Data Privacy & Decoupling Communications Utilities

Hello Readers,

I will start by acknowledging that this is the topic is a little outside of the sphere of my normal sustainability discussions. However, as more and more communications and data privacy issues have come to light over the past year, I have become increasingly concerned about the social and political ramifications of what governments and certain corporations are doing on the Internet. Because of the prevalence of these issues in the news, I will limit my preambulatory commentary.

The Internet is a technology and a concept that is so far beyond the wildest imagination of people in the 18th and 19th centuries that we need to explicitly address it in the US constitution, so that societal expectations for the Internet are clear. Therefore, I propose that we amend the US constitution to address and protect the inherent, unwritten freedoms that have thus far been the hallmark of the public Internet. While I will not attempt to offer specific wording for such an amendment, I suggest the following tenets of an amendment:

• Decoupling Communications Utilities: There should be a clear distinction between media content providers and communications infrastructure providers. In the same way that many states have now 'deregulated' electricity markets by drawing a line between owners of electric generators and grid operators to ensure that monopolies are as limited as possible, the Internet should be similarly segregated. It should be illegal for owners of communications infrastructure (e.g. broadband networks, cable providers, telephone lines, cellular networks) to create, provide, and develop the data or media content that is transmitted across its own infrastructure. Similarly, communications infrastructure owners should not be allowed to offer preference to content providers or charge variable rates based on the type of content that is transmitted.
• Data Privacy from the Government: The United States Federal government should pass and enforce laws that promote the active protection of the data, content, and information that is created, held, and transmitted by its people. As a matter of the Rule of Law, this protection requires the US government to provide a transparent judicial mechanism for reviewing attempts by US government agents to acquire citizens' data (as though data were physical property) as provided for by the 4th Amendment of the constitution.
• Data Privacy from Corporations: The US government should pass and enforce laws that protect its citizens' data from foreign and domestic corporate interests. The invasive and often secretive nature through which data is collected and redistributed over the Internet is unacceptable. Recognizing that some citizens may be interested in risking the trade-offs related to disclosing their data to reap the potential benefits of 'big data', it might be fair enough to create an opt-in 'tracking allowed' list. Such a list could allow people to be tracked when corporations explicitly notify them that they (and their data) are being tracked and where their data is being sent. Furthermore, corporations should be required to regularly provide their users access to a record of all the data that has been collected about themselves. Finally, people should be able to opt-out of such a list at any time for any reason without the possibility of legal action.

I'm sure their are many other possible issues to address with regard to the Internet. However, I have found the above issues the most troubling with the greatest possible 'slippery slope' consequences.

Regards,

Sean Diamond

A Sustainable Minimum Wage

Hello Readers,

In President Obama's 2014 State of the Union, the issue of moving the minimum wage closer to a living wage was deemed a top priority by the administration. I have had a few ideas for ensuring a more sustainable minimum wage by tying it to other monetary values. Here are two options:

• Political Contribution Limits: I propose that annual political contribution limits should be legally tied to the Federal minimum wage. Specifically, individuals and corporations should not be allowed to give annual political contributions that exceed the weekly salary of someone earning the minimum wage and working full-time. To be clear, the limit to political contributions for individuals and corporations should be the limit for the total amount of contributions to all PAC's, candidates, parties, etc. This would serve a dual purpose of limiting the money in politics and provide an incentive to keep the minimum wage at a reasonable level.
• Congressional Salaries: I propose to set the minimum wage as 12% of the standard Congressional salary. In 2014, the annual Congressional salary is $174,000, which would mean that someone working full-time and earning the minimum wage would earn $20,880 annually. In other words, the hourly minimum wage would be $10.04! This would also ensure that the minimum wage would be regularly adjusted (unless members of Congress turn down their own annual raises).

Just some thoughts on how to make the US economy more sustainable.

Cheers,

Sean

Theodore Roosevelt National Park vs. Fracking

Hello Readers,

I think this video about fracking near the Theodore Roosevelt National Park speaks for itself.


Pass it on.

Thanks,
Sean

Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

 Hello Readers,

In this series so far, I introduced a premise for (and reasoning behind) a policy, which would involve dividing up the social security funding allocation pie. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In this post, I will put forth a possible mechanism or strategy for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

To begin this process in a politically tenable and socially agreeable manner, we need to start at the current baseline and move incrementally toward the goal(s) of this reform.

Currently, the social security pie is nominally set to give 100% of the funding allocation pie to slice number 1 (Funds paid out to all current retirees). However, the baseline according to ssa.gov's 2012 annual report summary:

"...The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086."

In essence, social security will not survive in its current form past 2033 (before anyone born in the 1970's or later starts collecting). Thus, it does not seem unreasonable to aim for reform to be fully implemented by 2030. In the graph below, I have offered one possible trajectory for social security fund allocations.

I would recommend implementing the various slices slowly at a rate of roughly 1% per year. I would introduce slices 2 and 3 (the generational and personal slices) starting in 2014, and I would cap their percentages at 15% and 10% respectively. In this way, no more than 15% of an individual worker's social security payments would go to their generational trust fund. Likewise, no more than 10% of an individual worker's social security payments could be diverted to a personal retirement account. 

Similarly, I would recommend introducing slice 4 (the national debt slice) starting in 2018 at a capped rate of 1% and let the cap grow to 10% in 2028. Starting in 2029 and beyond, I would recommend allowing slice 4 to fluctuate between 0% and 10% based on some reasonable measure of the federal government's deficit spending over the preceding decade.

While I am not in a position to determine which metric this slice 4 percentage is tied to, I would simply hope that the calculations would be clearly defined in such a manner that deficit spending results in a reduction in the amount of money allocated to social security spending. Thus, Congress would be heavily incentivized to reduce deficit spending (and thereby proportionately increase the amount of spending allocated to current retirees). Similarly, it would encourage current retirees to hold members of Congress accountable for short-term deficit spending.

***

In summary, I believe that each of these implementation timelines should be slow enough that there will not be any huge/unexpected shock to the economic system. Also, in the long-term, this will: (1) ensure that at least some small part of an individual's retirement funding will be secured regardless of when they are born or how many current workers there are, and (2) ensure that reducing the national debt is no longer simply an exercise in letting future generations resolve the issues of today.

I look forward to your thoughtful criticisms and suggestions on this matter.

Regards,
Sean

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)

 Hello Readers,

In the previous post, I introduced a premise for a policy, which would involve dividing up the social security funding allocation pie. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In this post, I will discuss why I believe that social security funds should start to be divided into these four slices. Then, in the next post, I will put forth a possible mechanism for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

1. Funds paid out to all current retirees

The reasoning behind the first slice "Funds paid out to all current retirees" is perhaps the most obvious. This appears to be the original intent of the social security program, allowing funds from the actively working body politic to help support the currently retired. This helps senior citizens mitigate the negative impacts of any short-term personal financial hardships during or immediately before retirement.

Thus, as long as social security survives, a certain share of any social security funds will need to be spread across all current retirees, who are actively receiving benefits. Perhaps this slice might appropriately be renamed the "we (the living) are all in this together" slice... to indicate that we are not going to leave senior citizens to fend for themselves.

2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees

The reasoning behind the second slice "Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees" is a new, subtle adjustment to the current social security scheme. Originally, (when social security was created) there would have been an expectation that with most citizens not surviving long enough to collect social security (or not surviving long enough to collect it more than a few years) that there would always be a sufficient number of active workers to fund the needs of living retirees.

However, today, with the 20/20 vision afforded to us by basically 80 years of practice, it is clear that for social security to function in perpetuity from generation to generation: each individual generation needs some certainty about their own retirement. By immediately spreading all incoming social security funding across the needs of current retirees, we will inevitably encounter situations (such as the crashing of the baby-boom retirement wave) where the working generations cannot reasonably be expected to support the needs of current retirees without putting in peril their own needs in the future.

Thus, I would suggest that one way to mitigate the impact of these fluctuations over time is to move away from a current workforce supporting current retirees model toward a current workforce supporting future retirees model. In this way, each generation would more directly be supporting itself, and (likewise) the size of each generation of retirees will be proportionately supported by a generation of roughly the same size (i.e. the younger version of itself). As such, perhaps this slice might appropriately be renamed the "we (our generation) are all in this together" slice... to indicate that we should not forget about our future selves even as we work to support the ones we love.

3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds

While the original version of the social security program appears to have had provisions that limit the level of benefits an individual is eligible to receive based on the amount of money they paid into the program during their working life, it does not appear that the program was ever intended to give individuals any autonomy over how their own funds were invested. As a result, citizens, who do not (whether by choice or circumstance) set up other retirement plans (e.g. pensions, 401k's, IRA's) for themselves, have little-to-no direct control over the future of their own retirement funds.

Understandably, this format runs contrary to the 'spirit of rugged individualism' upon which many citizens pride themselves, and I believe that ultimately the degree to which this 'spirit' is real or perceived (a not uncommon point of contention) is irrelevant. Politicians (typically on the left) will ignore this popular sentiment at the peril of the program they support.

I believe that for social security to have any real chance at surviving in the long-term that: (1) it is necessary to offer some autonomy to those who desire it, and naturally (2) the government should only offer up such a concession under auspices of a mutual understanding that - for those who opt for autonomy - there is some risk of failure (and some risk of loss).

In practical terms, I am suggesting that individuals be able to designate (each year they are working) a certain portion of the social security funds (that would otherwise be withheld from their pay) to be diverted to some sort of personal retirement account. Then, in a complementary manner, whatever portion of a retiree's pay had been diverted to their personal retirement account over the course of their working life would be deducted from the pay-out they would otherwise receive from the more traditional social security fund(s).

At this point, I do not have any preference regarding who would run such an account (whether run by the government or -more likely- the private sector), and I do not think that the administration of such a program would need to be any more complicated than the current system of claiming a tax credit for money deposited in an IRA at the end of each tax year. Instead, it is more important that Congress just settle on something that works - politically and practically.

All things considered, this slice of the pie might easily be renamed the "rugged individual" slice of the pie... allowing those who would desire it, the ability to take a chance to earn (or lose) a little bit more than their neighbors.

4. Funds diverted to paying down the national debt

The reasoning to include this "Funds diverted to paying down the national debt" slice of the pie may be much less obvious (and much more controversial) than any of the others. However, this slice of the pie stands firmly on principles of sustainability and inter-generational equity.

It has been rightly pointed out (no pun intended) that the United States federal government is spending a large amount of money that it does not have by borrowing money from other countries... and in essence from future generations, who will be forced to pay off that debt (or possibly go to war to avoid paying the debt if it is too burdensome). In any case, it is a fundamental issue of inter-generational equity that each generation do their best to pay for the governmental programs (especially those with one-off benefits) they benefit from in their own lifetime, rather than leaving that burden to those that follow them.

Also, in perhaps a more tangible way (especially for those born of since 1970 and/or those familiar with the Greek debt crisis): what good is it to have retirement benefits promised to you in the future, if the overall functionality of your government may come into question due to astronomical national debt?

I believe that by tying the overall pool of social security benefits to the amount of national debt (or lack thereof) incurred by each generation, every generation will be incentivized to manage government spending more prudently. While this concept may seem intimidating - and I can't promise that it isn't - it may be less intimidating than trying to address the national debt issue from fiscal year to fiscal year.

****

I have offered the best (brief) reasoning that I can muster for including each piece of the social security funding scheme that I am proposing. In the next post, I will do my best to offer a good way to implement the social security reforms that I am proposing.

Regards,
Sean

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)

Hello Readers,

Earlier this month, I offered a letter to the newly re-elected president, in which I discussed the need for swift and decisive action on climate change and the national debt crisis. I reasoned that by taking action on issues that will greatly impact my grandchildren's grandchildren, we can see immediate improvements in the short-term while moving in the right direction overall.

This week, I would like to take some time to see if we cannot help future generations and current generations (old and young) all at the same time. To do so, I propose that we dance on another third rail (perhaps the sixth rail?) of politics: social security reform.

Over a year ago, in the summer of 2011, I offered a detailed '3 year plan' proposal for implementing automatic adjustments to the social security retirement age. With much clarification provided in the posts (links provided at the bottom of this post), the proposal boiled down to this:

The United States government should enact legislation that implements an automatically adjustable retirement age for social security retirement benefits, such that: during the decade in which citizens turn 50 their retirement age will be set at an age that is 3 years less than the average United States life expectancy at the time.

After carefully re-reading and re-considering my thoughts from last year, I stand by that proposal, and I would like to offer up some more thoughts to President Obama and the Congress as they swerve to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" at the end of this year.

Before I start to layout my new proposal to re-cut the social security pie, I would like to point out that I know that my idea will not be perfect (and will need a lot of collective thought and will-power to implement effectively). Thus, I strongly encourage my readers to consider the spirit of my proposal fundamentally set while considering the numbers in my proposal to be entirely negotiable.

Now, as I understand it, many people have argued about the merits of whether or not the 'social safety net' of social security should exist (even if some elected officials equivocate in public for the benefit of gaining senior citizen votes). However, for the sake of moving towards action, it is important to come to an understanding that whether or not you believe that social security should exist or not, it does exist.

It exists, and millions of people now depend on it as at least one of their primary sources of income.  It exists, and it will not be politically feasible to (safely) dismantle it (even if you would like to see it go). It exists, and it directly impacts most of the country (whether they are paying into it whenever they are working or they are receiving payouts now or are expecting to receive payouts soon).

As such, I hope that all of my readers, will concede that social security exists, so it is important to address its viability now to avoid potentially devastating financial consequences that will span generations. To address this viability in the fairest and most politically actionable manner, I propose that we start in the middle of the middle of all reasonable proposals for social security reform (at least of those that I have come across) and then add a little bit more.

In essence, I suggest that we begin to divide up the social security funding allocation pie.** While this may superficially seem to make the process more complicated, please stay with me and hopefully it will make sense at the end. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In the next post, I will discuss why I believe that social security funds should start to be divided into these four slices. Then, in another post, I will put forth a possible mechanism for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

Regards,
Sean

**Throughout this entire series I am focusing solely on the social security program as it pertains to retirees, and I am not proposing to make any adjustments to parts of social security benefits for the disabled or other non-retirees.**

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

The previous "Adjustable Retirement Age" series:
Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Response: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

The Challenge of Returning Veterans

Hello Readers,

I found a very interesting TED talk, which seems especially appropriate on this (observed) Veteran's Day.



As the speaker suggests, a program or organization like this might be a crucial step in helping veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to re-integrate themselves into society. Also, it could be an intelligent model for implementing a climate change adaptation policy or program, and I would suggest that it might not necessarily need to be limited to post-disaster relief. It could also be extended to include pre-disaster preparations and overall disaster mitigation strategies.

Respectfully,

Sean

A letter to the president

Hello President Obama,

I obviously want to start off by congratulating you on a well fought electoral campaign and, of course, your re-election. On Tuesday, I voted for you for a second time, and I wanted to let you know why.

I believe that we need to leave the planet and society in better shape than they were given to us.

I am not (especially) worried about myself, because I have been given the opportunity to share in a rich and on-going human experience: the opportunity to grow and learn and live. My main concern is that I leave the planet and society in such a state that my grandchildren’s grandchildren (which – for the record – are hypothetical, as are any children I may have in the future) will have the opportunity to say the same thing. I believe that if I live my life like this – asking for nothing that will detract from the human experience of my grandchildren’s grandchildren – my life, my neighbors’ lives, and my children’s lives will be enriched all the more.

I understand that none of our country's problems (financial, social, or environmental) materialized overnight nor could many of them be easily predicted (or avoided even if they were clearly predicted). Instead, the issues we face are the result of an accumulation of decades of (and in some cases generations of) complex decisions made with the best intentions.

I also understand that there are indeed limits to presidential power, and that it is necessary for a president to work with (or in some cases against) the Congress as well as many other parties. I understand that the social cost of not addressing our country's health-care system in your first term would have been great.

