Write a Letter to the Editor

What is the danger of an explosion to the foundation of the tunnel pipeline to the Mackinaw bridge

6 billion dollars a year in earnings from the pipeline does not justify risking human life or fishlife or worse is TERRORIST can ACCESS the PIPELINE

A Terrorist Can pump whatever it whats Uphil and downhill thru that pipeline and destroy more than you have thought about

I am concerned we follow our noses and cant see the building falling on us.


If it takes 3 hours – 6 hrs to shut the pipe off, and you leak x million gallons into the Straights …anyone good or evil and make a bomb out of it

and ruin the bridge.

I do research on viruses and cancers and heavy metal poisonings and my book is endorsed by the former head chemist of Y-12 Manhattan Project

type

frederick sawaya patent into the google space bar and see my credentials.

Please don’t forget the innocent unborn person.

God Bless Bishop Robert Brennan, he includes all the wonderful groups that support women in need and their families that have difficult situations in his column.I attended the sixth annual International Gift of Life Walk on March 25th which is always held on the Annunciation of the Lord. As an active member of Helpers of God’s Precious Infants and being a board member of the New York State Right to Life Committee representing Queens we must support the precious unborn infants who are persons from abortion. We must all learn and understand that our Catholic Christian vote for pro-life candidates and issues can make a big difference. The innocent unborn baby needs our support because if a society can accept the killing of the unborn then assisted suicide and euthanasia will be accepted by all. Unfortunately so many Catholics and Catholic politicians are pro-choice because they support and vote against pro-life issues and candidates.

I am writing as I am very worried about tje future of our planet so everything is at risk so we must stop pipeline 3.. As we need to save our planet and our nation now.

Concerned citizen

Ji Montgomery

I begin: climate change is real and climate change is a threat. This dissection of Congressional Bill HR763 is not an argument as to whether a carbon tax could address climate change; it is a case that HR763 is a corrupt bill.

Corporate Lobbyists, with the cooperation of 14 Democrats and 1 Republican have hijacked the climate activists’ initiative, turning it into a bill that makes fossil-fuel production more profitable. I also introduce that HR763 appears to pave a way for nuclear energy.

Citizens Climate Lobby is working to amass support in Michigan for HR763. Many of the volunteers presenting the hype and talking points have not read or understood the language in the bill. I encourage Michiganders to attend an event near where CCL is presenting HR763 and have a real fact-finding mission. Read the bill beforehand and do not be fooled by the HR763’s title.

HR763 does not have any mechanism or agency therein to reduce harmful emissions. HR763 does 3 things: FIRST makes fossil-fuel production more profitable for energy producers. SECOND removes the EPA’s ability to regulate air quality and sets a precedent to destroy the EPA’s environmental oversight. THIRD increases costs to consumers at the end point through a new fee and doubles-taxes households by creating a dividend that is subject to income taxes.

THEN to rub salt into the gutted Climate Initiative, HR763 has absolutely no benchmarks or directives to migrate from fossil fuel production—NONE.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/text

Here are nine destructive issues inside this bill.

ONE Carbon Fee (Sec9902) has been changed from Jim Hansen’s and Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) from point of extraction to “emitting use or sale or transfer for an emitting use” (HR763/Sec9902 (a)). This change benefits fossil-fuel energy producers. Please refer to this 2010 article for recognize that if the fee is not assessed “at the mine, well head…” energy producers do not experience a rising cost.

https://www.carbontax.org/blog/2010/04/25/scientist-james-hansen-proposes-peoples-climate-stewardship-act/

TWO The monthly payment to be paid to every adult and ½ payment paid to every child to offset the carbon fee (Sec 4 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Sec9512 Carbon Dividend Trust Fund) is called a dividend. Dividends are taxable income at year-end. “Amounts paid shall be includible in gross income.” (Sec9512 (3) Carbon Dividend Payments (D)Fee Treatment of Payments)

This accumulated dividend could move households into higher tax brackets by year-end and/or turn expected tax refunds into additional payments owed to the IRS, state treasuries, and other taxing jurisdictions. The impact of this has not been explored.

Hence, the recovery of the carbon fees— at the pump, in home heating bills, cost of home appliances, such as refrigerators, and all the other places it will be assessed and either paid directly by consumers or in rising costs of bus fares, rents, et cetera— could be a net loser, net sum, or negligible.

THREE The EPA becomes subservient to this undefined Secretary in Sec 9907 Administrative Authority and throughout the bill. Sec 9901 Definitions defines “Administrator” as the EPA. Yet, throughout HR763 “Secretary” makes determinations, but remains undefined. Secretaries of departments are identified as “Secretary of…,” so I wonder to whom is this entity, At no point is this Secretary given authority to actually reduce emissions per Schedule in Sec 9903. The Secretary executes the schedule and a few other things. I will address doling out refunds to corporations in a latter point. The EPA becomes subservient to this undefined Secretary in Sec 9907 Administrative Authority and throughout the bill.

The EPA’s oversight and regulatory authority is suspended in HR63, Sec 330 Suspension of Regulation of Fuels and Emissions Based on Greenhouse Gas Effects (Sec 8 Amendments to Clean Air Act, Sec330). This suspension begins with a 10year period, to be continued thereafter at an increment of 5-years increments, whenever “emissions from covered fuels subject to taxation under Sec 9902 of such Code during the period from calendar year 2022 through the calendar year preceding the determination exceed the cumulative emissions for that period that would have occurred if the emissions reduction targets in section 9903(a)(2) of such Code were met”. This means that if emissions are not decreasing per the Sec 9903 Schedule, then the EPA has the potential to be suspended indefinitely.

It cannot be ignored, since there are neither directives in HR763 to execute the scheduled reduction nor any agency named to carry out such reduction, HR763 is cross-your-fingers at best or complete fakery at worst.

It is obvious that the only purpose the aforementioned Schedule (Sec 9903) does do in combination with Suspension of Regulation (Sec 330) is serve as the means to continue to idle the EPA beyond the initial 10years for an indefinite period.

FOUR This bill excludes select emissions from select industries, which belies an insincerity to address climate change. Emissions to be assessed a fee are limited to coal, petroleum, and fluorocarbons. HR763 does restrict methane emissions nor the indirect emissions uniquely associated with upstream nuclear fuel production and the downstream wastes, acidic and radioactive, that harm the environment as mightily as climate change.

Methane is omitted. Methane is more damaging per molecule to the ozone layer than is carbon. Thus, methane from CAFOs, landfills, or waste-to-energy are not included. In fact, sec 9902Carbon Fee ©Exemptions (1) Agriculture ©Other Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Agriculture protects CAFOs.

Nuclear energy production poses catastrophic dangers. Nuclear energy is neither renewable nor green energy. It is a mistake to apply the clean or refer to nuclear energy as being environmentally friendly.

Upstream to reactors producing energy is mining of fuel source, uranium, which has left poisoned land and water and communities marked by sickness and death. Also upstream is the manufacturing yellow cake into fuel rods which also produces wastes.

Downstream the spent rods have high-level of radioactive waste (HLW) that must be kept away from human habitation for one million years, per EPA. The cumulative tons of HLW in storage is hidden. The fact that there are 121 facilities is not.

Radioactive waste storage facilities are at risk for terrorist attacks and facilities using wet storage are vulnerable to cyber-attacks. Storage facilities as well as the reactors are vulnerable to natural disasters, including rising sea and lake levels due to climate change.

One in 3 Americans live within 50 Miles of a nuclear waste site. (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013)

There seems to be a subtext to the structure of a carbon-tax policy that promotes nuclear energy.

…we’ve been advocating for the CO2 fee and dividend plan for several years… (Atomic Insights, 2017, February 11)

Since the price increases would not apply to fuels that do not produce [direct] CO2…. nuclear fission would see a small, but steadily rising cost advantage over competitive fuels. (Atomic Insights, 2017, February 11)

If there is an established and predictably rising tax on the CO2 potential for competitive fuels, there will be greater interest in proving some of the modern [reactor]designs and moving them from paper to full scale manufacturing and operations. That’s the x-factor that many carbon fee and dividend critics overlook or purposely ignore. (Atomic Insights, 2017, February 11)

FIVE HR763 does not define what is meant by “Innovative Energy” from its title, which is a huge invitation for other dirty energy technologies to thrive. Feasibly, an air polluting energy production could be replaced by a soil and/or water polluting energy production. This would be counterproductive to the aim of climate activists, as climate change effects the air, cropland, and municipal water sources.

Note: not all renewables are green. Solar is renewable and green. Biofuels are renewable but nearly all are biofuels not green. Waste-to-energy is renewable up to a point, but it is not green. The only biofuel that satisfy both renewable and green is the closed system that cleaned and then reused the water as invented by Solazyme, renamed TerraVia, acquired by Corbion.

Nuclear is neither renewable nor green. The term “clean” is often used to address nuclear energy, but this is misleading in light of the pollution created to mine the uranium; in light of the greenhouse gases released upstream and downstream from the nuclear fuel cycle; in light of thermal and radioactive waste water.

Biofuel production is not green because occupies land needed in production for food.

Biofuels are not green in the presence of pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers used to increase yield. This has impact on soil health and the water run-off is heavily polluted and usually untreated.

Biofuel production uses a high volume of water. The two most popular crops-to-fuel are corn and soy, both of which require irrigation.

Ethanol, a crop biofuel, requires pure water taken from aquifers to produce the like volume in fuel. The common conversion is 0.33 to 1.0 gallon of water to 1-gallon biofuel.

It is counterproductive to enable a fuel technology that consumes a natural resource under stress, Water, to preserve another natural resource under stress, Air. Climate Change is affecting communities who rely on mountain range snow melt to recharge the rivers to meet municipal demands.

Waste-to-energy is a double-edge dagger. It is not green, but in some cases can provide a benefit.

On-one-hand, if there is a landfill that is emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, capturing it to reuse it as energy can be a benefit. This is called gasification, anaerobic digestion, or fermentation depending on the process applied. Gasification et al is no longer beneficial when flaring is part of the process to burn-off undesired gases.

On the other hand, importing garbage to maintain or increase volume of such landfill gas capturing facilities is no longer a benefit.

Burning garbage, incineration, puts toxic particulate into the atmosphere and thus is not green.

Thermal depolymerization and pyrolysis pose the same pollution and use of water as does most biofuel production.

SIX HR763 makes fossil-fuel production more profitable for corporations via two provisions in the bill: lifting of penalties and awarding of refunds.

Penalties: since the consumer’s representative agency, the EPA, has been handcuffed penalties incurred due to emissions are lifted according to Sec 330. Lower costs yield higher profits.

Refunds: HR763 flips current penalties the energy industry pays on its head to become refunds taxpayers pay to corporations! Sec 9906 Carbon Capture And Sequestration, specifically (b) Payments (2) Amount of Refunds. It is the undefined “Secretary “who determines and grants refunds to corporations based on an undefined formula. Refunds become revenue, which increases corporate profit.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration, CCS, refers to a range of technologies that corporations already have in place to avoid the EPA emission penalties and proposed technologies, such as pumping emission wastes into the ground or into the ocean.

Section (2) Findings claims “efficient markets should reflect all the costs of goods….” Yet, where profits are increased for fossil-fuel extraction there can be no market motive to move from carbon-dirty energy production.

SEVEN Clearly, if HR763 was an honest bill based on efficient market principles, then HR763 would have eliminated subsidies for coal, petroleum, chemical, and nuclear. As long as subsidies are in place, then “all costs of goods” are not reflected.

The hype around HR763 is that consumers will scream loud enough and that will change the profit motive of corporations is outrageous. It is also subversive to put all the burden on consumers in the absence of authority and tools to make market changes. In fact, an agency of the People, the EPA, has been handcuffed in this bill.

To illustrate the imbalance, consider these examples. Consumers cannot make a non-fossil fuel choice at the pump when car companies will only build gas-powered SUVs. Consumers cannot select freon-free refrigerators, when manufacturers are not making alternatives. Consumers cannot choose non-fossil fuel choice to heat their homes when DTE is eliminating solar credits and pushing to punitive costs to those homeowners who choose off-grid power. Consumers cannot make economically sound family budget choices to switch from propane to geothermal, when gas & oil companies are subsidized.

It is a dysfunctional use of industry subsidizes to shield established industries from changing markets.

Industry tax subsidies are best used by governments to nurture nascent industries whose trajectory has a greater public good, such as green energy development, production, and distribution of solar, turbine, and geothermal energy.

In Michigan, where municipal water supplies across counties need updating and replacement. A Green New Deal derived bill could include green technology takes the water infrastructure into the 21st century, by including water turbines in water intake pipes. Wind turbines, although renewable are not green enough where migrating birds put at risk. Local communities are not necessariy in agreement with the change in their landscape. Michigan can do statewide what Portland Oregon is doing.

https://www.greenmatters.com/renewables/2018/09/26/17giyP/portland-hydro-power-city-water-pipes

EIGHT In addition to allowing methane emissions, HR763 allows for non-carbon emitting dirty-energy production. I want to caution climate activists that our soil and water need protection, as well as our air. HR763 allows it to become feasible for an air polluting energy production to be replaced by a soil and/or water polluting energy production. This would be counterproductive to the aim of climate activists, as climate change effects no only our air, but our cropland, and municipal water sources as well.

I have already cited problems with biofuels, waste-to-energy, and nuclear. I want to point to the environmental impact to Sec 9906 Carbon Capture and Sequestration. One CCS technology, to pump carbon emissins into our oceans will but undue stress on ocean mammals, who already having their food sources diminished. The theory of injecting emissions into the ocean is that the emissions will be absorbed by plankton. This will kill the plankton, a vital food source essential on the food chain. The plankton bodies, now toxic settle on the ocean floor ad infinitum. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/05/31/carbon-capture/?utm_term=.cf065329289c

This is worse than killing Peter to save Paul. This is saving one’s hands by sacrificing one’s feet.

NINE HR763 title, Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019 is a misnomer. HR763 does not call on energy producers to reduce carbon emissions and HR763 has no directives to adapt to energy production that do not produce toxic wastes. Humanity cannot survive if People do not have clean air to breathe; neither can humanity survive if People do not clean water to drink or uncontaminated soil in which to grow food.

The title and the talking-points to mislead individuals and environmentally-minded and civically-conscious groups to support HR763. I detest being lied to. Do you?

Understanding the provisions in HR763 will help you educate the CCL volunteers who are making presentations seeking support for this bill. They have been trained not in understanding HR763; they have been trained in Talking-Points.

Now you can see that HR763 is not an “Energy Innovation” bill and that HR763 is not compatible with the Green New Deal Resolution. HR763 increases the profitability of fossil-fuel production by removing penalty fines and pays a newly created refund with taxpayer dollars. HR763 prevents the EPA from fulfilling its oversight and regulatory function on behalf of the People. HR763 increases costs and taxes for consumers.

NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS in this bill. Furthermore, you know that consumers complaints cannot make corporations do the right thing. Corporations are profit machines; they are answerable to their shareholders. Our Government’s purpose is to be answerable to the People and they have abandoned us again. They must get back on course.

Lastly, if you are wondering why or how the carbon tax initiative got hijacked, please read the addendum below. It would take an investigative journalist to connect all the dots. Here are some of the dots.

It is also a warning, because HR763 represents a successful takeover of an idea galvanizing millions climate activists across the nation to produce something alien to the hearts and minds of many activists. The Carbon tax idea appears not to be salvageable. This could be the same fate of the GND if activists do not keep their elected legislators true to the original intent.


Addendum—CCL and Corporate Activity behind the scenes

CCL is not being honest about the impact HR763 will have. Here are excerpts from CCL’s website.

CCL misleads by omission about how the dividend will affect household income by omitting the fact the IRS and state treasuries will treat as part of gross income. In other words, the offset is temporary. Households will need to pay a portion of it back, but if the dividend kicked them up into higher tax bracket, households could be paying far more.

Good for People

This policy will improve health and save lives. Additionally, the carbon dividend puts money directly into people’s pockets every month to spend as they see fit, helping low and middle income Americans.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/

CCL misleads with untrue associations, linking real data about climate change to bill that has no mechanism to reduce emissions that lead to climate change.

Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on rangelands, and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly disrupt agricultural productivity in the United States. Expected increases in challenges to livestock health, declines in crop yields and quality, and changes in extreme events in the United States and abroad threaten rural livelihoods, sustainable food security, and price stability.

Fortunately, Congress wants to lead with a bipartisan climate solution called the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, that can reverse the trend of excess carbon emissions.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/bet-the-farm-on-it-farmers-ranchers-and-the-energy-innovation-act/

CCL misleads with use of deflection, addressing the exemption of methane produced by CAFOs as “cow burps” and by portraying the agricultural exemption for fuel consumption as a family farm issue, when corporate farming is a growing segment of acreage being monocropped. “80% of all rented farmland is owned by non-farming landlords.” (Washington Post, 2015 Sep 18)

Emissions from agricultural processes themselves—think methane in cow burps—are not covered by this bill.

Here’s the best part for farmers and ranchers: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act provides an exemption for diesel or gasoline used for agricultural purposes. The bill’s authors know farming is absolutely vital to the American economy…

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/bet-the-farm-on-it-farmers-ranchers-and-the-energy-innovation-act/

CCL obfuscates the conditions under which the EPA can be idled indefinitely. Sec 330 Suspension of Regulations of Fuels and Emissions on Greenhouse Gas Effects suspends the EPA’s authority until March 2030 and then it will be extended in 5-year increments if the targets laid out in Sec 9903 Schedule are not met.

Compare (2) Consequence of Cumulative Emissions Exceedance which states that as long as targets are NOT met then the EPA continues to be suspended to the CCL website statement.

“…if the emission reduction targets in section 9903(a)(2) of such Code WERE MET, then the prohibition in section (a) of this section, and section 211©(5) of this Act, shall cease to apply.”

[emphasis is mine] CCL’s “How It Works” is not truth talking. There is no direct language in HR763 that says Congress activates EPA to do anything in regard to targets. Again, the purpose of the schedule set forth is to idle the EPA indefinitely.

Regulatory Adjustment

This policy preserves effective current regulations, like auto mileage standards, but pauses the EPA authority to regulate the CO2 and equivalent emissions covered by the fee, for the first 10 years after the policy is enacted. If emission targets are not being met after 10 years, Congress gives clear direction to the EPA to regulate those emissions to meet those targets. The pause does not impact EPA regulations related to water quality, air quality, health or other issues. This policy’s price on pollution will lower carbon emissions far more than existing and pending EPA regulations.

https://energyinnovationact.org/how-it-works/

CCL and the energy industry have been oblique about their entanglements. Including sizeable donations.

ExxonMobil will give $1 million over two years to a group promoting a plan that would tax the carbon content of fuels

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/09/exxonmobil-gives-million-promote-carbon-tax-and-dividend-plan/?utm_term=.a4d398df2fc7

Business Climate Leaders, a formal Initiative of CCL talks about the carbon tax in different terms, as its audience is not consumers nor citizen climate activists. BCL’s audience is comprised of legislators and corporate executives.

Carbon taxes are raising revenues around the world," said Helen Mountford, director of economics for the World Resources Institute and program director for the New Climate Economy Initiative, during the GCAS event. “It’s also a major incentive to innovate.

Cashing in on climate change action

”https://www.greenbiz.com/article/case-valuing-carbon-growing-louder-even-though-tax-still-dirty-word" rel="nofollow">https://www.greenbiz.com/article/case-valuing-carbon-growing-louder-even-though-tax-still-dirty-word

The energy industry has hijacked the carbon tax idea and with their hired guns, lobbyists, have manipulated all parties and produced a bill that increases corporate profits.

Shell Oil Co. lobbyists met several times with Republicans and Democrats from both chambers to say the energy giant would support a nationwide price on carbon emissions…. During the four-year span, the six firms together spent more than $120 million to lobby Congress. A tiny fraction went to advancing, or opposing, the prospects of a carbon tax.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060099745

A small but growing number of conservative advocacy groups and energy companies have talked openly about their support for a U.S. carbon tax, in particular in exchange for rolling back environmental regulations. The chance of passing carbon tax legislation is remote in the Republican-led Congress, but Shell is quietly laying the groundwork for similar bills in the future.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shell-oil-quietly-urges-lawmakers-to-support-carbon-tax/

I begin: climate change is real and climate change is a threat. This dissection of Congressional Bill HR763 is not an argument as to whether a carbon tax could address climate change; it is a case that HR763 is a corrupt bill.

Corporate Lobbyists, with the cooperation of 14 Democrats and 1 Republican have hijacked the climate activists’ initiative, turning it into a bill that makes fossil-fuel production more profitable. I also introduce that HR763 appears to pave a way for nuclear energy.

Citizens Climate Lobby is working to amass support in Michigan for HR763. Many of the volunteers presenting the hype and talking points have not read or understood the language in the bill. I encourage Michiganders to attend an event near where CCL is presenting HR763 and have a real fact-finding mission. Read the bill beforehand and do not be fooled by the HR763’s title.

HR763 does not have any mechanism or agency therein to reduce harmful emissions. HR763 does 3 things: FIRST makes fossil-fuel production more profitable for energy producers. SECOND removes the EPA’s ability to regulate air quality and sets a precedent to destroy the EPA’s environmental oversight. THIRD increases costs to consumers at the end point through a new fee and doubles-taxes households by creating a dividend that is subject to income taxes.

THEN to rub salt into the gutted Climate Initiative, HR763 has absolutely no benchmarks or directives to migrate from fossil fuel production—NONE.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/text

Here are nine destructive issues inside this bill.

ONE Carbon Fee (Sec9902) has been changed from Jim Hansen’s and Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) from point of extraction to “emitting use or sale or transfer for an emitting use” (HR763/Sec9902 (a)). This change benefits fossil-fuel energy producers. Please refer to this 2010 article for recognize that if the fee is not assessed “at the mine, well head…” energy producers do not experience a rising cost.

https://www.carbontax.org/blog/2010/04/25/scientist-james-hansen-proposes-peoples-climate-stewardship-act/

TWO The monthly payment to be paid to every adult and ½ payment paid to every child to offset the carbon fee (Sec 4 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Sec9512 Carbon Dividend Trust Fund) is called a dividend. Dividends are taxable income at year-end. “Amounts paid shall be includible in gross income.” (Sec9512 (3) Carbon Dividend Payments (D)Fee Treatment of Payments)

This accumulated dividend could move households into higher tax brackets by year-end and/or turn expected tax refunds into additional payments owed to the IRS, state treasuries, and other taxing jurisdictions. The impact of this has not been explored.

Hence, the recovery of the carbon fees— at the pump, in home heating bills, cost of home appliances, such as refrigerators, and all the other places it will be assessed and either paid directly by consumers or in rising costs of bus fares, rents, et cetera— could be a net loser, net sum, or negligible.

THREE The EPA becomes subservient to this undefined Secretary in Sec 9907 Administrative Authority and throughout the bill. Sec 9901 Definitions defines “Administrator” as the EPA. Yet, throughout HR763 “Secretary” makes determinations, but remains undefined. Secretaries of departments are identified as “Secretary of…,” so I wonder to whom is this entity, At no point is this Secretary given authority to actually reduce emissions per Schedule in Sec 9903. The Secretary executes the schedule and a few other things. I will address doling out refunds to corporations in a latter point. The EPA becomes subservient to this undefined Secretary in Sec 9907 Administrative Authority and throughout the bill.

The EPA’s oversight and regulatory authority is suspended in HR63, Sec 330 Suspension of Regulation of Fuels and Emissions Based on Greenhouse Gas Effects (Sec 8 Amendments to Clean Air Act, Sec330). This suspension begins with a 10year period, to be continued thereafter at an increment of 5-years increments, whenever “emissions from covered fuels subject to taxation under Sec 9902 of such Code during the period from calendar year 2022 through the calendar year preceding the determination exceed the cumulative emissions for that period that would have occurred if the emissions reduction targets in section 9903(a)(2) of such Code were met”. This means that if emissions are not decreasing per the Sec 9903 Schedule, then the EPA has the potential to be suspended indefinitely.

It cannot be ignored, since there are neither directives in HR763 to execute the scheduled reduction nor any agency named to carry out such reduction, HR763 is cross-your-fingers at best or complete fakery at worst.

It is obvious that the only purpose the aforementioned Schedule (Sec 9903) does do in combination with Suspension of Regulation (Sec 330) is serve as the means to continue to idle the EPA beyond the initial 10years for an indefinite period.

FOUR This bill excludes select emissions from select industries, which belies an insincerity to address climate change. Emissions to be assessed a fee are limited to coal, petroleum, and fluorocarbons. HR763 does restrict methane emissions nor the indirect emissions uniquely associated with upstream nuclear fuel production and the downstream wastes, acidic and radioactive, that harm the environment as mightily as climate change.

Methane is omitted. Methane is more damaging per molecule to the ozone layer than is carbon. Thus, methane from CAFOs, landfills, or waste-to-energy are not included. In fact, sec 9902Carbon Fee ©Exemptions (1) Agriculture ©Other Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Agriculture protects CAFOs.

Nuclear energy production poses catastrophic dangers. Nuclear energy is neither renewable nor green energy. It is a mistake to apply the clean or refer to nuclear energy as being environmentally friendly.

Upstream to reactors producing energy is mining of fuel source, uranium, which has left poisoned land and water and communities marked by sickness and death. Also upstream is the manufacturing yellow cake into fuel rods which also produces wastes.

Downstream the spent rods have high-level of radioactive waste (HLW) that must be kept away from human habitation for one million years, per EPA. The cumulative tons of HLW in storage is hidden. The fact that there are 121 facilities is not.

Radioactive waste storage facilities are at risk for terrorist attacks and facilities using wet storage are vulnerable to cyber-attacks. Storage facilities as well as the reactors are vulnerable to natural disasters, including rising sea and lake levels due to climate change.

One in 3 Americans live within 50 Miles of a nuclear waste site. (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013)

There seems to be a subtext to the structure of a carbon-tax policy that promotes nuclear energy.

…we’ve been advocating for the CO2 fee and dividend plan for several years… (Atomic Insights, 2017, February 11)

Since the price increases would not apply to fuels that do not produce [direct] CO2…. nuclear fission would see a small, but steadily rising cost advantage over competitive fuels. (Atomic Insights, 2017, February 11)

If there is an established and predictably rising tax on the CO2 potential for competitive fuels, there will be greater interest in proving some of the modern [reactor]designs and moving them from paper to full scale manufacturing and operations. That’s the x-factor that many carbon fee and dividend critics overlook or purposely ignore. (Atomic Insights, 2017, February 11)

FIVE HR763 does not define what is meant by “Innovative Energy” from its title, which is a huge invitation for other dirty energy technologies to thrive. Feasibly, an air polluting energy production could be replaced by a soil and/or water polluting energy production. This would be counterproductive to the aim of climate activists, as climate change effects the air, cropland, and municipal water sources.

Note: not all renewables are green. Solar is renewable and green. Biofuels are renewable but nearly all are biofuels not green. Waste-to-energy is renewable up to a point, but it is not green. The only biofuel that satisfy both renewable and green is the closed system that cleaned and then reused the water as invented by Solazyme, renamed TerraVia, acquired by Corbion.

Nuclear is neither renewable nor green. The term “clean” is often used to address nuclear energy, but this is misleading in light of the pollution created to mine the uranium; in light of the greenhouse gases released upstream and downstream from the nuclear fuel cycle; in light of thermal and radioactive waste water.

Biofuel production is not green because occupies land needed in production for food.

Biofuels are not green in the presence of pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers used to increase yield. This has impact on soil health and the water run-off is heavily polluted and usually untreated.

Biofuel production uses a high volume of water. The two most popular crops-to-fuel are corn and soy, both of which require irrigation.

Ethanol, a crop biofuel, requires pure water taken from aquifers to produce the like volume in fuel. The common conversion is 0.33 to 1.0 gallon of water to 1-gallon biofuel.

It is counterproductive to enable a fuel technology that consumes a natural resource under stress, Water, to preserve another natural resource under stress, Air. Climate Change is affecting communities who rely on mountain range snow melt to recharge the rivers to meet municipal demands.

Waste-to-energy is a double-edge dagger. It is not green, but in some cases can provide a benefit.

On-one-hand, if there is a landfill that is emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, capturing it to reuse it as energy can be a benefit. This is called gasification, anaerobic digestion, or fermentation depending on the process applied. Gasification et al is no longer beneficial when flaring is part of the process to burn-off undesired gases.

On the other hand, importing garbage to maintain or increase volume of such landfill gas capturing facilities is no longer a benefit.

Burning garbage, incineration, puts toxic particulate into the atmosphere and thus is not green.

Thermal depolymerization and pyrolysis pose the same pollution and use of water as does most biofuel production.

SIX HR763 makes fossil-fuel production more profitable for corporations via two provisions in the bill: lifting of penalties and awarding of refunds.

Penalties: since the consumer’s representative agency, the EPA, has been handcuffed penalties incurred due to emissions are lifted according to Sec 330. Lower costs yield higher profits.

Refunds: HR763 flips current penalties the energy industry pays on its head to become refunds taxpayers pay to corporations! Sec 9906 Carbon Capture And Sequestration, specifically (b) Payments (2) Amount of Refunds. It is the undefined “Secretary “who determines and grants refunds to corporations based on an undefined formula. Refunds become revenue, which increases corporate profit.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration, CCS, refers to a range of technologies that corporations already have in place to avoid the EPA emission penalties and proposed technologies, such as pumping emission wastes into the ground or into the ocean.

Section (2) Findings claims “efficient markets should reflect all the costs of goods….” Yet, where profits are increased for fossil-fuel extraction there can be no market motive to move from carbon-dirty energy production.

SEVEN Clearly, if HR763 was an honest bill based on efficient market principles, then HR763 would have eliminated subsidies for coal, petroleum, chemical, and nuclear. As long as subsidies are in place, then “all costs of goods” are not reflected.

The hype around HR763 is that consumers will scream loud enough and that will change the profit motive of corporations is outrageous. It is also subversive to put all the burden on consumers in the absence of authority and tools to make market changes. In fact, an agency of the People, the EPA, has been handcuffed in this bill.

To illustrate the imbalance, consider these examples. Consumers cannot make a non-fossil fuel choice at the pump when car companies will only build gas-powered SUVs. Consumers cannot select freon-free refrigerators, when manufacturers are not making alternatives. Consumers cannot choose non-fossil fuel choice to heat their homes when DTE is eliminating solar credits and pushing to punitive costs to those homeowners who choose off-grid power. Consumers cannot make economically sound family budget choices to switch from propane to geothermal, when gas & oil companies are subsidized.

It is a dysfunctional use of industry subsidizes to shield established industries from changing markets.

Industry tax subsidies are best used by governments to nurture nascent industries whose trajectory has a greater public good, such as green energy development, production, and distribution of solar, turbine, and geothermal energy.

In Michigan, where municipal water supplies across counties need updating and replacement. A Green New Deal derived bill could include green technology takes the water infrastructure into the 21st century, by including water turbines in water intake pipes. Wind turbines, although renewable are not green enough where migrating birds put at risk. Local communities are not necessariy in agreement with the change in their landscape. Michigan can do statewide what Portland Oregon is doing.

https://www.greenmatters.com/renewables/2018/09/26/17giyP/portland-hydro-power-city-water-pipes

EIGHT In addition to allowing methane emissions, HR763 allows for non-carbon emitting dirty-energy production. I want to caution climate activists that our soil and water need protection, as well as our air. HR763 allows it to become feasible for an air polluting energy production to be replaced by a soil and/or water polluting energy production. This would be counterproductive to the aim of climate activists, as climate change effects no only our air, but our cropland, and municipal water sources as well.

I have already cited problems with biofuels, waste-to-energy, and nuclear. I want to point to the environmental impact to Sec 9906 Carbon Capture and Sequestration. One CCS technology, to pump carbon emissins into our oceans will but undue stress on ocean mammals, who already having their food sources diminished. The theory of injecting emissions into the ocean is that the emissions will be absorbed by plankton. This will kill the plankton, a vital food source essential on the food chain. The plankton bodies, now toxic settle on the ocean floor ad infinitum. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/05/31/carbon-capture/?utm_term=.cf065329289c

This is worse than killing Peter to save Paul. This is saving one’s hands by sacrificing one’s feet.

NINE HR763 title, Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019 is a misnomer. HR763 does not call on energy producers to reduce carbon emissions and HR763 has no directives to adapt to energy production that do not produce toxic wastes. Humanity cannot survive if People do not have clean air to breathe; neither can humanity survive if People do not clean water to drink or uncontaminated soil in which to grow food.

The title and the talking-points to mislead individuals and environmentally-minded and civically-conscious groups to support HR763. I detest being lied to. Do you?

Understanding the provisions in HR763 will help you educate the CCL volunteers who are making presentations seeking support for this bill. They have been trained not in understanding HR763; they have been trained in Talking-Points.

Now you can see that HR763 is not an “Energy Innovation” bill and that HR763 is not compatible with the Green New Deal Resolution. HR763 increases the profitability of fossil-fuel production by removing penalty fines and pays a newly created refund with taxpayer dollars. HR763 prevents the EPA from fulfilling its oversight and regulatory function on behalf of the People. HR763 increases costs and taxes for consumers.

NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS in this bill. Furthermore, you know that consumers complaints cannot make corporations do the right thing. Corporations are profit machines; they are answerable to their shareholders. Our Government’s purpose is to be answerable to the People and they have abandoned us again. They must get back on course.

Lastly, if you are wondering why or how the carbon tax initiative got hijacked, please read the addendum below. It would take an investigative journalist to connect all the dots. Here are some of the dots.

It is also a warning, because HR763 represents a successful takeover of an idea galvanizing millions climate activists across the nation to produce something alien to the hearts and minds of many activists. The Carbon tax idea appears not to be salvageable. This could be the same fate of the GND if activists do not keep their elected legislators true to the original intent.


Addendum—CCL and Corporate Activity behind the scenes

CCL is not being honest about the impact HR763 will have. Here are excerpts from CCL’s website.

CCL misleads by omission about how the dividend will affect household income by omitting the fact the IRS and state treasuries will treat as part of gross income. In other words, the offset is temporary. Households will need to pay a portion of it back, but if the dividend kicked them up into higher tax bracket, households could be paying far more.

Good for People

This policy will improve health and save lives. Additionally, the carbon dividend puts money directly into people’s pockets every month to spend as they see fit, helping low and middle income Americans.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/

CCL misleads with untrue associations, linking real data about climate change to bill that has no mechanism to reduce emissions that lead to climate change.

Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on rangelands, and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly disrupt agricultural productivity in the United States. Expected increases in challenges to livestock health, declines in crop yields and quality, and changes in extreme events in the United States and abroad threaten rural livelihoods, sustainable food security, and price stability.

Fortunately, Congress wants to lead with a bipartisan climate solution called the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, that can reverse the trend of excess carbon emissions.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/bet-the-farm-on-it-farmers-ranchers-and-the-energy-innovation-act/

CCL misleads with use of deflection, addressing the exemption of methane produced by CAFOs as “cow burps” and by portraying the agricultural exemption for fuel consumption as a family farm issue, when corporate farming is a growing segment of acreage being monocropped. “80% of all rented farmland is owned by non-farming landlords.” (Washington Post, 2015 Sep 18)

Emissions from agricultural processes themselves—think methane in cow burps—are not covered by this bill.

Here’s the best part for farmers and ranchers: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act provides an exemption for diesel or gasoline used for agricultural purposes. The bill’s authors know farming is absolutely vital to the American economy…

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/bet-the-farm-on-it-farmers-ranchers-and-the-energy-innovation-act/

CCL obfuscates the conditions under which the EPA can be idled indefinitely. Sec 330 Suspension of Regulations of Fuels and Emissions on Greenhouse Gas Effects suspends the EPA’s authority until March 2030 and then it will be extended in 5-year increments if the targets laid out in Sec 9903 Schedule are not met.

Compare (2) Consequence of Cumulative Emissions Exceedance which states that as long as targets are NOT met then the EPA continues to be suspended to the CCL website statement.

“…if the emission reduction targets in section 9903(a)(2) of such Code WERE MET, then the prohibition in section (a) of this section, and section 211©(5) of this Act, shall cease to apply.”

[emphasis is mine] CCL’s “How It Works” is not truth talking. There is no direct language in HR763 that says Congress activates EPA to do anything in regard to targets. Again, the purpose of the schedule set forth is to idle the EPA indefinitely.

Regulatory Adjustment

This policy preserves effective current regulations, like auto mileage standards, but pauses the EPA authority to regulate the CO2 and equivalent emissions covered by the fee, for the first 10 years after the policy is enacted. If emission targets are not being met after 10 years, Congress gives clear direction to the EPA to regulate those emissions to meet those targets. The pause does not impact EPA regulations related to water quality, air quality, health or other issues. This policy’s price on pollution will lower carbon emissions far more than existing and pending EPA regulations.

https://energyinnovationact.org/how-it-works/

CCL and the energy industry have been oblique about their entanglements. Including sizeable donations.

ExxonMobil will give $1 million over two years to a group promoting a plan that would tax the carbon content of fuels

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/09/exxonmobil-gives-million-promote-carbon-tax-and-dividend-plan/?utm_term=.a4d398df2fc7

Business Climate Leaders, a formal Initiative of CCL talks about the carbon tax in different terms, as its audience is not consumers nor citizen climate activists. BCL’s audience is comprised of legislators and corporate executives.

Carbon taxes are raising revenues around the world," said Helen Mountford, director of economics for the World Resources Institute and program director for the New Climate Economy Initiative, during the GCAS event. “It’s also a major incentive to innovate.

Cashing in on climate change action

”https://www.greenbiz.com/article/case-valuing-carbon-growing-louder-even-though-tax-still-dirty-word" rel="nofollow">https://www.greenbiz.com/article/case-valuing-carbon-growing-louder-even-though-tax-still-dirty-word

The energy industry has hijacked the carbon tax idea and with their hired guns, lobbyists, have manipulated all parties and produced a bill that increases corporate profits.

Shell Oil Co. lobbyists met several times with Republicans and Democrats from both chambers to say the energy giant would support a nationwide price on carbon emissions…. During the four-year span, the six firms together spent more than $120 million to lobby Congress. A tiny fraction went to advancing, or opposing, the prospects of a carbon tax.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060099745

A small but growing number of conservative advocacy groups and energy companies have talked openly about their support for a U.S. carbon tax, in particular in exchange for rolling back environmental regulations. The chance of passing carbon tax legislation is remote in the Republican-led Congress, but Shell is quietly laying the groundwork for similar bills in the future.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shell-oil-quietly-urges-lawmakers-to-support-carbon-tax/

I recently wrote Lee Chatfield.

his responce.


Rep. Lee Chatfield (District 107)

9:44 AM (56 minutes ago)

to me


Good Morning Scott,



We recently heard back from the Michigan Public Service Commission regarding potential revenue received by the state from Enbridge Line 5. They informed us that the State does not receive compensation from the easement granted for Line 5. However, they believe some local governments may receive local taxes from the pipeline company. These taxes would vary from each local government based on a number of different factors.



I trust that this information is helpful to you. Thanks again for taking the time to voice your thoughts and bring up this question. I appreciate your insight.



Sincerely,




The Office of State Representative Lee Chatfield


Speaker Pro Tempore


Michigan House of Representatives – 107th District


Office: (517) 373-2629


P.O. Box 30014


Lansing, MI 48909





From: WordPress

Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 9:23 AM

To: Rep. Lee Chatfield (District 107)

Subject: Chatfield Contact Form – gophouse.org



Name: : Scott W Kelley

Street_Address: : 5008 Rosada St

City: : Petoskey

ZIP: : 49770

Email: : [email protected]

Phone_Number: : 2313480797

I_would_like_my_email_added_to_the_District_Newsletter_Mailing_List_ : yes

Message: : I am writing in concern about the pipeline 5 issue. I would like you to know that I support a complete shut down to the pipeline that runs through our Great State that obviously the state feels is a okay and will never have an issue and if it does the money will fix it. I am sorry to say that this state has lost enough and to place all Michigan Citizens at a Risk level for another Man Made Disaster like Flint where there is no Federal funding because our state allowed it. I can say like most that the day it does happen I will leave like everyone else because it will not be safe to live here. Our Fisheries are hurting, we can’t eat the fish today because of all the heavy metal leaching going on still in unregulated mines in the UP. I would hope to hear a different tone from all legeslators when it comes to the public, the people, the owners but not a company.who is writing your doctrine to vote on. I wrote you when you were first elected about the price of car insurance and you patronized me well enough to agree with me not do a darn thing about it, I still pay the highest premium in the country…come on do something for once and stand up for me, please. I fought for you once so you could do this, so do something that is right and not so wrong. Most people understand that you got special treatment at Pellston, anyone of said, if that were me they would have thrown away the key, you are lucky, so do something that is right for me, start changing things for the better before we want to leave this state we call home but someone else owns and rules over. Remove the Queens oil please! This is how I feel, sorry but not. But in 1980 to 1982 I was told like many how we were in an oil crisis and here 58000 barrels lie in a pipe at any given time running through the United States, through our State and we were at an oil crisis. I urge you to go back and fix this mess and make it right. If you could answer one question most of us want to know is How Much Money Does the State and Federal agencies get for allowing this oil to flow through our land? A dollar figure will be nice and I would also like to know how the money is used and for what, because I am still paying taxes


SO I looked a little further to see who needs to be asked the million dollar question.


16309 Headlands Rd, Mackinaw City, MI 49701

Where Enbridge enters Emmet County and the City of Mackinaw.


Next meeting where the question can be asked, how much revenue do you Get?

http://mackinawcity.org/government/edc


Has this been done yet?

My letter was published today (8/15/17) in the Manistee News Advocate. It was a response to a letter by John Williams, the chairman of Western Land Services, Inc. in which he advocated for keeping Pipeline 5. http://news.pioneergroup.com/manisteenews/2017/08/14/polly-schlaff-pipeline-5s-risks-far-outweigh-benefits/

Dear Editor:


The Daily Press

600 Ludington St.

Escanaba, MI 49829


Imagine one day visiting Aronson Island for a picnic and discovering a slick of oil covering Lake Michigan’s surface, the beach and shoreline. Though we live over one hundred miles from Enbridge Co’s. Line 5, there are many Michigan residents who, like us could experience such a disaster. Line 5 is not required to keep Michigan supplied with oil as land based lines through Wisconsin could fill the need.


Governor Snyder and Attorney General Schuette must act on their legal duty as public trustees to immediately shut down the oil flowing through the aging Enbridge Line 5 pipeline in the Mackinac Straits just west of the Mackinac Bridge to prevent a catastrophic oil spill and protect the Great Lakes and our state’s interests, including local businesses, the “Pure Michigan” economy, commercial shipping, a vital fishery, and the drinking water supply for local communities including St. Ignace and Mackinac Island.


Schuette acknowledges that Line 5 is a relic that would never be approved by today’s standards. In fact, Enbridge admitted that 62-year-old Line 5 in the Mackinac Straits is past its life expectancy, and that a best-case cleanup of a worst-cast oil spill would recover only 30 percent of the oil spilled.


Every day, nearly 23 million gallons of oil flow through two aging pipelines in the heart of the Great Lakes, just west of the Mackinac Bridge. Built in 1953 during the Eisenhower administration, the two 20-inch-in-diameter “Line 5” pipelines owned by Canadian company Enbridge, Inc., lie exposed in the water at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac.


The pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac cross one of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the world. The Great Lakes are home to 20 percent of the fresh surface water on the planet. The pristine Straits area supports bountiful fisheries, provides drinking water to thousands of people, and anchors a thriving tourism industry with historic and beautiful Mackinac Island right in the center of it all. This area is the definition of Pure Michigan.


On July 10, 2014, the National Wildlife Federation released an important new computer simulation that demonstrates clearly what could happen if there were an oil spill at the Mackinac Straits. The video simulation, produced by researchers at the University of Michigan, shows how devastating an oil spill beneath the Straits of Mackinac would be for the Great Lakes, wildlife, and area communities. The animation shows that if a major oil spill occurs, oil could reach popular tourist destinations like Mackinac Island, blanket 50 miles of Lake Huron shoreline, and reach Lake Michigan landmarks such as Beaver Island.


“If you were to pick the worst possible place for an oil spill in the Great Lakes, this would be it,” said David Schwab, Ph.D., research scientist at the University of Michigan Water Center, one of the foremost experts on Great Lakes water currents, and creator of the animation. “The currents are powerful and change directions frequently. In the event of an oil spill, these factors would lead to a big mess that would be very difficult to contain.”


Please urge our elected officials to call for the shutting down of Line 5 before it is too late. For more information, see: www.oilandwaterdontmix.org.


Gregg Bruff

620 S., 8th St.

Escanaba, MI 49829