J.C. Moore Online
Current Events from a Science Perspective

Eisenhower’s Republican Platform

     Posted on Fri ,30/10/2020 by admin

The National Republican Party did not adopt a new platform this year, so I thought I’d provide one from Eisenhower in 1956. The platform is rather long, but this is an accurate summary .

The modern Republican Party is an example of a party trying to hold power, rather than govern well. The party has molded itself to satisfy the religious right, the anti-science anti-intellectuals, the false conservatives, and the very wealthy. Unable to progress as the world changes, without offending those, the party leaders have taken the path of obstructionism.

It is a rather vicious cycle for Republicans. As moderates and progressives move away from the party, the extremist are more in control. That influence is seen most in the Republican primaries where the extremist and money interests can insert more influence to elect their candidates. It is tough to be an Eisenhower Republican these days.

It will never be 1956 again, but think where we might be today if the Republican Party had remained progressive. It is time for the Grand Old Party to become Grand again.

What is the Kansas Chamber of Commerce Hiding?

     Posted on Tue ,27/10/2020 by admin

The answer is “the whole truth”. The Kansas Chamber of Commerce (KCC) is not like our local Chambers of Commerce. They trade on the Chamber’s good name, but their PAC functions as a lobbyist group for large corporations and those already wealthy. They not only lobby to influence state policies, but they work to remove Legislators who represent the best interests of all Kansans. If legislators do not vote for the interests of corporations and the wealthy, then the KCC tries to keep them from being reelected by using misleading ads and postcards that distort the truth. Alan Cobb, CEO of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, recently explained how his organization decides who to endorse in political campaigns. He made the claim that their campaign efforts are 100% fact-based. That is not the whole truth, and in some cases it is an outright lie. Besides endorsements, the KCC sends out postcards that demonize the incumbent legislators they want to defeat. One of their most damaging postcards claims the targeted legislator voted to “retroactively raise our state taxes by $1.2 billion”. The card implies that, if reelected, they would vote to raise your taxes. That is wrong, but it is only part of the story.

That $1.2 billion tax increase, which passed in 2017, was deemed necessary by more than 2/3 of the Kansas Senate and 2/3 of the Kansas House. It was passed to correct earlier tax cuts which had devastated the state’s finances. The state would have gone broke unless it passed. Most of the Republican Leadership and many staunch Republicans voted for the bill. However the KCC is not targeting ALL the legislators who voted for the tax increase. They are selectively targeting the independent-minded incumbents who do not obediently go along with whatever the Chamber wants. They are also claiming that some of the targeted legislators voted for the 2017 tax increase – even though they were not in the Legislature in 2017. How is that possible?

Two of the Core Values listed by the KCC are to: > Be passionate about the economic growth of Kansas and its people. > Be ethical in all that the Chamber advocates for and does.

The KCC’s leaders have mastered the craft of appearing unbiased and truthful when they are not. And, they are not as passionate about the economic prosperity of all the people – as they are for that of the wealthy. Don’t be fooled! Whenever you see a campaign hit piece from them, ask yourself what the real story must be. And then consider voting for the person they are attacking. Kansas needs independent-minded legislators who are not influenced by special interest groups.

Though this is about Kansas Politics, the Chamber of Commerce in your state, and the National Chamber of Commerce, are likely functioning as lobbyists. Yor state and our nation need independent-minded legislators who will not be influenced by special interest groups.

Credit: Thanks to Don Hineman, past Republican Majority Leader, for some of the ideas and wording for the article.

Think Tanks: Why Kansas Has Bad Laws

     Posted on Tue ,13/10/2020 by admin

Think tanks are a body of experts assembled  to provide ideas and advice on specific political or economic problems. The think tanks in the illustration have much in common. They are ideologically driven, funded by dark money, and they wish to reduce taxes and regulations on wealthy individuals and corporations. Combined, they spend over $1 billion a year to influence legislation and public policies.

