Uncategorized

Free Market Solutions to Climate Change

“Houston, we’ve had a problem”…but for not much longer!

With every election held in America, citizens come together to compete at the ballot box for their chosen candidates and proposals. More insistent and on a far larger scale, the economy and society our representatives are elected to govern cooperate in a spirit of opportunity and enterprise to rapidly forward a better future. Increasingly fierce competition in ideas and projects has ever perfected our union, bringing us solutions to problems once feared intractable. The population explosion, formerly deadly diseases like typhoid, yellow fever and smallpox, clean water, food, public education, a national highway system, air travel, even landing on the moon proved solvable when citizens of good will have come together around a real solution.

This work is not over! There remain externalities that prevent our economy and society from solving some very real and pressing problems. Our next common-sense solution, emerging over this next year, addresses the most challenging problem not only for America, but around the world. For the past 157 years, Houston’s mainstay industry, producing energy from oil and other fossil fuels has not internalized the costs of disposing its waste products into the open atmosphere, clearly causing climate to change in unprecedented ways. Instead, mounting costs of severely damaging and crazy weather, rising and acidifying seas, melting permafrost, rising extinctions and reduced biodiversity from shifting climate zones, greater competition for fresh water with less snowfall and retreating glaciers, advancing wildfires and diseases, failing crops…are all currently left for public funding sources to clean up, or simply ignored and punted into an unknown future.

Amid calls for solutions ranging from dire – like geoengineering – to ineffectual – like cap-and-trade, there is one clear stand-out. It is the carbon fee-and-dividend. It is revenue-neutral, unlike a tax. The substantial and slowly rising fee is charged directly at the source to each company that generates fossil-carbon-based fuels – on the order of a thousand entities in the US – and is directly proportional to the amount of carbon these fuels contain. This means that coal will bear about 1.6 times the carbon fee that natural gas will bear, with gasoline sandwiched somewhere between, with cleaner fuels charging less. It is the missing incentive that the free market and its consumers – we –need to make reasonable choices among, and beyond, fossil fuels.

Because a carbon fee is charged at the source – the wellhead, mine or international port of entry – it will inevitably be passed on to the consumers of fuels produced from these natural resources. The second half of the carbon fee-and-dividend solution becomes so important. A direct dividend is put back into the pockets of consumers on a straight per-capita basis. All of the fees collected during a given period – say a month or a week – will be evenly distributed to all legal residents of our nation at the rate of 1 share per adult, and half-shares per child up to two children total. Those persons who do better than average mitigating against climate change will see their outlays for the increased cost of fossil fuels returned to them, with a small premium for their trouble. Those who do better than average at mitigating fossil fuel use will include most of the people – over 80% – because as the richest quintile will soon discover, they consume vast amounts of fossil fuel! These dividends become a convenient way for the common person to save and invest in personal solutions that further limit their exposure to carbon fees – say a photovoltaic solar system, organic and better-tasting locally-grown fruit, a fully-electric vehicle, a more efficient air conditioner, low-e windows or simply better insulation and weather sealing.

This solution works. It uses the free market to the greatest of its strengths! An upper bound is the current price of physically scrubbing carbon and returning it to solid earth reservoirs! It rises reliably and imperceptibly as a fractional portion of natural market price increases that occur! The anger at rising fossil fuel prices will remain where it does the most good – against the fossil fuel industry! All incentives will align to boost consumer action toward ever-greater fossil fuel independence just as corporate America is kick-started to innovate to meet this increasing consumer demand! Those with the greatest exposure to fossil fuel expenses can reasonably be expected to exert themselves to reduce this liability as quickly as possible!

All the collateral benefits of reduced fossil fuel use will also accrue to the public – lower levels of toxic air pollutants and the health risks these present, healthier foods and the health benefits these represent, gradual retirement of fossil fuel infrastructure and the safety and environmental risks these represent! All without increasing government agency, nor entanglement with government coffers! A carbon fee and its direct dividend distributed to the public are the kind of carbon price signal that is proven most effective at quickly reversing our trend toward ever-greater fossil fuel burning in the most natural – and comfortable – way possible! Even fossil fuel companies, now led by Exxon-Mobil, will gain public permission to operate as consumers transition from begrudging expenses sent down a black hole, to receiving a regular dividend! Carbon fee-and-dividend incentivizes forthright action across the US and global marketplace!

If you want to find out more about the carbon-fee-and-dividend proposal, please visit http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ to get answers and to find other people just like you who are discovering that what once seemed impossible to solve in fact has found resolution. It’s a solution we can unite around as people from every sector and strata. And with protection against nonconforming states, we can even unite around a fee-and-dividend across nations and the globe. It’s a simple and elegant solution that properly reflects conservative values of our center-right majority, AND the urgent direct action demanded by the center-left minority to solve our most encompassing and complex issue in greatest clarity.

Standard
Uncategorized

It is not rocket science.

As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest fuel, they will be burned. Fossil fuels only seem cheap, because the price does not include their full cost to society. Human health costs of pollution are borne by the public, not fossil fuel companies. Growing costs of climate change are also borne directly by the public or by governments, which also means the public.

Fossil fuel prices can be made honest by collecting a rising carbon fee from fossil fuel companies at the domestic sources of oil, gas and coal, i.e., the domestic mines or ports of entry. If the money is distributed 100 percent to the public, an equal amount to each legal resident, it is revenue neutral. Thus it is not a tax and does not make the government bigger. 

A carbon fee makes fossil fuels more expensive, allowing clean energies and energy efficiency to compete. Almost two-thirds of the public, people doing better than average in limiting their fossil fuel use, would receive more in their monthly dividend, transferred electronically to their bank account or debit card, than they pay in increased prices. 


This carbon “fee & dividend” is progressive
. Wealthy people, who travel more and have larger houses, have a large carbon footprint. Given today’s income disparities, this modest change seems beneficial, giving the little guy something to build on, if he uses the dividend wisely. 

By the time the fee reaches $100 per ton of carbon dioxide, it will add $1 per gallon at the pump, but the annual dividend will be about $1500, thus $4500 for a family with two or more children (half shares for children). Incidentally, the fee & dividend will provide a big incentive for illegal immigrants to become legal or go home. 

Economic studies show that fee & dividend spurs the economy, creates millions of jobs, and increases gross domestic product. It modernizes our energy infrastructure, and our manufacturers will have products to sell worldwide. 

A rising carbon fee is the only practical way to phase down global emissions. If the U.S. and China agree to a carbon fee, it can become near global. Participating nations would place a border duty on products from non-participating nations and give fee rebates to domestic manufacturers exporting to the latter nations. 

Citizens Climate Lobby, which now has 265 chapters in the U.S., and I have proposed fee & dividend to numerous politicians. Liberals tend to say “let’s use the fee for social programs or invest it in solar panels.” Bad idea. Let the market choose among technologies and efficiency. Conservatives say “let’s use the fee to reduce taxes,” usually specific taxes rich people abhor. 

Tell both parties “thank you very much, but we have uses for our money.” 

[ed. note:  We sure do – for getting ourselves well out of being trapped using fossil fuels for everything we drive, purchase, even eat!]

(February, 2016)
—James E. Hansen, NASA (retired)

Standard
Uncategorized

Describe your business in 300 words or less

Planning and Community Development

I have enjoyed two careers, one in Urban Planning and Community Development, which led to the second implementing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in large, medium and small business settings. I currently combine these endeavors as a Senior Planner with Harris County Community Services Department Office of Housing and Community Development in Houston, TX. I am currently preparing maps to guide our agency’s assessment of flood damage to homes resulting from rain event that was declared a federal disaster by the President last week.

GIS Consultant

I also consult my GIS expertise on my own time with local planning consultants. I am descended from a long line of teachers, so easily diagnosing and repairing the skill sets of an agency’s employees who are working daily with their GIS is something of a specialty. I strive to add value in my wake by teaching people to fish, rather than reserving the catch for myself. Examples of this work were creation of maps and data used during the development of Houston’s Light Rail system planning, and helping perform a similar project for the Houston Airport System to study the social and environmental constraints and determinants regarding airport expansion planning.

Environmental Planning Consultant

I have also helped organize a team to perform as an environmental consultant satisfying the statutory requirements of proposed project environmental review at the request of cities outside the county of my employment. This is generally performed under U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations and is thus known as HUD Part 58 Environmental Review for proposed projects involving any level of federal funding or federal agency permit(s). An example of a project for which I helped perform and complete the environmental assessment recently was Lake Charles, Louisiana’s proposed National Hurricane Museum and Science Center.

Standard
Uncategorized

We’ve All Wanted to Publish a Book (& Grow Rich)!

Did you miss last weekend: APRIL 9-10 – Houston, TX > Publish A Book & Grow Rich Bootcamp

Then what about: DECEMBER 4-6 – Houston, TX > Publish A Book & Grow Rich Bootcamp

Next nearby event: APRIL 16-17 – Dallas, TX > Publish A Book & Grow Rich Bootcamp

Realtors! Builders! Musicians! Service Providers! Doctors! Pastors! Dentists! Attorneys! Public Servants! Even Starving Artists! Feeling you just gotta go?

It’s not too late.


Let me tell you when your next event is coming to here to Houston!



 

Or PM me your name and email address: I can sell you licensed first dibs @ below $50/day (VIP front row and second row seating like I bought) to the next 100-person Gerry Robert flagship event, to be announced. And it’s good! Attend at $97 and the entire method is yours to keep!

