Promoted by Jerome. We’d love your input on how to improve this document.
[written in collaboration with Jerome a Paris and Devilstower, with a hat tip to Doolittle Sothere.]
Almost three weeks ago, Jerome a Paris put together at Daily Kos the first draft of what we hope to transform into a bold, consistent, easy-to-understand Democratic energy agenda. Readers were asked to offer their own ideas, and the response was gratifying. Today, at five Web sites, we’re presenting the Second Draft, in which we’ve added some of readers’ deas, further honed ours and polished some of the language, with readers assistance.
We’re not done yet. This draft won’t be the last. So we’re asking for readers’ help again, both for content and style. We don’t mind if you nitpick. We want to hear your ideas and objections, big and small. Ultimately, of course, somebody has to decide what the Final Version will look like, and that will be the three of us. But for now, every word, every idea and the format itself are fair game for critiquing.
Dozens of progressive energy proposals are floating around. Apollo Alliance’s, the Natural Resource Defense Council’s and the National Sustainability Act’s, to name a few. Moreover, Senator Harry Reid himself has produced a forward-looking, multifaceted proposal that would head us in the right direction, even though we view its goal of “energy independence” by 2020 as infeasible. Others in the Senate Democratic leadership are creating a party agenda that will also call for energy independence. Senator Joe Lieberman is proposing almost radical energy legislation.
After decades of foot-dragging by leaders in both parties, it’s heartening to know that Democratic leaders are coming to understand just how crucial a visionary energy agenda is for our nation’s future.
A truly progressive approach cannot, however, be merely a scheme to garner votes in ’06 and ’08. As long-time advocates for a new energy paradigm at a time when scarcely anyone was listening, the three of us are eager to see rapid changes in government policy, private sector innovation and personal behavior when it comes to energy. However, setting unrealistic timelines is a certain recipe for failure. We don’t want Democrats to make promises that can’t be kept or establish goals that can’t be met. We don’t believe in the scattergun approach, nor do we believe in magic bullets.
In the process of generating the Second Draft, we have done our best not to allow the perfect to get in the way of the good. We’ve taken some of our ideas, some of your ideas and some other people’s ideas, including Senator Reid’s, and tried to shape them into an integral whole against a reasonable timeline. Even the three of us have disagreements – about coal and nuclear, for instance – so Reenergize America is, from the get-go, a compromise.
As a document, Reenergize America comes in three parts: 1) an introduction to four concise, stand-alone statements of principle describing America’s energy situation and what should be done to change it; 2) a brief explanation of each statement; and, 3) specific proposals, most of them legislative, to transform into reality the ideas encompassed in the statements of principle.
As we all know, energy’s not a sexy subject for most voters, and they will never get past our statement of principles. But if they only read those, they’ll know what we stand for and why this energy plan makes sense. It even fits on a double-entendre bumper-sticker: Reenergize America – Vote Democratic.
Down to business.
Reenergize America – A Democratic Blueprint
As a consequence of the oil embargos of the 1970s, America took a few steps down the right path thanks to President Carter’s energy plan of 1977. However, plummeting oil prices in the early 1980s worked to the advantage of politicians who were hostile to conservation, energy efficiency and the development of renewable alternatives. America wasted 25 years during which great strides could have been made toward realizing a world based on new sources of energy.
Faced not with embargos, but rather with a far greater crisis, Congress recently adopted an energy policy that repeats most of the mistakes of the past quarter century. If this policy is not reshaped from bottom to top, we could waste another 25 years, with consequences catastrophic for our society, our political system, our economy and for the environment.
The question we must ask is how to avoid leaving such a legacy to our children and grandchildren.
Anyone who is serious about national and economic security knows we must be serious about moving our country toward real energy independence. This process cannot be achieved overnight. It will take a generation at least – which is all the more reason we must begin immediately. Our plan will create innovative new jobs and build a cleaner, greener and stronger America.
To Reenergize America, we support four principles:
- Boost energy security to strengthen our national security.
- Reject current energy policies that weaken America
- Promote energy efficiency, diversity and conservation to protect Americans and the environment.
- Invest in renewable energy to create jobs and enhance America’s technological leadership
Build energy security to strengthen our national security: Diplomacy, homeland security and the economy are all connected through our energy policies. America imports 60% of the oil it consumes and our demand continues to grow, even as the production of oil moves toward inevitable decline. Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil – much of it from unstable countries – puts our servicemen and women at risk and holds our foreign policy hostage. America will increasingly be competing with China and other nations for dwindling oil supplies, causing prices to rise, laying the foundation for economic turmoil and presenting grave threats to peace as countries mobilize to protect their interests. Only by establishing policies that wean us off gas and oil can we avoid a disruptive and potentially lethal outcome in this coming scramble.