One of their creations was the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wish lists to benefit their bottom line. At ALEC meetings, corporate lobbyists and state Representatives* meet to approve “model” bills written by corporate lawyers. The model bills usually  have great sounding titles and may address a real problem, but they always grant something on the think tanks’ wish list.

The model bills are not useful unless they are passed into state laws. To do that, it is necessary to elect legislators who will favor corporate interests over those of the average citizen. In Kansas, Americans for Prosperity and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce have taken on that task. If legislators do not vote for bills in the interest of corporations and the wealthy, then these organizations try to make sure they are not reelected. They do this by dirty campaigning, with misleading ads, and postcards that distort the truth. They misquote targeted legislators, assigned them to positions they do not hold, photoshop unflattering pictures of them, and accused them of things they have never done. You may have received some of the postcards or seen some of the ads.

It has been ruled that telling political lies is protected speech, and there is little the attacked candidate can do about it. However, you can. VOTE for the candidate who will put your interests above those of the special interest groups.

*KS ALEC members: There are 47  ALEC members in the Kansas Legislature and some travel to ALEC meetings at state expense.They are listed below: 

KS House of Representatives

  • Rep. Tory Marie Arnberger (R-112), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting [1], registered member
  • Rep. John Barker (R-70), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]State Chair,[2]Attended December 2014 Policy Summit at taxpayer expense[3], and attended 2015 ALEC Annual Meeting with taxpayers covering registration fee[4]
  • Rep. Emil Bergquist (R-91), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]
  • Rep. Jesse Burris (R-82), registered member
  • Rep. Michael Capps (R-85), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]
  • Rep. Blake Carpenter (R-81)registered member
  • Rep. Will Carpenter (R-75), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]
  • Rep. Chris Croft (R-8), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]
  • Rep. J.R. Claeys (R-69)[5][6]
  • Rep. Susan Concannon (R-107), Attended December 2014 Policy Summit at taxpayer expense[7]
  • Rep. Leo Delperdang (R-94), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]registered member
  • Rep. Willie Dove (R-38), Attended December 2014 Policy Summit at taxpayer expense[8][6]
  • Rep. Renee Erickson (R-87), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1],[9][10]
  • Rep. Charlotte Esau (R-14), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]
  • Rep. Randy Garber (R-62)[11]
  • Rep. Dan Hawkins (R-100), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1],[12] Attended December 2014 Policy Summit at taxpayer expense[13]Attended 2015 ALEC Annual Meeting with taxpayers covering registration fee[4]
  • Rep. Ron Highland (R-51), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]Highland’s staffer Mary Sabatini attended ALEC’s 2017 Annual Meeting
  • Rep. Kyle Hoffman (R-116), paid ALEC membership February 2012[14] Attended December 2014 Policy Summit at taxpayer expense[15]
  • Rep. Nick Hoheisel (R-97), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]
  • Rep. Steve Huebert (R-90)[16]Education Task Force[17]
  • Rep. Susan Humphries (R-99), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]registered member
  • Rep. Megan Lynn (R-49), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]
  • Rep. Stephen Owens (R-74), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1][9] [18]
  • Rep. John Resman (R-121), registered member
  • Rep. Ronald Ryckman Sr. (R-78), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1], attended 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting[19]. Attended December 2014 Policy Summit at taxpayer expense[20]
  • Rep. Alicia Straub (R-113), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting [1],
  • Rep. Joe Seiwert (R-101), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting[1]Communications and Technology Task Force[21]attended 2015 ALEC Annual Meeting with taxpayers covering registration fee[4]
  • Rep. William (Bill) Sutton (R-43), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting [1]registered member
  • Rep. Paul Waggoner (R-104), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting [1]
  • Rep. Troy Waymaster (R-109), Attended December 2014 Policy Summit at taxpayer expense[22]
  • Rep. Barbara Wasinger (R-11), Attended 2019 ALEC Annual Meeting [1],
  • Rep. Jene Vickrey (R-06), registered member

KS Senate

E. Calvin Beisner: Will a Carbon Tax Hurt the Poor?

     Posted on Fri ,21/08/2020 by admin

In a recent article from the Cornwall Alliance, E. Calvin Beisner claims that a carbon tax will hurt the poor. Helping the poor is a common theme in his writings, but there is little evidence that he actually helps the poor – unless he is talking about the poor fossil fuel companies. A carbon tax would make fossil fuel companies pay for the damage they do to the environment which is something he wishes to avoid. If he actually wishes to help the poor, there is a better way. 

