 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Services
The Company Donates This Space To The St.
Marcellus Catholic Worker Houses
Marcellus Catholic Worker Houses
THE ST. Marcellus CATHOLIC WORKER HOUSES OF HOSPITALITY
FOR HOMELESS VETERANS; & THE VETS'-GREEN-ENERGY CO-OPS (tm) OF THE WERCo
CATHOLIC WORKER
ORGAN OF THE CATHOLIC WORKER MOVEMENT
DOROTHY DAY, PETER MAURIN, Founders
(1897 -1980) (1877-1949)
Managing Editors: SARAH BROOK, KATE CROWLEY, JOANNE KENNEDY, TED WALKER
Associate Editors: CATHY BREEN, BERNARD CONAUGHTON,
RITA CORBIN, MONICA RIBAR CORNELL, T. CHRISTOPHER CORNELL,
TOM CORNELL, AMANDA & MATTHEW W. DALOISIO
FRANK DONOVAN, BILL GRIFFIN, PADRAIC O'NEIL, ROGER O'NEIL,
JIM REAGAN, JANE SAMMON, TANYA THERIAULT, CARMEN TROTTA, MATT VOGEL
Circulation: DAVE CARL, EVELYN PHILLIPS, PATRICK J. RUSH
MATTHEW TESSITORE, ROBERT THOMAS
Editorial Communications, new subscriptions and changes of address:
36 East First Street, New York, NY 10003
Telephone (212) 777-9617 and 677-8627
THE CATHOLIC WORKER (ISSN 0009-8463) is published seven times a year: January-February,
March April, May, June-July, August-September, October-November, December, Subscription rates:
United States, 25¢ yearly, Foreign 30¢ yearly, by The Catholic Worker, 36 East First Street, NY, NY 10003.
Periodical postage paid at NY, NY, POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Catholic Worker, 36
East First Street, N.Y., NY 10003.
ST. JOSEPH HOUSE, 36 East First Street, New York, N.Y. 10003--(212) 254-1640
MARYHOUSE, 55 East Third Street, New York, N.Y, 10003--(212) 777-9617 and 677-8627
PETER MAURIN FARM, 41 Cemetary Road, Marlboro, NY 12542-- (845) 236-4774
e-Transcript, Verbatim of Selected articles:
TOM KUNA-JACOB
jacob.james61@yahoo.com www.awpj.info www.w-e-r-co.com
ST. MARCELLUS CATHOLIC WORKER HOUSE(S) OF HOSPITALITY FOR HOMELESS VETS
RR 1 Box 111H (111 West Street, Apt. H), Kane, Illinois, 62054-9733-- (217) 942-9730
FOR HOMELESS VETERANS; & THE VETS'-GREEN-ENERGY CO-OPS (tm) OF THE WERCo
CATHOLIC WORKER
ORGAN OF THE CATHOLIC WORKER MOVEMENT
DOROTHY DAY, PETER MAURIN, Founders
(1897 -1980) (1877-1949)
Managing Editors: SARAH BROOK, KATE CROWLEY, JOANNE KENNEDY, TED WALKER
Associate Editors: CATHY BREEN, BERNARD CONAUGHTON,
RITA CORBIN, MONICA RIBAR CORNELL, T. CHRISTOPHER CORNELL,
TOM CORNELL, AMANDA & MATTHEW W. DALOISIO
FRANK DONOVAN, BILL GRIFFIN, PADRAIC O'NEIL, ROGER O'NEIL,
JIM REAGAN, JANE SAMMON, TANYA THERIAULT, CARMEN TROTTA, MATT VOGEL
Circulation: DAVE CARL, EVELYN PHILLIPS, PATRICK J. RUSH
MATTHEW TESSITORE, ROBERT THOMAS
Editorial Communications, new subscriptions and changes of address:
36 East First Street, New York, NY 10003
Telephone (212) 777-9617 and 677-8627
THE CATHOLIC WORKER (ISSN 0009-8463) is published seven times a year: January-February,
March April, May, June-July, August-September, October-November, December, Subscription rates:
United States, 25¢ yearly, Foreign 30¢ yearly, by The Catholic Worker, 36 East First Street, NY, NY 10003.
Periodical postage paid at NY, NY, POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Catholic Worker, 36
East First Street, N.Y., NY 10003.
ST. JOSEPH HOUSE, 36 East First Street, New York, N.Y. 10003--(212) 254-1640
MARYHOUSE, 55 East Third Street, New York, N.Y, 10003--(212) 777-9617 and 677-8627
PETER MAURIN FARM, 41 Cemetary Road, Marlboro, NY 12542-- (845) 236-4774
e-Transcript, Verbatim of Selected articles:
TOM KUNA-JACOB
jacob.james61@yahoo.com www.awpj.info www.w-e-r-co.com
ST. MARCELLUS CATHOLIC WORKER HOUSE(S) OF HOSPITALITY FOR HOMELESS VETS
RR 1 Box 111H (111 West Street, Apt. H), Kane, Illinois, 62054-9733-- (217) 942-9730
| HAPPY PENTECOSTAL (ordinary time) SEASON: 2011 NEWS FROM THE St. Marcellus Catholic Worker Houses for Homeless Vets & The Vets'-Green-Energy-Co-Ops (TM) of the W.E.R.CO This is our first and so far only house: The St. Isidore Cottage and Gar- den, with "Happy" , the vet; and Don and Larry, the two Non- Vets, and Tom, the Resident Director. We've room for one more! |
Dear Friends in God and in His Christ: I, Tom Kuna, BSFS, MA, have opened my small cottage in Kane, Illinois (50 miles north of downtown St. Louis) as a Catholic Worker House of Hospitality for Homeless Vets. There are two here now: Ron and Happy And two formerly homeless men – Don and Larry – friends of Happy’s, moved in on May 10th, awaiting their SSD determinations. We get along well! The Catholic Worker Movement was begun in New York City and Chicago and Milwaukee in the 1930's by Dorothy Day (whose cause is up for Sainthood) and Peter Maurin, an Americanized Frenchman formerly of the Order of Christian Brothers. The idea is to provide personalist service, on a one on one basis, as friends and not as bureaucrats, on a small scale, in family homes, to the unemployed, under- employed and to the working-poor. There are about 150 such houses around the world -- mostly in the USA, Latin America and Europe. Each is autonomous and each has its own charism -- or focus -- what Protestants usually would call, ministry. There are three in St. Louis, plus ours out in this small village of about 470 persons: Karen House in St. Louis is for women and children; Kabat House there is for immigrants; and our cottage, St. Isidore Cottage, is for Homeless Vets and an occasional homeless man, not a Veteran. Some houses are urban, others rural. There is even potential for suburban houses, for example a St. Gianna CW House for poor, expectant and new mothers, to help them avoid the terribly wrong "choice" of abortion. Some houses have voluntarily-worked farms and workshops affiliated with them. Our St. Isidore Cottage is the first of what we hope will be several houses of hospitality in the area for homeless vets. The umbrella organization for us, and which has a non-profit EIN (Employer ID #) from the IRS, is called "St. Martin of Tours CW Houses for Homeless Vets". Each house or apartment house that, God-willing, we may have in the future will also have its own particular name -- as this first cottage is called St. Isidore Cottage. The vets – and the few other homeless men from time to time, and for whom we may have room – and to whom we provide a temporary or permanent home -- as each sees fit -- are free to join our attached workshops. These workshops are part of our 60% Employee-Owned Company -- W-E-R-Co. http://www.w-e-r-co.com . The special workshop we are hoping to establish that is to be affiliated with the St. Martin of Tours CW Houses is the Veterans'-Green-Energy-Co-ops ( a DBA -- doing business as -- affiliate of the WERCo). We hope to install small and large scale DC and AC electricity-generating windmills attached to homes, churches, schools, convents, and small-businesses; photo-voltaics; hydro-; and solar-thermal generators (www.sopogy.com ) mounted on roofs or on grounds -- beginning with the St. Isidore Cottage, to provide our own electricity and to sell any surplus to the grid under the name "Vets-Solarplex-St. Louis™". Eventually, we hope to have a crew of those vets who may be willing to do so, to install these on homes and buildings throughout the area, to sell the surplus electricity through the grid under that D.B.A.: "Vets-Solarplex-St. Louis". We also hope to have a wholesale and retail outlet for these technologies, at least in St. Louis and Chicago, to be called: Vets-Green-Power Store(s). In fact, we hope to be able to install these Green-Power technologies at participating churches, parsonages,schools, and gymnasiums and poorer congregants' homes with our donated labor, but charging only our costs for buying the equipment, or even to have willing wealthier persons donate the equipment for such retrofitting, or to pay the full costs for installation and labor of such at the buildings of their selected non-profits or of their poorer congregants. Well-off congregants would pay full market-price. However, once we be awarded IRS non-profit and VA Vet's housing status, we would merit a per-diem of some $35 for each homeless vet we give a home too, and of that, we would pay about $800 of the monthly labor cost per Vet who lives in one of our houses and who is willing and able to work about 47 Hours a month (at prevailing hourly wage of $17.00) to install the devices at your non-profit or poorer congregant's site. In addition, there are 25% USDA Rural Sustainable Energy Grants (only for businesses), and some 70% Rebates from State and Federal Governments. (And, in Missouri, $2 rebates per watt of solar-generated capacity, payable by the utility companies). But we need to get registered as a non-profit and vetted as an eligible Vets' housing facility, and that will cost us at least $450. With Don and Larry here now, we’ve access to occasional rides into Jerseyville, where I’ve applied to wash dishes at Fran & Marilyn’s Part-Time, and where some of the residents of the St. Isidore Cottage will volunteer Tuesdays and Thursday’s from 11-5 at “Charity Works”, run by Ret’d MD Kent White, at the former Montessori Christian School. But when and if Don and Larry move out, we’ll desperately need a car (we've none between the remaining 3 of us), as we have to bum rides the 8 miles into Carrollton or Jerseyville, or the 30 to Alton, and a fund to pay car insurance for a year in advance. We can get a car in fairly good shape, and insure and register it, for about $1,500 and/or a US-built,1970's vintage, CommutaCar Electric Car for $4,000. We also need one of these cars so Happy can work as an oil-well rough-neck a few days a week in Southern Illinois, where he knows some oil-field employers. So our minimum aim for this current fund-raising drive is $7,000. Any more would be used to install a MORE (Missouri Renewable Energy) set of small wind- turbines at our cottage -- as a demo project for Kane -- and to lower our utility costs. There at least 4 other households in or near town who are interested in doing the same at their places. We hope you can help us out with an occasional donation, or even an annual collection among your congregation. Each contributing person or organization which contributes $20 or more toward our working funds is eligible to receive a free diagnostic-test to see whether they've an average annual wind-speed at the site of their choice that would make it suitable for 1 or more, 2 KW to 12 KW wind turbines which work at average annual wind-speeds of 11 MPH and have turn-key investment costs of from about $5 K to about $80 K , and produce from about 288 KWhrs/month to 8760 KWhrs/m, with about 70% of the Kapital investment cost eligible for rebates by State and US governments (and a 25% K grant for rural businesses, from USDA). If you’re a rural church, school or other non-profit, you might consider a joint-venture with the for-profit Vets’-Solarplex-St. Louis (TM), equally splitting the net savings/earnings from an on-grid wind-, solar-, or micro- hydro generator at the site(s) of your choice. Such a project might be eligible for the 25% K grant from USDA, which is limited to rural for-profit businesses. For each $20 that come from your congregation, we’ll also do a diagnostic for micro-hydro capacity for any water-flow (whether stream or from a water-tower) at the site(s) of your choice. In fact, for every $20 your church donates to St. Marcellus CW Houses' Fund, (103 Mill Street, POB 75, Kane, Illinois, 62054-0075; 1-217-942-9730, we won't just do a wind-diagnostic and/or micro-hydro-diagnostic, but a thorough Cost-Benefit analysis for each location of your (or the contributor's) choice, comparing and contrasting the various suitabilities at a given site for Solar (photo-voltaic); on-grid or off-grid electricity generation at 8 KW peak load, and/or wind and/or micro- or macro-hydro- on-grid or off-grid generation comparing wind-mill designs that yield 2; 2.4; 4; 3.4; 5.5; and 12 KW peak load, or, at typical St. Louis area wind- patterns, from 288-8760 KWhrs per month. And we'll assess whether the given site is recommended to go with which one of 3 co-generation plans available from all Ameren Companies: net-metering; qualified facility; or registered alternate supplier. We can also discuss with you the potential for a larger Solar-Thermal plant on your grounds or roofs. If your congregation is able to do a one-time per year collection for our CW Homeless Vets Houses, say one on Divine Mercy Sunday (May 1st this year -- always the first Sunday after Easter [which is past now for this year]), we'd appreciate it. Or commit to an annual collection for us around Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day, Veteran's Day, or Valentine’s Day (“Give a Purple Heart for a Vet’) (or Divine Mercy Sunday), that would spread our revenues more or less evenly throughout the year. Please mail the total of any collection you take in a church-check made out to St. Martin of Tours CW Houses (or if a congregant want to guarantee that the offered Cost/Benefit Analyses be of their own site(s), one of their personal or business-checks, for $20 per site), with the name(s) of the owner(s) or manager(s) of each selected site, their phone number and e-address, and the typical monthly KWhrs used at that site, made out to St. MCWH, and mailed to St. Isidore Cottage, c/o Tom Kuna, BSFS, MA, 103 Mill Street, P0B 75, Kane, Illinois, 62054-0075. 1-217-942-9730. Thank you very much for your kind consideration, and may you and your congregants have a blessed Easter Octave, and a safe, happy, and prosperous 2011. Tom Kuna-(Jacob), Director, St. Marcellus CW Houses for Homeless Vets General Partner, www.w-e-r-co.com P.S. The first attachment (“Dear Kim, Sr. Anne Marie and Dr. Shahidipour...”) describes most of the Green-Energy technologies which you might deploy, ranging in installation costs of from, $5 K to $140 K, and producing from 288 KWHrs/M to 8760 KWHrs/M, as well as information on some electrical cars, and one 130 MPG diesel car, coming to this part of the country in 2011-12, and how our Vets’-Green-Energy-Co-ops™ (www.w-e-r-co.com) might partner with you to reduce the cost of their installation at the site(s) of your choice and how your church or house of worship and allied institutions might save money fairly quickly by generating some or all of your in-house electricity and/or selling some wholesale to your utility company. Here is a picture of the MORE, $5 K, 2-4 KW Peak-Load wind-turbine(s). The above 3 Logos are available also as a round bumper-sticker; on T-Shirts; and as a tattoo for those who so desire. What follows is more detailed information on the Green-Energy Technologies which your place of worship and its allied institutions might consider deploying, ranging in Kapital costs of from $5 K to $140K, with 25% of that grantable by USDA for rural businesses (we could do a joint-venture with your house of worship, splitting the savings and earnings equally between you and the Vets'-Solarplex-St.- Louis to qualify for the USDA grant); and up to 75% rebates from State and Federal Government Programs “Dear Kim, Sr. Anne Marie and Dr. Shahidipour: It was good talking with each of you this morning about solar, [micro-hydro] and wind-produced electricity, both micro-scale and macro-scale. [Above] is the e-mail we're sending to Eastern MO Churches and Central and Southern IL Catholic Parishes about our hybrid project to have the non-profit St. Marcellus Houses provide housing for homeless vets (and, occasionally, for a homeless man or men), then employ as many as be willing and able, to install and maintain certain micro and macro, green-(non-nuclear) renewable energy capacity through the for-profit, 60% Employee-Owned Company ( www.w-e-r-co.com ‘s division: Veterans'-Green-Energy-Co-ops™ (St. Louis; Chicago; Springfield, IL; Quincy, IL; Jacksonville, IL; Flint, MI; Minneapolis MN, etc.). Indeed, we are working to obtain for this, and 4 other WERCo contact-purposes, the e-addresses of all the officers and staffs of all places of worship throughout IL- IA-MO (Illinois-Iowa-Missouri), then Flint MI and Minneapolis, MN; then the USA, then the whole world! In the Greater St. Louis Metro-Area, at households, churches, agencies, schools and small-to-mid-sized businesses, we hope to install and maintain many micro- projects of the wind, PV (photo-voltaic, solar-thermal and hydro- types; and, in addition, in Springfield, Chicago, Minneapolis and Flint we want to install at least one mid-sized macro-project at each latitude, and maybe one at St. Louis, too: the 2.5 MWatt smaller scale www.sopogy.com ; or the larger 5 MW SunTrough ; or the very large 50MW www.ArevaSolar.com (formerly www.ausra.com ) solar-thermal steam-generated plants that require roof or ground squares of from 320 feet on a side to 460 feet to a side, to many acres square of roof or land. Both the micro- and macro-projects could be geared to end-use P.E.V. (plug-in electric vehicles, like the Nissan Leaf, www.NissanUSA.com (About $25 K) ; 1-(877) -NO-GASEV (1-877-664-2738); Nissan Auffenburg in the St. Louis area: 1-618-624-2277) and it’s partner, Renault, has a model forthcoming. P.E.V.’s cost about 70% less to operate, and have fewer moving parts that can break down, than do internal combustion vehicles. In fact, the Leaf can travel 100 miles on a $3 charge!. And the home-garage or carport charging station for a P.E.V costs about $2 K installed . Nissan and other EV (Electric-Vehicle Manufacturers) have contracted with AeroVironment www.avinc.com to provide a wide array of home, fleet, and commercial re-charging pillars region- wide and nationwide. We hope to establish Vets-Solarplex-St. Louis™ (etc.) as a major installer, operator and owner of metro-region- wide PEV systems. We project the Greater Metro areas of each of our 7-target-cities, starting with St. Louis, to be well supplied with household, small-business, large-parking-lot; apartment houses; neighborhood and church 28-minute PEV recharging pillars supplied by AeroVironment and installed and owned by Vets’- Solarplex- Co-ops™ in each area within 5- years. During that 5 year-period, we recommend householders, institutions, businesses, churches and schools invest in P.E.V.’s for metro-area transit and commuting, and at least one Loremo vehicle for inter-urban and cross-country-travel. Loremo stands for “Low- Resistance/High Mileage” vehicles which get 130 miles to the clean-diesel gallon! See: www.loremo.com . A Loremo costs about $36,000. However, easily swapable, infinitely re-chargeable lithium-ion batteries with a range of 300 m/charge already exist using the technology developed by www. betterplace.com and its partners in Australia, Israel, Denmark, Canada and Hawaii. Our hybrid/non-profit-CW Houses for Vets and for-profit-Vets-Solarplex -Coops is attempting to convince the Ford Motor Company to use this type of battery in its Ford Focus Electric, scheduled to appear in late summer or early fall, 2011, at a projected MSRP of $34.5 K.. Still, even with BetterPlace’s technology for quick-swapping EV (Electric-Vehicle) Service-Stations, there will always be a need for home and business-place, and Church, Coliseum and Mall, Plug-In Electric Vehicle Re-charging pillars from www.avinc.com , and supplementary home-, work- place, and grid-wide green-electricity generation. The ArevaSolar Plants we’ve in mind are the smallest scale solar thermal plants www.arevasolar.com still makes, although we hope to experiment with smaller, end-use consumer solar-thermal www.sopogy.com plants on the roofs or the grounds of churches, schools, nursing homes etc.. These would be experimental plants at the 6 cities, to assess the efficiency ratios of such in Midwestern conditions and latitudes -- but they would be permanent fixtures to produce commercial electricity, or else to keep continually charged a school’s, county’s or municipality’s in-house fleet of vehicles. The commercially-oriented plants would be owned and operated by the Veterans'-Solarplex-Co-op (a D.B.A. of www.w-e-r-co.com ). (However, Electrical Engineer Jayesh Goyal at Areva tells us there are two other companies that do have even smaller-scale solar-thermal plants, suitable for, schools, school gymnasium roofs., nursing homes, and commercial structure. These are Sun Trough ( www.solarthermalmagazine. com/SolarThermal/suntrough/ ) and Sopogy (www.sopogy.com ) 1-866-767-6491 (Amy Montero; Brett Wightman: bwightman@sopogy.com ); See their white paper that their solar-thermal electricity-generation can pay for itself in 3-years; Hybrid solar-thermal air conditioning in 5 years, and that a100 KW system can save $300,000 in natural-gas costs a year!. Sopogy roof-top systems are cost-effective at about 100,000 square feet of usable roof-space, or ten acres of ground, or a square 317 feet on each side. As for Areva, the smallest of their macro-solar-thermal facilities available so far produces 2.5MW, at a Kapital investment of $15 M and produces about 4000 MKWHrs a year, for a capital-construction cost/watt-hour of about 3.66 cents -- right at the wholesale price of coal-generated electricity -- but less than that when K outlay is amortized, and with far lower operational costs than for coal-fired plants). And Missouri Law requires the Utilities to rebate new-producer’s Kapital costs at $2 per watt of solar-generated capacity, which figures at a rebate of $5 M by the utility company for such a plant. As for SunTrough, they specialize in 5 MW systems. And Sopogy’s optimally-sized system of 2.5 MW, or some 4000 MKWHrs/year, costs from $12 M to $15 M, depending on land-acquisition costs and proximity to power-lines. For smaller, in-house, on- or off-grid electricity generation for households and churches, we recommend MORE Micro-wind-turbines (Missouri Renewable Energy's): the smallest-scale wind-project, which has cost, and will cost, about $5 K for a turn-key householders' project, producing from 288 KWhrs/month to about 1,152 KWHrs/month depending on the wind that month. This is a price far more realistic and amortizable than the typical small-scale wind project, which costs about $15.5 K to $140.K! We post a photo of two typical MORE wind-turbine/towers on the www.w-e-r-co.com web-site. The other, and even more reliable than wind, micro-sources of at least 720 KWHrs of AC power per month are most models by most manufacturers of micro- and Pico-hydro-generators. Some manufacturers are: Energy Systems Design, Ltd: www.microhydropower.com (506)-433-3151 (See also their YouTube Video: Hydro/Aero, which can provide both well-water and power to a village of up to 1,000 persons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2LRBg71K0 PowerSpout Hydro-Turbine: www.powerspout.com (Mid-West Regional Vendor to date: Eco-Build Supply (near La Crosse, Wisconsin): 1-608-604-2341 www.ecobuildsupply.com Harris Hydroelectric Turbine: www.hydro-turbines.com (See Also: www.solarconduit.com : /shop/wter/micro-hydro-power/hi-power-hydro-600w-hvlv-4-nozzle-a. html (1-800.919-2400) www.RealGoods.com The MORE 2 KW apiece Peak Load, reasonably priced wind-turbines are manufactured right here in the Mid-West, in Marshfield MO. See it’s Chamber of Commerce URL: www.marshfieldmochamberofcommerce.com , mfldcoc@fidnet.com (417)-859-3925 If your congregation is able to do a one-time per year collection for our CW Homeless Vets Houses, say one on Divine Mercy Sunday (May 1st this year -- always the first Sunday after Easter – too late for this year), we'd appreciate it. Or commit to an annual collection for us around Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Epiphany, or Valentine’s Day (“Give a Purple Heart for a Vet”), or Divine Mercy Sunday, that would spread our revenues more or less evenly throughout the year. Please mail the total of any collection you take in a church-check made out to St. Marcellus CW Houses (or if a congregant want to guarantee that the offered Cost/Benefit Analysi(e)s be of their own site(s), send one of their personal or business-checks, for $20 per site), with the name(s) of the owner(s) or manager(s) of each selected site, their phone number and e-address, and the typical monthly KWhrs used at that site, made out to St. MCWH, and mailed to St. Isidore Cottage, c/o Tom Kuna, BSFS, MA, 103 Mill Street, P0B 75, Kane, Illinois, 62054-0075. 1-217-942-9730. Thank you very much for your kind consideration, and may you and your congregants have a blessed Easter Octave, and a safe, happy, and prosperous 2011. Pax Xsti et Bonum (ancient Franciscan closing for 'Peace of Christ and Everything Good') Tom Kuna (Please consider taking the Pro-Life and Full-Employment Survey. Just click the link below, or copy and paste it to your browser. www.surveymonkey.com/s/Q85D5V# Already male or female, a fetus is not "something" but "someone". Talk of human rights only for the "chosen-born" is an Orwellian charade; and the highest cause of death among pregnant women is being killed by their husbands or lovers if "their" woman decline to abort. The demographic least supportive of "abortion-on-demand" is women of child-bearing age; while the most supportive is single men between 14 and 24. Abortion on demand means: "men play while women pay" Planned Parenthood -- that fascist, racist, sexist front -- is big business and grossed over $1 billion in 2009 from USA operations alone. They have been repeatedly convicted of concealing cases of rape -- both actual and statutory, by coercing and cajoling under-age women victims to abort and so concealing the evidence. Please inform yourself and lobby your elected State, Local, and US representatives to end all public funding for Planned Parenthood, or similar activities under any other name. P.S. According to Green Cooking gura, Frances Moore Lappe’s “Diet for a Small Planet”, if we all ate meatless meals every day of the week, and meat only on Saturday and Sunday, the earth could comfortably sustain 50 Billion people in an upper-middle-class life-style. So there is an intimate connection between being Pro-Life and being Pro-Green and being Veggean-lacto-ovo! As Christ says: “Some devils can only be exorcized through “prayer [abstinence] and fasting”. For a personal donation of $5.00 to the St. MCWH, we’ll send you a round-bumper decal: “Pro-Life ‘N’ Pro-Green BodyBuilders ‘N’ Athletes + Let ‘Em All Live + © . www.w-e-r-co.com”, with images of a human-baby in the womb, and of an Orca “whale”, leaping in Arctic Waters. (See attachment). (Or, if you prefer, a bumper- sticker with the same central design, but the words: “Vets’-Green-Energy-Co-ops+Pro-Life ‘N’ Pro-Green + Let ‘Em All Live! + © www.w-e-r-co.com” For a $20 donation, specifically for the T-Shirt, we’ll send a black, beige or white t-shirt with the same image on the left-breast (pectoral) area, and an enlarged image of same on the back.. Specify color and size of T-Shirt (s). (Small, Medium, Large, XL, 2 XL), and which of the two texts you prefer. For a $25 donation, for each use, we’ll give you the rights to tattoo the central image with either one of the two texts onto the body of someone who would like same, at the tattoo-parlor of their choice! Call: 1-217-942-9730 to place a Credit or Debit Card Order of any of these Add-Ons. Once again, please consider take up a second collection at your place of worship the weekend nearest Memorial Day, which would be Saturday-Sabbath/Sunday, the 6th Sunday of Easter, May 28-29, this year, and send any amount you be able to collect for us to: St. Marcellus CW Houses c/o St. Isidore CW Cottage 103 Mill Street POB 75 Kane, Illinois, 62054-0075 (Tom Kuna-Director: 217-942-9730) WHY EVENING THE PLAYING-FIELD BETWEEN FOSSIL-FUELS AND GREEN-FUELS BY ENACTMENT OF "FEE- and- DIVIDEND" APPROACH PROPOSED BY NASA CLIMATOLOGIST JAMES HANSON IS THE CORRECT WAY TO GO, NOT ONLY TO EASE THE CLIMATE CRISIS, BUT ALSO TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY BY INVESTMENTS FROM THE GRASS-ROOTS UP. |
POB 75
Kane, Illinois, 62054-0075
1-217-942-9730
tom_kuna@yahoo.com
http://www.w-e-r-co.com
Our founder and resident director is 63 and has known of the Catholic Worker Movement since 1977 and has always hoped to buy a House to use as a CW
House. He was finally been able to buy our first and only house so far, this St. Isidore CW Cottage, which is now nearly full to capacity, with one formerly
homeless vetsand two other formerly homeless men, and Tom. The House pays its expenses with Tom's Pension and, so far, with spot labor and
donations. While we are open to persons of all faiths and no-faith, both to serve and to be helped, our inspiration and community prayer-life is Catholic. Our
Catholic Diocese has gifted us the funds to be registered as a non-profit, so that the VA might stipend us a per-diem for every Vet to whom we provide a
home in the CW tradition. Much of that per-diem we hope to use to subsidize wages to our residents to be employee-member-owners of our affiliated,
for-profit workshop: Vets'-Green-Energy-Co-Ops, to install and maintain de-centralized heating, cooling, and electricity co-generating capacity at our and
other CW Houses, and at FBC's (Faith-Based Communities) around the country.
Volunteers Needed: Money Donations Accepted (into the St. Marcellus CW Houses {St.MCWHouses) checking account, which requires two signatures
for any disbursement: The Treasurer's and the President's. To Donate, click here:
We seek distance-volunteers to open their homes to homeless vets -- of which there are 200,000 at any given time -- in revocable or irrevocable living trusts
-- under our umbrella. Also, to help us compile contact information for FBCs in your part of the country, or at least, to order and to forward to us the current
phone books from one or more cities in your State, so that we may compile such lists, to promote not only the St.MCW charism, but also the whole CW
life-style, as well as de-centralized energy production and use, in the tradition of Peter Maurin's farming communes and workshops with Houses of
Hospitality
The People vs. Cap-and-Trade
Tom Kuna is changing his position from pro-cap and trade to pro-fee-and-dividend, as proposed by climate scientist James Hansen in the Jan. 13, 2010
Issue of SolveClimate, as reprinted in www.CommonDreams.org of that date, under the above title.
Tom freely quotes from that article:
"Whether you believe that global warming is real or not, (and Scripture says it is: since it warns that "the nations shall be distraught at the roaring of the sea
and its waves" [Luke 21:25]), or man-caused (anthropogenic) or not, we can all agree that dirty fuels emit pollution of air, water and land, and that the
technologies for clean-energy are already available, and that the only thing hindering us from rapid deployment of clean-energy is special vested interests in
the old, dirty energy.
However, Cap-and-trade is NOT the solution.
"Cap-and-trade is a hidden tax. An accurate description would be cap-and-tax," [for the benefit of International Finance capital, which has been plundering
Haiti since 1910, and has begun to openly plunder the US tax-payers and home-buyers] " because cap-and-trade increases the cost of energy for the public,
as utilities and other industries purchase the right to pollute with one hand, adding it to fuel prices, while with the other hand they take back most of the permit
revenues from the government. Costs and profits of the trading infrastructure are also added to the public's energy bill.
"Fee-and-dividend, in contrast, is a non-tax. The fee collected at the first sale of oil, gas and coal in the country does increase the price of fossil fuel energy.
But 100 % of the fee is distributed monthly to the public as electronic deposits to the bank account or debit card of all legal residents, with half shares for
children, up to two children per family.
"The dividend keeps families whole while providing an economic stimulus to boot. By the time the fee reaches $115 per ton of carbon dioxide (equivalent to
$1 per gallon of gasoline) the dividend will be $2,000-$3,000 per legal resident per year - $6,000-$9000 for a family with two or more children.
"People who keep their carbon footprint smaller than average will make money. The fee will rise gradually so people have a chance to choose more efficient
vehicles, insulate their homes, and so on. The dividend will help people afford these investments. Jobs will be created as society retools the economy from
high-carbon to low.
Basic fact: As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy their use will continue and even increase.
"Consider the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated at a prior UN climate meeting in 1997. National emissions of signatory countries were capped at some
agreed levels. Nations evaded these limits by purchasing "offsets" - putative but often illusory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from developing
countries. Offsets destroy the effectiveness of the agreement, because the scientific requirement for stabilizing climate is that fossil fuel emissions are
phased down rapidly. And some nations just ignored the limits, because there was no realistic way to enforce them. However, the funda-mental problem was
that "Kyoto" did not increase the price of fossil fuels relative to non-carbon energies.
"The handful of nations that claimed to have reduced their carbon emissions were joshing their citizens and everybody else. They were just pretending to be
"green". Manufacture of products based heavily on fossil fuels simply moved to developing countries, which had no cap. Then products were flown to the
developing countries, while burning aircraft fuel that is untaxed because of the 1940s agreement to support the fledgling airline industry.
"Prior to "Kyoto", global fossil fuel emissions were increasing 1.5 % a year. Afterward, they increased 3 % a year. Kyoto may not have caused the increase
(although shifting production to developing countries, often by coal-fired inefficient industries, with shipping to developed countries, did not help), but it
certainly did not stop it. [In other words, G.W. Bush was right not to sign on to "Kyoto").
"Now let's address the 3 main arguments [often] wielded by proponents of cap-and-trade.
Argument # 1: Cap-and-trade is the only way to get an agreement rapidly.
"That is a myth. In fact, every cap-and-trade regime has taken years to hammer out. Kyoto negotiations dragged on a decade and were not completed.
Individual countries had to be bribed to participate, yet some still would not. And the result was not successful, as we have seen.
"Proposed cap-and-trade within the US would be even more complex than "Kyoto". The Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bills in Congress are
larded with 2,000 pages of give-aways to special interests, soaking the public who must pay higher energy prices.
"Fee-and-dividend, in contrast, is defined by a single number: the fee (tax) rate that the fossil fuel companies must hand over at the first sale of oil, gas or
coal. All the government must do is divide this collected revenue by the number of legal residents and punch a button monthly to deliver the dividend to the
public.
"What is the chance that a US cap-and-trade law could be a precursor for a global agreement? Zero. There is no chance that China will accept a cap. Nor
should they. They are still in the early phase of their economic development.
"But would China be willing to place a carbon fee on their fossil fuels? Yes, for many reasons. First, China wants to avoid, or at least minimize, the problems
of fossil fuel addiction that plague the United States, such as the need for military protection of global supply lines. Second, China would be hit hardest by
climate change, with several hundred million people living close to sea level and a still-enormous agrarian population. Third, air and water pollution from
fossil fuels are a huge problem in China.
"China is taking the right steps. They are investing heavily in energy efficiency, renewable energy... threatening to take over technical and economic
leadership as the US continues to dawdle. The Chinese government knows that replacement of fossil fuels with energy efficient, renewable energies ...
requires a price signal (in addition to other more-target policies and investments).
"Compare the difficulty of negotiating national carbon fee (tax) rates with the difficulty of convincing China that they should have a Waxman-Markey-like
cap-and-trade. Because of our historical energy profligacy, vs. China's energy penury, a US cap - even expressed as a %age reduction - has no moral
standing in China. On the other hand, the Chinese leadership appears to be smart enough to realize that a rising carbon price is just what their country
needs as the underpinning to policies aimed at a clean energy future.
'International agreement require principally that the US and China [and India] agree to apply such internal fees across the board on fossil fuels at the mine or
port of entry. Agreement on such action is in the best interest of all 3 countries, making it far easier to reach than agreements on caps.
"With the US and China [and India] acting on a carbon fee, Europe, Japan and other nations would surely follow. Import duties based on standard amounts of
fossil fuels used in production could be applied to products from countries that did not have a carbon fee, removing any competitive disadvantage from the
fee and providing strong incentive for participation in the carbon fee.
Argument # 2 often raised by proponents of cap-and-trade:
"Proponents of cap-and-trade say that the fee-and-dividend Hansen proposes is "essentially equivalent to cap-and-trade". We do not dispute the economic
theory that a cap and a fee are, in principle, equivalent. But cap-and-trade's complexity allows special interests to take over, killing its effectiveness.
"The devil is in the implementations, as Hansen discusses in his book "Storms of My Grandchildren". He believes lay people can appreciate the differences.
Cap-and-trade's complexity is a breeding ground for special interests. A fee at the mine, wellhead or port of entry, with distribution of proceeds to the public,
has a great advantage in simplicity. Let us note here its superiority in transparency and fairness.
"One can appreciate the difference in transparency by comparing the 2,000-page Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill with the simplicity of a single fee (tax)
rate on fossil fuels. With a fee-and-dividend we know who gets the money - equal amounts to legal residents. But try reading the Waxman-Markey 2,00-page
bill to figure out who would get the money! Why do those special interests deserve it anyhow? [Kuna adds here that he would deduct 5-10% of the fee from
the dividend payout and have that go to funding the retraining of coal, oil and natural-gas workers to own, build and manage de-centralized solar-thermal
power plants throughout the nations using the solar-thermal technology developed by , www.sopogy.com and www.ausra.com And that in companies 1/3
worker-owned; 1/3 stockholder-owned; and1/3 government owned (by the cities, counties and States (or Provinces) and Nations where such Ausra, and
Sopogy type plants may be built]
"Regarding fairness, Hansen notes that there is a variant of fee-and-dividend preferred by Al Gore. He would use the money collected by the fee to reduce
payroll taxes, rather than give US residents a dividend. It seems to Hansen and Kuna that a payroll tax deduction fails the fairness text, because half of adults
are not on payrolls, being either retired or out of work involuntarily.
"However, some economist also prefer a payroll tax deduction. Their argument is that reducing taxes on employment creates jobs and stimulates the
economy. [It seems to Kuna that a payroll tax deduction gives the dividend mainly to the employed at highly paid jobs, to the rich, and none whatever to the
many workers who are in low-paying jobs, and who have families, and so get a 100% refund on their income taxes already anyway, and so would not benefit
from the dividend payout from the fee. But they have houses that need insulating and thermal windows and CFL or LED light-bulbs, and could heat and cool
their houses with solar-and geo-thermal collectors, aided by PHV's and MORE Windturbines and they use cars, too!] [However, Hansen] supposes that using
half the collected fee to reduce payroll taxes would be an acceptable compromise. However, it would be important to be certain that the payroll tax deduction
is real and matches the fee collection. With a dividend it is easier to be sure that the government is distributing the full amount.
Argument # 3 of the cap-and-trade proponents
[Hansen and Kuna say that carbon-trading will be an open invitation to Wall Street to again pillage the financial system]. Proponents of cap-and-trade say our
point "is bizarre". What is bizarre, in our opinion is their implicit assumption that government regulators can [or will even always try] to outwit Wall Street
executives.
"Congress can write a cap-and-trade bill that tries to exclude Wall Street. But to think that Wall Street will not get involved in carbon profits, directly or indirectly,
is naïve. This is a free country. Wall Street banks can buy the companies most effected by carbon price.
"Notice what happened after we bailed out the big banks? They decided the chump-change in loans to home-owners wasn't worth their trouble. Instead they
went to trading - in the stock market - making billions. Their secretive trading units are good, very good; there is a reason that they get big bonuses.
"Wall Street and the big banks took us to the cleaners once - shame on them. If we allow Congress to pass cap-and-trade, letting the banks do it to us again
- shame on us.
"Trading schemes make sense only when they provide added value. Carbon trading provides mostly added cost. What we need is a transparent, honest
approach that benefits the public.
The Fundamental Requirement
"We can cure our fossil fuel addiction and in the process reduce emissions that cause climate change [faster than it happens by the natural Milankovitch
cycle]. It requires that we take actions for the public interest, not for special interests.
"What we need is an approach that addresses the fundamental fact that keeps us addicted to fossil fuels: they are [partly because of hidden tax-loopholes
and subsidies that must be closed] the cheapest form of energy, provided their prices do not have to include the damage they do to human health, the
environment and the future of our children.
"For the sake of the people, especially young people, there should be a rising price on carbon emissions. The price should rise at a known economically
sensible rate, so that businesses have time to plan investments accordingly. The money collected should be put in the hands of the public, so that they are
able to make the purchases necessary to reduce their carbon footprint.
"The money collected should not be used by Congress to invest in energy R&D. It has been shown time and again that Congress does not invest efficiently,
and certainly not compared to the private sector. Private sector investments will be made if a rising price of carbon emissions is legislated through a carbon
fee that makes the rising price explicit. The government already has resources to support research - it should not steal fee-and-dividend money from the
public.
"Contrary to claims of mainstream environmental groups and others politically invested in cap-and-trade, the legislative train has not left the station. There is
time to negotiate and pass a simple transparent bill that is in the interest of the public. It should be a bi-partisan bill that can be supported by conservatives.
"Congress is accustomed to working with special interests. There is a revolving door between Congress and lobbyists. Ex-members know the Washington
ropes. The lobbyists wrote most of the pages in the 2,000-page bills in Congress.
"We, the public, cannot allow politics-as-usual to steamroll this topic. It is too important for the health of our economy, our children and the other life on the
planet [which is mainly migrating northward due to global warming]. Fortunately, there are members of Congress who are beginning to understand the
problem and move in the direction to address it.
"Rep. John Larson's bill, with a rising carbon fee, addresses half the task. The rate at which the fee rises in this bill is perhaps too slow, but the important
point is to provide the business community and the public some certainty that carbon prices will rise so they can make decisions and investments
accordingly,
"Sen. Maria Cantwell's cap-and-dividend bill also addresses half the solution - distributing 100 % of the proceeds to the public as a dividend. However, it is
just as important to dispense with the "cap" approach, still present in the Cantwell bill, as it is with the "trade" aspect.
"A cap is more complex than a fee (dollars per ton of CO2, applied uniformly at the source), so a cap is more subject to jerry-rigging by special interests. But
the fundamental reasons to remain dead-set against the cap approach are these:
"(1) Caps inherently cause prices to fluctuate wildly. Even if legislators attempt to outsmart the market by building in limits on the fluctuations, there is still
uncertainty in the impact on energy prices. Business people need to have confidence about how prices will change in the future. Ditto, the public. If they
expect prices to be fluctuating they are not as likely to make the lifestyle decisions that are needed to move us toward the cleaner future beyond fossil fuels.
"(2) A cap-and-dividend approach is not a route to a global agreement. There is no way that developing countries such as China or India can accept a cap,
given their state of development. The US should be a global leader. The way to do that is to demonstrate an understanding of the global problem and provide
leadership by example in solving it."
(See the article in www.CommonDreams.org www.commondreams.org for links to further information.
Tom Kuna is changing his position from pro-cap and trade to pro-fee-and-dividend, as proposed by climate scientist James Hansen in the Jan. 13, 2010
Issue of SolveClimate, as reprinted in www.CommonDreams.org of that date, under the above title.
Tom freely quotes from that article:
"Whether you believe that global warming is real or not, (and Scripture says it is: since it warns that "the nations shall be distraught at the roaring of the sea
and its waves" [Luke 21:25]), or man-caused (anthropogenic) or not, we can all agree that dirty fuels emit pollution of air, water and land, and that the
technologies for clean-energy are already available, and that the only thing hindering us from rapid deployment of clean-energy is special vested interests in
the old, dirty energy.
However, Cap-and-trade is NOT the solution.
"Cap-and-trade is a hidden tax. An accurate description would be cap-and-tax," [for the benefit of International Finance capital, which has been plundering
Haiti since 1910, and has begun to openly plunder the US tax-payers and home-buyers] " because cap-and-trade increases the cost of energy for the public,
as utilities and other industries purchase the right to pollute with one hand, adding it to fuel prices, while with the other hand they take back most of the permit
revenues from the government. Costs and profits of the trading infrastructure are also added to the public's energy bill.
"Fee-and-dividend, in contrast, is a non-tax. The fee collected at the first sale of oil, gas and coal in the country does increase the price of fossil fuel energy.
But 100 % of the fee is distributed monthly to the public as electronic deposits to the bank account or debit card of all legal residents, with half shares for
children, up to two children per family.
"The dividend keeps families whole while providing an economic stimulus to boot. By the time the fee reaches $115 per ton of carbon dioxide (equivalent to
$1 per gallon of gasoline) the dividend will be $2,000-$3,000 per legal resident per year - $6,000-$9000 for a family with two or more children.
"People who keep their carbon footprint smaller than average will make money. The fee will rise gradually so people have a chance to choose more efficient
vehicles, insulate their homes, and so on. The dividend will help people afford these investments. Jobs will be created as society retools the economy from
high-carbon to low.
Basic fact: As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy their use will continue and even increase.
"Consider the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated at a prior UN climate meeting in 1997. National emissions of signatory countries were capped at some
agreed levels. Nations evaded these limits by purchasing "offsets" - putative but often illusory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from developing
countries. Offsets destroy the effectiveness of the agreement, because the scientific requirement for stabilizing climate is that fossil fuel emissions are
phased down rapidly. And some nations just ignored the limits, because there was no realistic way to enforce them. However, the funda-mental problem was
that "Kyoto" did not increase the price of fossil fuels relative to non-carbon energies.
"The handful of nations that claimed to have reduced their carbon emissions were joshing their citizens and everybody else. They were just pretending to be
"green". Manufacture of products based heavily on fossil fuels simply moved to developing countries, which had no cap. Then products were flown to the
developing countries, while burning aircraft fuel that is untaxed because of the 1940s agreement to support the fledgling airline industry.
"Prior to "Kyoto", global fossil fuel emissions were increasing 1.5 % a year. Afterward, they increased 3 % a year. Kyoto may not have caused the increase
(although shifting production to developing countries, often by coal-fired inefficient industries, with shipping to developed countries, did not help), but it
certainly did not stop it. [In other words, G.W. Bush was right not to sign on to "Kyoto").
"Now let's address the 3 main arguments [often] wielded by proponents of cap-and-trade.
Argument # 1: Cap-and-trade is the only way to get an agreement rapidly.
"That is a myth. In fact, every cap-and-trade regime has taken years to hammer out. Kyoto negotiations dragged on a decade and were not completed.
Individual countries had to be bribed to participate, yet some still would not. And the result was not successful, as we have seen.
"Proposed cap-and-trade within the US would be even more complex than "Kyoto". The Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bills in Congress are
larded with 2,000 pages of give-aways to special interests, soaking the public who must pay higher energy prices.
"Fee-and-dividend, in contrast, is defined by a single number: the fee (tax) rate that the fossil fuel companies must hand over at the first sale of oil, gas or
coal. All the government must do is divide this collected revenue by the number of legal residents and punch a button monthly to deliver the dividend to the
public.
"What is the chance that a US cap-and-trade law could be a precursor for a global agreement? Zero. There is no chance that China will accept a cap. Nor
should they. They are still in the early phase of their economic development.
"But would China be willing to place a carbon fee on their fossil fuels? Yes, for many reasons. First, China wants to avoid, or at least minimize, the problems
of fossil fuel addiction that plague the United States, such as the need for military protection of global supply lines. Second, China would be hit hardest by
climate change, with several hundred million people living close to sea level and a still-enormous agrarian population. Third, air and water pollution from
fossil fuels are a huge problem in China.
"China is taking the right steps. They are investing heavily in energy efficiency, renewable energy... threatening to take over technical and economic
leadership as the US continues to dawdle. The Chinese government knows that replacement of fossil fuels with energy efficient, renewable energies ...
requires a price signal (in addition to other more-target policies and investments).
"Compare the difficulty of negotiating national carbon fee (tax) rates with the difficulty of convincing China that they should have a Waxman-Markey-like
cap-and-trade. Because of our historical energy profligacy, vs. China's energy penury, a US cap - even expressed as a %age reduction - has no moral
standing in China. On the other hand, the Chinese leadership appears to be smart enough to realize that a rising carbon price is just what their country
needs as the underpinning to policies aimed at a clean energy future.
'International agreement require principally that the US and China [and India] agree to apply such internal fees across the board on fossil fuels at the mine or
port of entry. Agreement on such action is in the best interest of all 3 countries, making it far easier to reach than agreements on caps.
"With the US and China [and India] acting on a carbon fee, Europe, Japan and other nations would surely follow. Import duties based on standard amounts of
fossil fuels used in production could be applied to products from countries that did not have a carbon fee, removing any competitive disadvantage from the
fee and providing strong incentive for participation in the carbon fee.
Argument # 2 often raised by proponents of cap-and-trade:
"Proponents of cap-and-trade say that the fee-and-dividend Hansen proposes is "essentially equivalent to cap-and-trade". We do not dispute the economic
theory that a cap and a fee are, in principle, equivalent. But cap-and-trade's complexity allows special interests to take over, killing its effectiveness.
"The devil is in the implementations, as Hansen discusses in his book "Storms of My Grandchildren". He believes lay people can appreciate the differences.
Cap-and-trade's complexity is a breeding ground for special interests. A fee at the mine, wellhead or port of entry, with distribution of proceeds to the public,
has a great advantage in simplicity. Let us note here its superiority in transparency and fairness.
"One can appreciate the difference in transparency by comparing the 2,000-page Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill with the simplicity of a single fee (tax)
rate on fossil fuels. With a fee-and-dividend we know who gets the money - equal amounts to legal residents. But try reading the Waxman-Markey 2,00-page
bill to figure out who would get the money! Why do those special interests deserve it anyhow? [Kuna adds here that he would deduct 5-10% of the fee from
the dividend payout and have that go to funding the retraining of coal, oil and natural-gas workers to own, build and manage de-centralized solar-thermal
power plants throughout the nations using the solar-thermal technology developed by , www.sopogy.com and www.ausra.com And that in companies 1/3
worker-owned; 1/3 stockholder-owned; and1/3 government owned (by the cities, counties and States (or Provinces) and Nations where such Ausra, and
Sopogy type plants may be built]
"Regarding fairness, Hansen notes that there is a variant of fee-and-dividend preferred by Al Gore. He would use the money collected by the fee to reduce
payroll taxes, rather than give US residents a dividend. It seems to Hansen and Kuna that a payroll tax deduction fails the fairness text, because half of adults
are not on payrolls, being either retired or out of work involuntarily.
"However, some economist also prefer a payroll tax deduction. Their argument is that reducing taxes on employment creates jobs and stimulates the
economy. [It seems to Kuna that a payroll tax deduction gives the dividend mainly to the employed at highly paid jobs, to the rich, and none whatever to the
many workers who are in low-paying jobs, and who have families, and so get a 100% refund on their income taxes already anyway, and so would not benefit
from the dividend payout from the fee. But they have houses that need insulating and thermal windows and CFL or LED light-bulbs, and could heat and cool
their houses with solar-and geo-thermal collectors, aided by PHV's and MORE Windturbines and they use cars, too!] [However, Hansen] supposes that using
half the collected fee to reduce payroll taxes would be an acceptable compromise. However, it would be important to be certain that the payroll tax deduction
is real and matches the fee collection. With a dividend it is easier to be sure that the government is distributing the full amount.
Argument # 3 of the cap-and-trade proponents
[Hansen and Kuna say that carbon-trading will be an open invitation to Wall Street to again pillage the financial system]. Proponents of cap-and-trade say our
point "is bizarre". What is bizarre, in our opinion is their implicit assumption that government regulators can [or will even always try] to outwit Wall Street
executives.
"Congress can write a cap-and-trade bill that tries to exclude Wall Street. But to think that Wall Street will not get involved in carbon profits, directly or indirectly,
is naïve. This is a free country. Wall Street banks can buy the companies most effected by carbon price.
"Notice what happened after we bailed out the big banks? They decided the chump-change in loans to home-owners wasn't worth their trouble. Instead they
went to trading - in the stock market - making billions. Their secretive trading units are good, very good; there is a reason that they get big bonuses.
"Wall Street and the big banks took us to the cleaners once - shame on them. If we allow Congress to pass cap-and-trade, letting the banks do it to us again
- shame on us.
"Trading schemes make sense only when they provide added value. Carbon trading provides mostly added cost. What we need is a transparent, honest
approach that benefits the public.
The Fundamental Requirement
"We can cure our fossil fuel addiction and in the process reduce emissions that cause climate change [faster than it happens by the natural Milankovitch
cycle]. It requires that we take actions for the public interest, not for special interests.
"What we need is an approach that addresses the fundamental fact that keeps us addicted to fossil fuels: they are [partly because of hidden tax-loopholes
and subsidies that must be closed] the cheapest form of energy, provided their prices do not have to include the damage they do to human health, the
environment and the future of our children.
"For the sake of the people, especially young people, there should be a rising price on carbon emissions. The price should rise at a known economically
sensible rate, so that businesses have time to plan investments accordingly. The money collected should be put in the hands of the public, so that they are
able to make the purchases necessary to reduce their carbon footprint.
"The money collected should not be used by Congress to invest in energy R&D. It has been shown time and again that Congress does not invest efficiently,
and certainly not compared to the private sector. Private sector investments will be made if a rising price of carbon emissions is legislated through a carbon
fee that makes the rising price explicit. The government already has resources to support research - it should not steal fee-and-dividend money from the
public.
"Contrary to claims of mainstream environmental groups and others politically invested in cap-and-trade, the legislative train has not left the station. There is
time to negotiate and pass a simple transparent bill that is in the interest of the public. It should be a bi-partisan bill that can be supported by conservatives.
"Congress is accustomed to working with special interests. There is a revolving door between Congress and lobbyists. Ex-members know the Washington
ropes. The lobbyists wrote most of the pages in the 2,000-page bills in Congress.
"We, the public, cannot allow politics-as-usual to steamroll this topic. It is too important for the health of our economy, our children and the other life on the
planet [which is mainly migrating northward due to global warming]. Fortunately, there are members of Congress who are beginning to understand the
problem and move in the direction to address it.
"Rep. John Larson's bill, with a rising carbon fee, addresses half the task. The rate at which the fee rises in this bill is perhaps too slow, but the important
point is to provide the business community and the public some certainty that carbon prices will rise so they can make decisions and investments
accordingly,
"Sen. Maria Cantwell's cap-and-dividend bill also addresses half the solution - distributing 100 % of the proceeds to the public as a dividend. However, it is
just as important to dispense with the "cap" approach, still present in the Cantwell bill, as it is with the "trade" aspect.
"A cap is more complex than a fee (dollars per ton of CO2, applied uniformly at the source), so a cap is more subject to jerry-rigging by special interests. But
the fundamental reasons to remain dead-set against the cap approach are these:
"(1) Caps inherently cause prices to fluctuate wildly. Even if legislators attempt to outsmart the market by building in limits on the fluctuations, there is still
uncertainty in the impact on energy prices. Business people need to have confidence about how prices will change in the future. Ditto, the public. If they
expect prices to be fluctuating they are not as likely to make the lifestyle decisions that are needed to move us toward the cleaner future beyond fossil fuels.
"(2) A cap-and-dividend approach is not a route to a global agreement. There is no way that developing countries such as China or India can accept a cap,
given their state of development. The US should be a global leader. The way to do that is to demonstrate an understanding of the global problem and provide
leadership by example in solving it."
(See the article in www.CommonDreams.org www.commondreams.org for links to further information.