental and physical) for personal achievement must be brought to the front and put in front of corporate gain.

intelligence is a function of genetics. education is a function of desire. common sense is a function of life. regardless of where we come from, all are at our disposal.

parents MUST take responsibility for their offspring. teachers MUST take responsibility for their occupation. and each individual MUST be responsible for themselves.

call me a flaming liberal, a raging conservative, a heartless capitalist, a compassionate do-gooder, a ruthless no-gooder or a complete nut-job... I DON'T CARE.

just call me something, stand up for your decision (ie. GET OFF YOUR ASSES!), get mad and DO SOMETHING. study nutrition, start jogging/riding a bike/walking, play a sport, WHATEVER. inactivity, indecision, and complacency (all running a close second to money) are the root of all evil.

you can argue that we are a free country. and that we have the freedom to do whatever we want. i'll argue that if you do nothing, and you deserve what you get. period. i've had ENOUGH.... have you?

climate bill follow-up thoughts: please continue to research for yourself, stay informed and advocate for what you believe

Every coin has two sides. While climate legislation is an imperative of the environmental sustainability and stewardship revolution, there is no perfect fix for our global warming woes. Read up at e360 for insightful and intelligent analysis/commentary, and don't be afraid to voice your own opinion. I would urge everyone, however, in considering their position, to think in terms of "first costs" vs. "life cycle costs"- making a stronger investment up front always provides for an improved down-stream result.

This holds true with anything:

If you put $1000 in the bank and add $1,00 at regular intervals, and receive 10% compounded annually, your down-stream return is stronger than if you put $100 in the bank and only add $10 every now and again.

Similarly, if you build a house and spend a little extra on the best windows, rain-water capture/irrigation, insulation, radiant heat floors, instant hot-water and green roof, your down-stream return is greater in terms of reduced costs of ownership.

Enjoy...

http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2163

The Waxman-Markey Bill: A Good Start Or A Non-Starter?

As carbon cap-and-trade legislation works it way through Congress, the environmental community is intensely debating whether the Waxman-Markey bill is the best possible compromise or a fatally flawed initiative. Yale Environment 360 asked 11 prominent people in the environmental and energy fields for their views on this controversial legislation.

The bill is officially entitled “The American Clean Energy and Security Act,” but most people who follow this issue simply call it Waxman-Markey. Named for its sponsors — Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) — the legislation has been roundly criticized for doing too little or too much, but one thing is clear: No matter what form it finally takes, the bill is historic. For the first time, the U.S. government would cap and regulate emissions of carbon dioxide.

Given that CO2 is a byproduct of the process that drives the American economy — combusting fossil fuels — it is no wonder that the bill is controversial. Many opponents, particularly Republicans, say it is a grave error to place a ceiling and a price on carbon emissions, particularly at a time of economic crisis.

But even erstwhile allies in the environmental movement are split over the bill. Their disagreement is centered on the many compromises — including a weakening of emissions and renewable energy targets — that the bill’s sponsors were forced to make in order to win approval in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Yale Environment 360 asked environmentalists and energy experts to share their thoughts on the Waxman-Markey bill. A majority of the environmentalists said they supported the bill — despite its many flaws — because it represents the beginning of an effort to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. These supporters noted that many important pieces of U.S. environmental legislation began with modest steps that were later toughened by amendments. Supporters also said that passage of Waxman-Markey was vital if the U.S. hopes to lead the effort to ratify a global climate change treaty later this year in Copenhagen.

Opponents maintained, however, that Waxman-Markey has been irrevocably compromised. They contended the bill makes so many concessions to powerful industrial lobbies that it will do little to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The opponents also criticized a provision that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its recently acquired ability to administratively regulate CO2 emissions from coal plants. In the end, these critics conclude, it is better to start over and fight for a stronger bill than pass the current, watered-down version.