It is the poor who are hurt most by environmental damage. They suffer when the air they breathe and the water they drink is polluted. And, it is the indigenous people who have been hurt the most by climate change. The way of life that has sustained them for centuries is now being disrupted by climate change.  They do not have the resources to withstand prolonged droughts or protect themselves from sea level rise and flooding.

And, it is like E. Calvin Beisner to focus on the carbon tax without mentioning a much better alternative. A carbon fee and dividend system, as proposed by the Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), will actually help the poor. The carbon fee and dividend proposal would initially collect a fee on carbon at the point it enters the economy, initially at $15 per ton of CO2. That fee would increase by $10 annually until its goals are achieved..  The carbon fee is not a tax as it would be rebated 100% percent back to each American household. 

The fee would initially increase the price of gasoline about 9 cents per gallon in the first year and about 6 cents each succeeding year. Other fuels will see a similar price increase. The rising energy costs would be offset by the carbon dividend which, for a family of four, would be about $30 per month the first year and grow to over $300 per month after 10 years. Families who reduce their fossil fuel use, or choose renewable energy, will be able to increase their disposable income by saving more of their dividend. The dividend would stimulate the growth of the economy, and the monthly dividend check would remind every family that they have a stake in reducing carbon emissions.

To see the effect of the carbon fee and dividend on the US economy, CCL commissioned a study by the nonpartisan research company, Regional Economic Models. The study found that the carbon fee and dividend approach would reduce the carbon emissions to 50 percent of the 1990 levels in just 20 years. During that time, it would add 2.1 million jobs to the American economy, increase the gross domestic product by $75 billion, and save 220,000 lives by reducing lung and heart diseases.

Though the dividend would go only to US households, the reduction in CO2 levels would slow climate change and reduce the damage to the environment throughout the world. And, that would help the poor everywhere. It is a proposal that E. Calvin Beisner should support.

Yet more about COVID – 19

     Posted on Fri ,29/05/2020 by admin

Coronavirus: The image at the right is that of a coronavirus. They are a type of virus which causes common colds, but can also cause more serious diseases such as SARS, MERS, or COVID – 19. Of course you can’t see it as a virus is only about 0.025 µm in diameter, far smaller than the human eye can see even with the best optical microscope. In comparison, a fine human hair is about 40 µm in diameter. When people talk, cough, or sneeze they eject small droplets which vary greatly in size but the average is about 1 µm. Each small droplets can hold hundreds of thousands of viruses and the droplets can persist in the air for several hours.

This image is that of a coronavirus as taken by an electron microscope. The virus gets its name from the small structures on the surface which look like crowns. When the virus encounters a human cell, the crown attaches to the cell’s surface and injects its own RNA into the cell, which then takes over the cell mechanisms and produces copies of the virus. They eventually cause the cell to burst which can release up to 50,000 new viruses.

COVID-19 Virus: this is a new virus in humans which entered the population for the first time late last year. The virus cannot live long outside a human host, and the main vector for its transmission is those who travel to and from infected areas. We have little natural immunity to the virus and there is no proven treatment or vaccine for the virus. About 97% of those infected recover within 14 days, but particularly severe cases must be put on a ventilator to keep the patient breathing until the virus runs its course. The virus is most lethal for the elderly and those with compromised immune systems.