Every 4 months or so, the full weekend seminar returns with everything you need to know: titling, covers, write it in 40 hours method, media kit, endorsements– first day was amazing- with in my opinion moving your book on the 2nd day even more valuable than the 1st!

Don’t realize how hard it is to successfully publish by any other method? Don’t know if you can pull off a book that pays its way? I was in your shoes just weeks ago. Here’s the rundown:

“Our flagship weekend bootcamp event: We show entrepreneurs how to use a book as a marketing tool. We help you establish a platform that delivers you credibility, authority and publicity which boosts your sales, profits and your profile. We’ve published 300+ authors in the last 25 years who have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, etc., and are still humble-bragging about it today!
You will learn…


 

 

•    It’s not magic – you’re
becoming the author of a full-copyright, good-looking, helpful book (+ more)

•    Practical how-to
steps from your mere dream to a soft- or hardcover ISBN publication

•    Anyone can use them, but be prepared to work and invest in yourself

Standard
Uncategorized

Ice Melt Paper Completes Peer Review, Begins Publication March 22, 2016

Earmark some days for the history books. March 22, 2016 was one of those days.

 

I’m sorry that the news is bad. Improved modeling with a paradigm shift away from inherent ice inertia toward CO2 as primary climate control knob finds that huge amounts of ice now melting are likely to wreck the ocean conveyor belt that keeps climate within bounds, and reticently sooner than even the newest models are predicting. Dr. James E. Hansen et al. published their new scientific paper after completing the peer review process. Now everyone in the world can read it in beginning with the journal ACP. Other respected climate scientists, such as Michael E. Mann (of “hockey stick” fame, infamy to a few), express having a hard time accepting the radical paradigm shift this paper posits, but find they cannot disagree with the conclusions. Indeed if the newer models prove correct they have huge implications including storms strengthened up to 1.5 times over those we’ve experienced, and multi-meter rising seas (potentially 1.7 m already by 2060), things we’d not expected humanity would face quite so quickly. Climate science had always assumed a weakening, but never a near-stop, in surface formation of deep ocean water.

 

This presents still more immediate and adverse consequences for some disproportionately affected, including hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians who stake their lives on glacier-generated water streams. Such is the reason I originally titled this blog “Houston Climate Justice.” Tremendous questions of equity and equality rush toward us very rapidly now. And something seemingly as simple as ever-rising seas enwraps myriad effects on all nature regarding stronger storms, higher winds, salt water intrusion, lifting aquifers, massive habitat-flooding-wetlands and drainage changes, migrating deserts and pathogens, rapidly oscillating food chains and displaced species that face weakening and extermination, All bets must be considered off approaching 2060, 2080, 2100. And we, which is to say, all of us alive, all who have being, are clearly faced with forcing assertive collective policy action to happen now, and from our perspective maintaining such action forever, if we plan to preserve a humanly supportive planet. We can still do this, but it’s becoming increasingly less certain and it’s certainly getting ever harder to pull off. Please, my friends, begin to run, not walk, toward pricing carbon pollution to drive virtuous market behavior! #CCL #climatechange #sealevelrise #emissionsreduction #carbonfeeandrebate #pricecarbon

 

Source: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/ (final publication of peer-reviewed paper)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2015/20150704_IceMelt.pdf (original paper pre-peer review)

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/abbreviation-of-ice-melt-paper/ (easier 19-page excerpt by Dr. Hansen), includes this short note: Planetary energy imbalance induced by meltwater cooling helps provide the energy required by ice heat of fusion.  Ice melt to raise sea level 1 m requires a 10-year Earth energy imbalance 0.9 W/m2 (Table S1, Hansen et al., 2005b). Ed. Note: I must point out that we are within 0.1 W/m2 of this amount of global energy imbalance already, and it is up to you to influence your policy makers to attempt to interrupt global momentum toward and beyond that figure.

About this paper:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/Gillis.NewYorkTimes.22March2016.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/22/we-had-all-better-hope-these-scientists-are-wrong-about-the-planets-future/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-hansen-sea-level-rise_us_56effb51e4b084c67220c630

http://grist.org/science/the-scientist-who-first-warned-of-climate-change-says-its-much-worse-than-we-thought/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2016/03/22/the-truth-about-sea-levels/#1a1946634425

http://blogs.plos.org/ecology/2016/03/23/repost-james-hansen-and-sea-level-rise-the-peer-reviewed-version/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/23/controversial-sea-level-rise-paper-is-now-published-online/

http://grist.org/climate-energy/james-hansens-new-climate-study-is-terrifying-but-he-still-has-hope/

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/impacts/signs/sea-level.html

https://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

 

 

Takeaway quote from last 3 paragraphs of the paper:

 

(Original paper:)

 

“Our finding of global cooling from ice melt calls into question whether global temperature is the most fundamental metric for global climate in the 21st century. The first order requirement to stabilize climate is to remove Earth’s energy imbalance, which is now about +0.6 W/m2, more energy coming in than going out. If other forcings are unchanged, removing this imbalance requires reducing atmospheric CO2 from ~400 ppm to ~350 ppm (Hansen et al., 2008, 2013a).