Reject the Current Energy Policy that Weakens America: Originally crafted in secret by oil and gas lobbyists under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, the Republican energy plan is a blueprint for ruin that repeats all the mistakes of the past. This attempt to drill our way out of the mess we’ve made for ourselves increases America’s reliance on imported oil, undermines environmental regulations, ignores global climate change, harms the economy and continues to put us at risk at home and abroad. Meanwhile, billions of tax dollars are being siphoned off by well-established oil and gas companies, whose wallets already bulge with record-breaking profits, and pitiful amounts are allocated for alternative energy sources and conservation. It is time to put the needs of all Americans ahead of the greed of a few.
Promote energy efficiency, diversity and conservation to protect Americans and the environment: America must quickly move to diversify its energy sources to avoid catastrophe when any one source is interrupted, and we must become more efficient consumers of energy to make what we do have last longer. We support an Apollo Project for Energy to support research, development and commercialization of alternative energy sources. Our plan calls for Renewable Portfolio Standards and for a National Conservation and Efficiency Program. We seek enhanced incentives for energy production from solar, wind, geothermal and biomass, and for government-funded demonstration projects in coal-to-liquids technology and intrinsically safe nuclear power designs. Our plan envisions a rapid expansion in the percentage of cars and trucks that pollute less and travel farther on a gallon of fuel. Reenergize America calls for protection of pristine public lands and ensures that higher energy prices will not unfairly penalize our economically weakest citizens.
Invest in renewable energy to create jobs and enhance America’s technological leadership: Innovation is an American birthright, but short-sighted policies have sabotaged our technological lead. Twenty years ago, American-made wind turbines were the world’s most advanced. Now Denmark’s are. GM once led the world in automobile technology. Now Toyota does. We must restore America’s technological prowess. Public and private investments today in renewable energy will mean a better environment for our children tomorrow, well-paying jobs and the lead in vital and exportable technologies. Renewable energies provide more jobs than other energy sources, and these jobs will always be close to home. Our plan calls for investments in math and science education for the next generation of energy engineers, access to worker training and retraining in advanced energy technologies, and for making America the first place everyone turns when looking for innovative energy products.
Reenergize America’s SMART Goals
A snap of the fingers will not transform those four statements of principle into policy. Our goals to Reenergize America are simple and straightforward. They will not, however, be easy to accomplish because old habits die hard and there are powerful people and institutions which stand in the way:
- 20% of our electricity from renewables by 2020
- 20% reduction of imported oil and natural gas by 2020
- 20% reduction in our carbon emissions by 2020
Call these our SMART goals. They are Strategic, Measurable, Aggressive, Realistic and Targeted. They are Strategic in that they greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help make America more secure. They are Measurable and progress will be visible to all. They are Aggressive because we need to begin what will be a decades-long move away from our dependence on foreign oil before it is too late. They are Realistic because they are attainable, although they will require significant investment, sustained personal commitment and strong political leadership. They are Targeted at developing renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency and protecting our environment.
Are these goals sound?
Some will ridicule our goals as overly ambitious: not possible. Nobody can make such a transition in so short a time, they will say. We disagree. We believe these goals are attainable, although we are acutely aware of the technical, institutional, political and cultural obstacles to success.
Others will say we haven’t gone far enough. Why not full “Energy Independence by 2020,” as proposed by Harry Reid? This time, it is we who say: not possible. Pushed hard and consistently, maybe independence by 2035 or 2040. The switch to all-renewable energy will take decades longer.
Reenergize America – First Things First
While the full transition to new energy will take decades and include retooling our country’s infrastructure and redesigning our cities, much can and should be done immediately to reduce energy demand, increase efficiency and buy us time. We can’t afford to wait, and we don’t plan to wait. During the first 100 days of Reenergize America, we will initiate the following 17 proposals:
Transportation
1) The Automotive Mileage and Pollution Credit Act: Forget Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which were established to gradually increase how far the average car could travel on a gallon of fuel. These were a good idea and had a positive initial effect after Congress passed them into law 30 years ago. Since then, however, Republicans have used CAFE standards as a propaganda tool against Democrats, and automakers have creatively avoided them by reclassifying vehicles. We propose a fresh approach to replace both CAFE standards and the current federal rebate on fuel-stingy hybrids.
Anyone who buys a car or pickup truck gets a $200 rebate for every mile per gallon the new vehicle comes in above the national mpg average. That average is now 19 mpg. So, buy a Ford Explorer hybrid, which has a 33 mpg rating, and you collect $2800. The rebate program won’t discriminate. Hybrids, turbo-biodiesels and fuel-cell cars all qualify.
A secondary rebate will apply to vehicles based on a formula for how much they pollute.