Symptoms: The symptoms of the virus are headaches, fever, pink itchy eyes, coughs, sneezes, sore throat, tightness in the chest, difficulty breathing, inflamed toes, and loss of smell or taste. The incubation period after exposure is from 5 to 14 days. People exposed may transmit the virus to others before they experience symptoms. However, some people with the virus may never have symptoms, yet still be able to transmit the virus to others.

Transmission: The virus is transmitted by direct contact between individuals from small droplets ejected when an infected person talks, coughs, or sneezes. The social distance of 6 feet is usually enough to prevent the virus being transmitted directly. However, small droplets from coughs or sneezes may travel much further than 6 feet and may contain hundreds of thousands of viruses. The droplets may persist in the air for several hours. They eventually settle on surfaces where the virus may live for up to several days, depending on the type of surface. For example, the virus is found to exist for a day on cardboard and up to three days on tile or plastic.

Infection: The virus infects a person by entering through their eyes, nose, or mouth. It may happen from being near an infected person, particularly if they are coughing or sneezing. Small droplets that settle on surfaces are transferred when you touch the surface and then it may infect you when you touch your face. Once on your hands, you will transfer the virus to everything else you touch until you wash your hands or kill the virus with hand sanitizer.

Precautions: The best precautions aim to keep the virus from being transmitted from person to person. From what we know about the virus, the following guidelines have been developed to keep it from spreading:

• Avoid close contact with people who are sick. Stay home as much as possible, particularly if you may be sick.
• Keep a social distance of at least 6 feet from other people when you are in public.
• Avoid touching surfaces in public places. Assume anything you touch may be contaminated.
• Wash your hands often for at least 20 seconds with soap and water or use sanitizer.
• Avoid touching your face, particularly rubbing your eyes.
• Wear a mask when in public, primarily to keep you from infecting other people. Remember you may spread the virus even though you have no symptoms.
• Avoid traveling to and from areas which have high levels of infection. Human movement is the main vector for spread of the virus.
• Avoid gatherings, particularly those which have more than 10 people.

The Future: Most states have issued orders based on the precautions above in order to keep their citizens safe. However, if the orders remain in place too long they will hurt the economy, but if they are relaxed too soon we may experience a second round of the virus. This would prolong the pandemic and hurt businesses even more. Most states, sometimes under political pressure, are relaxing the guidelines stepwise in order to allow businesses to open while keeping an eye on the of infection rate.

No matter what your state orders, it would be a good idea to follow the precautions above until the OK is given by healthcare professionals. The decision up is up to you. Please follow the guidelines to keep yourself and others safe.

Early Childhood Education

     Posted on Thu ,28/05/2020 by admin

Although this article is about early childhood education in Kansas, many other states are adding early education to their curriculum. Different states and individual school districts may vary greatly in the nature of programs, but they each have some common goals and features.

Many of the school districts in Kansas are adding pre-kindergarten programs for children that begin at the age of three. Though the age of three may seem too early to begin a child’s education, there is a growing interest in early childhood education. A child’s brain grows to about 90% of its capacity by the age of five. They are likened to a sponge, soaking up everything they see, hear, and experience. Children are adept at learning language then, and many skills they need later in life build on those early experiences.

The first formal research in the US on early childhood education was in Minnesota in the 1960’s. Two groups of children were randomly divided into an Experimental group, who received two years of early childhood education, and a Control group, who did not. The Experimental group was provided experiences that help children grow and thrive, such as stable and nurturing relationships with other children and adults, a language rich environment, experience with routines, and encouragement to explore through movement and their senses. They also learned to take turns, to lead and follow in play, to seek help when needed, to recognize emotions, and to control their impulses. In addition, they become familiar with numbers, the alphabet, and problem-solving skills.

Upon entering traditional school, the Experimental group members were more successful in the early grades, but it was found that by age 10 they performed about the same as their peers. The researchers were disappointed at first, but when they followed the Experimental group through school and into adulthood, they found many improvements. The experimental group were less likely to repeat grades or need remedial classes, and they were more likely to graduate from high school and attend college. They were also more successful in their careers and less likely to experienced health problem or be involved with the criminal justice system.