Here are their responses:


Angela Ledford, Program Director for U.S. Climate Action Network.
The Waxman-Markey bill offers the most important opportunity in generations to create a prosperous 21st century economy that protects us from a climate crisis. Only by improving and passing a bill will we get a framework for transitioning to a clean-energy future. The bill, as it stands, may not reduce global warming pollution as fast as science is telling us is prudent. When we add emission reductions in this proposed law to the promises of other countries, we fall far short of what we need to do globally. So let’s be clear about what this bill provides: It gives us a framework to build on, and puts us on the path to what science says we need. But it is only the beginning.

Congress will need to stand strong against the special interests that seek to weaken the bill and have the courage to entertain essential measures to strengthen it. It needs stronger requirements for renewable energy and energy efficiency; the EPA needs the authority to hold polluters accountable; and domestic and international investments are critical to transforming the global economy.

The U.S. tradition on environmental protection seems to dictate that the most difficult step is the first one. Whether it is clean water, clean air, or ozone depletion, we have never been able to pass a bill and walk away. We set the policy in place, fight for swift and stringent implementation, sue when we need to, and go back to Congress if we haven’t gotten it right. Global warming is no different. For over a decade, we’ve worked to get to this point in the legislative process. We cannot blow this moment. But we shouldn’t think for a second our job is done once the bill is passed. In some ways, we’re only just beginning.


Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA.
Representatives Waxman and Markey have played a crucial role in bringing global warming to the forefront of the Congressional agenda. And we believe in President Obama’s vision of clean energy jobs and not letting special interests dominate politics. But this bill falls short of that vision.

The science is clear: the United States and the developed world must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. This legislation at best provides a 4 to 7 percent cut below 1990 levels in that time frame, and it is likely to get worse in the Senate. While 4 percent is something, it’s like building a 4-foot levee in New Orleans as the waters rush in at 40 feet. Here’s a sampling of what the bill gives away:

1. The bill would not force polluters to cut their own pollution until more than a decade from now. Instead, they could buy “offsets,” paying a farmer who temporarily traps CO2 in the soil by not tilling it as much, rather than preventing pollution at the smokestack.

2. The Renewable Energy Standard requires less new clean energy than we will have without this bill passing.

3. The bill strips away some of the Clean Air Act authority to reduce coal plant pollution in new plants, as well as the EPA’s authority to regulate global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act.


The net result is that coal companies won’t need to cut their pollution, and the president will lose the power to regulate coal under the Clean Air Act, which could very likely cut global warming pollution as much as, or more, than this bill.

We are urging President Obama to confront the undue influence of corporate polluters by using his considerable executive authorities to ensure America’s plan to tackle global warming is based on science, and puts people above politics as usual.


Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he runs the blog, climate progress.org. He is a former acting assistant secretary of energy.
Only two questions really matter regarding the Waxman-Markey bill.

First, is it compatible with — indeed integral to — a national and international effort to keep global warming as close as possible to 2 degrees C?

Second, what would be the outcome if the bill failed?

The answer to the first question is absolutely “Yes.” While the bill is weaker than it should be, particularly its 2020 target, it mandates a 42 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. Building on the massive investment in clean energy in the economic stimulus, the bill completes the transition to a clean energy economy. It devotes some $15 billion a year to clean technology development and deployment. It would be the single greatest push toward an energy-efficient economy in U.S. history.

The bill directs substantial funds toward a global effort to stop tropical deforestation. While it theoretically authorizes up to 2 billion tons in offsets to be used in place of domestic emissions reductions, nowhere near that amount of offsets exists today, nor is there any reason to believe they ever will. If the nations of the world agree to adopt emissions targets, timetables, and strategies compatible with stabilization near 2 degrees C, then the international offsets market will remain relatively small and expensive — especially compared to the large pool of low-cost, domestic, clean-energy emissions reduction strategies.