2) Government Fleet Conversion Act: Require all federal operations to switch their entire fleet to hybrids or other high-mpg, low-polluting vehicles and to offer incentives to state and municipal governments to do the same over a period of, say, three years. Such a program should begin immediately, but U.S. manufacturers have been slow to enter the high-mpg market. A program that spurs the purchase of foreign-made cars and light trucks would probably mean additional erosion in the jobs of American union members. To give all manufacturers a fairer chance to compete, the switchover will begin two years from the signing of this act. If that were to occur in January 2006, for instance, the federal fleet would be fully converted by 2011.
3) Bus Fleet Conversion Act: A few municipal mass transit agencies and school districts are converting their bus fleets from those that burn gasoline and petroleum diesel to those that burn compressed natural gas. A handful are looking at converting to biodiesel, fuel made from vegetable oils, or buying hybrid electrics. Using incentives for manufacturers and end users, the act will mandate conversion of the nation’s bus fleets to natural gas, electric, hybrid-electric or biodiesel over a period of 10 years.
4) Energy Research Act : Add 5 cents to the federal gasoline tax each year over the next 25 years, with the revenue set aside to cover the cost of research and development into renewable energy, and to provide rebates for low-income Americans hurt most by rising gasoline prices by amending the Earned Income Tax Credit. If such a tax had been added to gasoline when it was first proposed in 1980, it would now provide $80 billion annually to the U.S. Treasury, and America would have gone far toward energy independence.
5) Coal Liquefaction Demonstration Project Act: Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has given fresh attention to an old technology that turns coal into liquid fuel that, if produced in large enough quantities, could reduce the need to import so much petroleum, one of Reenergize America’s key goals. A massive investment in coal-to-liquids could theoretically fuel tens of millions of America’s vehicles until a better technology comes along. However, there are serious questions at every step of the way, from extraction to exhaust pipe. The modernized Fischer-Tropsch technique that Schweitzer and others have proposed as the method to convert America’s abundant coal reserves into synthetic fuels needs a full-scale test. The act will set the parameters for a public-private partnership to build and operate two coal-to-liquid plants using state-of-art “scrubbers,” carbon dioxide sequestration and other strict environmental controls.
6) Amtrak Restoration and Demonstration Project Act: American passenger rail service could be spurred into a rebound if a single modification were made: speed. Reenergize America proposes a federal-state-private partnership to build, equip and operate two new high-speed rail lines using existing technology, such as Japan’s bullet trains or Germany’s Inter City Express trains. One system would be built in the Northeast, say, New York City to Washington, and one in the South or Far West, say, Houston to Orlando, or Los Angeles to San Francisco.
7) Telecommuting Assistance Act: Establish a tax credit for those companies that use telecommuting to reduce employee travel. The maximum credit will be set at $2000 per year for a full-time employee who telecommutes five days a week. This will be pro-rated on a $400-a-day basis for employees averaging fewer than five days a week telecommuting. To receive the credit, companies must agree not to outsource the credited position to an overseas firm. In addition, the act will impose a return to older, more relaxed IRS rules to allow telecommuting workers to claim a portion of their house as an office for tax purposes.
Electricity
Our goal to generate 20% of America’s electricity by 2020 with renewable sources is an ambitious one. Denmark, which began developing a strong preference for renewable energy sources in the early 1980s, plans to obtain 35% of its energy from renewables by 2030. With a federal commitment to a mix of incentives and penalties, plus funding for research, development and commercialization, the United States can achieve our goal. Indeed, approached properly, the United States can, like Denmark today, become an exporter of renewable energy technologies. Reenergize America proposes:
1) Federal Renewable Power Act: A variety of renewable energy techniques have come a long way in the past three decades, particularly wind turbines and photovoltaics. These still only provide a tiny fraction of America’s (and the world’s) electricity. To reach Reenergize America’s goal of generating 20% of our electricity with renewables by 2020, the act proposes:
– Five Million Solar Roofs Initiative. Originally proposed as the One Million Solar Roofs Initiative by the Solar Energy Industries Association in 1997, and endorsed by President Clinton, a similar government-subsidized proposal offered by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ran into trouble over union pay scales for installation. Our plan would put five million electricity-generating systems on American homes between now and 2012 by tripling the current tax credit of $2000 for residential solar installations and extending the existing tax credit program beyond its 2007 cut-off date. Our program would add 15,000 megawatts of solar electricity, more than 15 times the currently installed amount of such power worldwide, and equal to the power provided by 50 typical coal-fired plants.
– Extend the wind energy production tax credit from 2007 to 2015. It’s estimated that the United States will have 15,000 megawatts of installed wind power capacity by 2009. An enhanced production tax credit could raise that figure in the short run and vastly expand it after 2009 by giving wind farm entrepreneurs a stable and predictable market.
