http://globalchange.mit.edu/
First, a few forewords:
Aside from the enclosed document, our discussion herein is more "political" in nature, more of an argumentative dissertation, than our usual reportage of Coal-related science news and technical developments.
We transmit it only at the request, the urging, of one of our casual, part-time advisors, a former chemist, who, in fact, her patience worn out, is abandoning our effort, after having helped to compose our presentation herein. The quality of what we provide in terms of technical explication in the future will likely suffer to some extent, as will perhaps the quality our composition.
She's good and she will be missed.
That said, as we've noted a few times, for any regular folks out there in Coal Country who might have stumbled across and followed at all, on the West Virginia Coal Association's web site, our humble offerings documenting the plain facts, that:
- Our abundant domestic United States Coal can be, as Coal in some other nations of the world is being, efficiently and economically converted into anything, quite literally anything, we now mortgage our grandchildren's future to OPEC to keep ourselves supplied with in the here and now;
and:
- Our Coal Ash can be consumed in the making of Cement and Concrete that is superior in terms of physical properties and environmental costs to conventional Portland-type Cement and Concrete;
and:
- Our Carbon Dioxide can be harvested and, using environmental energy to drive the processes, itself, like Coal, be converted into liquid hydrocarbon fuels, substitute natural gas and plastics;
we address all of our reports documenting those plain facts, primarily, to a core group of Coal Country public press journalists, who, so far, have shown no interest, at all, in seeing to it that the broader public, above and beyond those few patriots who might have stumbled upon and followed these developments on the WV Coal Association's web site, are informed of those facts concerning the true, immense potential values of Coal, Coal Ash, and Carbon Dioxide.
And, herein, we wanted to document for you, you genuine patriots who actually care about the United States of America, and her future, and how Coal Country can contribute to that future, just what the actual costs, to you citizens of US Coal Country, of continued public silence on just one of these issues could be.
First, though, we note that, more than four years ago, we were able to document for you that independent analysis resulted in the conclusion, that, taking into account factors like lost United States employment opportunities and the costs of maintaining a military presence, and undertaking military operations, in the Persian Gulf/Middle East region to secure foreign oil supplies, the true cost, to the US economy, of one gallon of gasoline, could well be as high as fifteen dollars.
And: That analysis was itself conducted fully fifteen years ago, when the price of gasoline at the pump was "only" a little more than one dollar per gallon.
We note that our original, now themselves well-aged, reports on that issue, as they still exist on the West Virginia Coal Association's web site, contain links to source documentation which have not survived the years of neglect and disinterest; and, we will soon re-document some of that information for you.
Herein, though, we focus on only one issue: Carbon Dioxide; and, what continued lack of disclosure of the fact, that, as seen for only two examples in:
West Virginia Coal Association | Carbon Dioxide to Gasoline and Diesel | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 8,198,338 - Process for Producing Liquid Fuel from Carbon Dioxide and Water; 2012; Inventors: Arthur M. Shulenberger, et. al., California and Iceland; Assignee: CRI EHF, Iceland;
Abstract: A process for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water is disclosed. The feedstock for the production line is industrial carbon dioxide and water, which may be of lower quality. The end product can be high octane gasoline, high cetane diesel or other liquid hydrocarbon mixtures suitable for driving conventional combustion engines or hydrocarbons suitable for further industrial processing or commercial use"; and:
West Virginia Coal Association | USDOE Sunlight Converts CO2 into Methane | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent Application 20130079577 - Synthesis of Photocatalysts for Solar Fuel Generation; 2013; Assignee: UChicago Argonne, LLC, Chicago; (The) U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Argonne National Laboratory ... is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC together with team member Jacob's Engineering Group Inc.) Abstract: In one preferred embodiment, a photocatalyst for conversion of carbon dioxide and water to a hydrocarbon and oxygen ... . (The) energy efficient photocatalytic conversion of carbon dioxide gas and water vapor to methane";
Carbon Dioxide can be collected and directly, efficiently converted into any and all sorts of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon fuels, could wind up costing us beleaguered citizens of United States Coal Country.
And, make no mistake:
There are factions "out there", who gleefully anticipate making us pay those costs; and, they anticipate applying those Carbon Dioxide costs to us, not out of their feigned "concern" for the environment; but, because they anticipate that applying CO2 taxes on us would make their lives financially easier.
First, we acknowledge the West Virginia State Journal, who, through an item included in their:
Grounded's Evening Energy: August, 27 2012 - Business, Government Legal News from throughout WV; "Grounded's Evening Energy: August 27, 2012; By Taylor Kuykendall (and) Pam Kasey";
led us to a source document which inadvertently explains why some folks are so eager to saddle Carbon Dioxide taxes onto the backs of hard-working, but poorly-informed and under-educated, miners of Coal and consumers of Coal-based electricity.
Here, first, is an article which summarizes the gist of that source document:
Study: Carbon tax could raise $1.5 trillion - The Hill's E2-Wire; "'Study: Carbon Tax Could Raise $1.5 Trillion'; By Zack Colman - 08/27/12; Taxing carbon would generate $1.5 trillion, potentially giving politicians cover from making politically difficult decisions on taxes and social spending cuts, according to a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released Monday. A carbon tax would take pressure off Congress to find “tradeoffs” between closing the deficit gap and reviving the economy, according to John Reilly, an author of the study. “Congress will face many difficult tradeoffs in stimulating the economy and job growth while reducing the deficit,” Reilly, the co-director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said in a statement. “But with the carbon tax there are virtually no serious tradeoffs".
("no serious tradeoffs" for who? What it means, folks, is that your Coal Country jobs and your Coal-based electric bills don't matter to people in the ivory towers or, apparently, in the halls of government, or even, maybe, we here are beginning to suspect, in the offices of your Coal Country press corps. The effects of job losses and higher costs, on you, you no-account denizens of US Coal Country, aren't "serious".)
The study found that taxing carbon at $20 per ton would generate $1.5 trillion in revenue in a 10-year period. That could be used to reduce corporate and personal income taxes and maintain social services spending, all while reducing the deficit.
(In other words, while Coal miners lost their jobs and consumers of Coal-based electricity paid much higher bills, corporations would enjoy reduced income taxes and everyone enjoying one form or another of government largesse in other parts of the country could remain assured that "social services spending" would be maintained. We note that the "$1.5 trillion" might be a slight, but only a slight, exaggeration of the total calculated in the source document.)
The study assumed full employment and was based on an earlier Congressional Budget Office report that used a $20-per-ton carbon tax.
Conservatives and liberals alike have recently explored the possibility of a carbon tax.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) introduced carbon tax legislation in August, the revenue from which would be used to pay down the deficit and to offset cost increases. That proposal largely mirrors one from Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine)."
-----------------------
So, somehow, someway, these ivory tower geniuses expect that there will be "full employment" if we consumers of Coal-based electricity are compelled to pay a $20 tax on every ton of Carbon Dioxide that's emitted from a Coal-fired power plant; "full employment" we suspect, in states other than West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and their Coal-country compatriots.
Us losing our Coal Country jobs, and paying more of our much-reduced income on higher electric bills, will give "politicians cover from making politically difficult decisions on taxes and social spending".
In any case, as accessible via the initial link in this dispatch, and as we will forward to the West Virginia Coal Association as a complete electronic file, following are excerpts from the MIT "study" to which the above article refers:
"Carbon Tax Revenue and the Budget Deficit: A Win-Win-Win Solution?
(There's an unseen "LOSE" in that title, as well. But it, apparently, like us, doesn't count.)
August 2012
Sebastian Rausch and John Reilly; MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is an organization for research, independent policy analysis, and public education in global environmental change. It seeks to provide leadership in understanding scientific, economic, and ecological aspects of this difficult issue, and combining them into policy assessments that serve the needs of ongoing national and international discussions. To this end, the Program brings together an interdisciplinary group from two established research centers at MIT: the Center for Global Change Science (CGCS) and the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR). These two centers bridge many key areas of the needed intellectual work, and additional essential areas are covered by other MIT departments, by collaboration with the Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biology Laboratory (MBL) at Woods Hole, and by short- and long-term visitors to the Program. The Program involves sponsorship and active participation by industry, government, and non-profit organizations.
To inform processes of policy development and implementation, climate change research needs to focus on improving the prediction of those variables that are most relevant to economic, social, and environmental effects. In turn, the greenhouse gas and atmospheric aerosol assumptions underlying climate analysis need to be related to the economic, technological, and political forces that drive emissions, and to the results of international agreements and mitigation. Further, assessments of possible societal and ecosystem impacts, and analysis of mitigation strategies, need to be based on realistic evaluation of the uncertainties of climate science.
This report is one of a series intended to communicate research results and improve public understanding of climate issues, thereby contributing to informed debate about the climate issue, the uncertainties, and the economic and social implications of policy alternatives.
Abstract: Bush-era tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, leading to interest in raising revenue through a carbon tax. This revenue could be used to either cut other taxes or to avoid cuts in Federal programs. There is a body of economic research suggesting that such an arrangement could be a win-win-win situation.
(Uh, excuse us, but: Why would an expiration of "tax cuts" lead to an "interest in raising revenue", especially through, specifically, "a carbon tax"? You mean they're interested in getting even more money than they'll start to get after the cuts expire? Yes, apparently, as the full discourse seems to reveal.)
The first win: Congress could reduce personal or corporate income tax rates, extend the payroll tax cut, maintain spending on social programs, or some combination of these options.
The second win: these cuts in income taxes would spur the economy, encouraging more private spending and hence more employment and investment.
(We've had plenty of those "supply-side" "spur the economy ... and investment" Baloney Sandwiches already, haven't we?)
The third win: carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution and oil imports would be reduced.
(The "oil imports", under this scenario, would be "reduced" only because we won't be able to afford them. There are, as in our above link to our report concerning: "United States Patent 8,198,338 - Process for Producing Liquid Fuel from Carbon Dioxide and Water", better ways to, while leaning on Carbon Dioxide, reduce "oil imports".)
This analysis uses the MIT U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) model to evaluate the effect of a carbon tax as part of a Federal budget deal. A baseline scenario where temporary payroll cuts and the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire is compared to several scenarios that include a carbon tax starting at $20 per ton in 2013 and rising at 4%. We find that, whether revenue is used to cut taxes or to maintain spending for social programs, the economy is better off with the carbon tax than if taxes remain high to maintain Federal revenue. We also find that, in addition to economic benefits, a carbon tax reduces carbon dioxide emissions to 14% below 2006 levels by 2020, and 20% below by 2050. Oil imports remain at about today’s level, and compared to the case with no carbon tax, are 10 million barrels per day less in 2050. The carbon tax would shift the market toward renewables and other low carbon options, and make the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles more economically desirable.
(If we want "Oil imports" to be "10 million barrels per day less in 2050", why don't we, as they have been in South Africa for the past sixty years, just start converting our Coal into gasoline and diesel?)
Introduction: The U.S. faces a large Federal deficit and all parties recognize the need to eventually bring it under control. The recession greatly exacerbated the deficit situation by reducing tax receipts because economic activity fell and because temporary tax cuts (reduction in the payroll tax, Bush tax cut extension) were enacted. On the expenditure side, stimulatory deficit spending (e.g., the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), automatic increases in spending (e.g., higher unemployment leading to more spending on unemployment benefits), and extension of benefits of these programs (e.g., lengthening the period of eligibility for unemployment) also contributed to the deficit.
(Are you seeing the buildup? CO2 taxes will cure all that ails us, "Federal deficit"-wise.)
While raising taxes is never popular, a carbon tax is potentially a win-win-win solution. First, carbon tax revenue can allow revenue-neutral relief on personal income taxes, corporate income tax, or payroll taxes, or could be used to avoid or limit cuts to social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Assistance) or Defense spending. Among the revenue raising options evaluated by the CBO was a carbon tax that would start at $20 in 2012 and rise at a nominal rate of 5.8% per year, approximately 4% in real terms given the underlying inflation rate they projected. By their estimate it would raise on the order of $1.25 trillion over a 10-year period. Second, economic analysis has demonstrated the potential for a double dividend whereby recycling of revenue from a carbon tax to offset other taxes could reduce the cost of a carbon policy or even under some circumstances boost economic welfare. The Bush tax cuts and other temporary tax relief measures are due to expire at the end of 2012. A carbon tax could allow their further extension. And, third, a carbon tax would lower fossil fuel use, reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and lowering oil imports.
(As we were given to understand it, the current CO2 tax proposals apply only to stationary sources. The only way "lowering oil imports" is achieved is through people not being able to afford gasoline. And, note the subversive "recycling of revenue from a carbon tax to offset other taxes". Some folks get to pay lower taxes, while consumers of Coal-based electricity pay higher bills and more Coal miners lose their jobs.)
(Conclusion:) The country faces difficult tradeoffs in getting the Federal budget deficit under control. In our analysis of a carbon tax, we find a win-win-win situation that requires no tradeoff at all. Carbon tax revenue allows (1) cuts in other taxes, (2) benefits the economy, and (3) reduces CO2 emissions and oil imports. The tradeoffs are mainly whether we want to choose a set of measures that produce higher consumption in the near term, or a path that sacrifices some current consumption for an investment tax credit that leads to greater benefit in later years. Given current economic conditions, changes that have more immediate benefit may be preferable, but we can hope for a compromise that yields a result that is also beneficial for the country in the longer term."------------------------
For the sake of brevity, we haven't included all the charts, graphs and tables showing how we are all going to get better - - if we all have to pay higher electric bills, if Coal miners lose their jobs, and, if the US Congress, because of Carbon taxes, no longer has to worry about budget deficits.
It is, folks, all techno-gibberish supporting a discriminatory, truly massive, tax increase; and, the resulting social engineering such a tax increase would enable; but, it is, apparently, gaining credence in some circles.
And, that tax increase, and the costs of that social engineering, "$1.25 trillion" or "$1.5 trillion", would be saddled squarely onto one, lonely back: Coal, and, consequently, onto all the backs of all the people who rely on Coal for their livelihoods and on Coal-based electric power for truly affordable utility bills.
All of that, when, as seen in:
West Virginia Coal Association | The US Navy Recycles CO2 into Liquid Hydrocarbo?n Fuels | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 8,017,658 - Synthesis of Hydrocarbons via Catalytic Reduction of CO2; Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy";
our own United States Government knows full well that Carbon Dioxide is a valuable, maybe even a precious, raw material resource; a resource that can be reclaimed from whatever source and be efficiently converted, even by ships at sea, into liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
We headlined this dispatch "The Price of Willful Ignorance".
Maybe you, our readers on the West Virginia Coal Association's web site, don't wish to suffer, or pay, that "Price", that "$1.25 trillion" or, give or take a few bucks, "$1.5 trillion".
But, obviously, there are people, maybe including some among your Coal Country press who haven't troubled themselves to inform you of developments like the above "United States Patent 8,017,658 - Synthesis of Hydrocarbons via Catalytic Reduction of CO2", who would seem to prefer that you do pay that Price; just like the east coast ivory tower academics who wrote the subject of our dispatch herein, "Carbon Tax Revenue and the Budget Deficit: A Win-Win-Win Solution?"; academics who want to see broad scale social reengineering financed by what are, in fact, taxes designed to themselves cause social reengineering, with the unspoken goal being some idealistic, socialistic, unachievable utopia where there are no Coal mines and no Coal-fired power plants; a utopia where everyone walks barefoot through gardens and devotes all of their time to flower arranging and discussions of philosophy down at the local coffee shop.
Make no mistake:
Respected and listened-to academics, with no real connection to the real world, are plotting your Coal Country future.
It's far, far past time we started plotting our own course, ain't it?
We headlined this dispatch "The Price of Willful Ignorance".
If you have read any, or hopefully all, of our reports documenting the immense value Carbon Dioxide as a raw material resource; and, you choose not to make certain that your Coal Country press corps and your Coal Country elected representatives are aware that CO2 is a resource which can be efficiently captured and then consumed in the making of renewable hydrocarbon fuels and, as in:
West Virginia Coal Association | The Ivy League Makes Plastic from CO2 for the USDOE | Research & Development; which centers on the reports, from the Brown and Yale Universities: "CO2 Could Produce Valuable Chemical Cheaply" and "'Chemical Fixation of CO2 to Acrylates".
plastics, wherein the CO2 consumed would remain permanently, and productively, "sequestered", and, wherein operation of such technologies could provide good-paying jobs to many thousands, if not a million, Americans, then, your, and our nation's, ignorance is willful; and, we had all better prepare ourselves to start paying the price.