Taking action for Planet Earth
Life as we know it on planet Earth is in peril because warming oceans and acidification are killing coral reefs and altering the web of life in all oceans, plants and animals are going extinct, global ice is melting and droughts, flooding and wildfires are increasing as a result of unprecedented warming temperatures.
President Trump is ignoring the reality of climate change and plans to develop a “Fossil Fuel Future” within the United States by increasing the use of coal, oil and shale oil. That would be disastrous for America in every respect because it would increase U.S. emissions, would not create a sufficient number of jobs, would be a missed opportunity for the United States to lead in developing the alternative energy industries of the future and would void the U.S. leadership role in the Paris and U.S. – China emission reduction agreements.
A delegation of prominent conservative and Republican leaders formed the Climate Leadership Council (www.clcouncil.org), with a plan that would put the U.S. in a leadership role of developing a low-carbon future by pricing carbon in relation to the damage it causes to the climate.
The four pillars of the plan are:
• Impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions starting at $40 per-ton.
• Return the proceeds to the American people in equal payments via monthly or quarterly dividend checks. A family of four would receive roughly $2,000 in carbon dividends in the first year, and that amount would grow over time as the carbon tax rate is increased.
• Give American companies exporting to countries without comparable carbon pricing rebates for the carbon taxes they paid on those products, while imports from such countries would face fees on the carbon content of their products. This would ultimately create a global price for carbon that is necessary for controlling emissions globally.
• Eliminate regulations made unnecessary by the carbon tax, including an outright repeal of the Clean Power Plan. Those regulations could eventually be re-instated on an as needed basis.
The Climate Leadership Council estimates that by 2025 its plan will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 28 percent below the 2005 baseline, meeting America’s Paris commitment. The Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org) estimates that by using a larger rise in the tax after the beginning $40 per-ton price, the Council’s plan would reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 levels 40 percent by 2030.
The carbon dividend payments would stimulate the economy by transferring billions of dollars to families that will spend the money. Families spending less on fossil fuels by conserving and using alternative energy would gain with a surplus of dividend money. Industries will adapt and benefit from a low-carbon energy infrastructure and economy.
A Treasury Department report predicts the dividends would provide extra income for about 70 percent of Americans (223 million) which would strengthen the economy.
Republican Congressional support is building for national climate legislation:
• The bipartisan Climate Solution Caucus is working to determine the best solution for addressing climate change with currently 34 Republican and Democrat members.
• The recently created Republican Climate Resolution has 17 signers.
A national survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found an overwhelming majority of Trump voters support policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change.
Another broad range poll showed that 64 percent of Americans are concerned about climate change, 71 percent want America to remain in the Paris agreement and an even larger share favor clean energy.
The “Business Backs Low-Carbon USA” petition to act on climate change has gained over a thousand business leader and investor signatures since the November election. (www.lowcarbonusa.org)
More Congressional representatives are needed in the Climate Solution Caucus to be part of determining the best climate solution. Currently 6 of the 34 caucus members are from California.
Encouraging our congressional representatives to join the caucus would increase the necessary bipartisan support for passing effective national climate legislation because joining requires teaming with a representative in the other party.
Now is the time for Americans to rise up and exercise our political power by calling for our elected representatives to pass carbon tax and dividend legislation. Now is the time for America to lead the world in building a global clean energy economy with or without President Trump’s leadership.
For the sake of a healthy global environment today and for future generations forever, please call and write letters to our Congressional and Senate Representatives asking them to support carbon tax and dividend legislation and to join the Climate Solutions Caucus.
Please consider joining thousands of Citizens’ Climate Lobby volunteers working to enact carbon tax and dividend legislation and creating a livable world. Join the Vallejo Citizens’ Climate Lobby chapter by selecting,” Join CCL” at www.CitizensClimateLobby.org, and selecting California District 5.
Mark Altgelt,
Vallejo Citizens’ Climate Lobby chapter
Sharing is caring!
Pure scare tactics. The big problem is it works in very far left leaning Socialist Progressive California. This state hates President Donald Trump. Sorry Mark the reverse can happen using science and Silicon Valley to help produce clean air and clean water. But that would make to much sense.
What about this is “Scare Tactics”, exactly? It’s not like this article is going off about how Trump is Hitler or anything like that. All it’s saying is that the push to invest in coal is a poor idea.