2) Renewable Energy Research & Development Act: As has been true for years, current federal allocations for research and development of renewable energy are a pale shadow of what they were in President Carter’s final budget in fiscal 1981. When adjusted for inflation, today’s budget for renewables R&D comes in at a fourth of what Carter’s was, and, at $354 million, is less than what it costs to continue the war in Iraq for two days. Our plan would gradually increase this budget between now and 2010 to $3 billion annually, greatly expanding the activities of agencies like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
3) Renewable Portfolio Standards Act: Nineteen states already mandate that small amounts of retail electricity sold within their borders come from renewables, and other states are considering similar requirements. With milestones set at 5, 10 and 15 years, and assisted by tradable, inflation-indexed production tax credits, this act will require all but the smallest utilities to generate 15% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. Companies that generate power from qualifying renewable facilities will be issued credits that they can hold for their own use or sell to others. Tradable credits will allow companies and entrepreneurs to invest in the most beneficial solutions to develop renewable energy sources under market mechanisms. Reenergize America calls not for 15% but rather 20% of the nation’s total electricity generation to come from renewables by 2020. We anticipate that the extra 5% not generated by utilities under the RPS Act will come from residential and business installations which provide some or all of their own power.
4) Federal Alternative Energy Demonstration Act: By means of venture capital and a federal grant program, this act would promote the construction of one major, experimental alternative power project in each state of the Union. Americans need to see alternative energy as viable. Highly visible projects can help build confidence, test new technologies (and spread understanding of existing ones). These could include wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, ocean thermal, geothermal, hydroelectric dam turbine upgrades and other projects that include features which have not yet been tested in a full-scale model and that take advantage of unique geographical or other aspects of each state.
5) National Conservation & Efficiency Act: Over the past 25 years, conservation has gotten a bad reputation among many Americans because people have believed, as Ronald Reagan once said, that they will “freeze to death in the dark.” But conservation doesn’t require physical discomfort or giving up modern conveniences. In fact, conservation saves Americans more than 25% of the electricity it was predicted 30 years ago we would be consuming today. Moreover, conservation and greater efficiency are the cheapest sources of energy. Amory and Hunter Lovins have called this source negawatts. The act includes:
– Develop an energy education curriculum for elementary and secondary schools. Conservation is like sex education – every generation needs it.
– Fund SUN centers in every state. Under Jimmy Carter’s energy department, four regional SUN centers were established nationwide to provide outreach to consumers eager to learn how to be more efficient in their energy consumption: everything from the simplest – like weatherization and shopping for energy-saving appliances; to the complex – like designing a house in such a way as to take advantage of natural lighting and heating by the sun. Currently, the federal government funds six regional energy efficiency centers, but Republicans recently proposed eliminating them altogether.
– Launch an independent federal review of appliance efficiency with an eye toward boosting standards when the technology is available to make that realistic.
– Require all new federal buildings, as well as state and local government buildings constructed with federal assistance to be designed and built with the highest level of energy efficiency in mind, including being as nearly self-sufficient in energy production as technologically possible on the date the design for each such building is approved. Currently, the federal government operates under the Energy Savings Performance Contract, which allows private contractors to help Federal agencies improve the energy efficiency of their facilities. This should be made mandatory.
6) Home Improvement Credit Act: Home-owners and rental-property landlords who upgrade their dwellings according to a standard, geographically-adjusted conservation-and-efficiency formula will receive tax credits up to 50% of the cost of the upgrade. New or old homes purchased with FHA or FmHA loans will be required to meet conservation standards.
7) The Standard Nuclear Power and Demonstration Project Act: In partnership with industry, mandate the siting, design and construction of a full-scale “intrinsically safe” nuclear power facility to test its suitability as a pioneer for a new generation of nuclear plants. If the test plant proves itself, and radioactive waste disposal problems are resolved, the act would spur the expansion of nuclear power by allowing the construction of additional plants that conform to a standard, intrinsically safe design. All such plants would require that uniform planning, site evaluation, construction, disposal and operations are carried out to ensure environmental, worker and general public safety.
Environment
1) Clean Generation Act: Coal is cheap and extraordinarily abundant. At present, coal generates about half of America’s electricity and dozens of new plants are being built across the country. For the next half-century, coal-burning power plants are likely to be included in the mix. Therefore, it is essential that we improve every aspect of our use of coal. The act would:
– Outlaw mountain top removal that is denuding mountains and choking streams across Appalachia. Limit surface mining to areas where “return to contour” is the rule and ban all dumping of spoil into waterways.
– Stop serial offenders by steeply increasing fines on failures to protect the environment. A company as incompetent as this one should not be given another chance. Much less chance, after chance, after chance.
– Repeal “Clear Skies” and return to Clean Air Act provisions. Coal-burning plants should no longer be allowed to expand under regulations that allow them to pollute the way they did 25 years ago. The act sets 2020 as the deadline for bringing all coal-burning plants into full compliance.
– Regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Just as the Clean Air Act imposes a gradually more stringent series of guidelines on other pollutants, Reenergize America’s Clean Generation Act does the same with carbon dioxide. By 2020, all new plants should be operating at 20% reduced CO2 levels. By 2040, we should require that total production of CO2 be cut in half through both scrubbing and sequestration.