As for the second question, failure to pass the bill would end any hope of stabilizing climate at anywhere near a 2-degree C increase. Serious U.S. action would be off the table for years, the effort to jumpstart the clean-energy economy in this country would stall, the international negotiating process would fall apart, and any chance of a deal with China would be dead. Warming of 5 degrees C or more by century’s end would be all but inevitable.

Waxman-Markey is the only game in town. Let’s work hard to improve it, but killing it would be an act of environmental suicide.


Denis Hayes, President of the Bullitt Foundation, board chairman of the American Solar Energy Society, and National Coordinator of the first Earth Day.
The bottom line in politics is always how you vote. If I were in Congress, I would hold my nose and vote for the Waxman-Markey bill.

What do I dislike about Waxman-Markey?

* It allows 2 billion tons of offsets a year. Trading “permits” is fine; trading “offsets” eventually will shred the law’s effectiveness. Offsets are hard to regulate and the international offset bubble is already growing rapidly.

* The bill’s goal for 2020 — the easiest reductions — is a wimpy 17 percent cut in carbon emissions below 2005 levels, which essentially guarantees that the world will pass some tragic climate tipping points. It gets tougher later, but I don’t care about easily abandoned promises to make really hard cuts by 2050. What matters is what we are willing to do today.

* The bill auctions only 15 percent of the carbon permits for now. It should auction 100 percent. A 100 percent auction would function as an efficient carbon tax, with the tax rate set each year by the market and revenues distributed through open public processes. The bill’s approach represents back-room politics that mostly favor the powerful polluters who have spent a fortune fighting against climate legislation.

* The bill awards 10 times as much money to speculative carbon capture and sequestration projects as to all green jobs training and aid to displaced workers, combined.


So why would I support it?

Henry Waxman and Ed Markey are green legislative heroes. They privately acknowledge the flaws in this bill, and they would make it much stronger if that were possible. They can also count votes.

Waxman-Markey’s flaws are huge but discrete, and they can be addressed in the years ahead. Meanwhile, we have to pass something to give the Obama Administration the necessary credibility to create global momentum before Copenhagen. Toward that end, Waxman-Markey is the only credible game in town.


Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth.
During last year’s campaign, then-Senator Obama articulated a bold vision for a clean energy future. He argued that green investments and cuts in pollution can strengthen our economy and create millions of jobs, bolster national security, and help avoid catastrophic climate-change impacts. Voters were persuaded and Obama won in a landslide.

Unfortunately, the bill now moving through Congress fails to live up to Obama’s vision. Special interests — including Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and Wall Street — continue to hold too much sway in the Energy and Commerce Committee from which this bill emerged. In exchange for voting for this bill, conservative Democrats demanded hundreds of billions of dollars worth of giveaways to their favorite campaign contributors.

The result is a bill that doesn’t bring about anywhere near the pollution reductions necessary to avoid cataclysmic warming. The bill’s targets fall far short of scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and even further below what’s needed to return atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to the safe level of 350 parts per million. The bill also makes it hard to achieve a global climate agreement by underfunding international adaptation and clean-energy deployment.

The bill creates giant, under-regulated carbon markets that will benefit Wall Street but not reliably reduce pollution. It eliminates Clean Air Act protections, undercutting the Obama administration’s ability to act. It contaminates carbon markets with “offsets” that will delay U.S. pollution reductions and are unlikely to result in intended reductions overseas.

What may be more relevant to people concerned about how to put bread on the table is that some analyses have the bill producing no more clean energy than business as usual for the next few decades. This means the millions of jobs we can create by transitioning to a clean energy economy won’t come from this bill.

David Jenkins
David Jenkins, Vice President for Government and Political Affairs, Republicans for Environmental Protection.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act is currently the only viable legislative vehicle for passing comprehensive climate legislation this year. As such, it needs to continue its journey through the legislative process. It is not a great bill, but it is better than doing nothing.

The integrity of this climate bill has already suffered a serious blow as a result of the parochial deal-making needed to just secure the support of Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Waxman and Markey made dramatic early concessions — giving away 85 percent of the emissions allowances in the near term, reducing reduction targets, and allowing offsets.