Also, I’m very excited to hear about how science and Silicon Valley can make the reverse happen. Would you like to share some details on the upcoming technologies you refer to?
Just where have you been. I said using. I never said it was happening at present. But I would advise you to take a look at fracking. Lots of advanced tech there. Where do you think it comes from? An opinion writer? I think not. Do you think it would be ok to subsidize coal so it could burn just like natural gas. I hope you do know that Marin Clean Energy uses Natural Gas. Maybe to the tune of close to 35% on their Light Green product. About the same as PG&E basic plan. Check it out and then ask me where I got my info. I will gladly tell you.
Yeah, I don’t care what Marin Clean Energy does. This isn’t a political issue, it’s a chemical issue.
Also, fracking doesn’t matter. It’s efficient but it suffers from very short timeframes of useage. Even if that weren’t the case, Fossil fuels and coal are simply poor energy sources. It has nothing to do with technology. The chrmical process these undergo to provide energy create significant excess heat energy into a system. We can’t change that, that’s literally how their molecular structure is. The production and collection of it isn’t important. The attributes of the matter itself are inefficient in and of themselves.
BB, The law of conservation of energy states that energy is always conserved in the universe and simply changes from one form to another, When considering fossil fuels, that change takes 370 million years. Of course fossil fuels are ultimately the result of the sun’s energy transferred to ancient plants and animals. How long does it take the suns energy to change form when we talk about solar technology? It certainly is not 370 million years. Your comment about efficiency is spot on.
I also like clean air and water. But at the same time we should use all the resources available to make them all clean. Fracking and coal included. We can make fossil fuel extracted clean and burn clean. Fossil fuel made this country what it is. Yes we should look at other clean resources but at the expense of who? We need to use the resources that are available and make them clean. Science can do that.
No, it cannot. Why do you assume “Science” will make coal a “clean energy”? Do you have any proof that this is possible? What you are suggesting is that we convert coal into a chemically different substance. The process in which you comvert coal to energy does not change the physical properties it has at a molrcular level, but I am open to hear any idea that circumvents this issue. Having used it in the past isn’t good justification. Plenty of outdated tech made the country what it is. But when it becomes ibviously faulty, we replace them.
Seems to me that any process involving coal would still not result in zero waste production (whether gas, solid or liquid).
Oh, definately. A big part of energy production is not only Newton’s Laws, but understanding entropy and heat as well. Typically, a typical gas engine can convert about 50% of the energy produced from combustion into usable work energy. The rest just flows into the world as heat, which isn’t really convertible to anything usable. Electric cars often can attain energy retention up to the 90th precentile. Water turbines turn out an inpressive rate of energy per input compared to almost any other comventional source. When the process is streamlined, nuclear energy is also an incredibly “cool” form of energy. Add in debris from impurity, inefficient buring, carbon loss from burning… It’s simple energy. But coal just isn’t that impressive.
I love fossil fuel. I drive less than 5,000 per year. Believe me that is way below average. My water, gas and electric bill are considerable less than most. I see no need for solar or wind energy. You have not given me any facts on why coal or any fossil fuel cannot be converted to burn clean. We in most cases are talking about GHG. By the way do you want to get rid of all refineries and , fracking? That may just be your motive.
I literally do not care at all how much energy you use. We aren’t talking about you. This is about fuel sources and energy efficiency. You want facts? Sure thing.
https://www.worldcoal.org/reducing-co2-emissions/high-efficiency-low-emission-coal
Even advocates for coal cannot provide an efficiency higher than 40% That’s literally the best they can do, and isn’t even being done yet. The current number they provide is 33% efficiency, which is worse than my estimate. Where do you think the excess 66% energy goes?
No. As of right now, due to uneducated opinions on coal and oil, we need refineries for the short term. Fracking too. In a long term? We should definately move away from them. It’s outdated technology. You keep saying “science” will fix the problem. It already has. You just don’t like that the fix is abandoning coal.
BB, And, that is not even taking into account the amount of energy that is consumed exploring for, drilling and extracting, processing, transporting and re-transporting fossil fuels.
Yup, very true. It’s no suprise the industries involved are concerned, really. They’ve become so massive that it can seem catastrophic to have them collapse. However, the continued existance of drilling and processing leave a burden on future generations, and has to end eventually.
The science is yet unproven yet the letter writer advocates massive government regulation and taxation that will hurt people and raise prices on every consumable item we use.
Climate change is real. No question. Does human activity affect climate change? Most likely yes. How much affect? No one knows. And there is no consensus in spite of what politicians state. So … bottom line … we have no idea if the world is in peril, we have no idea to what actual extent carbon compounds have on climate change, and we do no what massive taxation and regulation does to economies and human suffering.
So this letter should be ignored as political puff and stuff.
Matter; that was good.
Mark Altgelt
Scientists agree the one degree increase in global temperatures above the pre-1880 average is human caused and another one degree increase will be catastrophic. So the scary idea of dead coral reefs, no plankton or shell fish and dependent chain of ocean life, hellish hot temperature and droughts and storms along with raising sea levels is very well known.
Placing a fee on carbon to include the cost of damage from carbon dioxide emissions is not a regulation and technically not a “tax” because government does not spend the money. Bank home loan requirements for fire insurance may be seen as “Puff and stuff” politics but for the U.S. and world putting a refundable “tax” on carbon is an insurance policy for the devastation of climate change that is headed our way unless we intervene by reducing emissions.
Tax and dividends is a market-driven proposal that would boost our economy to supplement the alternative energy industry that currently is providing twice as many jobs in the U.S. as coal, oil and natural gas combined. Almost three quarters of lower income American families would benefit financially from a tax and dividend plan.
Mark; that was good.
Tax and regulation always hits lower income people first. They are on limited incomes and cannot adjust to the increase. Government taxing and giving dividends are never efficient. The cost of government also takes a piece of every transaction.
Beyond all that, without definitive quantitative proof of carbon compounds effects on climate change, this whole program looks like a solution seeking a problem.
“…warming oceans and acidification are killing coral reefs and altering the web of life in all oceans, plants and animals are going extinct, global ice is melting and droughts, flooding and wildfires are increasing as a result of unprecedented warming temperatures.” All too true.
I agree Bob, Silicon Valley and science will help increase energy storage capabilities and produce new technologies. And market-driven demand created by a carbon tax and dividend plan would be the engine that brings that about. China has pledged they will build non-fossil fuel energy capacity equivalent to the size of the U.S. grid today by 2030. http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-climate-20170405-story.html So shouldn’t we be able to rebuild our energy grid with existing alternative energy technology by 2030 too?
Mark that all sounds good. But we have at our hands coal and fossil fuel. Yes, use science and Silicon Valley tech. to extract in a very clean manor. They also can make it burn much cleaner. Wind and solar are very ugly contraptions. Silicon Valley may be able to help with solar. and Tesla with his batteries. As we all know it is not the refinery’s that are the big pollutants. It is cars, truck and buses. The refinery’s have done their job. It appears all the environmentalist are attacking fossil fuel from the back to the front. By that I mean put the refinery’s out of business and no more fossil fuel driven vehicles. That is wrong. California has done a good job on vehicle emission and may be able to do more. Just stopping fossil fuel is the wrong approach. As I have said use high te4ch and science to solve this problem. I have lived in this area for years. The one thing I will tell you is the straits are not expending put shrinking. Good example is the rail tracks. Have not moved in many years. Still in the same place. The Martinez side of the ferry slip had to be moved out about 100 yards because the straits were shrinking. Solano Square will not be under water nor will 1st Street. Mark you might want to check into life expectation in refinery towns in this area. May surprise you. There are lots of animals and plants that are extinct. That has been going on for years. and will continue. What about the snakes and rodents in your yard. Do you really want them in your yard? I think not. No you kill them. I will put my water, gas and electric bill up against anyone . I use less than most in the City of Benicia. Why is that. I do not use gray water, no solar. I guess I am just a smart user of resources and do not sacrifice any personal needs. It can be done and we do not need the scare tactics to conserve. Just smart folks.
No the straits are not shrinking but the water level is rising here. According to you, Bob, sea level is going down locally, but that would mean the laws of physics apply here (and I am talking about laws established by Archimedes and Newton that work everywhere else in the universe).
Yes, in some areas the water depth is less, but that is caused by sedimentation increasing the bed level, not from the water level going down. This is why Pacheco Slough is no longer used as a port: it filled in during floods in the late 1800’s and was never dredged out.
In the Bay Area, sea level is rising faster than seismic activity is lifting the ground (not true in Alaska nor in Crescent City); but here we have a net increase in water level (about 20 cm from 1900-2000), and rising now at an annual average of 3.5 cm per decade (and that rate is accelerating). The rise is seen in long term records at the Golden Gate and in Antioch and in measurements from satellites. Since we are between Antioch and the Golden Gate, and there is no significant flow obstruction in between those locations, by the theorems proved by Archimedes, water level is rising here too (and measurements demonstrate that).
You might find this of interest:
http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf
That may be true. But I look at the area in and around Benicia and Martinez and there is no doubt it has not risen. So I do not believe First Street to Solano Square will be under water. Even in Martinez not that many years ago there was water where the Bocce Courts and ball fields are now. Even the Yacht Harbor is further out. Now dredging etc could answer that. But to a person who has lived in the area for years I see it differently. Alhambra Creek is not a flowing creek anymore. . To me it is very simple the straits are not rising. I look at it from the stand point of what I see not a science model. To me and many others that is all that counts. I may be around for another years but many will not. So I will judge then. Just kidding.
The end of First Street will very likely be under water at high tide by 2100. Solano Square is hardly likely.
Tidal range is over 6 feet and sometimes more in a day. Add to that the seasonal mean tidal elevation of 1 to 2 feet that comes with wind shear, and another foot or more during flood events, discerning 1.4 inches of water level rise per decade takes more than a look; it takes careful measurements that take into account the shift in the datum that is the basis of the measurements and a somewhat sophisticated time-series filter that removes the frequency components related to the tides and annual variations from seasonal wind patterns and flows. These are measurements (what is “seen”), not models. The basis of scientific models is always measurements that verify them.
By the way, I have a friend whose property abuts Alhambra Creek in Martinez, and he irrigates his vineyard with water from the creek (pre-1914 water right!). There are plenty of reasons creeks dry up, one is upstream diversions (direct or through wells adjacent to the creek). That is no evidence of water levels not rising in the Strait.
You can fool yourself, but science and nature win in the end.
You I respect. Thank you.
Greg I worked every summer in Alhambra Valley picking pears, plums and cherry’s. The area is now filled with houses. The creek ran by the property. They has boats and swimming holes. That creek does not run that way any more. Tell me why. As I said I respect your knowledge.
Well in fact you just pointed out one big reason. All those houses and streets. Pave over the ground and what meager rain we get runs off fast into storm drains instead of soaking into the ground and replenishing groundwater which flows slowly to low spots which are also creeks. Add to that, the past 30 years have been overall much drier than the previous 30 (droughts 85, 87-92, 94, 2001-2004, 2007-2010, 2012-2016.). That’s a formula for dry creeks. By the way almost every county in this state has a creek named Dry Creek, or Arroyo Seco! Clearly not a new phenomenon. .
Agreed. But trends move in both directions. Today …. sea rise. Tomorrow … sea levels drop. The question really is what will be the trend over thousands of years.
Polar ice caps expand and shrink. They have for billions of years. Almost every polar cap change has been due to natural and non human conditions.
The trend has been in one direction for the past 12,000 years. Rising. San Francisco Bay as we know it started to fill only 6,000 years ago. The best measurements from satellites show that not only is sea level rising at about 3.5 mm per year, that rate is accelerating. There is no evidence that the acceleration will decline or reverse over the next several centuries, only that it will further increase. That means the ncreasing rates of sea level rise.
—Beyond the sea level (climate change ) deniers—
From the above LTE:
“Life as we know it on planet Earth is in peril because warming oceans and acidification are killing coral reefs and altering the web of life in all oceans, plants and animals are going extinct, global ice is melting and droughts, flooding and wildfires are increasing as a result of unprecedented warming temperatures”
Well stated, Mr. Altgelt.
More climate specific ( science) information for our community and city council and city staff to seriously comprehend .
“Current Sea Level Rise is Faster Than at Any Time in Last 6,000 Years”
“For a new study, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has found that sea level rise over the past century is the fastest it has been since the end of the last ice age — when vast surges of water erupted from the melting glaciers”.
“The study, which compiled over 1,000 measurements of sea level over the past 35,000 years from sediment samples, found that at no time during the most stable period of the Holocene have seas ever
risen so fast as they are now rising. This 6,000 year period saw no increase or decrease in sea level exceeding 15-20 centimeters over 200 year time-frames. But during the 100 years from 1900 to 2000, seas rose by 20 centimeters, more than doubling highest rates of variance during the last 6,000 years.”
https://robertscribbler.com/2014/10/14/current-sea-level-rise-is-faster-than-at-any-time-in-last-6000-years/
Below a compilation of articles on sea level rise for the amateur to the expert/professional to consider.
https://robertscribbler.com/?s=sea+level+rise
That is accurate, but the “most stable period” refers to the last 6000 years, not the entire 35,000 year period. For the 6000 years prior to the more stable and recent 6000 years, the rate of increase was about 1 cm per year (compared to 3.2 mm/yr currently). At the current rate, and including the measured 0.009 mm/year/year acceleration, one would expect a rise of 300 mm by 2100, About one foot.
Not very much
Depends on where you live. Add a foot to the flooding we had downtown this winter and you get some unhappy folks downtown and a lot more backed up storm drains. Folks living on the beach in Malibu or elsewhere will not like a 1 foot rise either.
The 1 foot assumes no further acceleration and no sudden changes in terrestrial ice levels, things that are both likely given current measurements
Yes. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Man has been burning carbon compounds in sufficient amounts for 100 years. I don’t see the man made affect in this analysis. We can’t affect a natural trend that is beyond our control.
The Earth is 4 billion years old as a life bearing planet. Polar ice caps have developed and retreated many times during this span. Man was not part of any of these events. It is a natural occurrence
I believe it says the steps are taking the right direction. Near zero emissions. Is that not what you want.
It is very clear they are going in the right direction. Just look what California did for auto ,truck and bus emissions. That did not happen over night. It does appear you are anti fossil fuel. I must say seeing all those wind turbines and solar panels in open space bothers me a lot. I guess that is ok with you. Emission reduction is happening. Do you want to stop it?
Why do you feel the need to misdirect the topic? The subject at hand is not about emissions. Did you look at the source I provided, where it ranks energy efficiency at 33%?
Check out Seca
That is what they are talking about. High efficiency and zero emissions. Talk about diverting the conversation. They are working there way up.
How do you know they are “working there way up”? Do you understand thermodynamics and energy? Or are you simply believing it to be so because it fits your political stance? If it’s the former, please, give an educated explanation as to how we can have “clean coal energy”. You can also paste a URL to a legitimate source, if you want. So far though, you haven’t shown any understanding of the physics or chemistry involved in emergy production.
Did you check out SECA, your source? They are getting to 50% and rising. Just tell me what your understanding is? Are you a scientist? So far you have agreed with me on fracking and that coal can have clean emissions. If you do the research you will see that they are working their way up from 33% to very shortly 50%. 100% is not an unreasonable goal. All you have done so far is attack me. You say it is not political but accuse me of having a political stance. You confuse me.
Okay, first things first, 50% is not good. Nearly every other energy souce has supassed that, and with a small fraction of time and research put into it compared to coal.
I am a scientist, actually! That’s why I know 100% is a completely unreasonable goal. What makes you think that is possible? When coal breaks down to produce energy, it releases a large chunk of energy as heat, even in perfect conditions. Asking that to not be the case means making coal into something chemically different.
No, fracking is efficient from a production standpoint, but only a short-term. Since you need more fuel due to the low returns on energy, it gets depleted way too quickly.
It shouldn’t be political. It should be a matter of science. Why is it, then, that you cannot provide a single legitimate scientific resource that shows coal having the potential to be anywhere near as efficient as alternative energy?
The problem with alternative energy is it is limited. Solar for sure. Wind also. Nuclear is over. So what do you have weft? Fossil fuel. You scientist should start putting your energy to use. Make coal and any other fossil fuel burn clean. Can you scientist do that or do you even want to? You tell us all the time that the straits are shrinking. That is not true.
Ok, I will make this very, very clear.
SCIENCE CANNOT MAGICALLY MAKE COAL INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
Coal has a low rate of energy output. This is a fact. No amount of scientific tweaking can make a reaction different.
The only reason Nuclear Energy would be over are people uneducated on the subject being cowards and thinking the word nuclear = bombs. We should most definately be continuing work on nuclear energy if we want to reamin even remotely competitive in the energy market.
Again. Clean burning coal is IMPOSSIBLE. It’s a bad fuel resource. What you are suggesting is that rather than invest and promote new, still not fully utilized technology, we close our eyes and keep using subpar coal.
Yes