– Revise pollutant certificate trading. In many ways, this has worked well. Producers who invest in technology that puts them ahead of government requirements get a payback by selling the “right to pollute” to less advanced producers. However, these certificates should be regional, not nationwide, to prevent a large “pollution bullseye” in the Midwest and resultant spread of these pollutants along a corridor of the east. Add CO2 certificates (which are already traded on a voluntary basis) to the mix.
– To ensure that transforming coal into synthetic fuels represents an actual improvement in CO2 production over burning petroleum products, all Fischer-Tropsch plants should be required to use sequestration or scrubbing from the outset.
2) Federal Energy Policy Enforcement Act: Good energy policy requires reliable, fair and consistent application and enforcement of rules. Specialized agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission can do their job only if they have the proper support, political and material. This legislation will increase the agencies’ capacity to detect and react to fraud and compliance failures, heighten their ability to punish scofflaws, and ensure non-partisanship by proposing new rules for the nomination of their top officers.
3) Hydrocarbon Tax Act: Leading experts believe that average temperatures across the world will climb by several degrees over the coming century. Icecaps and glaciers are already melting, sea levels are rising, and extreme weather events are occurring more frequently. Some portion of this change comes from burning hydrocarbons and producing carbon dioxide. Moreover, burning hydrocarbons causes health problems for many people. By themselves, the potential economic costs of these health effects and a changing climate run into the trillions of dollars. Over several years, the act would phase in a tax proportional to the carbon content of commercial fuels.
4) The United States Should Reengage the World Community on Global Climate Change: Although the Kyoto Protocol to deal with global climate change is deeply flawed, America must rejoin international efforts to find remedies for the ill effects of climate change.
Energy policy is a process, not a product
One hundred days and 17 pieces of legislation will not by themselves make the country energy independent. Energy policy is a process, not a product. Adopting Reenergize America will take us to a transition, not a destination.
Five years from now, certainly 15 years from now, we will see astonishing breakthroughs in technology. One of these, perhaps more than one, may make some of our legislative energy proposals obsolete or shorten the timetable we’ve set for reaching Reenergize America’s triplet of 20% goals. Delightful, if it happens.
But we can’t wait for the possibility that somebody will invent perpetual-motion juice and rescue us from our own recklessness at the last moment. When not speeding along in the wrong direction, we have spent decades waiting our leaders to craft a good energy policy. Consumers have spent and will spend hundreds of billions of dollars they might have saved if such an energy policy had been in place. We can’t afford more delays.
Technology isn’t everything. A truly energy-independent America will require a comprehensive rebuilding of our transportation and electricity-generating infrastructure. It will mean remaking our cities, especially what Joel Garreau calls “edge cities,” whose very existence is one of the major reasons for our energy predicament. Energy independence will require changing land-use regulations, a highly contentious subject under the best of circumstances. And it will require modifying our lifestyles, the mere mention of which can set off political explosions. These discussions cannot be avoided.
But first things first.
[Cross-posted at Daily Kos, The Next Hurrah, and European Tribune.]
You could publish you draft here in the thread. I don’t visit orangeville.
My critique is only of the first part – which I gather is meant to be the short version for flogging around to everyone – not just those of us who are geeky enough to read it all. (Though I love the detail for those of us who will.)
I’d ditch the first three paragraphs and start it with the fourth one. The first three bog it down, most people will start off with agreement at the fourth one. If you can’t let go of them, you could put paras 2 and 3 after the bullet points, but I’d chop the first part of the beginning sentence and begin with “Congress . . .” (I’m old enough to remember the Carter initiatives and mourn the wasted opportunity, but half the country is too young to remember and doesn’t really care about that ancient history – better to get right to What do we do, starting now.)
Like the bullet points too, but I’d change the order. As they stand now – 1,2,3,4 – I’d change to 1,4,3,2 to more accurately track the priorities of the average American. The “negative” one, #2, is important, but get the three positive ones in there first.
might be better to change the first two sentences to something more like this:
It is not generally a good thing, imho, to use any sentence with the ‘attitude’ that “anybody who is ‘x’ should know ‘y’.” It is not very engaging and can be subtly off-putting. Better go for a stronger sentence or two there. Not necessarily what I said, but something along that line…..
The phraseology puts people on the defensive – even if they already do know. It gives the idea that there are some people who are somehow superior to others (those who are”serious about security”). Better to put yourself mentally in the position of assuming the best about your reader – people do rise to expectations (or fall). Come from the point of view that we’re all in this together and that everyone (your reader) knows we have to do this – what you offer is a way to do it.
Under the telecommuting act, it suggests pro-rating part time telecommuters at $400 per day. That $400 doesn’t make sense in context. Typo?