In short, I am very understanding. However, I voted for your re-election, because I believe that you genuinely care, speak and act sincerely, and possess the fortitude to that will be required to work through the issues at hand.

That being said, I must demand two things of you. The first, of which you are no doubt well aware, is that you do whatever it takes to get our nation's debt under control. The second, which you only mentioned in passing during your campaign and which in my mind is absolutely paramount, is that you put a truly unprecedented effort forward to implement substantial measures that address climate change - both its mitigation and (due to the unfortunately modest progress made on this issue thus far) our adaptation in response to the effects that can no longer be avoided.

You have been given 4 more years to accomplish both of these demands; however, the impact of your actions will determine the course of our history for the next 40 years or more. While others will demand necessary and useful short-term actions to fix the economy and provide more jobs over the next couple of years, any such short-term gains will be completely negated soon after the end of your term if a comprehensive long-term strategy is not initiated.

I have waited four years with patience and understanding. We cannot wait another four years. We need serious and comprehensive action now. We need to find solutions that work - whether they are government-based solutions or private-sector solutions or a little of both, I frankly do not care... whether it requires raising more taxes or making thoughtful spending reductions, I do not care. It simply needs to work. The rest of the details will sort themselves out over time, just make it work!

With high hopes and best wishes,

Sean Diamond
A member of the Warmest Generation

Before you vote, watch this...

Hello Readers,

I have finally gotten a chance to get settled in after my move into my new apartment and beginning my new job, so it appears that it is time to come out of blog-itudinal hibernation. Given that it is the last weekend before election day, I must urge that you at least take climate change in mind before you vote!

Here is a Frontline PBS special about climate change and politics...



I can't promise that everything that they say in the video is right or wrong, but at least they are talking about it... unlike the presidential campaigns!

Once you are done watching, GO VOTE!!!

~Sean

Fuel Efficiency Lowers Gas Price, Keystone XL Raises It

Hello Readers,

A recent Treehugger article caught my eye with a snippet of a report from the NRDC about how the Keystone XL pipeline will raise gas prices in the United States if it is implemented (see the full pdf version of the report). The report provides an in-depth analysis economic nega-benefit that the pipeline will offer drivers in the US and Canada.

In fact, the report shows how the "Keystone XL is not a pipeline to the United States, but one through it" with many quotes from the would-be beneficiaries of the pipeline (e.g. TransCanada executives) and an explanation of how regional oil refineries are impacted by international crude oil markets.

On the very last page of the report, the NRDC goes beyond gasoline price and discusses the true negative impact of that the Keystone XL pipeline, the environmental damage. If the pipeline is built, there will be an economic incentive for oil companies to rapidly expand tar sands extraction (Note: this expansion will not decrease the price of gasoline at the pump at all!) and increase the localized watershed and forestry destruction as well as the global release of greenhouse gases (and decrease of carbon sequestration capacity).

Instead, the NRDC suggests that the US could simultaneously decrease the price of gasoline at the pump and avoid the environmental destruction through increase fuel efficiency. Or as pointed out in a recent letter by Amory Lovins (and similar TED Talk), which highlights all of the possible savings from improved energy efficiency and shifts away from fossil fuels, the US should be focused on encouraging companies to provide the solutions to climate change and environmental issues rather than condoning the perpetuation of fossil fuel use.

Drive Less and Drive Smarter,

Sean

Electric Vehicle GHG Emissions

Hello Readers,

Perhaps the question that I get most often from skeptics of electric vehicles is: "Don't the coal plants used to power an electric vehicle give off more (GHG) emissions than a gas powered vehicle?"

Well, the Union of Concerned Scientists have just released a study that investigated exactly that! And as it turns out, the answer is "No!"

I encourage you to take a look at the study, on the UCS website or download the full pdf version of the report. Although, the info graphic below (linked from the website) gives you the general idea:

(Click to Enlarge)

Even in the areas of the US with the dirtiest (most coal-reliant) electric utility grids, the emissions from an a fully electric vehicle are still better than a 27 mpg sedan. Of course, some of the most efficient hybrids may tip that balance in the dirtiest regions; however, by charging up your EV with solar and wind you can ensure that the EV will come out on top!

So if you are in the market for a new vehicle, check out a list of the electric vehicles that are commercially available in the US today.

Cheers,

Sean

Energy Future TED Talk

Hello Readers,

This is potentially the most important and informative TED Talk you will see this decade. The speaker is the head of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

Please watch this.

Thanks,

Sean

EPA's Recent CO2 Ruling

Hello Readers,

As you may have heard, the US Environmental Protection Agency recently released rules that limit CO2 emissions from new power plants in the US to 1000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh). This limit is higher than the 800 lbs/MWh emitted by modern natural gas plants, but it is much lower than the 1800 lbs/MWh emitted by traditional coal plants.

There is already a lot of commentary and analysis about this ruling, so I will not add too much of mine. Instead, here are some news articles, which I have renamed and summarized, that discuss the ruling.

From the Washington Post: "Why EPA’s new carbon rules won’t have much impact — for now"
An article that should be named: "Now 'n' Later: a Coal Story"
This article summarizes the basics of the ruling and the impact it will have on current coal power plants, new coal power plants, and just a little bit about the wider impact of the ruling.

From Forbes: "Will Congress Save Coal after EPA Carbon Ruling?"
An article that should be named: "Why Bother?"
This article lays out the options that the coal industry can suggest to congress to avoid or mitigate the effects of the ruling. Although, it also points out that many in the overall energy industry have already started to move on or diversify their energy portfolio.

From Platts: "Does EPA's carbon rule make it easier or harder for utilities to plan?"
An article that should be named: "Congressional Conservatives Undermined Coal by Cutting Cap-and-Trade"
This article talks a lot (a lot!) about CCS. It discusses some of the costs for using coal 'responsibly' in the future. It also mentions that the coal industry is looking for government money to meet these costs, so if you ever hear someone knocking on the renewable energy industry for taking government money let them know about how much coal is requesting!


For EPA updates about progress on limiting GHG emissions, you can visit the EPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

Hooray for later!
Sean

Natural Gas TED Talk

Hello Readers,

I encourage you to check out T. Boone Pickens' TED Talk on conversion to natural gas. He offers some excellent facts, talking points, and arguments for the use of natural gas (at least as a bridge fuel... and possibly more).




Of course, he does not mention energy storage technology as a solution to intermittent renewable energy, but you can read more about energy storage in my dissertation.

Enjoy,

Sean

Natural Gas Mixbag

Hello Readers,

It has been a while since my last post. Here is some food for thought about natural gas:

• If you watched the State of the Union this past week, you probably noticed that President Obama talked quite a bit about energy. During that part of the speech he made the claim that there is 100 year supply of natural gas in the United States. This is unlikely to be the case, and an article on Treehugger - Fact-Checking Obama: Is There Really '100 Years' Worth of Natural Gas in the US? - debunks the premise.

• Even if it is true that we are sitting on 100 years of natural gas, consumers should not expect that the energy will be especially cheap or provide as many jobs as promised. As described in a New York Times article - Chesapeake to Cut Number of Gas Rigs - this week, natural gas drillers and refiners still face the same market incentives to cut production (and presumably labor hours) when prices get too cheap.

• It is difficult to tell what all of this may mean from a sustainability standpoint. Burning natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal. However, if natural gas is used as an energy crutch, it may hinder a transition to a truly renewable and clean (no-emission) energy system.

• Extracting natural gas from shale through hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. 'fracking') requires pumping chemicals into the ground, which may - despite the best efforts and claims of the industry - result in negative environmental consequences. Perhaps President Obama's plan to implement "rules to ensure that safe drilling practices are followed and the types of chemicals used in the so-called fracking method are disclosed for operations on public lands" will shed some light on the full extent of the potential consequences. [quote from: Jobs, energy, values top issues in Obama address by the Associated Press]

• According to an article in Bloomberg news - U.S. Cuts Estimate for Marcellus Shale Gas Reserves by 66%, the previous estimates of the available natural gas from shale have been revised. Using improved data the US DOE reduced its shale-based natural gas reserve estimates from last year by 42% for the country as a whole (66% for the Marcellus Shale formation). Thus, the natural gas from Marcellus shale is now expected to only cover 6 years of natural gas consumption (as opposed to the initial estimate of 17 years).

I hope this gives you something to chew on while you discuss America's energy future.

~Sean

When, America? When?

Hello Readers,

The world (and many Americans) are asking 'When, America? When? When are you going to address your greenhouse gas emissions? When are you going to think about what climate change is going to do to your economy over the next two decades?" This past weekend the New York Times published an interesting article about the lack of climate change legislation and programs in the United States: "Where did Global Warming Go?".

The US Falls Behind

The article points out that the United States has now fallen behind every other major economic power in the world (including the E.U., China, India, Brazil, Australia) when it comes to addressing climate change. A decade ago, the U.S. and Australia were the only two nations notably absent from the Kyoto Protocol. Two years ago, I wrote about how there might be a question of forcing China's hand to level the economic playing field for the US to consider climate change legislation.

Well, instead, China has begun to implement its own programs, and Australia is in the process of passing cap-and-trade legislation. We are losing! The United States is falling behind in the drive to address climate change.

This is problematic in that the US is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. However, it may also start to negatively affect the US economy not only through a lack of 'green jobs' but also in the lack of a coherent clean energy plan. This may become especially evident as people and businesses in other countries increase their demand for products that are not only more energy efficient but also have a lower embedded carbon footprint. Products manufactured in the United States will not be able to compete in this regard if they receive energy from the electricity grid (there is too much electricity generated from fossil fuels).

US Presidential Candidates

The article also highlights the lack of climate-conscious choices in Presidential candidates in the 2012 race.

It touches upon how very little President Obama has done to truly address climate change despite his proactive stances on the issue during his campaign. His administration has had a few 'victories' here and there but has put strikingly little effort into addressing the issue. As a result, few truly notable steps have been taken by his administration.

The article also mentions the fact that every candidate in the Republican party race (with the notable exception of Jon Huntsman) either denies that climate change is occurring (or effectively does so by hiding behind the guise of 'unsettled' science).

Jon Huntsman has made multiple comments (including twitter posts) indicating that he believes what the scientists are saying about climate change. However, his campaign website makes it clear that his stance on climate change is ambiguous at best. The website states that "Governor Huntsman’s regulatory reform consists of three objectives: ... (2) reining in the Environmental Protection Agency’s job-killing regulations..." and the Energy Independence section has eight points only one of which mentions renewable energies and does not mention any policy measures to encourage them (in fact most of the points discuss policies that promote the use of Canadian tar sands and natural gas fracking).

Thus, citizens demanding action on climate change are left with almost no options at the Federal level. However, to help you along, an organization called Live Oaks Media has put together a profile of Republican candidates and their stances on climate change.

Good Luck, America ... it looks like we're going to need it!

Sean Diamond

Rolling Stone on Obama's Environmental Policy

Hello Readers,

I am in the process of researching the issue of US agricultural subsidies and their impact on the economy and the environment as part of my The Times Are A-Changin' series. I plan to start posting my findings in October.

In the meantime, I though I would share this with you... Last week, Rolling Stone magazine published an interesting piece on the things Obama can do without congressional approval to improve the US impact on climate change and the environment.

Check it out:
 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/environment-ten-things-obama-must-do-20110914

Enjoy,

Sean

Alberta Tar Sands - pipeline decision

Hello Readers,

Yesterday, I came across post about Obama's current predicament about the XL Keystone Pipeline proposal. I recommend checking out the post as it offers many links to resources and provides a review of the considerations that the president must take.

Also, you can check out the author's interview about the topic below:




...it's a bit dry, but its fairly thorough.

Enjoy,

Sean

a non-ruling on climate change

Hello Readers,

According to a recent New York Times article, the Supreme Court has rejected (refused to entertain) a lawsuit filed by several states, New York City, and others against several major utility companies. The lawsuit sought to force these utility companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Supreme Court has (citing a 2007 ruling) declared the Environmental Protection Agency is the sole part of the government with the expertise (and authority under the Clean Air Act) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

I encourage you to read the full NYT article for all the details; however, one particular quote intrigues me:

“The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job [regulating greenhouse gas emissions] than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “Federal judges lack the scientific, economic and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.” 

While I agree with Justice Ginsburg, I am worried that if there is a congressional repeal of the EPA's regulatory authority, this quote/mentality may be used to deter judges from later making a necessary ruling.

On the other hand, this quote/mentality may be a good argument against a congressional repeal. In fact, it may suggest if the EPA's current ability to regulate greenhouse gas related grievances is insufficient, a congressional improvement rather than repeal may be needed.

I will be sure to post on this topic again as it appears in the news.

Sean Diamond

Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

Hello Readers,

This is the second part of the discussion based on the post Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age. All of the previous posts in this series are listed at the bottom of this post.

I was asked: "But Sean, if it comes down to it, will you really want to retire at 78?!"

Simply put, no. I do not want to wait that long to retire. I do not think that anybody does. Unfortunately, if nothing changes about the current social security payout process, there will not be any such retirement benefits for my generation at any age! The system will have been bankrupted before I reach my 60s let alone my 70s.

However, I don't know that I would necessarily need to wait so long to retire if my proposal were implemented.  Other than self-funding my retirement until social security kicked in, a combination of 'early retirement' and 'semi-retirement' could be a great option.

Official 'early retirement' is already allowed under the current social security program (allowing participants to collect a lower amount of benefits over a longer period of time). I don't see why this would need to change. I would think that entering early retirement and working part-time at age 73 would be preferable to being required to work full time until my life expectancy of 81 (or longer, as it was pointed out in the comments to the proposal that life expectancy and lifespan can certainly differ).

The question was posed: "What happens when the life expectancy plateaus or declines?" Under my proposal, social security would remain intact. Despite having the name 'social' security, the program was designed such that individuals should not ever collect more in retirement than they contributed while working.

Aligning social security benefits more closely with individual citizen's needs (as opposed to desires for long retirements), the program should also be able to better weather inter-generational fluctuations in the ratio of workers to retirees by decreasing the length of time for which people are entitled to collect social security benefits. Eventually, this may even allow the program to be retuned to take in less and allow more people to save more money individually for retirement.

Every individual would find out what their retirement age is during the decade they turn 50 (between ages 41 and 50). Under current life expectancy conditions, everyone would have 20-30 years or more to plan out their retirement. If life expectancy declines to the point where most people are dying in their 60s or earlier, there would be less time to make plans and save money. Yet, there would also be less time for which plans and funds are required. 

Of course, if the life expectancy in the US falls below 50, my proposal would indeed run into some difficulty. However, I would posit that in such a case 'retirement' would be the least of our worries. This may sound callous, but it is extremely practical.

Finally, I must point out that this progression of posts has attempted to touch upon a topic that could take a couple of books to resolve: reforming social security in order to keep it permanently intact.

To make any progress in this matter, readers must concede that the purpose of social security is to promote the security of our citizens at the end of their lives. It cannot be to fully support multi-decade retirements. To expect a 15-25 year retirement after only working for 40-50 years is simply not sustainable at a country-wide, multi-generational level.

Furthermore, the current program structure exacerbates the problem by requiring significant political momentum to accrue on a regular basis to make the tough decision to alter the retirement age periodically. Thus, with some modifications as brought out in this discussion, my proposal still stands:

The United States government should enact legislation that implements an automatically adjustable retirement age for social security retirement benefits, such that: during the decade in which citizens turn 50 their retirement age will be set at an age that is 3 years less than the average United States life expectancy at the time.

While this will not 'save' social security as it is now, it will certainly go a long way toward making it financially sustainable.

Posts in this series:
The Times They Are 'A Changin'
Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Response: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

I hope this series helps to start a lively discussion. Please look for the next series of posts related to climate change and national debt, which will discuss: reducing or eliminating farm subsidies that result in overproduction of unhealthy foods.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond