Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Congressman Pascrell about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009:

Dear Congressman Pascrell,

I’m thrilled to have the first real carbon legislation back in the House for a vote this Friday. I presented the The Climate Project last night at Bloomfield College and had occasion to discuss the ACESA with the 28 people who attended the event. I would like to share the many criticisms of the bill that were expressed. Ultimately, if we can strengthen the bill in a few key areas I feel the bill still deserves a “Yes” vote. Here is what my audience expressed they would like to see strengthened (and I agree) in order of priority:

1) The EPA’s authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act must not be rescinded. This was a major ruling it gives any environmental policy teeth. The provision removing this authority must be removed from ACESA.

2) The amount of money committed to Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) development. Coal is dirty even without carbon emissions. One need only look at the toxic coal sludge spill in Tennessee last year or the fact that dozens of coal ash sites have been classified to protect them from terrorist attacks to illustrate this well-known fact. The CCS approach most energy companies are pursuing:
a) require energy
b) are expensive
c) are unproven
d) are just another form of toxic dumping
By contrast renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal are well-proven and comparatively non toxic as compared to coal (geothermal). More development capital should be directed to these technologies. Renewables pose no terroristic threat. In fact the distributed nature makes them a unappealing target for terrorism.

3) It is my position and the position of many environmental groups that the current provisions for scientific review and assessment once every 4 years leave too much time before adjustments can be made. With such a sweeping act of legislation and so much at stake we would like to see the review term shortened to once every two years. Our justification is that the negative impacts of climate change have been unfolding at the highest extreme of scientific projections for over a decade. Our scientific understanding of the causes and effects of climate change expands greatly every year. Additionally there remains much uncertainty about what the realized reductions will actually be from ACESA as it stands. If the bill proves to need modification, action must be taken quickly to address oversights, abuses or shortcomings so we achieve tangible carbon reductions. For this reason we need to shorten the scientific review term from 4 to 2 years.

4) Allowances. I understand the political justifications, not wanting to overly burden energy companies or financially burden consumers. We need a bill that changes the way we produce energy. The allowances as they are exert little pressure to change in the next 10 years. Overwhelming scientific evidence indicates we need to be more aggressive.

5) Offsets. We come dangerously close to allowing this bill to become a numbers game in absence of real change. No trickery of carbon accounting is going to solve the climate crisis. I have serious concerns about the ability of the USA to legislate here something that requires us to monitor reforestation campaigns in a far of country. Offsets are better incorporated through our involvement in the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty. By working together with other nations we have a better chance of crafting a World policy on Offsets. Reforestation is vital as we can yield up to a 20% reduction in global carbon levels though careful forest management. My concern is that the Offset provision of ACESA will be abused because we lack the capacity for appropriate oversight.

Please. We need to get this right. We do not have time for half measures. Every moment we delay equates to increased financial burdens in the form of the costs of climate change adaptation and squandered opportunities in reaching a cleaner, safer, more economically beneficial, renewable-energy-powered future. I’m happy to discuss this in greater detail if you want any further clarification.

Thank you for your service to our community and Nation.