Green Party of Santa Clara County

Category Archives: Economy

We must remove each and every ton of CO2 emitted into the air

Category : blog , Divestment , Economy , Energy , Environment , Politics

Geordie Zapalac, October 3, 2019 (revised Jan 22nd 2020)

It has been inspiring to witness many people take to the streets to demand action on the climate crisis, and to direct attention to the deep links between the climate crisis and social injustice. Climate activism in the United State has most recently been focused on implementing Congressional preamble H. Res. 109 called the “Green New Deal” that addresses both the need to reduce CO2 emissions and the needs of marginalized communities after the required shift in the energy system. A more comprehensive Green New Deal had first been a central part of the Green Party’s platform, in 2010 by Howie Hawkins and in 2012 and 2016 with the Jill Stein presidential campaign. For this discussion the “Green New Deal” or “GND” will refer to H. Res. 109.

The GND calls for the transformation of our energy system to reduce CO2 emissions “to the extent technologically feasible.” It specifically recognizes the November 2018 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that asserts that CO2 emissions must be reduced 40-60% by 2030 and 100% by 2050 in order to prevent the average global temperature from rising more that 1.5 oC above the preindustrial temperature. It also recognizes a need to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere “through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation.” But does the GND effectively confront the climate crisis, or is it becoming a panacea that distracts us from the real action that is now necessary to save the planet?

Since the industrial revolution the CO2 concentration in the air has increased by about 50% and the global average temperature has increased by 1.1 oC.(1) What have been the consequences of 1.1 oC of warming so far? We have seen the loss of glaciers, the accelerating loss of ice from the Greenland ice sheet, an almost complete loss of sea ice from the Arctic, accelerating ice loss from the Antarctic, devastating and lethal heat waves and wildfires including vast fires in the boreal forests of the Arctic, catastrophic floods, a significant increase in the frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes, significant losses of agricultural yields, the death of coral reefs, a 20 cm rise in sea level, and a dramatic loss of life and biodiversity across the planet.

Is the temperature increase of 1.1 oC that we have experienced so far really acceptable? The Greenland ice sheet for example is not going to stop melting and will eventually cause 7 meters of sea level rise – would that be acceptable? And if not, then why should we regard the 1.5 oC temperature rise recommended by the IPCC as acceptable? Haven’t we exceeded our “carbon budget” already? Furthermore the IPCC has not been entirely truthful: they have chosen to simply ignore inconvenient observational data and to report instead the results of their climate simulations. It is well known that these simulations do not adequately account for several feedback mechanisms now in play in the Arctic, therefore they catastrophically fail to predict even the most basic observational data such as the rate of sea ice loss in the Arctic (2) or the climate sensitivity to CO2 measured from ice core samples.(3) Discarding observational data in favor of computer simulations should never provide a basis for policy decisions.

The higher the concentration of CO2 in the air, the higher the global average temperature of the earth, this is a consequence of basic physics.(4) The climate sensitivity measured from ice core samples indicates that if the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since preindustrial times is sustained, it will eventually increase the global average temperature by 3.5 oC.(3) This implies that another 2.4 oC of warming is yet to come, if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not reduced. Today 40 gigatonnes per year of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere worldwide, sinking us ever deeper into carbon debt.

It is important to realize that the carbon already released into the atmosphere is sufficient to eventually destroy much of the life on the planet, whether due to climate change or ocean acidification, and that this carbon will not be affected by any program we put in place to restrict emissions going forward, including the Green New Deal.

Will planting trees save us? By all means we should plant trees – it can only help. But it takes decades for a newly planted forest to begin removing significant amounts of CO2 – assuming that the forest does not burn down during this period thanks to climate change – and we do not have decades to wait.

The only remaining solution that averts catastrophe appears to be the removal of CO2 directly from the air by chemical means, a technology called “Direct Air Capture” or DAC. There are currently four commercial undertakings for DAC: Carbon Engineering, Climeworks, Global Thermostat, and a collaboration between Silicon Kingdom Holdings and Arizona State University. Ideally this list will expand significantly in the future with additional startups working on improving the technology to build a competitive carbon capture industry. The existing companies currently anticipate costs of roughly $100 to remove one tonne of CO2 directly from the air at scale.(5) This cost should be regarded as an upper bound after a few years of field experience with DAC at scale: convincing arguments predict that the cost of DAC will probably drop to $30 per tonne.(6) For the remainder of this discussion let us assume the conservative cost of $100 per tonne.

We may now answer the question: What is the hidden cost of emitting 1 tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere? It is not necessary to somehow account for the current or future damage from floods, hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, or sea level rise that is caused by climate change. Nor is it necessary to assign a price to the human lives taken by climate change, or a price to the ongoing loss of biodiversity; both of course are priceless. The hidden cost of emitting 1 tonne of CO2 is precisely the cost to remove 1 tonne of CO2 directly from the atmosphere: $100 per tonne.  When fossil fuel prices are increased to account for this hidden cost, then technologies for energy conservation, renewable energy, battery storage, and electric vehicles will become more competitive in the marketplace. It is likely that we will continue to burn fossil fuels, but we will burn significantly less fossil fuels and we will burn them responsibly because the cost of removing the emitted carbon as a ‘carbon removal tax’ will be factored into the cost of doing business for the fossil fuel industry.

We will need to remove significantly more CO2 than we emit to avoid catastrophic climate change, but for the remainder of this discussion let us explore the economic consequences of a carbon removal tax, intended to bring us immediately to zero net emissions so that at least we are not making the problem even worse. It is important to emphasize that a tax of $100 on one tonne of emitted CO2 must be used to remove one tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere: it cannot be diverted to any other cause however admirable such as research on wind turbines, adaptation to sea level rise, climate education for K-12 schools, etc. If the tax proceeds are not directly used to remove the emitted CO2 from the atmosphere then we will have solved nothing: climate physics makes no allowance for alternative causes with good intentions.

How would the U.S. economy respond to a carbon tax of $100 per tonne?  The reader may keep in mind that there are already four countries that have a tax in excess of $50 per tonne of CO2 (tCO2) and their economies are doing fine (7): Sweden ($133/tCO2), Switzerland ($87/tCO2), Finland ($65/tCO2), and Norway ($53/tCO2). The U.S. consumer would experience a tax of $100/tCO2 as an inflation of prices on most goods and services. Probably all prices would be at least slightly affected since in general the production of goods requires energy, but the most direct rise in prices would be for the direct energy costs of gasoline, electricity, and gas heating. We will review each of these costs to estimate its impact on the consumer and its contribution to the increase in the inflation rate, and then compare the total increase in the inflation rate to the inflation rate that we experience today.

  • Burning a gallon of gasoline releases about 10 kg of CO2 which would be taxed at $1.00. This increases the average price for a gallon of gasoline ($4.00) by 25%. The average household spends $368 a month on gasoline (8) to purchase 1104 gallons of gasoline per year, so they would be taxed $1104 each year to remove the CO2 from the air.
  • The average cost of electricity is 12 cents per kWh.(9)  In the U.S. each kWh of electricity produced releases on average 0.5 kg of CO2.(10)  This would incur a carbon removal tax of 5 cents, or a 42% increase in the electricity bill. The average annual electricity bill is $1340 which incurs a tax of $562 to remove the CO2 from the air.(11)
  • Each therm of natural gas releases 0.0053 tonnes of CO2.(12)  The average household burns 755 therms per year (13) releasing 4.0 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere which would be taxed at $400.

The total average annual tax on the direct use of energy is therefore $2066. Because the average U.S. household spends $60,061 per year (14), this additional spending represents an increase in the inflation rate for the average household of 3.4%. Historically, increasing energy costs have had only a slight effect on the inflation of prices that are not direct energy costs.(15)  We will use 7% as a conservative estimate of the total inflation caused by the carbon removal tax: a doubling of the inflation due to the direct costs of energy.

There are four important comments about the inflation rate due to the carbon removal tax:

  1. We must compare this inflation to the true rate of inflation not the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of about 2% that is typically quoted by the press as “inflation.” The CPI is calculated in secret and assumes that consumers will substitute less expensive goods when prices rise: the CPI therefore does not account for the actual rise in prices. Its purpose is to allow the government to avoid indexing government programs to the true inflation rate which is really 7% to 13%.(16)
  2. The carbon removal tax only increases the inflation rate in the year that it is implemented: it is a one-time increase on energy prices, whereas we suffer under the true inflation rate every year.
  3. In many cases the carbon removal tax may be avoided, for example, by driving an electric vehicle, or weatherproofing a house, or installing solar panels. No such options exist for avoiding the true inflation rate, which is created by the banking system and benefits only the extremely wealthy.(17)
  4. There will be a need to address the social justice impact of this increased inflation on low-income people and communities, Although not discussed here, addressing equity will be an important part of implementing any tax.

To summarize, H. Res. 109 Green New Deal cannot possibly avoid catastrophic climate change because it minimizes the significance of the carbon already released into the atmosphere and only calls for reducing emissions “to the extent technologically feasible.” We must unequivocally demand the removal of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. It will cost at most $100 to remove one tonne of CO2 from the air after a few years of field experience while DAC is being deployed at scale. The hidden cost of emitting one tonne of CO2 is precisely the cost of removing one tonne of CO2 from the air. This leads immediately to a carbon removal tax of $100 per tonne of CO2 in order to reduce net emissions to zero. This cost would be experienced by consumers as an increase in the inflation rate of at most 7% and mostly only the first year that the carbon tax is implemented. This inflation rate should be contrasted with the current inflation rate of about 10% that we must endure today,(16,18) year after year.

Therefore a carbon removal tax is a reasonable, an accessible, and – most importantly – a responsible first step towards avoiding a climate catastrophe.

Geordie Zapalac is a physicist working in Santa Clara, CA in photovoltaics.   He is an active member of the Green Party of Santa Clara County.

References

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
  2. Peter Wadhams (2017), A Farewell to Ice. Oxford University Press, pp. 88-9.
  3. J. Hansen et al. (2008). Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2, pp. 217-231.
  4. Peter Wadhams (2017), A Farewell to Ice. Oxford University Press, pp. 47-52.
  5. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-carbon/scientists-say-cost-of-sucking-carbon-from-thin-air-could-tumble-idUSKCN1J325H
  6. K. S. Lackner (2009). Capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air. Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics, 176, pp. 93-106.
  7. https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-pricing-popular
  8. https://money.cnn.com/2011/05/05/news/economy/gas_prices_income_spending/index.htm
  9. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state
  10. https://blueskymodel.org/kilowatt-hour
  11. https://smartasset.com/personal-finance/how-much-is-the-average-electric-bill
  12. https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calulations-and-reference
  13. https://www.howellsac.com/blog/cost-of-gas-heat-vs.-electric-heat
  14. https://www.gobankingrates.com/saving-money/budgeting/how-much-average-american-spends-daily/
  15. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2018-10/07-21-energy-dist.pdf
  16. ttps://www.businessinsider.com/if-people-knew-the-actual-inflation-rate-it- would-crash-the-economy-2016-8
  17. Many classic texts are devoted to this topic. A clear and concise introduction is provided by “The Case Against the Fed” by Murray N. Rothbard.
  18. https://medium.com/@bgschust/true-inflation-exceeds-7-8dced84ae05

A Green Perspective on the Green New Deal

Category : blog , Economy , Environment

Two weeks ago, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey introduced HR 109, the Democrats’ version of a Green New Deal. This non-binding resolution is a “10-year national mobilization” to transition the country to 100% clean energy while providing millions of jobs and addressing “systemic injustices”. If approved, a select committee appointed by Nancy Pelosi will work to create a Green New Deal Plan by January 2020 which will then be transformed into a legislative draft by March 2020, just in time for the primary elections.

While ambitious on paper, the resolution remains vague and widely open to interpretation. Many climate justice groups have already criticized the resolution, including the Indigenous Environmental Network and Food and Water Watch. The Green Party of Santa Clara County also shares the general concern that HR 109 does not challenge big oil interests but instead reassure the Democrats’ wealthy corporate donors by using vague references to general policies while leaving out the needed sweeping policies that will enable funding a meaningful Green New Deal. For instance, explicit terms such as “fossil fuels”, “coal”, “natural gas”, “fracking”, or “pipelines” are not even mentioned in the resolution.

In addition, federal programs like single-payer universal healthcare, guaranteed affordable housing, tuition-free public college education and universal basic income do not appear in the document although they were part of the initial draft. If indeed one of the goals of the resolution is to counteract racial, social, and economic injustices as it claims, then such basic human rights would be guaranteed in a “ Green New Deal”.

The resolution also stops short of rejecting the for-profit, market-based economy and prioritizes private sector partnerships to implement its measures. Climate change cannot be fought with the same profiteering tools that put us in this mess in the first place. But since members of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis are all receiving donations from the fossil fuels industry, the future impact of this resolution remains unclear.

The Green Party’s Green New Deal, on the other hand, is a four-part comprehensive plan that calls for an economic bill of rights, a green and just transition, a real financial reform, a functioning democracy, and demilitarization. Cutting military spending by 50% would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide (Department of Defense is the world’s worst polluter), but will help fund the massive public infrastructure works and the transition to 100% renewable energy while creating millions of jobs.

The Green Party of Santa Clara County welcomes a long overdue national discussion on a Green New Deal. However, we believe only a true integrated approach to today’s economic, social and environmental crises can lead us to a sustainable, just and peaceful future.

Only the Greens’ Green New Deal puts people, planet, and peace over profits. Now that the idea of a Green New Deal has been introduced, it is up to us where we want to take it by participating in discussions, raising awareness, calling our representatives, and organizing locally.

Let’s raise our expectations and demand more.
Let’s make the Green New Deal a transformative reality at last.
#WeAreGreen

YOUTH VS. THE “LEFT”

Category : blog , Divestment , Economy , Energy , Politics

Youth Vs. the “Left”

by – Jake Tonkel & Christen Corcoran

Originally published in TheBridgeConvo.org

When it comes to the topic of climate change, nearly everyone on the millennial left (and a lot of the right) seems to be on the same page. Scientific evidence has demonstrated, our teachers have educated, nature itself is giving us the warning signs, and Al Gore has spread the word: climate change is real, it’s happening and it is the greatest challenge the human race has ever seen—infinitely more complex than WWI and WWII combined. This is the starting point that we must have in climate discourse. So why do we not see this reflected in politics? Why isn’t the liberal left doing more to reflect what our generation is demanding?

Climate change has already had devastating consequences, especially for the already-marginalized communities of our country and our world. Big oil, big business, the transnational elite and others have a vested interest in preventing policies directed towards combating climate change: they would lose money or like whitefish, stand to gain during the recovery effort. Furthermore, they will either be dead or as rich as King Midas by the time ultimate disaster strikes. We stand up time and time again (Keystone, DAPL, etc), but the DNC couldn’t even rule out fracking in its official 2016 platform. In fact, according to ClimateHawksVote, an organization that ranks representatives on their action on climate issues, Dems scored an average of just 23.25pts out of 100! With 6 of 44 scoring in the negatives!

That is a really, really tough pill for us to swallow as millennials. With Congress at an average age of 57, we don’t have much, if any representation. It’s ironic really, being told your whole life that with age comes wisdom only to have those that touted the saying literally destroy our world. Politicians empirically care more about the money in their pocket than working towards a solution.

As the world tries to collaborate, our government makes sure the deals are non-binding, cheering “compromise” between business and consumer, developed and developing.

It is devastating that the US is no longer party to the Paris Agreement, but in reality—we were the reason it was weak to begin with. The US follows the money, not policies that will protect humanity. This is a gross corruption of our fundamental values—by the people, for the people—which puts the market above society, and greed above human lives.

This is a somber “Left” because this is not a problem of “getting the word out”; the word is already out. Politicians know the consequences of inaction. Yet they are not following through. Terrorist attack, Congress passes legislation, gun violence, the Blue team gets all frustrated at thoughts and prayers, 3 or 4 natural disasters hit the U.S., exacerbated by a warming planet, and only the Pope seems to give it the time of day.

National Priorities

Category : blog , Economy , Politics

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.” – Eisenhower, Chance for Peace, 1953. Our last US president to have been a career military general.

When it comes to National Priorities, we hear lots of talk, but where are we walking? The way to judge a politician is not their speeches or their website, as Joe Biden said, “don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget and I will tell you what you value.”

Budgets are usually met with an understandable anxiety and boredom. Mix in congressional politics and the cocktail for an apathetic un-involved citizen is perfected. The problem is, those un-involved citizens are the ones at the bar, paying the tab.

The US budget is a bit out of control. About 7% of all US spending, both discretionary (think movable) and mandatory (think social security specific taxes), is set aside to pay interest on our debt. That’s $283 billion. Pundits come on TV every year and talk of wasteful spending, welfare abuse and where to trim the fat. But if we cut the Departments of Education, Housing, Energy, Environment, Science, and Transportation entirely, the savings is only $277 billion—less than the interest on our debt. Focusing on any of these programs to solve our debt ignores the big fat armored elephant in the room.

Military spending doubled from 1998 to 2011, as of two weeks ago, the senate approved over $700 billion for 2018. The new National Defense Authorization just passed the senate last week, 89 – 9, approving an extra $80 billion the administration didn’t even ask for. Only 3 Republicans, 4 Dems and an Independent voted No. 41 blue guys, including Warren, Harris and Booker (our “progressive senators”), fell in toe. He must be doing one heck of a job to warrant such a bonus check.

Reducing the military budget is damn hard, and one reason for starters is we can’t even talk about it–not in any rational, civilized, way at least. “ISIS, Russia, Iran, N. Korea!… Support our troops!?” It’s like we have no other choice but to boost defense funding or die.

But budgets are a choice and if the progressives are going to start demanding more accountability for the American taxpayer, they need to start learning how to have the conversation. A tried and true place to start? The ever more powerful, the ever more demanding, D.C. ball ticklers, in the featureless, anemic, D.C. lobby. Lockheed Martin, though an independent corporation, is a staple of the defense industry that also has happened to donate money to 386 of 435 members of the 112th Congress. It’s almost shocking how small the largest committee on the hill is—House Armed Services Committee—with 30 Dems and 34 Republicans. Unlike some stalemates in congress, like the obviously trivial debates on education or healthcare, our country’s national security is not a partisan issue.

Strangely enough, the talking heads that salivate at the thought of quoting a “founding father,” never seem to mention that in the wake of the revolution they refused to enlist a standing army because the general population viewed an army as a threat to democracy and freedom. In 1774, Josiah Quincy, Congressman (MA), called a standing army in a free nation a deformed monster. James Madison said “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” As late as 1939, a North Dakota Republican Congressman, thought the ability to manufacture weapons should be restricted to the government, “The removal of the element of profit from war would materially remove the danger of more war.”

The argument over budget only ever gets as far as cutting waste, but our country doesn’t accumulate massive debt feeding the hungry or healing the sick, or educating their population. If done right, those actions would actually have their own returns. No, our country is bankrupting itself with war. The founders knew it in the 1700s, but pundits are still squabbling about it today. The conversation needs to change. We are having the conversation the industry would like us to have, you either “support our troops,” or you don’t. But we are ignoring, of course, the fact that nothing is that simple, and obviously not the budgetary decisions of the United States Government.

By: Jake Tonkel

Green Money

Category : blog , Divestment , Economy , Politics

Money is strange. It’s a portable, transferrable storage symbol for our energy, effort and expertize. It can indicate our rank, our cleverness at “playing the game,” or become a shackle to a life we no longer enjoy. Lack of it can impose profound misery and its distribution can create injustice, corruption and war; or peace and plenty. Every philosophy comments on money; warning us against it, or lauding its correct application. Outside the context of a socially created market it has no intrinsic worth. Within that context it can be everything.

Our money is also our politics, and is as much a tool of intelligent stewardship as our vote. It acts beyond our independent spending. The banks we trust to secure our futures use our savings and our debt payments to fund both good and evil. We are responsible to know, and choose, the paths our money travels, and the influence it buys.

With the Citizens United decision reinforcing corporate personhood, the Supreme Court also made money free speech, effectively making money the only speech. While the heart of avarice now holds the loudest megaphone in the republic, it can’t yet forcibly silence us. We can be a chorus and collectively take back the wheel from greed and corruption. We have to clean and green our money.

It’s going to be inconvenient, time consuming and may require sacrifices. If these things deter us, we become “good people doing nothing,” giving evil a clear path. Compared to the costs dirty money will force on our children, the sacrifice is insignificant.

  1. Move your money to a credit union. Checking, savings, credit cards, loans, even mortgages; move them all over to a credit union. CU’s are non-profits that lend locally and support the small businesses and local companies that are the true engine of the American ideal.
  2. Take a good look at your 401K and other retirement savings strategies. Are you funding banks and other corporations that continue to destroy the natural world? Is your money underwriting fracking, dirty energy, deforestation, irresponsible real estate development? Redistribute your investments to reflect your politics.
  3. Buy from local chains and stores instead of multi-national corporations. Quit the online shopping habit and look for independent grocery stores , bookstores, coffee shops, material suppliers. Yes, independents may be more expensive, but if the large scale corporations were actually charging you what it’s going to cost to repair the damage they are doing to the world, their prices would be astronomical. Do you want your grandchildren to inherit an unlivable world, or the story of our victory over greed and waste? Open a map application and type in a search for whatever you need to buy. Not only will you find the independents in your area but you’ll use less energy getting there.
  4. When you make donations, investigate. Did you know that Savers thrift shops in San Jose are for-profit? They only “share” their profits with charities. Why provide them with free inventory when other donations go to actual non-profits?
  5. Support the maker community in your neighborhood. Look for independent craftspeople and artisans to support when you buy gifts, seek entertainment, or need durable goods.
  6. Talk to your relations, friends and neighbors about bringing their money back home, regardless of political stripe. Supporting businesses in your home town and keeping money local is not a partisan issue. Conservative or progressive, the benefits are a no-brainer.

Keep thinking, asking, loving, doing, giving, trying. The world is better for your efforts.

FB Events

Green Party of Santa Clara County CA

Recent Posts

Social Media

South Bay for Jill Stein

Green Party of Santa Clara County - 48 S. Seventh Street, Suite 1 San Jose, CA 95112 - 408-236-2016