The message that the climate science delivers to policymakers, instead of defining a safe ‘guardrail’, is that fossil fuel CO2 emissions must be reduced as rapidly as practical. Hansen et al. (2013a) conclude that this implies a need for a rising carbon fee or tax, an approach that has the potential to be near-global, as opposed to national caps or goals for emission reductions. Although a carbon fee is the sine qua non for phasing out emissions, the urgency of slowing emissions also implies other needs including widespread technical cooperation in clean energy technologies (Hansen et al., 2013a).

The task of achieving a reduction of atmospheric CO2 is formidable, but not impossible. Rapid transition to abundant affordable carbon-free electricity is the core requirement, as that would also permit production of net-zero-carbon liquid fuels from electricity. The rate at which CO2 emissions must be reduced is about 6%/year to reach 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 by about 2100, under the assumption that improved agricultural and forestry practices could sequester 100 GtC (Hansen et al., 2013a). The amount of CO2 fossil fuel emissions taken up by the ocean, soil and biosphere has continued to increase (Fig. S23), thus providing hope that it may be possible to sequester more than 100 GtC. Improved understanding of the carbon cycle and non-CO2 forcings are needed, but it is clear that the essential requirement is to begin to phase down fossil fuel CO2 emissions rapidly. It is also clear that continued high emissions are likely to lock-in continued global energy imbalance, ocean warming, ice sheet disintegration, and large sea level rise, which young people and future generations would not be able to avoid. Given the inertia of the climate and energy systems, and the grave threat posed by continued high emissions, the matter is urgent and calls for emergency cooperation among nations.” (p. 43-44, Hansen et. al. “Icemelt” draft discussion paper. 2015.)

 

(Paper after peer review complete:)

“The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992) states the following:

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

Dangerous’ is not further defined by the UNFCCC. Our present paper has several implications with regard to the concerns that the UNFCCC is meant to address.

First, our conclusions suggest that a target of limiting global warming to 2°C, which has sometimes been discussed, does not provide safety. We cannot be certain that multi-meter sea level rise will occur if we allow global warming of 2 C. However, we know the warming would remain present for many centuries, if we allow it to occur (Solomon et al., 2010), a period exceeding the ice sheet response time implied by paleoclimate data. Sea level reached 6–9 m in the Eemian, a time that we have concluded was probably no more than a few tenths of a degree warmer than today. We observe accelerating mass losses from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and we have identified amplifying feedbacks that will increase the rates of change. We also observe changes occurring in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans, changes that we can attribute to ongoing warming and ice melt, which imply that this human-driven climate change seems poised to affect these most powerful overturning ocean circulation systems, systems that we know have had huge effects on the planetary environment in the past. We conclude that, in the common meaning of the word danger, 2°C global warming is dangerous.

Second, our study suggests that global surface air temperature, although an important diagnostic, is a flawed metric of planetary ‘health’, because faster ice melt has a cooling effect for a substantial period. Earth’s energy imbalance is in some sense a more fundamental climate diagnostic. Stabilizing climate, to first order, requires restoring planetary energy balance. The UNFCCC never mentions temperature – instead it mentions stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations at a level to avoid danger. It has been shown that the dominant climate forcing, CO2, must be reduced to no more than 350 ppm to restore planetary energy balance (Hansen et al., 2008) and keep climate near the Holocene level, if other forcings remain unchanged. Rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions is the crucial need, because of the millennial timescale of this carbon in the climate system. Improved understanding of the carbon cycle is needed to determine the most effective complementary actions. It may be feasible to restore planetary energy balance via improved agricultural and forestry practices and other actions to draw down atmospheric CO2 amount, if fossil fuel emissions are rapidly phased out.

Third, not only do we see evidence of changes beginning to happen in the climate system, as discussed above, but we have also associated these changes with amplifying feedback processes. We understand that in a system that is out of equilibrium, a system in which the equilibrium is difficult to restore rapidly, a system in which major components such as the ocean and ice sheets have great inertia but are beginning to change, the existence of such amplifying feedbacks presents a situation of great concern. There is a possibility, a real danger, that we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control.

We conclude that the message our climate science delivers to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should be reduced as rapidly as practical.” (

Standard
726d61b52b84e9b6668d4dd10a266125d49244ed_large
Founding Fathers

Wisdom of the U.S. Founding Fathers

“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

Continue reading

Standard