J.C. Moore Online

Current Events from a Science Perspective

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.

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.

Last 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.

What do you fear? People are moved to action by their fears. Sometimes our fears lurk at the edge of our consciousness, and then are brought into sharp focus by events. Dying oceans, polluted lakes and streams, unsafe drinking water in major cities, catastrophic hurricanes, severe drought and wildfires, and an increase in the severity of weather events, have brought environmental problems into the things Americans fear.

The annual Chapman University Survey of American Fears in 2017 provides an in-depth examination into the fears of average Americans. The survey looked at 80 fears and ranked them according to the survey responses The chart below lists America’s top 10 fears for 2017. For the first time ever, not one, but four of the top 10 fears are related to the deterioration of the environment. Pollution of natural waters, unsafe drinking water, global warming, and air pollution are now among Americans worst 10 fears.

It is not only natural disasters that occurred in 2017, but also political events . Americans had considered that the Environmental Protection Agency would protect our natural waters from pollution. However, Scott Pruitt, the current Environmental Protection Agency director, decided not to enforce major pollution laws, and fired the EPA’s entire Science Advisory Board. No advice, no research, no problem. People are beginning to realize that what you don’t know can hurt you.

The publicity surrounding the failure of the state and local government of Flint Michigan to protect the city’s residents from lead poisoning, and the subsequent discovery of lead and other toxins in our city water supplies, have made people fear that their water is not safe to drink. Almost everyone lives downstream from someone, and pollutants that find their way into our water supplies are bound to find their way into us.

Many Americans perceived the results of climate change remote and far into the future. The attribution of worsening disasters to climate change, and the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord have brought carbon emissions and air pollution into sharper focus. Pictures of severe smog in China and the data from the American Heart and the American Lung Associations about the number of deaths caused by air pollution and particulates are making people increasingly fear for their health.

Action and participation is the antidote for what fear can create, a  feeling of helplessness. Our fears should create the will for political action on climate change and pollution. Even with the failure of our government and the EPA to protect the environment, we can still do it using market forces. The best plan is the carbon fee and dividend system as proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby. The CCL legislative proposal would set an initial fee on carbon at $15 per ton of CO2 at the source and would increase it by $10 each year until the CO2 emissions were reduced to 10% of the 1990 US levels. The carbon fees are not a tax, as they would be rebated 100% to American households. It would give every American citizen a stake in conserving energy and reducing their use of carbon fuels,  which would both cut pollution and improve the economy. Exercise the power in your citizenship, and insist your Representative support action on climate change.

Credit: Thanks to Darrel Hart, President of the Wichita CCL Chapter, for suggesting the idea and supplying some of the wording in the article.

(C) 2017 J.C. Moore

There were three great letters in the Wichita Eagle recently. The first describes how renewable energy is growing and may soon meet much of our energy needs; the second describes the advantage of using a Carbon Fee and Dividend system to reduce pollution; and the third describes how cities may use electric vehicles in their transit system to cut air pollution.  The letters are printed below with the authors’ permission.

Green energy (Wichita Eagle, June 28, 2017)

I read with interest the column by Ed Cross about energy and the need for American energy independence. I’m afraid I need some help defining his  “extreme environmental activist.” Is it a person who favors any type of energy besides fossil fuels? Is it a person who wishes to return the United States to using coal entirely to produce our electric power?

I would guess that Cross did not enjoy the latest statistics from the alternative energy sector: In the first three months of 2017 the entire United States derived 10 percent of its electric power from solar and wind energy.

If you look at the mathematical curve describing the growth of solar and wind power in the past 10 years, it is exponential. Naysayers regarding green energy have said for years it is a mere Boy Scout experiment, it will never produce significant power.

The power that was produced last year by green energy sources in the United States exceeds the total electric power consumed by the entire nation in the year 1950. The United States at that time was a highly developed industrial nation that was producing vast quantities of steel, and other high-value, energy-intensive products.

There is no question that if we stay on course with where we have begun, green energy sources will clearly surpass fossil fuels for every purpose within the next few years.

If Cross is so interested in American energy independence I am puzzled as to how he can be opposed to American green energy. By definition green energy must be produced here in our country and nowhere else.

PATRICK J PIROTTE, WICHITA

Coming together on an energy policy (Wichita Eagle, June 30, 2017)

The op-ed (June 25) by Edward Cross calls for energy policy discussions without the divisiveness of the past. I agree.

As a volunteer with non-partisan Citizens’ Climate Lobby, we bring Republicans and Democrats together to talk about energy and climate solutions. We have identified a market-based solution called Carbon Fee and Dividend that grows the economy, levels the field for foreign trade, and puts more money in the pockets of consumers. Four of the six largest oil companies signaled their support for this type of plan just last week.

I appreciated Mr. Cross reporting an improvement we can take comfort in, that from 2005 to 2016, 60 percent of carbon reductions in electric power production were due to fuel switching from coal to natural gas. Kansas wind helped reduce CO2 as well. Switching from coal to gas cuts emissions about 50 percent, but wind or solar cuts it to zero.

Americans want a common-sense energy policy like Carbon Fee and Dividend that sparks innovation that appeals to liberals and conservatives. No yelling needed, just respectful discussions.

DARREL HART, WICHITA

City’s emissions ( Wichita Eagle, July 2, 2017)

It is hard to believe that Wichita has a smog problem, but it does. Wichita’s Department of Public Works should be commended for its work in reducing ozone emissions, but more needs done.

Wichita could further reduce emissions by buying electric vehicles when its buses and vans need replacing. Park City, Utah, replaced its diesel buses and found that, though they cost more to purchase, they saved money over time. They reported an equivalent 21 mpg compared with 4 mpg for a standard diesel bus.

Large power plants produce about twice as much work for a given amount of fuel as an internal combustion engine. That means that using electric vehicles cuts fuel use and emissions by about 50 percent. By using electric vehicles, Wichita could save money on fuel and maintenance, cut ozone emissions within the city, and reduce carbon emissions overall by about 75 percent. That sounds like a good investment.

J.C. MOORE, KECHI

Note : This letter was shortened for printing so a bit more explanation is needed. Because of the efficiencies involved, using electrical vehicles cuts the emissions by about 50%, even if charged from a coal-fired power plant. Since Wichita uses Westar Energy which gets 51% of its electricity from non carbon sources, the emissions are cut in half again, giving an overall reduction of 75%.  And, the emissions are at the power plant rather than within Wichita.

The authors are members of the Citizens’ Climate Education and the  Citizens’ Climate Lobby  groups in Wichita. They are both strong advocates for a carbon fee and dividend system to ensure clean air, pure water, and a healthy future for our children.

Westar Energy is proposing a rate increase for customers who install solar panels or other distributive energy sources. Those Net Energy Metering (NEM) customers would have to choose between an additional $50 a month energy charge, or a $15 fixed fee plus a per-kilowatt rate demand charge based on the previous month’s maximum usage. If approved, Westar’s rate proposal will increase the payback time for installing solar panels from 12 years to more than 20 years, greatly discouraging solar installations.

As a Westar stockholder, I am opposed to additional fees or higher charges on Net Energy Metering customers. The NEM customers should be seen as a resource rather than a liability and should be encouraged. They should be treated just as any other customer when they draw energy from the grid, and just as any other supplier for the net energy they produce. Does it really matter if Westar buys energy from NEM customers or from the Southwest power pool?

Westar’s website  says it will “support public policies and initiatives to accelerate the development and use of environmentally beneficial and cost effective strategies for energy efficiency programs for both customers and Westar’s own operations, zero – or low – emissions generation technologies, and renewable energy resources.”  That is a good policy, but this proposal is inconsistent with it.

One of the biggest future costs to Westar would be to build additional power plants, so Westar encourages energy conservation.  If I cut my electricity usage by 50% by installing more insulation and storm windows, I am applauded for following Westar’s conservation guidelines. If I cut my electricity usage by 50% by installing solar panels, I would be charged a higher electric rate. That is irrational, as NEM customers would help reduce the need for new power plants just as energy conservation does.

Westar should not be concerned about losing revenue from solar customers. Residential customers pay a customer fee, an electricity fee, a fuel charge, a distribution fee, an environmental fee, an energy efficiency charge, and even Westar’s property taxes. Last June, our bill was $24.95 for electricity, but our total bill came out to be $53.27 after the fees were added. NEM customers will pay less for energy charges, but will still pay the other fees. If Westar makes it too expensive, then potential NEM customers may install extra battery  capacity such as a Powerwall, and withdraw from the grid entirely.

Distributive generation should be seen as a resource. Westar has been proactive in developing wind and solar energy and now gets 51% of its energy from noncarbon sources. In the future, Westar will need to replace some of its coal power plants and may need to reduce its use of natural gas to cut its greenhouse gas emissions. Distributed generation would help replace the energy they produce without requiring capital investment from Westar.

NEM customers will help reduce pollution and environmental degradation. Westar has three coal-fired power plants which operate without scrubbers. Those plants should be phased out immediately and Westar should begin phasing out its other coal-fired power plants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Though natural gas is cheap now, that may not be true in the future. There is a link between fracking and earthquakes, and fracking activities are being curtailed. This will lead to higher gas prices. Though natural gas produces 2 ½ times as much energy per mole of carbon dioxide produced, it has a global warming potential 82 times that of carbon dioxide. If even 4% of the natural gas used for energy is leaked during production and transportation, then any advantage of using it for fuel will be lost

Coal-fired power plants release mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide,  particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Burning  coal releases millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaves several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants stay in the air and others eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. The heavy metals are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide released by coal combustion harm plants, produce acid rain, and increase the greenhouse gas concentrations. Switching to renewable energy would greatly reduce these pollutants and help preserve the environment for future generations.

Encouraging NEM will benefit Westar and its customers.  A study by Crossborder Energy in 2014 found NEM allows utilities to avoid costs of generation and fuel, maintenance and upgrade of transmission and distribution infrastructure, transmission losses (which account for 7% of losses), capacity purchases, and compliance with renewable energy standards. The study concluded,” The cost which utilities avoid when they accept NEM power exported to their grid shows that NEM does not produce a cost to nonparticipating ratepayers; instead it creates a small net benefit on average across the residential markets.” While it does cause power companies to have to adjust their loads accordingly, NEM reduces peak loads, transmission losses, and the need for new power plants.  In California, the study found NEM “delivers more than $92 million in annual benefits to non-solar customers”.

Similar research studies in Vermont, New York, California, Texas, and Nevada also concluded that net metering provided a net positive benefit for utility companies and their customers. A 2015 study done in Missouri is relevant to Kansas. A cost-benefit study of net metering in Missouri arrived at the same conclusion as the other studies, “ Net metering provides a net benefit. “ Missouri has 6000 net metering customers while Westar now has approximately 300. Westar certainly should encourage more.

This proposal to impose a fee or higher rates on NEM customers is the result of short-term thinking. It will harm Westar and its stakeholders in the long run. Investing in clean energy protects the environment, reduces deaths and disease from air pollution, and creates good, local jobs. Westar  must develop policies to encourage the development of renewable energy investments and energy conservation. Our energy needs will best be served by a mixture of traditional and alternate energy sources, but we must be proactive in developing our renewable energy resources as quickly as possible.

(c) 2017 – J.C Moore

Opponents of the EPA are now seeking comments on regulations that need to be eliminated by the EPA. They are, of course, focusing on the regulations that save businesses money by allowing them to pollute the environment. Please submit a comment at the link above asking that  no steps be taken to weaken the EPA.

It is our birthright that we and future Americans have clean air, pure water, and a livable Earth. The EPA has done a great job in limiting pollution to our environment and to remove the regulations that protect us would be a grave mistake.
Though many would like to see the EPA stop limiting carbon emissions, there is well-documented scientific evidence, supported by 97+ percent of climate scientists who are members of the American Geophysical Union, that carbon emissions are making undesirable changes in the Earth and its eco systems. The U.S. is second only to China in emissions but emits six times as much CO2 on a per capita basis. If the U.S. is not willing to reduce its emissions, why should other countries?

If anything, the EPA should strengthen the Clean Power Plan and reduce the amount of coal burned. Coal contains small amounts of mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur, particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Man burns 6 billion tons of coal each year, releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaving several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. For comparison, mercury is 100 times as toxic as cyanide, arsenic is 20 times as toxic, and chromium(VI) is 4 times as toxic. These three are also are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The sulfur and nitrogen oxides released by coal combustion harm plants and produce acid rain.

Polls show that the public does not support weakening the Clean Power Plan. The EPA’s plan may lead to increased electricity costs in the short term, but will lead to lower electric rates in the future. Coal and transportation prices are certain to increase in the future while the cost of renewable energy is falling. It costs upfront to build wind turbines and solar installations but, once they are in place, they are expected to function for 30 years or longer without any need for fuel.The EPA projects the Clean Power Plan’s proposed guidelines for particulates alone could prevent up to 3,600 deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days per year. As a result, for every dollar Americans spend on the Clean Power Plan, we will gain up to $4 worth of health benefits. So in terms of future energy costs, environmental benefits, and health benefits, the EPA Clean Power Plan is good policy for our citizens.

You may submit a comment up until May 15 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-0042.

(C)  2017 J.C. Moore

We must switch to renewable energy for health reasons, economic reasons, and environmental reasons.

Health reasons: The American Lung Association estimates that there are 26,000 deaths and 1.5 million cases of acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma caused by small particulates, much of it emitted from coal-fired power plants and from coal ash disposal. They estimate the economic benefits of reduced exposure to particulates alone could reach as much as $281 billion annually. Recently, fine particles have been implicated as a cause of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease and new research has revealed a troubling link between mental illness and air pollution that seems to particularly effect children.

Economic reasons: Besides reducing health care costs, a switch to renewable energy will help keep our future electric rates low. Wind and solar are falling in cost and are now competitive with energy from coal-fired power plants. Recently AEP/PSO in Oklahoma purchased 800 MW of wind energy saying the cost was now less than building new coal fired plants, and that the purchase will save an estimated $53 million in the first year and even more thereafter. Kansas currently has 27,000 jobs in the clean energy sector. Of those jobs 75% are in wind energy, and are growing at a rate of 2.3% per year.  By the end of 2016, 32% of Westar’s retail electricity will come from the wind.

Environmental reasons: Coal is 65 to 95 % carbon. What about the rest? Burning coal releases mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide,  particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Burning  coal releases millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaves several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants stay in the air and others eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. For comparison, mercury is 100 times as toxic as cyanide, arsenic is 20 times as toxic, and chromium(VI) is 4 times as toxic. These three are also are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide released by coal combustion harm plants, produce acid rain, and increase the greenhouse gas concentrations. Switching to renewable energy would greatly reduce these  pollutants and help preserve the environment for future generations.

Summary: Investing in clean energy protects the environment, reduces death and disease from air pollution, and creates good, local jobs. We must develop policies to encourage the development of renewable energy investments and energy conservation. Our energy needs will best be served by a mixture of traditional and alternate energy sources, and we must be proactive in developing our renewable energy resources.

(c) 2016 J.C. Moore

The Wichita Eagle recently published an interesting  letter from Darrel Hart, president of the Wichita chapter the Citizens Climate Lobby. He pointed out that the House energy and water development bill , as it stands, provides subsidies of $95 million for wind, $632 million for fossil fuel and $1 billion for nuclear.

The letter goes on, “Clearly when it comes to winning subsidies, wind falls short. Legislators favoring carbon-based fuel spin the idea that if wind were economical, it could compete without government help. Well, what does that say about fossil fuel? It has been receiving billions in subsidies for decades.

Lopsided subsidies and favored treatment reveal the intent to pick winners and losers. A better solution is carbon fee and dividend legislation that cuts greenhouse gas emissions and corrects the artificially low price of fossil fuel created by tax dollars rigging the system against clean energy. Let markets reveal the true price of energy, and it will be the consumer who chooses the winner.”

Mr. Hart certainly has a good point, as carbon fuels are not paying their true cost.  Besides the $632 million subsidies to fossil fuels, we are also providing an even greater subsidy by allowing them to release their waste products into the air without paying the external costs, i.e., the costs indirectly borne by society.

The external costs for fossil fuels include health and environmental damage from particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, chromium, mercury, arsenic, and carbon emissions. An EU funded research study, Externalities of Energys ,  found that including external costs would increase the cost of producing electricity from fossil fuels by 30% for natural gas to 90% for coal, if costs to the environment and to human health were included.

The carbon fee and dividend system Mr. Hart is recommending would put a fee on carbon at the source, which would require the fossil fuels to include their external costs.This would allow renewable energy sources to compete with fossil fuels on an even basis, and would greatly favor a switch to renewable energy.

(c) 2016 J.C. Moore