It was found that the children in early childhood education do better if the parents and caregivers are involved in the process. Many schools involve the parents through home visits and also encourage daycare centers to have children practice skills learned in early childhood education.

Surprisingly, the Federal Reserve is interested in research in early childhood education as a way to improve the workforce and improve economic development. The economic value of early childhood education programs has been found to greatly outweigh the cost. Economists who have analyzed the costs and benefits find that there is a rate of return of $5 to $15 for every dollar invested, with disadvantaged children seeing the greatest benefit. While children and their families benefit from investments in early education, the majority of benefits accrue to communities and society as a whole. It is also likely that the children become better parents and better citizens, extending the benefits forward.

Kansas legislators and educators are becoming more interested in early childhood education as they try to spend education dollars more efficiently. The 2019 Kansas Legislature increased K-12 school funding to allow for inflation, and the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the increase was adequate. However, Kansas should not be satisfied with just adequate.
Kansas has always been known for its excellent schools, and we should keep it that way. One way to do that would be to increase early education programs. There are both Federal and private grants available to develop early childhood learning programs. The Kansas Legislature should also consider providing additional funding to start and maintain those programs. It would be an efficient way to improve educational outcomes at a minimal cost, and it would be a wise investment in our future.

Winners of the 2017 Environmental Hall of Fame/Shame Awards

     Posted on Sat ,25/01/2020 by admin

Each year, this site takes a poll to find those most deserving to be in the Environmental Hall of Fame or the Environmental Hall of Shame.The year 2017 saw some real heroes and villains with respect to the environment. It is important that we recognize those who most affected the environment, for good or ill, by their words or actions. Below are the results of the balloting along with a suitable gift for each.

Hall Of Fame

1.The US Military – (35%) – for adapting renewable energy to big bases and for pointing out that global warming causes global instability. Their gift is having political leaders who respect their research.

2.  Jerry Brown, the governor of California – (26%) – for supporting strong environmental programs and for forming a coalition of 15 states to support the Paris climate. Gift: Several more states in his coalition.   

3. Norway – (22%) – for their investment in renewable energy and for their plans to cut the use of fossil fuels. Gift: Clean air for its citizens.

4: Elon Musk – (17%) – for developing the lithium ion batteries and for promoting electric vehicles. Gift: Spiraling upward stock prices.

Hall of Shame

1. President Donald Trump – (76%) – for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement and for opening up public lands for exploitation by fossil fuel companies. Gift: A chance to rejoin the Paris  Agreement.

2. The USA – (14%) – Though it has 5% of the world’s population, it uses 25% of the world’s energy and has resisted reducing its energy use. Gift: A national social conscience.

3/4. Scott Pruitt – (5%) – Past EPA Director, for not accepting the science of global warming and for killing  policies which protected the public from pollution. Gift: Drinking water from a polluted stream.

3/4.   Rick Perry – (5%) – Past Secretary of Energy, for his spectacular turn around on renewable energy.   As Governor, he moved Texas to a top renewable energy producer. As Secretary of Energy, he adopted without remorse the role of promoting dirty forms of energy as his primary responsibility. Gift: May he be remembered for the former.

Note! My apologies for not posting this in a timely manner. I plan to catch up by taking a poll for 2018 and 2019.

The Registration Fee Increase on Electric Vehicles

     Posted on Mon ,27/05/2019 by admin

Though this is written from a Kansas perspective, it may be similar to an attempt by other states to impose additional fees and taxes on hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs). Traditionally, state roads have been funded by a tax on fuel.  Some state lawmakers are concerned that hybrid and electric vehicles are not paying their share of the cost of road construction. To be proactive, which is a novelty, they wish to add an additional fee onto electric vehicles to make sure they pay their fair share the cost of roads. It seems reasonable, but it is not.