I’m delighted so far- heartfelt thatnks to the movers and shakers here.
Telecommuting is wonderful, but once an employee proves to a company that a job can be done well long distance, all too often the position is sent overseas. There would have definitely have to be some sort of penalty accruing to the company if they accepted the telecommuting credit and then moved the job to a low wage country. It would have to be a fairly steep hit to the bottom to make up the for the huge savings ($5000 in China for a $60,000 salary in the USA) that the company can realize by outsourcing.
thing would be to require companies who do business in the US to pay workers the same regardless of whether the worker is in the US or outside of it.
Combined with a federal living wage law in the US, this would make a big dent in exploitation of workers both in the US and outside of it.
only works for people who have jobs where it works; your average secretary, file clerk, or janitor isn’t going to be able to take advantage of it.
I’d like to see expansion of Eco Pass services, such as are used here in Silly Con Valley, Boulder CO, and other places. I’m not sure if there’s any sort of tax break for the purchase of the Eco Pass, but there should be. I’d also like to see people encouraged to use transit by allowing them to deduct public transportation costs from their income taxes, and it should be “above the line”, meaning that you don’t need to itemize deductions to take the deductions. Maybe in this case, it would be more like a public transit tax credit or something (it’s been a while since I took tax accounting).
I also think that the US Government needs to stop supporting private corporations (the airlines) and start supporting public transit and Amtrak. Even without high-speed, Amtrak is popular; short-run trains are especially well-used, such as the Capitols between the Bay Area and Sacramento, and the Pacific Surfliners between San Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara and San Diego. Expansion of Amtrak service and the addition of high-speed rail in popular corridors like the ones you mentioned and perhaps others would reduce the need for airline service in those areas, freeing up service for routes that require airplanes such as cross-country.
A lot of thought has been put into this plan; it looks great except for some tweaking. Thanks for posting it over here…
My first reaction is WOW! This document reads like a very reasonable pitch to the average person.
But…
When I got to the “environment” section, specifically 1) the Clean Generation Act, that’s where it started to sound extremist – at least what I think the average person might perceive as an extremist environmental agenda. To my ears it sounds perfectly reasonable, but I think this section would be better served if it were expanded to include more rationalle behind the proposals and perhaps soften the language a bit. For example, a more detailed explanation of the process and consequences of mountain top removal, written in as neutral-sounding language as possible would serve better than to just start out with “Outlaw mountain top removal.” Allow people to understand more fully what a horrible practice this is, then they’re more likely to agree with the “outlaw this practice” statement.
Also, I would take from Janet Strange’s comment above and rearrange this section to put “outlaw mountain top removal” and “stop serial offenders” at the bottom and move “revise pollutant certificate trading” and “regulate carbon dioxide” to the top. Put the more positive proposals first.
Finally, overall this is GREAT! Thank all of you so much for doing this!
A very good draft. Energy is going to be the number one issue in 2008.
Suggest you conform the use of alternative energy types throughout. Similar to what you’ve done for transportation. That is, no single technology/energy generation stands higher than any other.
For instance: photovoltaic roof systems are fine for many areas, but of limited utility from roughly San Francisco North to Washington. Wind, co-gen, and/or biomass may be more cost-effective in those areas. Why discriminate?
[Almost all lumber mills in the Northwest use multiple-hearth boiler systems for co-gen, and enjoy watching the meters run backwards. In the Central Valley (CA), Annheuser-Busch runs an anhydrous ethanol still to both clean the waste stream and generate power].
Under research, micro-engineered waste + water systems have been languishing in books on shelves since the 70’s. Could have substantial impact on energy use by breaking metro systems down to the neighborhood level.
Details, and quibbles. Once published, I hope you are among the first to attempt a national referendum to promote the bill.
There are folks that are developing solar power for use in England, and other places in Europe are considering or adopting solar, so I wouldn’t give up on it for the Pacific Northwest. As the technology improves and cells become more efficient they can work in bright daylight, not just full sunshine, so a cloudy day is less and less of a problem.
Wow. Reading this proposal makes me realize that it just may be possible to back the country away from the precipace. Thank you for doing this.
As for suggestions, I do agree with the assessments of the beginning. Perhaps drop or maybe reword the first few paragraphs. In any case, this paragraph should, in my opinion, be first:
“Anyone who is serious about national and economic security knows we must be serious about moving our country toward real energy independence. This process cannot be achieved overnight. It will take a generation at least – which is all the more reason we must begin immediately. Our plan will create innovative new jobs and build a cleaner, greener and stronger America.”
That first sentence, though bothers me. Perhaps this:
“Moving our country toward real energy independence will strengthen our national and economic security for generations to come.”
Just reading this has uplifted my spirits. It is wonderful news that our Democratic leaders are also working on this problem. Perhaps we will be ready to step into the vacuum when the Republicans are thrown out on their asses.
My hat is off to you in salute for an excellent job!