Those are serious concessions to secure a handful of committee votes on the Democrat side, and those concessions will embolden other lawmakers to demand their pound of flesh as the bill moves toward a floor vote. Also, by not involving climate-friendly Republicans in the drafting and initial horse-trading, the bill has not yet gained the level of bipartisan support needed to get it through the Senate — or to help sustain it over time should the bill become law.

A better, and more politically sustainable, cap-and-trade approach would be to auction off most of the emission allowances and return a large portion of the proceeds to the public to offset energy cost increases, thus generating nationwide public support for emission reductions. A revenue-neutral carbon-tax, as proposed by U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), would accomplish the same thing.

The Waxman-Markey bill is an imperfect product of the legislative sausage factory and contains plenty of unsavory political byproducts, but lawmakers — Republican and Democrat alike — should work constructively to improve and pass it. Every year that we fail to enact legislation to reduce carbon emissions, climate change becomes more difficult and costly to address. The responsible, and conservative, course is to act now.


Charles T. Drevna, President of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.
Climate change is a complex public policy challenge that must be addressed with realistic, long-term strategies recognizing the vital role that all forms of energy — traditional, alternative and renewable — will play in maintaining our country’s economic strength and quality of life. The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association supports the advancement and deployment of new technologies that bring reliable, affordable, and clean supplies of domestic energy to consumers.

If federal climate change legislation is eventually adopted, we believe such legislation must set a realistic carbon reduction target without political preconceptions or punitive provisions, and allow the innovative nature of American businesses to achieve those goals through the most efficient means. It must protect impacted businesses and the existing jobs of their employees from competition with foreign companies whose countries do not limit carbon dioxide emissions. It must prevent mandating contradictory or redundant policies, and establish a single federal carbon constraint program that supersedes all other federal, state, and local statutes and programs. Lastly, it must not advantage or disadvantage one form of energy over another with respect to carbon constraints.

The Waxman-Markey legislation fails those tests in a number of ways. U.S. refiners already face stiff foreign competition and would be severely disadvantaged with higher compliance costs under the Waxman-Markey scheme. Indian businesses, for example, are building refineries specifically geared toward U.S. markets. Such foreign refiners, whose facility emissions are not addressed in the bill and whose operating costs are much lower, will gain a distinct advantage over American businesses in the marketplace. By ceding our stake in the markets to foreign businesses in locations where environmental standards are not nearly as stringent as those that already exist in the United States, global greenhouse gas emissions would likely increase.


Liz Martin Perera, Legislative Representative on Climate for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
This year presents a narrow window for putting a framework in place that can institute a hard cap on emissions, kick-start the clean-energy economy, and begin the international negotiation process. While the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill is not as strong as many environmentalists would have liked, it’s exactly what we need and represents a clear step forward for environmental policy.

Henry Waxman and Ed Markey did a masterful job getting this bill through a very tough Energy and Commerce Committee that includes climate science contrarians and members of Congress who are sympathetic to coal and oil interests. Now that the bill moves through other committees and to the House floor, we hope to defend, improve, and pass the legislation.

Obama and his climate team know they need to walk into the international climate negotiations in Denmark with domestic legislation in hand. Otherwise, the United States will have a much harder time convincing delegates that it’s ready to act.

The progress we’ve seen in Congress is due, in part, to leadership from the White House. Obama’s push to have the Environmental Protection Agency use its power to regulate heat-trapping emissions also is pressuring members of Congress to act.

The consensus among most advocacy groups is that we need to work to strengthen the bill and ultimately pass it, while defending against moves to weaken it from across the political spectrum. We also have to remember that it took many years to pass the Clean Air Act, which was later significantly strengthened through various amendments. This is probably the single best shot we’ll ever get at putting a cap on global warming pollution, and we need to take it.


Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Rainforest Action Network.
I wanted so much to support the Waxman-Markey climate bill. I cheered when Congressman Waxman became chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And I believe it’s imperative we pass strong climate legislation this year.

But despite admirable incentives for hybrid and electric vehicles, improvements in efficiency, and some other initiatives, the current incarnation of the Waxman-Markey bill doesn’t do the job. For starters, it sets the wrong target: Scientists state that an atmospheric concentration of 350 parts per million of CO2 is the upper limit for a stable climate; this bill aims for 450. Moreover, although the international community is calling for cuts of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, this bill aims for 4 percent.

The bill’s largest flaw, however, is the inclusion of 2 billion tons of carbon offsets annually. These offsets represent a massive loophole that will allow polluters to meet their carbon reduction obligations by paying someone else not to pollute, rather than reducing their own emissions. Experience shows that as much as two-thirds of the time offsets don’t work, particularly under current regulations in the agribusiness and forestry industries. A coal company could “offset” its pollution by paying a logging company to raze a rainforest for a palm plantation in Indonesia — destroying some of the most biodiverse ecosystems on earth, and releasing massive amounts of carbon. To succeed in the fight against climate change, we must reduce emissions from fossil fuels AND stop destroying rainforests.

On Nov. 10, 2008, soon after getting elected, President Obama gave his first speech on climate change. “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” he said. “Delay is no longer an option.” Full use of the offsets in the current climate bill would allow polluters to avoid any reductions in their emissions until 2026 — 17 years from today. Instead of settling for this bill, let’s keep fighting for change we can believe in.


Paul Hawken, Environmentalist, entrepreneur, journalist, and best-selling author.
Waxman-Markey is a landmark bill. To be clear it represents a direction, not a plan. But given American realpolitik, it is as good as anyone could have expected. For sure there are some fairly meaty bones thrown to Duke Energy and the coal industry for emissions and carbon sequestration, and there are other lobbyist accommodations. Who knows what will happen as it makes it way through Congress? But the bill brings us closer to European Union standards and in alignment with most of the rest of the developed world.

Critics who see it as lacking are right. Reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 is insufficient. But legislation is not actually written in Congress; it is assembled there. One detects the fine hand of environmental and climate experts in the bill, not just big utilities. The provisions and language are accreted from people who have done the heavy lifting in unsung institutions and NGOs, and I for one am thrilled to see some of this work see the light of legislative day under the auspices of a president who will sign and support it vigorously.

My hope is that the bill will begin to form the basis of a more comprehensive energy strategy that will use physical instead of electoral metrics as the measure of validity, so that we can do away with coal, ethanol, and other money sinks. If I have a criticism, it is not with the overall bill but with the idea that this is a spending bill. It is an investment bill, and I wish we had a governmental accounting system that could distinguish between the two.


Michael Noble, Executive Director of Fresh Energy, a nonprofit promoting clean energy.
For two decades, my overarching commitment has been an American economy that doubles or triples in size by 2040 to 2050, while CO2 is reduced to 10 to 20 percent of emissions today. The Waxman-Markey bill strives to retain this central integrity, and for all the bill’s flaws, Fresh Energy joins the vast majority of clean energy groups determined to pass it in the House of Representatives this month.

Indeed, several provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill fall far short of what Obama wants: a cap on global warming emissions, with 100 percent permit auctions on day one, and the huge majority of revenues dedicated to protecting middle-class buying power.

However, as the Senate begins its work, one of its highest priorities must be to retain the hard-won authority of the EPA to regulate CO2 from coal-fired power plants under existing law. The current version of Waxman-Markey eliminates EPA’s regulatory authority over existing and proposed coal plants under the Clean Air Act. Over the past few years, the threat of regulation has prevented coal construction because risky schemes face finance barriers. Some 27 coal plants in America are currently seeking permits that would belch CO2 for 50 years.

If that coal surge takes place, we will have to de-carbonize electricity at a much steeper rate from 2020 to 2050, and the hole we will have to dig out of will be much deeper. As James Hansen has often said, to begin to fix the climate then will no longer be possible, since it’s barely still possible today.

With the deals and commitments already made, there may be no opportunity to fix Waxman-Markey in the House before passage. But this bill must be fixed in the Senate before it gets to the president’s desk.


Be smart. Be informed. Be engaged. But whatever you do, don't just let it be. And don't count on anyone else to do it for you. Peace. -sg

bolivia on biodiesel... oblivious

A news report out this morning exemplified the state of bass-akwards thinking, perpetuated by bureaucratic and political stagnation (fueled most likely by fear of loss of power, money or other "stuff"), that is suppressing both environmental balance and long term global economic sustainability.

Specifically, Bolivia.

It is currently illegal to use oil from soybean crops as a feedstock for biodiesel. The reason? Because it's a food crop.

OK, fair enough. People have to eat. And don't forget soybeans aren't just for feeding people. They feed livestock... which feeds people. And so the food chain continues.

But, the food needs to be planted, grown, harvested, shipped, and ultimately "processed" as food for it to actually become consumable.

At what point does the inability or failure of the afore mentioned to be achieved (harvesting and shipping), do we have a driver for common sense to take over?

Ironically, the reason the crops cannot be harvested or shipped is because of the lack of FUEL available to run the necessary equipment. This fuel, historically and typically petroleum diesel, has been on a roller coaster ride in terms of both price and availability over the last year.

So rather than allowing a portion of the soy beans to be crushed, and the oil to be used as FUEL, the Bolivian authorities are willing to allow the crops to rot in the fields and become completely wasted.

I suppose this is par for the course. This comes from country that 30 years ago began devastating the global ecological balance by deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of rain forest and jungles in order to clear the way for industrial mega-farms. If the fact that this area is no longer being utilized for its original, natural, and dare I say, "evolved" purpose of carbon scrubbing isn't bad enough, the fact that these renewable crops cannot be used to produce a clean burning renewable fuel is simply criminal.

Soy oil isn't the only thing to make biodiesel out of. But when its available, abundant and inexpensive, it makes darn good fuel.

Using a portion of a crop to sustain the crop is just common sense!

The alternative is simply this: If there is no fuel to power the equipment to harvest and ship the crop, and there is no alternative equipment that can do the job, then the crop stays in the field, rots, and NO ONE get it for food, fuel or any other purpose. BRILLIANT!

In fact, the environmental damage caused by this exercise is truly exponentially multiplied at this point because all of the investment that originally went into planting the crops in the first place (time, energy and money) produces absolutely no return on investment- a down stream effect that is truly immeasurable because we can only estimate:

(1) how much carbon scrubbing the original rain forests would have been naturally occurring,
(2) how much financial loss is realized by not bringing crops to market,
(3) how much petroleum fuel was consumed and exhausted in the clearing of the rain forests,
(4) how much petroleum fuel was consumed and exhausted in the planting of the crops,
(5) how much environmental (land, water, etc) damage is being done by use of pesticides, chemicals, erosion, etc.,
(6) how much ecosystem damage is caused by loss of balance among all the inhabitants (great and small) of the land,
(7) and on and on...

Common sense says this is beyond dumb. It's galactically stupid!

Bolivia, President Evo Morales, Vice Minister of Environmental Affairs Juan Pablo Ramos... open your eyes and get a clue! Arguing that using soy for biodiesel "cuts into food supplies and harms the environment", yet promoting/perpetuating destruction of rain forest/deforestation, land erosion, elimination of natural carbon scrubbers, use of pesticides, chemicals and petroleum based infrastructure is both ignorant, immoral and insane.

Either you're padding your pockets with kickbacks from industry, or you have a serious lack of usable gray matter between your ears.

Do the world a favor... rethink your positions and policy, or get out of the way of reasonable people with better, more sustainable ideas.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/01/27/bolivian_soybeans/