Letter to Dan Lungren

Dear Congressman Lungren:
I hope you can keep an open mind as I discuss with you the importance and benefits of a carbon tax. I know you may be ideologically opposed to this concept, but please hear me out on this. Fossil fuels, especially oil were instrumental in building the United States into a superpower. We have a lot to thank for the discovery of petroleum and the enormous positive changes brought to our civilization by the industrial revolution. During the middle of the twentieth century as our infrastructure was being built around oil, only a small group of scientists were aware of the toxicity of oil. As our collective knowledge of the effects of burning fossil fuels has grown over the past 60 years, the costs have grown as well. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and ongoing oil accidents occurring around the world, most recently in Dalian, China illustrate the risks involved in the extraction, refining, delivery and combustion of oil. There is no credible argument that can refute the reality that damage to the environment during the production, delivery and burning of oil represents a cost. Whether we are talking about smog alerts in Los Angeles, increased asthma cases in large cities, ocean dead zones, acid rain, fallout from global climate change, or increased lung cancer rates, we have been paying a price for our decision over a hundred years ago to exploit this resource. Because these costs are so difficult to quantify, we have allowed ourselves to wait until incidents occur before we commit to paying for these costs. In most cases, the general public has footed the tab for these large, spread out environmental damage consequences. If you can see the environment as a cost of production like any other cost such as labor, capital and material, what entity besides the company involved in the production of its product should be responsible for these costs? The obvious answer of course, is that a company operating in a free market economy, should not depend on anyone else for its costs of production. Yet, that is what has been happening on a very large scale for the last 100 years. The fossil fuel industry has, without any fanfare, transferred most of these costs onto the general public, violating some of the most important principles of free enterprise systems - depending on the public to subsidize your business and not maintaining a level playing field for all the market players. Picking up the tab for all of these costs represents a massive subsidy of the fossil fuel industry and has kept the price of oil artificially low relative to its true cost. Is that fair? Yes, I agree these costs are extremely difficult to quantify. But to leave them out is an affront to our free market economy. The purpose of implementing a carbon tax is to finally begin to quantify the cost of environmental damage as a legitimate cost of production, fully integrating these costs into the Profit and Loss statements of fossil fuel companies and leveling the playing field for other energy producers. The other related issue to a carbon tax is jobs. There is a common perception that any type of clean energy legislation would adversely affect our economy and prevent job growth. I beg to differ and I will explain to you why. Our dependence on foreign sources for oil is an issue of national security.
Unfortunately, due to our consumption patterns, there is not enough oil reserves in the U.S., even fully exploited to quench our appetite. In an atmosphere of rapidly rising world demand, oil producing countries cannot keep up with this demand. If you read the Wall Street Journal the other day, a milestone was reached when it was announced that China has now surpassed the United States as the largest consumer of energy. The cost of securing oil from countries that are sometimes openly hostile to our way of life and the risk that some of our money going overseas for oil is finding its ways into the waiting pockets of terrorists is unsettling at the very least. I propose to you that our dependence on oil is the root cause of our precarious economy. Unless we begin to transform our infrastructure and wean ourselves away from oil, the risks will only increase. The United States oil production peaked in 1970 and there are scientists predicting peak oil within the next 10 years. The economic consequences of terminal decline are potentially disastrous. Should we sit this out and wait to see what happens or purchase an insurance policy in the form of clean energy technology to inoculate ourselves from this inevitable result?

Sincerely,
David Brotman