I have a few comments / suggestions, but they are second-order changes; I would be delighted if this plan were adopted today as it is.
One strength of your plan is the way that several progressive goals are mutually-reinforced by it. This is a key to promoting consensus and forming the coalitions necessary to enact such a broad plan. It also helps provide an intellectual and strategic consistency to our goals that will provide a consistent direction for our progress on other issues. The last thing we want is for progress on issue A to impede progress on issue B; our goals can and should be mutually reinforcing to the maximum extent possible.
I greatly enjoyed and appreciated the care you put into honing sentences such as the description of the current Republican plan as “…crafted in secret by oil and gas lobbyists under the direction of vice-president Dick Cheney… …a blueprint for ruin…” The rhetorical “oomph” of this sentence will only increase as Plamegate unfolds.
On your specific proposals, I think the idea of scrapping CAFE standards completely in favor of mileage- and emission-based rebates is an excellent idea. The CAFE standards have become such a contentious issue that a new approach is needed to create a political opening for progress to occur. The market-based approach you propose will be much quicker-acting / economically efficient than imposed standards. And if Republicans complain about tweaking the marketplace to promote social goals, we can counter “OK, then let’s talk about tax deductions for religious contributions.”
Actually, I think the business-based wing of the Republican party might find this – and much of the rest of your plan – a ground for bipartisan consensus.
We need to discuss how we’re not throwing American auto workers out on the streets with our new approach to standards, however.
I’d personally like to see the mileage goals for the rebate set a little higher, but we may be able to ratchet the goals up over time.
Although in some items you discuss how we’re going to pay for all of this, I have a concern that this program needs to be seen as not adding to the deficit. Besides, explaining how this program is to be paid for reinforces the message of Democrats as the party of fiscal responsibility (which broadens the national consensus we’re trying to achieve).
A specific gripe or two: I have a concern about the environmental impact of Fischer-Tropsch (although your environmental comments later in the document assuaged many of my fears). If we’re going to keep the mutual reinforcements between our energy and environmental policies, I’d personally prefer a clear link between development in F-T technology and carbon sequestration: no net emissions of CO2. For each carbon atom in coal that we remove, we’re going to sequester a molecule of carbon dioxide.
One approach you might tie in here is carbon sequestration using minerals such as serpentine and olivine – this is essentially an accelerated version of the natural carbon sequestration that goes on as mountains erode, chemically converting the CO2 to carbonate minerals. Some research is needed to scale up the process, but this could be an additional source of jobs and exportable technology to countries like China that have coal resources and growing demand for electric power. (I Googled “serpentine carbon sequestration” if you’re looking for details to reference in your proposal).
While pumping CO2 into coal seams can be used to concurrently remove methane for fuel use and sequester the CO2, it is not clear for how long/to what degree the CO2 will remain trapped, even though the coal itself does have some affinity for the CO2 (more research needed!). A process like serpentine sequestration ties the CO2 up for geologically significant time, if the resulting carbonates are properly disposed.
On nuclear power, I’m one of those environmentalists that’s willing to grit my teeth and consider it to combat global warming, but I think we can be smart about it. Nuclear power has problems both with waste disposal and centralization of power supply (and associated security needed for the plant); the latter is antithetical to democritization and devolution of political power from a few hand to the people. so, I’d strongly urge that if we’re incorporating nuclear power in the mix, we look for plants that can be scaled down to small size (this is doable – after all, we fit nuclear reactors in submarines and spacecraft) and maximum safety / minimum waste issues. I’m not an expert on nuclear power, but I’ve seen reports of pebble-bed reactors being developed by the Japanese that are trying to implement these criteria, as well as processes that transmute nuclear waste into less harmful isotopes (using neutron beams, IIRC?). Again, these are both highly desirable and very exportable technologies.
My real bottom line, though, is that I see nuclear technology as a bridging technology until solar and wind power are fully developed later in the century. So, I’d like the forms of nuclear power we support to be flexible enough that we can phase them out if they become dinosaurs without feeling like we have a huge investment we cannot afford to change from – which is much the situation that got us into the current mess we’re in (all our eggs in an expensive fossil fuel basket).
OK, end of the two specific gripes.
As far as your 20% goals by 2020, at first I thought this wasn’t ambitious enough, then it hit me that we’re not going to be able to start any earlier than 2006 at the very earliest, so I’m grimacing and accepting your goals as probably reasonable. I’d still request you consider changing your statements to “…generating a minimum of 20% of our power…” and incorporating incentives and triggers to raise the goal if some discovery makes 20% achievable sooner.
Under electricity, your plan for projects in all 50 states could me strengthened, IMHO, if there were incentives for projects that are scalable and/or usable in a wide range of situations. Small-scale hydropower in New England is worth pursuing, but a breakthrough in solar power that’s usable nationwide first developed in, say, New Mexico, may merit some extra investment due to it’s greater potential benefit nationally / internationally.