Owners of hybrids and EVs help reduce health and the environmental costs and pay more in other taxes and than owners of the standard internal combustion models. Hybrid vehicles get about the same mileage as fuel-efficient gasoline cars, and an additional fee is not added on to those. How fair is that?

Electric vehicles contribute to people’s health and the environment. EVs reduce air pollution and the costs associated with lung and heart diseases which are made worse by particulates, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and ozone. Though air pollution is more of a problem in the cities, those in rural areas are still affected by extreme weather and by the increased medical and insurance costs associated with air pollution. EVs reduce carbon emissions and thereby reduce the associated risk of extreme weather caused by global warming. Conventional electric power plants are about twice as efficient at converting fuel to energy as internal combustion engines. That means electric vehicles reduce emissions by about half, even if charged from a conventional coal fired power plant.

At one time the federal government recognized the value of electric vehicles by providing a $7500 rebate to encourage their purchase. Likewise, many states give tax rebates on the purchase of electric vehicles. California gives rebates of up to $2500 for purchase of an EV, Colorado has a $5000 rebate, and 10 other states give similar rebates. Those tax incentives are now being phased out, as there are forces at work to discourage electric vehicles.

Last session, Kansas passed HB 2214 which raised the registration fee on hybrid vehicles to $50 dollars and those on electric vehicles to $100. That amount probably will not discourage anyone from buying an EV or a hybrid, but putting a tax on EVs is a move in the wrong direction. Those who buy EVs pay a premium for those vehicles because they are concerned about air pollution and the environment. It does not seem right that they are rewarded with an increased registration fee, especially when they already pay more in purchase price and property tax to upgrade to an environmentally friendly vehicle.

For examples, Ford’s basic gasoline auto is the Focus which has an MSRP of $18,000 with a property tax of $294. The buyer of a CMAX, a hybrid Focus ($25,000), pays $412 in property tax and of Ford’s Energi plug-in hybrid($28,000) pays $490 in property tax. The gas powered Nissan Sentra ($21,000) pays $342 in property tax while the comparable Nissan Leaf EV ($31,000) pays $503. The property tax decreases each year but the differential remains so that over the life of the vehicle, the buyer of a hybrid or EV pays, not only more for the car but considerably more in property taxes than the buyer of a comparable gasoline vehicle. Besides the additional property tax, EV owners also pay taxes on the electricity used to charge their car. Westar customers, for instance, pay a 6.15% sales tax on electricity as well as a property tax surcharge of $0.001209 per kilowatt hour. It is no wonder owners of hybrids and EVs feel they have are taxed enough already.

In 2010, the Kansas Legislature enacted a 10 year highway/transportation program to ensure job growth, economic development, safety and overall prosperity for our state. The $8 billion,10 year KDOT program was funded through a variety of sources, including dedicating four– tenths of a cent in state sales tax to the highway fund and bonds. However, to shore up the state’s general fund, previous legislatures transferred $2.3 billion from KDOT to plug budget holes. The extra registration fee put on EVS is expected to raise about $600,000 annually, which would require 40 years to pay back KDOT if the purchase of additional EVS was discouraged.

The most reasonable way to fund our roads into the future is to restore the 0.4 cent diverted from KDOT and to add an additional 0.4 cent, which would come partly from the additional taxes paid by electric vehicle owners. As the number of electric vehicles grows, so would the highway funds.

Kansas Legislature lets down public on regulations

     Posted on Mon ,23/04/2018 by admin

“I can understand why they want to be free of regulations and scrutiny, but I cannot understand why we should let them.” That is a famous quote from Drew Edmondson, the former Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma who sued Tyson for polluting the scenic rivers of eastern Oklahoma. Tyson responded by helping to elect an attorney general and a governor who were less concerned about regulations and pollution. Tyson now wants to expand their business into Kansas, and the Kansas Legislators seems amenable to “letting them”.


The Kansas Legislature recently passed HB 405, which changes the animal conversion rate ( i.e., the number of chickens whose manure weight equals that from one cow) from 0.008, the previous value, to 0.003. That small change has big consequences. The result is that now a chicken farm may house 330,000 chickens, and it may be placed within 1/4 of a mile of neighboring houses and within 100 feet of neighboring property lines.


Some Legislators were unconcerned about the effect on property rights. Representative John Whitmer, who voted for the bill, justified his vote by saying, “local councils and county governments will still have to change current zoning and planning maps.” That may not be the case. The September KC Business Journal suggested that some Tonganoxie residents think Tyson “may have reason to believe they can declare their operation an agricultural rather than an industrial use to avoid rezoning.”

Also, 51 counties have no zoning laws. SB 405 needed an amendment for home rule, where county residents could have the right to file petitions against industrial-agricultural chicken barns and have a county-wide vote. That amendment failed. Apparently, our Legislators are for local rule and property rights when they ask for our vote, but not when they pass legislation.

This was published in the Kansas Times Sentinel on April 5, 2018.


(C) 2018 – JC Moore



Bipartisan carbon fee and dividend would brighten future for generations

     Posted on Mon ,23/04/2018 by admin

This is an Op Ed article for Earth Day published in the Wichita Eagle. April 19, 2018 04:03 AM

Bipartisan carbon fee and dividend would brighten future for generations



Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have enjoyed the benefits of fossil fuels. Today, we understand that there are health, environmental, and economic costs associated with fossil fuel use.

The growing burden of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), is changing our climate and increasing the risk of catastrophic climate events. We want our children and grandchildren to have clean air, safe drinking water, and a healthy environment as we did. To do that, we need to cut our fossil fuel use and shift to renewable energy sources in a way that does not damage our economy.

Wanting to help make this a reality, a group of Wichita citizens formed a chapter of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. We are a bi-partisan, non-profit organization working to build relationships with members of Congress. We work to build the political will for Congress to pass legislation to reduce carbon emissions and create job opportunities in renewable energy.

CCL supports the carbon fee and dividend proposal as co-authored by Secretary George Shultz, Republican statesman and secretary of State, Labor, and Treasury. The proposal would collect a fee on carbon at the point it enters the economy, initially at $15 per ton of CO2.


A border adjustment protects American workers, businesses and agriculture. The carbon fee is not a tax as it would be rebated 100 percent to American households.

The fee will initially increase the price of gasoline about 9 cents per gallon in the first year and about 6 cents each succeeding year. Other fuels will see a similar price increase. Rising energy costs will be offset by the carbon dividend which, for a family of four, will be about $30 per month the first year and grow to over $200 per month after 10 years.

People who reduce their fossil fuel use, or choose renewable energy, will be able to increase their disposable income by saving more of their dividend. The monthly dividend check will also remind every family that they have a stake in reducing carbon emissions.

To see the effect of the carbon fee and dividend on the economy, CCL commissioned a research study by the nonpartisan Regional Economic Models. The study found that the carbon fee and dividend approach would reduce the carbon emissions to 50 percent of the 1990 levels in just 20 years. During that time, it would add 2.1 million jobs to the American economy, increase the gross domestic product by $75 billion, and save 220,000 lives by reducing lung and heart diseases.

We have confidence in our work because we see progress. Seventy-two members of Congress (36 Republicans and 36 Democrats) now sit on the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus we promote. This caucus explores policy options that address the challenges of our changing climate.

There you have it. CCL’s carbon fee and dividend proposal will allow us to avoid the cost and risks of climate change. It provides the certainty needed for long-range planning and lets consumers and markets determine winners and losers, not regulators. It sends a market signal to entrepreneurs that there is profit in adopting energy-saving technologies and offering innovative energy-saving or low carbon products. And it assures our children and grandchildren will have clean air, pure water, and a healthy environment.

Darrel Hart and JC Moore are with the Wichita chapter of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby.