My response to Dan Boren's letter

(This is my response to his response, unfortunately I do not have my first letter to Representative Boren.)

Dear Representative Boren,

Thank you for the response. I would like to take a minute to address some of your comments and conclusions. You are completely correct that we have ramped up our energy usage dramatically in the past 30 years. You are also correct that a "Cap and Trade" program would drive up the costs of traditional fuels which would make " green energy sources, whose cost have always been higher, more competitive in the marketplace." However, you omit or ignore two factors. First, the reason that traditional fuels are cheaper is because there are costs of these fuels do not contain the pollution and environmental damage that results from acquisition and use of these traditional fuels. Cap and Trade would make the market more honest and respect the costs that are not associated with basic production. Second, the green energy sources are more expensive because they are so small and limited. If they could compete on an even playing field with other fuels then there would be innovation and expansion that would drive green energy pricing down while providing a more honest price for traditional fuels.

The Cap and Trade bill is not merely an environmental bill will improve our national security position by reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources as well as insulating us against demand generated, production generated, or conflict generated price spikes. Japan weathered the energy price increases of 2007-2008 more successfully than our country because they have a much more effective efficiency program combined with their focus on renewables.

The same comments about job loss were made when we had the effective Cap and Trade program for SO2 which was an incredibly successful program to reduce SO2 emissions and acid rain. A few years ago Texas Instruments had the opportunity to build a new wafer plant in China or Singapore. Instead they built it in Richardson Texas, using green tools to reduce the energy usage during building and the energy footprint of the building. More thought in the building, planning and design work resulted in a construction cost of 30% less per square foot than the previous building with expectations of 20% less in energy usage and 35% less in water usage. So even if cap and trade increased costs 6% there would still be a net savings of 16%. On a side note, I would personally prefer the computer chip jobs to the concrete plant jobs for our cities and towns.

Companies can only charge what the market will allow; they cannot raise prices just because their costs increase or they will price their product out of the market. While there might possibly be a few companies that are at risk of movement (though I haven’t seen any research to support this claim) most companies are not as portable as you assume. For example, utilities cannot move to China to produce electricity for our local communities.

Furthermore, we are losing jobs right now because American companies who are in the green technology business are moving overseas to be closer to the businesses and governments which buy their products. Energy efficiency and renewables are the future of industrial innovation. How are we going to provide these jobs, produce these jobs or develop the technology if we have no experience in green technology?

Yes it will increase the cost of energy in Oklahoma. That is primarily our fault for allowing our environmental standards to be so lax for so long. We allow pollution, coal plants cover the state, and artificially low energy prices - prices that defer the costs to the environment and the health of its citizens. I see the coal trains often and coal generated pollution from the OG&E plant every day on my way to and from work. It seems that every month more friends and acquaintances are developing asthma. Isn't improvement in this area this really worth the few dollars more per month - $175 per year based on the CBO estimates?

You mentioned a windfall in California. California has been concerned about pollution since the 1970's and have very strict environmental policies, if that long term vision results in a rewards, well, I would call that a return on investment the resulted in their economy growing much faster than that of Oklahoma.

On a personal note, I also know that we recently reinsulated our home and replaced our furnace and air conditioner. Since making these changes in January we have seen between 30 and 40% reduction in KWH. Imagine what would happen if people had even more encouragement to address their efficiency. If we combined this with smarter grids and tools so that energy companies could profit as much by encouraging efficiency as selling more power we could be leaders not followers.

You also mentioned concern about the limited overall impact of the Cap and Trade provisions. You are correct that China and India will not be party to this law. However, I am somewhat disturbed that you would compare us so easily to these countries and define what we should or should not do not by whether it is the right thing to do, but whether or not other countries are doing it as well. That is akin to saying you cannot make certain every child gets a healthy breakfast so why even try to provide any children as possible with a healthy breakfast. Or on a governmental level, since Arkansas isn't working to improve water quality why should we try to improve water quality - the water won't be perfectly clean.

This point also ignores the fact that development of cleaner and more efficient technologies will allow us to sell these products to China and India on a massive scale. China is already buying the new more efficient GE diesel locomotives (as is Brazil and Mexico) because they are so much cheaper to operate over the long term - not because they are the cheapest thing to purchase. China has a horrible pollution problem already, imagine if we could sell them truly efficient carbon scrubbers, software and hardware that would improve electrical efficiency, better solar power tools, and the list goes on and on. We need Cap and Trade to stimulate these industries and encourage more investment. This is about pricing fossil fuels accurately based on the environmental impact, and not encouraging wasteful energy policies based on artificially low traditional fuel pricing which ignores the long term impact of productions and use.

Respectfully Yours,

Darren Magady

Letter from Dan Boren

Recently I wrote Dan Boren (the Representitive to Congress for this district) a letter expressing my disappointment that he did not have the foresight and courage to support the Cap and Trade Bill. Yes it is a flawed bill, as all are, but it will be a big step in the right direction.

This is his response to my letter.

Dear Mr. Magady:

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy & Security Act, commonly referred to as the "Cap and Trade" bill, which includes an attempt to address the issue of climate change by creating a market to control carbon emissions. I always appreciate the opportunity to hear from concerned Oklahomans, and welcome the opportunity to share with you my views on the issue.

H.R. 2454 is designed to limit greenhouse gases produced within the United States by capping the level of carbon and other gases emitted by companies, and by initially issuing and eventually selling pollution "allowances" for those levels that extend beyond the cap. Over a twenty year period, the cap would continually grow more and more restrictive, driving up the costs of using traditional carbon-emitting fuels and making green energy sources, whose cost have always been higher, more competitive in the marketplace.

While I strongly support initiatives to develop alternative energy and incorporate them into our national energy portfolio, I have consistently argued that we must also balance our economic and national security priorities with our environmental priorities. Over the past three decades, U.S. Energy demands have increased dramatically, making us increasingly dependent on foreign energy sources. The most relevant energy challenge facing our nation is escalating demand coupled with finite domestic sources. It is critical that a national energy policy reflect a balanced mix of domestic production of reliable energy resources, including natural gas, development of domestic renewable energy sources, improvements in our infrastructure and a commitment to conservation.

In contrast, the climate bill in question poses a grave threat to the US economy by driving American jobs into other countries. As caps on emissions grow more restrictive, so will the cost of domestic production. The legislation assumes companies will seek other forms of energy, but historically companies faced with driving costs imposed by the government naturally seek cheaper places to operate business, leading to the outsourcing of jobs and industry to countries with less exacting standards. Additionally, the bill would directly send billions of tax dollars overseas in the form of "international emission offsets," in order to subsidize similar environmental measures that foreign governments themselves refuse to shoulder.

On its most basic level a cap and trade system will increase the cost of doing business and increase the price of energy for Oklahomans. Businesses and local utilities will be forced to pass the burden of fees onto consumers in order to stay afloat, at a time when the average American is already under intense economic strain. The disproportionate cost burden created by the unfair distribution of emission allowances will be most severe for states like Oklahoma, where commissions and utilities have worked hard to keep electricity rates low. Oklahomans will likely see double-digit percentage increases on their utility bills, while states like California will receive windfall benefits.

These economically burdensome measures have no guarantee of any significant benefit to the global environment. Europe implemented a similar cap and trade program years ago, with questionable effects. In Belgium, for instance, environmental standards were raised too high for cement companies to remain financial viable. They relocated to Morocco, where they could operate with virtually no environmental regulations. Pollution did not lessen; it merely relocated to a new home, taking jobs along with it. Today the economies of China and India are expanding rapidly, and are not about to limit their commercial development by adopting punitive environmental measures.

Finally, even if HR 2454 goes according to plan, its impact on the global environment will be negligible at best. The United States accounts for 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The cap and trade bill aims to reduce our emissions by 15% over the next twenty years. Even if we accomplish this goal, it will result in a mere 4% reduction in global gas emissions.

I believe that there are more practical and cost effective ways to both protect the environment and to preserve American business interests. For this reason I have sponsored HR 1835, The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (NAT GAS Act). This bill offers tax incentives to encourage vehicles powered by natural gas, which run cleaner than gasoline and diesel powered engines and rely on a source of fuel abundantly found throughout the United States. Exchanging one traditionally fueled garbage truck with one fueled by natural gas is the environmental equivalent of taking 300 cars off the road.

America cannot mandate environmental reform to developing nations like China or India. If we are to make a real impact on global climate, it must be through innovation and not self-constraint. This can best be achieved by offering tax incentives to businesses, in order to develop green technology through the private sector rather than in spite of it.

The "Cap and Trade" bill is risky and ineffective, and I voted against it for those reasons. Please rest assured that I will continue working to provide viable alternatives to the economic and environmental challenges facing our country. I hope I can count on your support.

Respectfully Yours,

Dan Boren
Member of Congress

A Few Thoughts on The Short, Fast Career of Sarah Palin

Wowser, I was very shocked to see that Sarah Palin is leaving the post that she was elected to after only, what, 30 months. A few things hit me while watching her speech.

1) You are governor of Alaska, how do you with a straight face, say you can effect more change outside of government?

2) Did she just figure out people who hold elected office may end up as lame ducks?

3) What is it with these crazy speeches lately? First Sandford now this?

4) If she loves this country so much, couldn't she have let us focus on the 4th of July - she could have given her goofy speech on Monday as easily as Friday.

5) I would have felt more sorry for her and her family if she hadn't paraded them around all through the Presidental election... You can't attack others without being attacked yourself.

6) How long before we have an announcement for a book deal and tour.