Under environment, you say all the right things to warm my soul, but I’d feel more comfortable with a little more detail on your hydrocarbon tax and post-Kyoto proposals. (We may need to move beyond Kyoto in the same way you propose moving beyond CAFE standards in order to loosen entrenched positions and create a space for discussion and compromise.) But then, those are big enough topics that each deserves its own diary to explore.
In closing, as you tweak the proposal I’d just encourage you to not lose sight of the goal of keeping this proposal mutually-reinforcing with other social goals, which you have done a great job of in this draft: protecting the environment, promoting technological innovation and education, protecting public health, creating jobs, promoting national security by reducing the need for foreign resources (and as I touched on above, large power facilities that are terror targets), promoting mass transit, etc. Again, my thanks and congratulations to you for a job well done, and more complete than the rest of us had any right to expect.
Rooftop photovoltaics are a good idea, but rooftop hot water heaters are an even better idea. Most hot water heaters use natural gas, so solar hot water would conserve that critical resource. (In contrast, most electricity is generated by coal.)
I really like the plans to help people improve home efficiency. My house is only 15 years old, and I have done a lot to make it more efficient.
Little quantification. That is the first step.Without that this is just brainstorming, not a professional proposal.
How many bbl is saved in each proposal?
What is impact on trade $. Plussss
Does not address two key issues:
How much is all this going to cost the Federal government?
How does this affect industrial competitiveness? If we re using high cost energy and the rest of the world is using low cost energy we lose competitiveness and jobs.
And.
Subsidies can be usefull or damaging. Permanent subsidies, such as the telecommuting subsidy warp the capital markets and are diseconomic, ie false benefit, damaging.
Conversion incentives are useful, ie an incentive to build photovoltaic usage up to an economic volume and then taper out.
I’ll try to have a more thorough look later on. Though it looks like a good initial effort, it doesn’t have the feel that it has been checked out by engineers, macro & micro economists, and politicians.
You raise a very good point. We need both the short version, with all the rhetorical flourishes, for “speechifying” on the Sunday talk shows and to the VFW, and the long version (with all the numbers, the footnotes, and the engineers and economists buy-ins) for convincing the business community, congress, etc. that we can walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
I’ve just read myriad’s diary on nuclear power, and she raises several objections that we need to at least consider and touch on as far as including nuclear power in the mix of technologies we’re promoting.
I’m not agreeing with everything she says, but her viewpoint is certainly typical of one group we’re hoping to include in our consensus, so we need to address the concerns she raises.
One fundamental issue is how much net power do we get from nuclear power. If it’s not worth the investment, we don’t want to put a lot of money and effort into it. My suspicion is that without massive subsidies the large-scale plants typically seen in America (and in Europe?) may not be cost-effective – which is another reason to look at small-scale power if we’re looking at nuclear.
An independent commission to evaluate nuclear power’s potential and make recommendations might not be a bad idea – we might even get Jimmy Carter to chair it: He’s a nuclear engineer by degree, and certainly has credibility as an ethical guy. If Jimmy Carter told me nuclear power would be a net energy gainer with manageable environmental problems, I’d weigh his words seriously, and I expect Joe Sixpack would too. After all, he’s the candidate that’s remembered for saying “I’ll never lie to you,” and his energy crisis speech looks prescient today.
I’d recommend to our authors that they revisit Carter’s principles in this speech and compare them to the ideas in today’s version – there’s a lot of common ground there. We need to have a response ready for the charge sure to come from certain Republicans that our proposal is “just a tired retread of the failed policies of Jimmy Carter.” (One good comeback might be: “Like Christianity, the problem isn’t that they’ve failed so much as that they’ve never been fully implemented.”)
Under electricity: I think more emphasis on conservation and efficiency could be included.
For example, the “National Conservation & Efficiency Act” is a collection of good ideas but to me they seem small in scale and target. There is nothing to address the current state of overall household (& corporate) electricity use to attempt to improve efficiency across the board. In America, of course, you have to target people’s wallet (and the corporate bottom line) to achieve desired results, so how about a tax specifically tied to electricity usage?
This could be done on a time-of-day basis, an over-a-threshold basis, a progressive scale according to usage, any number of ways. People who purchase green power from their local utility could be exempt from the tax on a prorated basis. The tax could start small and be phased in over time to be more palatable to consumers (and politicians). Revenue could be allocated for renewable projects or research, with a small portion reserved to assist in alleviating the tax burden for low-income or otherwise needy consumers.
Maybe you have already considered something like this – I missed the initial draft. In any case, I believe there is a lot of room for conservation and improved efficiency at the individual consumer level that deserves more emphasis in this document. An informed public, which you do address with these proposals, would, I believe, be willing to take on shared sacrifice and shared responsibility once they realize what we’re collectively facing.