Nov. 15, 2008
To: President-elect Obama
Re: Real National Security With The Development Of A National Energy Plan and A Method To Finance It With out Resort To Tax Revenues
'United Stated Energy Bonds' and 'United States Energy Stamps'
Immediate funding for the new national alternative energy infrastructure
Immediate funding for millions of jobs in the least possible time
Dear Sir:
Within every problem lies an opportunity. We can immediately take advantage of this truth and greatly benefit our country by addressing several problems simultaneously.
We need a large number of new jobs for the people of America, (millions of jobs ASAP).
We need to raise a trillion dollars a year in capital for the next ten or so years to build a new alternative energy base for our country.
We need to raise this enormous sum of money, to the greatest extent, without recourse to the financial industry, which is in turmoil and is likely to remain so for a long time, or to the country's general tax revenues, of which there are not nearly enough for all the other demands already being made upon them.
The government is fiscally stretched, with huge deficits and it will be difficult to fund programs that will put people to work, without fueling inflation.
An old idea, modernized: Liberty Bonds can solve all these problems.
United States Energy Backed Financial Instruments are an excellent alternative solution, that will generate enormous amounts of capital without upsetting other areas of the economy. There is a huge pool of money available within our country and around the world that could purchase these instruments. These instruments can be offered within a very short period of time, 60 to 90 days after you are sworn in.
Energy bonds will very quickly generate hundreds of billions of dollars, and eventually as the loans are repaid and the funds reloan, create a capital fund of several trillions of dollars.
United States Energy Backed Financial Instruments would be placed with the citizens of our country or citizens of the world. They would pay a modest interest and would be repaid from the money that is saved or earned from the energy projects both small and large, that are funded with the money raised through them.
The money raised with Energy Bonds should be legally segregated from the general funds raised through taxes and other revenue procedures of the Federal Government, allowing the energy fund to build to the tremendous level that will be required to redevelop our energy generation and energy use infrastructure. These funds should not be commingled in any way with other government funds. This money should be loaned or in rare instances, used for loan guarantees. The money would never be given or granted. With time, as this pool of money grows, enormous amounts of money will be available to help launch the many large alternative energy projects the business and industrial sectors of United States must build: (high mileage autos, solar thermal generators, solid state power panel manufacturing and other facilities to produce all the necessary equipment and systems)and also, to capitalize the very great amount of work, the people must do, (home energy improvements, water and air heating systems, heat pumps, distributed end use solar electric systems, et c.), to re-found our country on a new secure energy base.
Eventually, in ten or twenty or thirty years, when the new alternative energy infrastructure has come into existence, and when the enormous pool of funds is no longer required, the money might be turned over to the social security administration to help offset the enormous cost of social security and other entitlement programs. The U.S. is facing huge funding deficits for these social programs, daunting problems that have no apparent solution at this time. The future Energy Bond Fund, having served it's intended purpose, might also help solve these deficit problems at that time.
In conclusion and summary,
(1) that Energy Backed Securities would be unique revenue instruments that would only fund projects that could pay the interest and repay the principal using the money from the sale of the energy produced or saved by those projects.
(2) that the money raised with these instruments would be raised apart from Wall Street. In this way, the shortage of ready credit in the financial community will have little or no effect on the raising of money needed to finance a new alternative energy infrastructure.
(3) that these funds would be raised apart from and with out resort to, the general tax or other revenues of the U.S. government, which are already inadequate to meet other demands.
(4) that rebuilding and re-founding our energy generation and use infrastructure will generate millions of new jobs across the U.S. and in accomplishing these things, as many as fifty million jobs will be created and recreated during the next fifteen or so years. This undertaking will be the primary engine of growth for the economy of the United States for the foreseeable future.
(5) that financing that infrastructure with funds raised with Energy Bonds and similar energy backed instruments, will accomplish this more quickly than any other alternative.
(6) that the Economy will boom as all this money flows into the hands of our people.
(7) that the unique repayment situation with United States Energy Backed Securities will make them the most secure financial instruments on earth.
In these ways, many problems and many opportunities can combine to create many excellent solutions.
There are several other benefits to using Energy Backed Securities, but time and space are limited.
I hope you see value in these securities and are able to quickly implement their use.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
James Flaherty
Guilford, Ct 06437
Tonight, 9/24, CNBC airs "The Hunt for Black Gold," which is to include an interview with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. (scheduled to repeat 9/28)
Energy security is Gov. Palin's signature issue, backed by years of close-up experience. It may be the only subject on which there can be robust debate without its being characterized as taking unfair advantage of her, and thus a rare opportunity for the public to evaluate her approach to governing, her concern for vulnerable people, and her handling of scientific evidence.
But statements concerning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the August 29 CNBC interview contradict research by the Congressional Research Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey Biological Science Report, and others. Palin appears either to continue the spin, deception, and disregard for scientific evidence we have seen during the past 8 years, or to reveal a troubling unawareness of fact.
There have been plenty of great Town Hall meetings on this campaign, but today's in Dayton may have been one of the best.
With a serious (and relatively unfamiliar) topic like "energy security," one would expect a large crowd of 1100 to lose interest. But the crew in the gymnasium at Stiver School for the Arts was in turns studiously attentive, and exuberantly enthusiastic. One could tell that they were taking in even the most nitty gritty details of Barack's comments on energy.
It could have something to do with Dayton. According to many interviewed before and after the event, the economy, and specifically high gas prices, are a particularly pertinent issue in the area. One man, Jay, had this to say:
I'm just amazed at what's happening in the region, and I think we need somebody who says we need a new beginning--to think about America getting back on track with being what it's good at. So when he talked about innovation in green industries, that's what this country's always been about: innovation.
During the question and answer session, the inquiries wandered beyond the topic of energy security, but Barack was more than willing to respond to issues as varied as health care premiums, No Child Left Behind, and the local possibilities of green-friendly infrastructure. He also talked in very clear terms about how he feels about nuclear energy, and the three things he would prioritize during his first 100 days in office.
Debra, who is the assistant principal at the Stiver School for the Arts, appreciated Barack's willingness to take on the other topics:
As an educator, even the comments he made today with regards to No Child Left Behind and how he'd like to improve that... That's important to me.
Outside, vendors sold a variety of Obama paraphernalia, and the lingering crowd was so big that even the ice cream man stopped by.
Today in Dayton you could truly feel the potential of an electorate ready to work together to make Barack's vision for a better educated, energy-independent, energy-efficient America a reality.
Live from the Stiver School for the Arts gymnasium in Dayton, Barack is currently speaking about energy security to an eager, receptive crowd at this Town Hall Meeting.
Before the event, Regional Field Director Carianna amped up the crowd by telling them what they could do to get involved on the ground in the campaign, reminding them to join my.barackobama.com, and text "OH" to 62262 to stay up to date on campaign news.
The crowd responded with shouts of "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" and "Yes We Can! Yes We Can!"--the air thick with anticipation of the Senator's arrival.
The line outside that twisted around the gymnasium was filled with supporters sporting Obama gear, t-shirts, signs, and buttons. Susan and Kim are from the Dayton area, and have supported and volunteered Barack because he's a "uniter," and because they both are in the education field. They say Barack is the only one who can fix No Child Left Behind, and help out students with special needs.
More later from Dayton.
Fresh off his stop in Zanesville last Tuesday, Sen. Obama will be coming through Ohio again(!) on Friday for a Town Hall Meeting in Dayton. The meeting will focus on energy security, and is being held at Stivers School for the Arts. The event is open to the public, but tickets are required.
The whole story is on numerous news websites.
Ohio and the economic struggles of Ohioans are clearly a priority in this campaign for change.
I am willing to question conventional wisdom in defense against the world's two headed enemy: the energy crisis / global warming. Our leaders must not surrender to Not In My Backyardism that has paralyzed our efforts to answer this threat to world peace and the lives of millions at risk from climate change fueled natural disasters. This NIMB opposition takes the form of blocking wind mill farms, transport of nuclear waste through someone's district, positioning of energy production facilities anywhere near anyone.
One of Socolow wedges dealing with the Energy/Globalwarming threat is nuclear fission (source). Naturally he notes that building 700 GW reactors world wide must deal with the waste issue.
Which brings us to Yucca mountain. Everyone following the campaign knows what the party line on Yucca is. Hillary, Barack and John have definitively stated they will cancel Yucca entirely. Now this may be heresy in the democratic party, but in the interest of survival of the planet / sticking to the standard of being fact driven as we strive towards our goals, I am troubled about the reasoning that went into this decision to discard Yucca.
Let me preface this heresy with a statement that I share the skepticism about the quality of research that has been done. With the Bush politicization of the federal bureaucracy, it is very difficult for me to take any DOE report made during the last 8 years at face value. So I violently agree with everyone's skepticism about the science behind Yucca.
We have heard many stories during the last 3 or 4 years about fabrication of information used to support Yucca. In particular, googling for the following phrase from one USGS researcher will return many of the in depth articles on the subject:
"I don’t have a clue when these programs were installed"
While there may be some missing context that would render similar statements in this particular email harmless, it impossible to take a report seriously when a researcher makes a statement like this one:
"This is as good as it’s going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff."
Certainly, the report from this USGS researcher is unreliable and the studies he was involved in should be conducted again from scratch. Further, all other Yucca reports should be reviewed aggressively by peers for similar indications that questionable science practices where engaged in.
Nonetheless, I remain unconvinced of the reasons for cancelling Yucca Mountain. I agree the scientific case has been flawed, and agree with Edwards' alarm expressed in the Nevada debate that data on Yucca had been fabricated. Without doubt, those reports that are similarly impugned should be rejected. We should not proceed without an affirmative argument backed up by solid science.
But similarly, I fail to understand the assertion that Yucca should be discarded if the science case against Yucca has not been made. Absence of an affirmative argument for Yucca does not mean that the negative case has been proved. Perhaps I am simply ignorant on this. Where is that negative case? I don't see it on the Yucca Mountain opponent sites- it isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and so on. Maybe it is out there, but if it exists, this really this is what Obama, Edwards and Clinton should be pointing to- not anectodal instances of misdeeds of particular researchers. Otherwise it looks like caving in on our energy security / global warming policy based on innuendo rather than fact.
Perhaps someone else can give a pointer to the convincing science case against Yucca. Acceptable negative cases could take many forms. Eg: hydrology reports assessing likely risk of permeation of the soil over 100K years, risk due to unstable geology, and so on. It's disturbing to me that if these exist, that they are not being pointed to as the foundation for cancellation of Yucca Mountain.
Minus a science case, then a pragmatic case could be made that using of dry casks rated to safely store the waste for a century will buy us time to develop sufficient technology and perform sufficent scientific study to justify construction of very long term (100K year) storage solution. But this is not the case being made.
Minus such alternate arguments, it is insufficient to cancel Yucca based on doubts concerning science tainted by inept or politically manipulated research. If we have no support in science for the democratic position to cancel Yucca then it is unnacceptable, because we would be no better than republican leaders giving in to political pressure to push Yucca mountain forward regardless of the science.
Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie endorsed Senator Obama for president today. Mayor Cownie was re-elected in 2007 with 80% of the vote.
Mayor Cownie has emerged as a national leader on environmental issues and Barack said he looks forward to working side-by-side with him in the months and years to come.
Here's some of what Mayor Cownie had to say this morning:
The real promise of Senator Obama’s presidency isn’t just the plans he’ll bring with him into the White House, it’s the visionary leadership he’ll demonstrate once he gets there. Barack Obama will put an end to the bitter partisanship that’s stopped us from making progress on the urgent challenge of global warming. He’ll tell the American people what they need to hear, not just what they want to hear. As President, he’ll restore America’s standing in the world and lead a global effort to meet this challenge once and for all.
After the mayor's endorsement, Barack took some time to outline his comprehensive plan to combat global warming and achieve energy security. He said he will:
It’s the little things that mean a lot. I don’t know if it’s an urban legend or if it is true, but I understand that in 1987 American Airlines decided to eliminate one olive from each salad that it served, and in the process saved $40,000 per year. Similarly, in 1999 Singapore airlines looked at the cost to butterfly the prawns for a proposed appetizer and found it would cost $750,000 per year. And, in 2005 Northwest Airlines stopped handing out a half-ounce bag of braided pretzel sticks, achieving a savings of $2 million per year.
No, this is not an article about the slow degradation of airline service. The point here is that your small actions can be added to hundreds of thousands of other small actions by other people, and make a tremendous impact on the world. Let’s apply this principle to energy security and global warming.
