Carbon bill to help all of us
On April 1, the House introduced a new bill, the Energy Innovation & Carbon Dividend Bill, HR 2307, that will go a long way toward solving the problem of climate change. Because it uses a free market plan that will not cost our government one penny, it also has conservative support. The plan is simple. You put a progressively increasing price on the production of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels to account for the damage that they do to our health and environment. It is eminently fair – the polluters pay for the damage they are causing.
The money is returned in a monthly dividend check to U.S. citizens. Several well-designed studies show most Americans – especially the most vulnerable of our population – will get back more money than they pay in higher energy costs, thus making it a progressive program. There is a border adjustment so industry will not be hurt. Farmers and the military are exempt.
Environmental studies show it will decrease greenhouse gases by 30 percent in just five years and can help lead to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Economic studies show it will spur business innovation and lead to affordable clean energy, while powering America into the lead in the green energy race, adding millions of new jobs.
Medical studies show because it will drastically reduce pollution, it will save about 4.5 million American lives over 50 years.
Pricing carbon as the best way to combat climate change has tremendous support. It has the support of the chamber of commerce, Business Roundtable, 28 Nobel laureate economists, four former chairs of the Fed, 15 former chairs of the council of economic advisers and the American Petroleum Institute.
For the sake of future generations, contact your congressmen and ask them to support such a program.
Dr. Vernon Dixon, Hiawassee, Ga.
Inconvenient energy truths
I have read several letters expressing support for carbon taxes and the pro “climate change” position.
Progressives claim climate change is settled science. That is not accurate. I could list both extensive scientific and mathematical evidence on why it’s not settled science. However, if I did present that evidence, it will not persuade the progressives, so I will provide a different point of view to this debate.
We watch on TV the smiling, perfect family driving in their electric vehicle with windmills churning in the background. Why not? They are saving the planet. Maybe not. An inconvenient truth about renewables are their diminished reliability as compared to traditional base load power plants (coal, gas and nuclear) and noteworthy fossil fuel dependency (construction/operation).
One case study about reliability is Texas, not exactly a northern state. This winter, Texas suffered a significant power challenge due to the extreme cold. ERCOT stated that Texas was “seconds or minutes-not hours-away from catastrophic failure.” A significant contributor was half of the windmills being frozen
Windmills drain power from the grid during severe weather. Windmills require considerable electricity to maintain internal components and fluids at a temperature sufficient to prevent freezing. They are solely dependent on wind.
Concerning fossil fuel dependency, consider this.
- One windmill requires 60 gallons or so of oil to operate and of course periodic oil changes. Depending on the size, between 600-1,000 gallons of oil per year per windmill. Windmill life expectancy is about 20 years.
- Fossil fuels are a key ingredient in the manufacturing process of the plastic fan blades, a major environmental waste stream conundrum.
Considering all of the fossil fuels required to create, transport, install and operate one windmill, it’s probable that the energy required is more than the energy produced over its lifetime.
Thomas Schildgen, Andrews
Equality Act abomination
The U.S. House of Representatives recently adopted a new version of the decades-old Equality Act, in a mostly party-line vote and sent it to the Senate for consideration. President Joe Biden has called passage of the act one of his top priorities, and Democrats are fighting to send the act to the president for his signature.
The Equality Act amends the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.
The act not only redefines sex, but expands the definition of “public accommodations” to include almost everything beyond a private home. Moreover, it strips churches, schools, and all religious institutions of the protections the Religious Freedom Restoration Act provided for them to operate according to their beliefs.
The danger presented by the Equality Act cannot be overstated. It would classify a slew of traditional religious beliefs as illegal discrimination. If it passes the Senate, churches, private schools and other Christian, Jewish and Muslim entities and organizations will face an impossible decision – either abandon their time-honored beliefs about sex and gender, or break the law and accept the possibility of crippling civil rights litigation.
The Equality Act as written violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is an affront to religious liberty and freedom of conscience in all its forms. I urge everyone to write our senators, urging them to vote against this abomination.
W. Arthur Hays Jr.
Murphy