Medicare for All Who

Want It

A HONEST APPROACH TO AMERICA’S HEALTHCARE AND

AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD EQUITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS ____________________________________________________ 3
Goals __________________________________________________________________ 3
Strategy ________________________________________________________________ 3
Financial Implications______________________________________________________ 3
Funding Elements ________________________________________________________ 3

STRATEGY ____________________________________________________ 4
American’s Age 18-65 _____________________________________________________ 4

2|Page
SYNOPSIS
Goals
 Provide affordable healthcare for all Americans.
 Ensure people over the age of 65 don’t lose their current Medicare option.
 Create a child version of Medicare without financial restrictions like deductibles.

Strategy
 Create an exchange for healthcare to be purchased on, thereby severing the tie between
healthcare and employment.
 Expand Medicare (65+) to cover vision, hearing and dental and eliminate the need for
premiums and deductibles.
 Create a version of Medicare for children under the age of 18 where there are no
deductibles or additional costs.
 Create a version of Medicare for ages 18-65 to be available for purchase on the
exchange. This would also be the default healthcare if a selection was not made.
 Create a prescription program to cover necessary medication for all Americans.
 Implement an employer and employee payroll tax to fund programs listed above.
 Create a Health Savings Account (HSA) for all American’s. Funds generated by payroll
taxes would be deposited in here to be used to purchase healthcare.
 HSA could be used to build financial equity if subscribers choose higher deductible plans.
 Establish maximum charges on what common procedures can cost at a public facility.

Financial Implications
A federal contribution of $8,000 into the HSA of all Americans ages 18-65 and a Medicare for
Minors program allocating an average of $8000 per child, would cost approximately $2.25
trillion a year. The average premium Americans pay is $6,896 with an average deducible of
$1,500. A government healthcare plan covering Americans under the age of 65 with no
deductibles should be achievable for $8,000 per person. This new Medicare would be the
default plan for all American’s. An additional $325 billion per year would be used to cover
prescription medication for all Americans.

Funding Elements
 An employer payroll tax of 6.5% (excluding the first $22,000) would generate $900 billion
in revenue.
 An employee payroll tax of 3.5% (excluding the first $22,000) would generate $400 billion
in revenue.
 Elimination of Medicaid would save $580 billion in current spending.
 Eliminating current health care tax breaks would generate $425 billion in revenue.
 Additional savings of $270 billion in negotiating procedure and prescription pricing.

3|Page
STRATEGY
The goal is to make sure all Americans have access to healthcare without worrying about the
financial implications. In this plan tax revenue would fund healthcare for all Americans. For
Senior’s over the age of 65 and for children under the age of 18 there would be a version of
Medicare that covers all necessary expenses and has no deductibles. For Americans age 18-
65, a deposit of $8,000 annually would be made into an HSA account to cover the costs of
their healthcare. That money could be used to purchase a health insurance plan either public
or private. A separate fund for prescription medication would cover all Americans of all ages
for necessary prescription medication.

American’s Age 18-65

All American’s in this bracket will default to Medicare, which would be deductible free but
costs the full $8,000. Or, Americans could instead purchase private healthcare on the same
exchange and apply the $8,000 towards it. Younger individuals may opt to purchase a private
insurance with a higher deductible that is cheaper than the $8,000 Medicare would cost. The
money saved would remain in the individual’s HSA for future healthcare expenditures,
daycare, or support for special needs. When the individual reaches the age of 65 and they
enroll on Senior Medicare, the funds remaining in their HSA could be deposited into another
account. This allows individuals who are healthy and spend less on healthcare to build
additional equity towards retirement or future expenditures. For example, an individual who
chooses a high deductible healthcare option that’s only $6,500 a year at age 18 could save
$18,000 by the time they are age 30 to apply towards daycare. Or by the age of 65 if they
continue on that plan, could save as much as $47,000. Additional revenue could be
generated if funds exceeding $5,000 were allowed to be placed in a low risk money market
built within the HSA. Others may choose a private plan that costs more than $8,000 a year,
but may have additional benefits like access to private doctors or covers additional services
like acupuncture or chiropractic care.

The average employee contribution towards healthcare premiums is $1,473 with an average
deductible of $1,500. This would mean for an individual making $100,000 a year, the payroll
tax after excluding the first $22,000 would be $2,730. While the individual would pay more in
taxes, their overall healthcare costs would be slightly less. Or, if choosing a high deductible
plan, some of those tax dollars could be used to build equity in their HSA account. The
employer contribution for this individual would be $5,070, which is in line with the average
$4,953 that employers currently pay for healthcare premiums. This means that for individuals

4|Page
making less than $100,000 there is a net cost benefit for both employees and employers. By
excluding the first $22,000, the burden for low income families is alleviated and the minimum
wage could conceivably be raised to $11 an hour without additional employer burden.

Currently, healthcare providers spend tremendous amounts of money in administrative costs

and collecting bills. When choosing a plan, individuals should already have the funds within
their HSA to cover any deductibles in a plan they choose. This would allow health care
providers to charge the cost directly to the insurer or HSA, limiting billing costs and the risk of
unpaid bills. This is an important component to negotiating cheaper provider rates. However
this would make freedom to choose alternate higher deductible plans more difficult. Adding
an option for all Americans to deposit up to $5000 a year tax free would allow individuals the
ability to choose higher deductible plans as well as give an alternative retirement savings
option for those who do not have a 401k or would like to save more. Another option would be
a one-time deposit to all American’s HSA that would cover most deductibles. This would be
granted initially during the roll out and in the future when individuals turn 18.

Healthcare costs at $8,000 per individual are still significantly higher than most of the world.
As additional savings are found negotiating with healthcare providers the tax could either be
lowered, or more money in HSAs could help build additional equity. There is a risk of
healthier individuals choosing lower costs private plans raising the price of coverage of those
on Medicare. Creating an additional lower cost version of public insurance with higher
deductibles could help to maintain a healthy patient pool.

5|Page
America’s Smart Grid
and Climate Policy

A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO MEET THE IPCC GOALS

AND UPGRADE AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS ____________________________________________________ 3
Goals __________________________________________________________________ 3
Strategy ________________________________________________________________ 3
Financial Implications______________________________________________________ 3
Funding Elements ________________________________________________________ 4

STRATEGY ____________________________________________________ 5
Eliminating Coal __________________________________________________________ 7
Reducing Natural Gas by 15% ______________________________________________ 10
Reducing Petroleum by 45% _______________________________________________ 12
A Nationwide High Speed Rail ______________________________________________ 14
Improvements in Agriculture _______________________________________________ 15
Repairing and Replacing the Nations Water Grid _______________________________ 19
The Need for a Fiber Optic Network _________________________________________ 21
Investments in New Technology ____________________________________________ 22

ADDITIONAL NOTES ___________________________________________ 23

APPENDIX A ____________________________________________________

2|Page
SYNOPSIS
Goals
 The IPCC report states that in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change
global temperature increases need to be limited to 1.5°C.
 To limit the increase of temperature to 1.5°C, global emissions need be reduced by 45%
by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.
 Ensure all Americans have access to clean water

Strategy
 To reduce US emissions by 45% by 2030 energy production from coal is eliminated,
emissions from natural gas are reduced by 15% and emissions from petroleum are
reduced by 45% using the following methods.
- Overhaul of the electric grid with a focus on renewable energy.
- Improved vehicle fuel economy with incentive programs for electric/hybrid vehicles and
removal of outdated vehicles through plans with proven track records, such as ‘cash
for clunkers’.
- City and school bus replacement plan.
- Commercial vehicle incentive programs.
- Improvements in efficiencies of energy production and usage.
- Increased forestry coverage by 10%.
- Investment into replacing the nation’s water grid.
- Provide fiber optic internet to major cities and townships nationwide and establishing an
‘intranet’ for security purposes.
 Reducing US emissions to net zero by 2050 would require the following investments
- Continual investments in renewable energy and nuclear energy.
- Investments into technologies such as energy storage and carbon capturing.
- An extensive high speed rail network.
- Improvements in city subways and commuter rails.
- Replacement of all land vehicles with electric equivalents and updates in the
infrastructure to support this replacement
- Investments and incentives in agriculture and reduction of food waste.

Financial Implications
Implementing the strategy above would require an investment of $850 billion annually for 10
years and an additional $350 billion annually for the 10 years following for a total investment
of $12 trillion dollars. By 2040 both the rail and power grid become self-funding and by 2050
they would generate $2 trillion dollars in revenue annually. That money could fund a
universal basic income of approximately $5000 a year per individual (after adjusting for

3|Page
population growth) to combat job loss due to automation. These values assume a fixed cost
per kWh generated. Additional financial implications include the following.
 Vast job creation (not yet calculated), a conservative estimate of 30 million jobs created
 Economic growth by directly investing in infrastructure (numbers yet to be calculated)
 Eliminating the environmental and health costs of burning coal, separate studies by
Harvard and Yale have estimated this cost to be $500 billion annually.
 An estimated 63 million Americans don’t have access to reliable clean water. An
estimated 2 trillion gallons of water (14% to 18% of total usage) are lost due to degrading
water systems. There are approximately 240,000 water main breaks a year nationwide.
Replacing our water grid could net billions annually.
 Creating a fiber optic public utility could save the average American $400 a year and
higher speeds could lead to additional revenue for American businesses, specifically small
businesses. Having a separate ‘intranet’ for government institutions and public utilities
could eliminate massive cyber security risks.
 By not addressing climate change the financial impacts to US health, food production,
clean water and air, property damage and mass migration could cost in the trillions
annually as soon as 2030. It further threatens our national security as the DoD has
recently stated “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with
potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions,
operational plans, and installations.”

Funding Elements
 Implementation of a federal value added tax (VAT). A 5% VAT applied to a broad base
that included all consumption except spending on education, healthcare premiums,
charitable organizations, state and local government, housing consumption, food
consumed at home, and private medical expenses could generate 1.4% of the GDP in
revenue. This would generate $3.2 trillion over 10 years. It would also sufficiently fund
years 2030-2040 without any additional taxes.
 Implementation of a carbon tax could generate as much as $800 billion over 10 years.
 Elimination of fossil fuel subsidies would save an additional $250 billion over 10 years.
 Increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% would generate as much as $1 trillion
dollars over 10 years.
 An increase in the marginal tax rate and elimination of tax loopholes to raise $3.1 trillion
over 10 years. Based on the current share of income taxes paid and average tax rates the
following changes would need to be made.
- Increase the average tax rate for individual incomes greater than $307,078 from
26.87% to 33.59%
- For individual incomes between $153,437 and $307,078 from 19.19% to 23.03%.
- For individual incomes between $110,288 and $153,437 from 14.05% to 16.15%.
- For individual incomes between $66,601 and $110,288 from 10.94% to 12.03%.
- Individual incomes below $66,601 would remain unaffected.

4|Page
STRATEGY
The most effective way to achieve the goals set by the IPCC is to divide our approach into a
short term and long term plan. The short term plan would require reducing total emissions in
the US by 45% by 2030. The long term plan requires having net zero emissions by 2050,
requiring 85% of energy to be produced by renewable sources.

In the US, CO2 represents 90% of the greenhouse gasses emitted. The path of least
resistance involves reducing CO2 emissions by 50% to achieve the 45% goal for 2030.
Reducing CO2 has a narrow path, it requires funding and investment into infrastructure.
Methane and nitrous oxide will need to be greatly reduced long term, however they would
require advancements in technology and changes in culture.

Table 1 below lists the millions of metric tons of CO2 produced by fuel type. Table 2 on the
following page, shows the percentage of energy produced by fuel type. Coal produces 316
metric tons of CO2 per GWh produced, while petroleum and other liquid fuels produce 224
metric tons and natural gas produces 194 metric tons. Total CO2 emissions generated by
these three fuel types is 5,274 million metric tons. To reduce the number by 50% (2,637
million metric tons) it would require a 15% reduction in emissions produced by natural gas
(243 million metric tons), a 45% reduction of petroleum (1069 million metric tons) and
eliminating coal (1,269 million metric tons). There is a gap of 56 million metric tons that could
be offset by expanding forestry cover. For example, expanding forestry cover by 10% could
offset an additional 363 million metric tons.

Table 1: Taken from EIA website

5|Page
 Figure 1

The majority of this strategy focuses on a heavy investment into the nation’s infrastructure. To
begin, let’s visualize the US infrastructure as the body’s circulatory system. The arteries are
comprised of highways and railroads while smaller capillaries make up roads, electric cabling,
water pipes, internet cabling etc. Currently, the capillaries are connected to local sources of
power, water etc. However, moving towards a modern ‘smart grid’ relies on connecting those
capillaries to the main arteries, allowing a national system of water, electricity and
information. The advantages include the following.
 Power generation is less dependent on local weather. By creating grid capable of over
producing power but distributing it to areas of need, it is possible to eliminate restrictions
such as lack of energy storage.
 A new high speed rail would drastically reduce the need for car or air travel as well as
make travel throughout the country more affordable and easy. In addition to being a
necessary component of the plan to reduce emissions, more affordable travel would lead
to an increase in domestic tourism. While it may not be necessary for the short term plan,
construction would need to start as soon as possible to meet the long term goals.
 Upgrading the nation’s water supply system could provide water to the estimated 63
million Americans don’t have access to reliable clean water. Replacing the existing
infrastructure would eliminate the 6 billion gallons of water lost every day due to leaky
pipes (14% of the total water used). A nationwide system would reduce the effects of
droughts as water treatment and distribution would not need to be localized to one area or
rely on one source of water.
 An infrastructure update of this magnitude could also include laying the network for
providing fiber optic internet to the majority of the country. If government funded, it could
save American’s approximately $400 a year, or the network could be leased to different

6|Page
 internet providers for additional revenue. A separate ‘intranet’ could be designed to
connect government offices and facilities to eliminate the risk of cyber security breaches.
The current power grid has been identified as a real risk to be manipulated by foreign
powers. A smart grid system would require a constant stream of information passing
between switch points and monitoring usage throughout the country. Disconnecting this
system from the rest of the world is paramount to its ability to function safely.

Eliminating Coal
Coal represents 1,269 million metric tons of CO2 emissions while providing 4.01 million GWh
of energy. It has the narrowest path of elimination of the three fossil fuels as 91% of coal is
used for indirect (produced by power plants) electricity production while the remaining 9% is
used in industry as direct (produced on site) energy production, see figure 2. Coal could be
eliminated by replacing that energy output with modern, renewable sources. Replacing it
would set the groundwork for the creation of a ‘smart grid’. The strategy and cost model for
replacing it can be implemented for the inevitable replacement of natural gas and petroleum.

Figure 2

To achieve the quickest results, the model used a balance of 50% wind, 45% solar and 5%
nuclear/hydro to replace the 4.01 million GWh currently provided by coal. Wind and solar

7|Page
have a much quicker turnaround time than nuclear or hydropower, hence the more weighted
distribution. However, unless radical advancements are made in battery technology there
remains a long term need for power generators less dependent on weather or time of day.
Due to construction times some work should be started now.

Modeling the costs of generating this energy requires using existing projects as a reference.
If we just look at just the cost of equipment, we ignore the cost of land acquisition,
construction, maintenance and connecting it to the existing grid. Using existing projects such
as the Shepard’s Wind Farm, Roscoe’s Wind Farm, Topaz Solar Farm and various others, we
can establish a price per GWh generated. Taking an average of various projects the price per
GWh for wind is around $800,000 while solar is $1.2 million. For the sake of coming up with
preliminary costing, the average of GWh was taken to be $1 million for all sources of energy.

There are some unknowns regarding this estimate. For example, these projects include the
cost of infrastructure to connect the plant to an existing grid, however they don’t adequately
estimate a cost for the creation of a new grid. In the example of wind, Shepard’s Farm cost
an estimated $2 billion dollars to create and is capable of producing 2000 GWh, but $1.2
billion dollars of that was a 10 year maintenance contract with GE. There are opportunities to
save in cost with a national contract as opposed to one per plant. In terms of solar energy,
there are still huge savings that can be accrued by assuming economies of scale. Since 2010
solar panel systems have dropped 60% in cost, with 27% coming in 2017 alone. The $1
million per GWh generated should be considered a conservative estimate.

The model also assumed a 3 year construction time for solar farms and 4 years for wind
farms before generating power and additional year after that before accruing revenue from
that power generated.

Graph 1 shows a 10 year projection of total investment by year as well as what the
investment is from tax revenue and from revenue from energy generated. It also shows the
energy generated by year. Graph 2 shows a 30 year projection following the same model.

8|Page
 Investment, Revenue and Energy Over 10 Years
700 4.50E+06

4.00E+06
600
3.50E+06
500
3.00E+06

GWh GENERATED
400 2.50E+06
USD IN BILLIONS

300 2.00E+06

1.50E+06
200
1.00E+06
100
5.00E+05

0 0.00E+00
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

YEAR
Total Investment Tax Revenue Revenue from Energy Energy Generated

Graph 1

Investment, Revenue and Energy Over 30 Years

2500 2.50E+07

2000 2.00E+07

1500 1.50E+07

GWh GENERATED
USD IN BILLIONS

1000 1.00E+07

500 5.00E+06

0 0.00E+00
2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049
YEAR

Total Investment Tax Revenue Revenue from Energy Energy Generated

Graph 2

9|Page
The 30 year projection uses the same price per GWh as the 10 year projection, however the
makeup of solar and wind would probably need to shift to include technologies in geothermal,
hydro, wave devices and tidal turbines as well as a heavier focus in nuclear than what the 10
year illustrates. This is especially true for Alaska and Hawaii as well as other US territories
like Puerto Rico and Guam.

By 2040 the program becomes self-funding with revenue derived from energy production. By
2050 the program will be producing $2 trillion dollars in federal revenue annually, assuming a
fixed price of $0.12 per kWh and $0.03 per kWh cost to produce. The grid would also be
generating a total 24 million GWh, which exceeds the 23 million GWh currently being
generated by fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum). By 2050 energy use is expected to
rise by as much as 30%. This would lead to a gap between what is being generated and what
is necessary by 2050. Advancements in technology, more efficient buildings and vehicles,
and a shift towards commuter travel could all serve to narrow that gap.

Reducing Natural Gas by 15%

Natural gas usage represents 1,618 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually while
providing 8.3 million GWh of energy. Unlike coal, natural gas is used in a variety of ways with
35% providing direct energy for industry, 34% providing indirect energy via the electric grid
and 28% used as a heating fuel for residential and commercial buildings, see Figure 2 shown
on page 7. In the long term, the path described in the section above will provide enough
renewable energy to supplement the existing natural gas. In the short term, the focus should
be on improving efficiencies in the current energy production as well as in current usage.

Natural gas turbines can be separated into two types of systems, simple cycle and combined
cycle. Simple cycle involves a compressor forcing outside air into a combustor which mixes
gas and air and burning it to create a high pressure, high velocity gas which then turns a
turbine. A combined cycle engine uses the heat loss from exhaust gasses to heat up water in
a boiler to produce steam to turn a separate turbine and produce additional energy. As a
result while simple cycle engines are only 33% efficient, combined cycle engines can be as
high as 60% efficient. It’s unclear what percentage of natural gas power plants/industrial
turbines could be retrofitted to take advantage of this technology. Kawasaki advertises an
aftermarket solution to convert simple cycle engines to combined engines, but the technology
has yet to be implemented on a large scale.

10 | P a g e
Other inefficiencies in the engines exist as well. An article written by Edwin Giermak for
Power Engineering suggests that there are opportunities to advance the efficiency further by
integrating heating and cooling systems into the thermodynamic cycles. Two major sources
of inefficiency are friction losses in the mechanical turbine and losses due to incomplete
combustion. A feedwater system could be used to cool various stages of the combustor and
turbine to reduce friction. That same feedwater after absorbing heat could be used to heat
fuel lines; heating fuel prior to combustion can improve efficiencies. The feedwater would
then pass through a condenser to be cooled and used again throughout the system. Again
it’s unclear what percentage of engines could benefit from an aftermarket modification.

Finally there exists technology in carbon scrubbers that could serve to capture CO2 as it exits
through the exhaust. These technologies are limited and mostly still in the design phase.

There is room to improve the efficiencies on the usage of natural gas as a heating fuel. While
gas furnaces and boilers are typically more efficient than turbines, there is a tremendous
amount of heat loss that could be avoided with simple fixes. For example, it is estimated that
the average American can save up to 10% on their heating bill by installing a programmable
thermostat and lowering the heat during the hours of the day they aren’t home. An estimated
12% of heat is lost through doorways and electrical outlets the majority of which can be
avoided by installing simple draft blockers. More complex improvements include upgrades to
heating systems and water heaters, replacement windows and blown in foam insulation.
Some states already offer free evaluations as well as interest free loans and rebates for
improving home heating efficiencies. There is a tremendous amount of energy loss that can
be avoided by expanding that model nationwide to both commercial and residential.
Additionally, expanding the number of interest free federal home improvement loans and
increasing rebate values could provide further reduction in losses.

Improving efficiencies and losses could serve the environment further by curbing our natural
gas consumption. This model only explored the reduction of CO2 emissions, however there
are other environmental and climate change consequences to natural gas. Fracking has
been linked to ground water contamination, various health concerns and increased seismic
activity. The extraction of natural gas also produces methane as a bi-product. Methane gas
is considered to be 34 times stronger at trapping heat than CO2 and there are fewer ways of
removing it from the atmosphere. One study concluded that when expanded over a 20 year
timeline, natural gas can only be considered cleaner than coal if methane losses do not

11 | P a g e
exceed 3.2%. Approximately 40% of methane leaks could be prevented by inspectors with
infrared cameras spotting leaks early. Additional improvements could be made by replacing
conventional pressure monitoring pneumatic controllers to lower-bleed designs. Due to the
significant effects of methane, at a minimum legislation should be put in place to force the
implementation of those two improvements.

Reducing Petroleum by 45%

Petroleum represents 2,376 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in the US, reducing it by
45% would eliminate 1069 million metric tons. Unlike coal and natural gas, very little
petroleum is used to generate indirect energy. Referring again to Figure 2 on page 7, 5% of
petroleum is used for heating homes and buildings, 23% is used in industry as a direct energy
source and 72% is used for transportation. The US is unique in that 28% of total emissions
are a byproduct of transportation, while for the rest of the world transportation makes up 14%
of total emissions. This is likely due to a lack of reliable public transportation and inevitably
more cars on the road. The most logical first steps are to repair, replace and add new modes
of public transportation as well as improve the overall fuel economy of vehicles on the road.

America’s disparity of public transportation has a great deal to do with transit times,
accessibility, and passenger loads. The American Public Transportation Association defines a
heavy rail system as an electric railway with the capacity to handle a heavy volume of traffic.
They are capable of higher speeds a larger passenger load than light rail equivalents. Only
14 US cities have metro networks that can be considered heavy rail. The New York City
Subway is the best example of a fully functioning network. At 245 miles long its 27 lines
cover 472 stations its annual ridership is 2,699,536,300, the next closes is Chicago with
230,204,200. Approximately 56.5% of New Yorkers use public transit as their method of
commute for work. The next system by ranking is Washington D.C. which has a 37% of
commuters using public transit. Of the 11 cities with ridership above 25%, all of them have a
heavy rail system. With the funding allocated in this infrastructure plan, an estimated 25
heavy rail projects and 50 light rail projects could be funded over 10 years. That number
increases with equivalent state and city funding.

In addition to improving public transit, in order to reach the target 45% reduction it is also
necessary to vastly improve the average fuel economy on the road. Replacing city buses and
school buses with electric equivalents would remove 20 metric tons of CO2. Medium and

12 | P a g e
heavy duty trucks represent 426 metric tons of CO2, a 30% improvement to fuel economy
would remove 128 metric tons of CO2. There are several proven methods to increase fuel
economy for these type of vehicles. Modifications to the truck to narrow the gap between the
truck and trailer, side skirts, and boat tails designed to reduce tail winds can cumulatively lead
to a 14% improvement in fuel economy. In addition, Tesla has begun production on an
electric alternative to these vehicles. While the price tag may be too high for most trucking
companies, tax incentives or a carbon tax deterrent could shift the economics in years to
come to favor electric alternatives. Driving these vehicles during hours of less traffic would
also improve efficiency further.

Passenger vehicles and light duty trucks represent 772 metric tons and 334 metric tons
respectively. A reduction of 60% to passenger vehicles and 35% to light duty trucks would
remove an additional 580 metric tons of CO2. A portion of that requires an increase in public
transit usage, the remaining reductions require improvements to the average fuel economy on
the road. The average age of passenger vehicles on the road is 11.6 years. That would
suggest that average vehicle year in 2018 when this data was taken, was 2002, when the
average estimated fuel economy for cars was 29 mpg and for light duty trucks 21 mpg. By
2030, if following the same trend, the average vehicle year on the road would be from 2018
where passenger vehicles have an average fuel economy of 38 mpg and light duty trucks
have an average of 27 mpg. That’s around a 30% improvement for both vehicles. This
number can be improved upon further. More aggressive fuel economy requirements from the
government could force automakers to increase efficiency in newer models. Proven
programs like cash for clunkers could also increase the average year of vehicles on the road.
Finally, promoting electric and hybrid alternatives with vehicle rebate programs could be very
effective in increasing the fuel economy even further.

While transportation represents the 72% of the petroleum usage in the US, there is still 23%
used in industry. The 23% includes heating industrial buildings, generating electricity and as
a fuel source for machinery (gas and diesel). The strategy outlined in the eliminate coal
section on page 8 outlines a pathway to building a smart grid capable of generating enough
power to replace all direct and indirect energy sources. Addressing this 23% is a function of
replacing the direct energy produced for industrial sectors with indirect energy generated by a
clean electrical grid. Diesel and gas powered machinery can be replaced with electric
alternatives. The introduction of a carbon tax that increases over time would serve as an

13 | P a g e
effective motivator to initiate this change. Additional tax incentives could expedite the
process.

Finally, there remains 5% of usage involved in heating buildings and homes. Due to
increases in cost, many home owners have already begun the transition to alternatives like
natural gas, propane and electric heating. Changing to these alternatives can greatly reduce
the carbon impact of each home. In many states there already exists incentive programs and
interest free loans to facilitate the switch from oil to a cleaner alternative. According to census
data taken in 2013, the vast majority of oil usage can be found in the northeast region of the
country, see figure 3 below. This is likely due to older homes and infrastructure where natural
gas and propane may not be an option. State incentive programs in these states may already
be addressing the majority of homes capable of changing. Investments in new heating
technology may be able to close the gap, however no additional federal funding is
recommended.

Figure 3

A Nationwide High Speed Rail

The section above details the importance of public transit in short term emissions reduction,
however for the long term plan more aggressive measures are needed. Even as we transition
to more electric vehicles, the charging of those vehicles requires additional power generation
from the electric grid. Public transportation is significantly more efficient than individual
vehicles. In addition, currently no technology exists to replace air travel with an electric
alternative. A nationwide high speed rail network will lead to an increase in public

14 | P a g e
transportation as well as a decrease in air travel. It would also promote domestic tourism and
add a low cost alternative for those who cannot afford to fly.

The construction of this rail was separated into 5 phases, the first 2 phases being fully funded
within the first 10 years. Phases 1 and 2 are critical for success of the rail system, while
phase 3 and 4 expand its coverage to other major cities. Phase 5 is a bit extraneous but
could help smaller cities that thrive on tourism. The cost modeling used three existing high
speed rail projects. California’s, though ultimately cancelled, was estimated to costs $125
million per mile of railway, although a lot of the cost was attributed to difficult terrain, a
problem that may not exist in other areas of the country. France’s high speed rail averaged
$51.6 million per mile of rail and Germany’s averaged $32.3 million per mile. For this model
and average of all three at $70 million per mile was used. The model also included $150
billion in federal funding for the construction of rail stations to be matched with $50 billion from
local states and municipalities.

A large portion of the cost of this rail is influenced by the refinement and construction of
adequate terrain. The strategy to the ‘smart grid’ is to use terrain already allocated for the
electric, water and information grid. By utilizing this space, it’s possible to save time and
money with regards to acquiring and cultivating the land for all these projects.

Germany has an annual ridership of 2 billion people on its rail network with just ¼ of the
population of the United States. Japan has an annual ridership of 8 billion people with just 1/3
of the population. Assuming a conservative 2 billion riders upon completion of phase 1 and 2,
if an average of $20 per ticket sold was applied towards the cost of building phases 3, 4, and
5, it could fully fund the remaining phases over the course of its completion. Additional
revenue would be used for maintenance, staffing, and a portion of the proceeds going to the
states hosting the tracks.

Appendix A shows the 5 phases of the high speed rail, as well as estimated costs.

Improvements in Agriculture
Deforestation and agriculture are responsible for 9% of the emissions generated in the US
and 24% of emissions worldwide. In addition, the majority of emissions in this category are
composed of methane gas, which as previously stated is a far more potent greenhouse gas
with limited methods of removing from the atmosphere. The most effective way to reduce

15 | P a g e
emissions is to improve efficiencies in the agricultural process as well as limit waste in food
production. This will require a combination of federal initiatives, new regulations, support for
small local farms, and the creation of programs to encourage sustained growth among farms
as well as reduce food waste. Changes to practices in agriculture can not only limit
emissions generate, but also shift farmland from a carbon producer to a carbon sink.

A large portion of farming emissions can be attributed to the preparation of soil. In a balanced
ecosystem CO2 is captured from the air and converted by plants in the photosynthesis
process. It terms of trees, the carbon can be stored as wood. But CO2 can also be captured
in the form of humus in top soil. Humus contains many of the nutrients that can be attributed
to healthy soil. The formation of humus requires the presence of microbes, bacteria and fungi
but it also depends on plant sugars (liquid carbon) as a form of energy. In the same way that
trees require green leaves to sequester carbon into wood, the production of humus requires
green, growing plants. Currently, less than 10% of farmland in the US used cover crops, and
the majority of agricultural land is considered a carbon producer instead of a carbon sink.
Changes in farming practice could not only shift the effects of agriculture on climate change,
but they could also improve the quality of soil, leading to more abundant yields long term.
Some farming practices that affect the quality of soil are frequent tillage, monocultures,
biocides, and artificial fertilizers.

Growing cover crops between cash crop seasons has proven to improve soil quality, water
quality, and boost yields over time. The crops can help return nutrients back to the soil as
well as protect the ground from erosion and unnecessary water runoff. They also continue to
remove CO2 from the air during the off season. The cost of planting the cover crops has
some factor on their usage. In a survey in Iowa, it was found that 60% of farmers stopped
using cover crops once financial support for the program ended.

Tillage as a practice can offer an advantage in preparation of seedbeds, weed suppression,

leveling the soil, activating manure and pesticides etc. However, it has serious impacts to the
health of the soil and the agricultural ecosystem. Microscopic and macroscopic pores exist
within the soil which allows water to rapidly infiltrate soil, where it can be stored safe from
evaporation. Tilling the soil destroys these pores and seals of the soil with a crust layer on
the surface. Water exposed to the direct sunlight evaporates rapidly and causes the soil to
heat up to higher than normal temperatures. Not only does this create unnecessary water
loss, but water vapor in the air can also act as a greenhouse gas. During intense rain, water

16 | P a g e
runs of the soil and is carried into nearby streams which bring harmful biocides and fertilizers
into other waterways. Over tilling can also be harmful to the microorganisms responsible for
creating the humus in healthy topsoil. This increases the demand for fertilizer.

Monocultures, the growing of a single crop, can also affect soil quality. Crops that are grown
specifically for harvest do no self-mulch and are more susceptible to pests and diseases.
Again, this increases the reliance on biocides and fertilizers. Set aside land programs where
a rotating portion of land is dedicated to conservation crops such as grass, legumes and small
grain, can give land time to reclaim some of the nutrients. This land can be used for grazing
livestock, legumes in particular have the added benefit of increasing weight gain in livestock.
The set aside program was introduced in 1970 but remove in the 1996 farm bill.
Reintroducing this program or something similar would be beneficial for sustained growth as
well as carbon sequestration.

Biocides such as pesticides, weed killers, herbicides and fungicides while effective in removal
of unwanted materials can also be harmful to the microorganisms necessary for creating
healthy top soil. They often can exist in the soil for decades. New regulations on the types of
biocides permissible will likely be required.

Artificial fertilizers can often be attributed to an increase in early yields at the expense to the
long term abundance of the field. Single crop yields are unable to absorb all of the fertilizer
used, the remaining fertilizer can disrupt the balance of the microorganisms in the soil by
stimulating the growth of ‘bad’ bacteria. The runoff of these artificial fertilizers can damage
ecosystems in water bodies as well. The insoluble properties make it impossible to be diluted
in the water, when added to water it provides nutrients for algae, creating overgrowth and
depriving water below the surface of valuable oxygen and sunlight. The increased demand
for artificial fertilizer can be attributed to factors listed above but also by the exporting of crops
grown. Crops being exported take valuable nutrients out of the soil that are not returned in
the form of natural fertilizer. The continuous crop production without the balance of local
livestock can lead to irreversible degradation of the soil and will eventually lead to desert
properties in the land. The portion of crops exported for feed should be examined and may
require additional restrictions to trade.

Agroforestry involves the strategic addition of trees and shrubs paired with crops to
farmlands. These trees/shrubs can produce a variety of products that can be used, but they

17 | P a g e
also offer a number of benefits to the sustained use of farmland. Alley cropping uses rows of
trees spaced between rows of crops. They can offer farmers a more diverse income stream,
but also can improve crop production by a number of ways. Trees provide a wind break
protecting crops and seeds. They limit the amount of water runoff protecting the soil from
erosion and local bodies of water from the harmful effects previously mentioned. Crops can
benefit from increased pollination, as trees and shrubs provide homes for local pollinators.
Trees have the ability to reach water and nutrients deeper in the soil and return them to
lifecycle of the ecosystem. Silvopastures involve the combination of trees and grazing land.
The trees can provide the farm with future investments in the wood or nuts produced. They
also provided shelter from both heat and cold, extending grazing seasons. Grazing as
opposed to other feeding methods, also offers a benefit to the land. By controlling competing
bushes and undergrowth, more nutrients can absorbed by the tree and fire hazards are
reduced. Trees used in this way are a very effective method of carbon sequestration. The
creation of federal programs and initiatives could help educate farmers on the benefits of
these methods of agriculture. In addition, extra financial steps, such as providing the trees
could benefit the long term strategy of net zero emissions.

Food waste also plays an important role. According to the Center of Biological Diversity “An
estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing
households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually. Also wasted have been the
resources that went into producing that food, including 25 percent of all fresh water
consumed, 13 percent of the total carbon emitted in order to produce food, and 80 million
acres of farmland used in the United States . Uneaten food is also the single largest source of
trash in municipal landfills, attracting wildlife and providing an unnatural and often toxic food
source It’s only by preventing food waste from the start that we can begin to address the
environmental footprint and inequalities of our food system.” The vast majority of waste that
is created is sent to landfills, where it decomposes with a lack of oxygen and generates
methane gas. Food waste is the third largest contributor to methane gas levels in the US.
Waste occur on all levels of the supply and consumer chain. Food grown that is considered
inadequate for grocery stores is often discarded. These are usually cosmetic defects and do
not affect the nutritional value or safety of the food. Food at groceries that goes unsold is
often thrown out instead of reused or recycled. Consumers waste approximately 20% of the
food purchased from grocery stores.

18 | P a g e
Food from farm to grocery stores that is rejected has the best chance at being reused. This
food could be used for food banks or programs like meals on wheels. The creation of a food
collection agency could offer tax incentives for farms to donate this food. Another use of this
food could be to create a system for American schools in which all public schools would be
required to provide free breakfast and lunch meals for their students. More than 13 million
American children come from food insecure homes where they do not receive enough food or
proper nutritious food. This program could be subsidized by the government using this food.

Waste from grocery stores is due to unsold meats, produce, etc. Often times, grocery stores
will overstock shelves regardless of demand. Some of the food wasted is not considered to
be spoiled. Local food banks could take advantage of this food. Additional food, depending
on level of spoilage, could be provided to local farms food for livestock feed or natural
fertilizers for crops to help restore critical nitrogen and phosphorous to the soil. Additional
incentives could be provided to grocery stores to affect the amount of waste produced.

Food that is wasted at a consumer level is harder to capture. One aspect may be related to
presumed expiration of food that is still safe to consume. The FDA does not require or
regulate expiration dates placed on food. This allows producers to add dates that reflect
either a ‘best by’ date or dates that artificially inflate the need for new food. Adding a
requirement enforced by the FDA for all producers to mandate a true expiration date and
audit those dates could prevent some food waste on the consumer level.

Repairing and Replacing the Nations Water Grid

The majority of the water infrastructure in the US was created in the mid-20th century. An
estimated 22% of the infrastructure is over 50 years old. As this infrastructure approaches its
maximum lifespan, it suffers from particulates in the drinking water as well as leaking systems
and bursting pipes. Approximately 240,000 water main breaks occur every year and the
combination of breaks and leaks in the system account for 2.1 trillion gallons (14% of total
usage) lost every year.

51,356 community water systems are currently in use. Out of that just 8,674 systems (17%)
serve 92% of the population. This has multiple consequence. Around 80% of drinking water
comes from surface waters such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Having such a large portion
of the population dependent on a small percentage of these sources puts a dependency on

19 | P a g e
those bodies of water. Water shortages are more likely in times of drought or when
environmental damage occurs to those bodies of water. The remaining 83% of systems do
not have the proper economy of scales to finance their maintenance. As a result,
approximately 63 million Americans do not have access to reliably clean drinking water in
their homes. Although 90% of Americans receive drinking water from a public water system,
the last decade has seen a 5% decline in usage of municipal drinking water. This can be
attributed to the increase in bottled water either by necessity or convenience. There are
additional environmental consequences to this. For example, the production of plastic water
bottles is responsible for the use of 17 million barrels of oil in the US alone, enough to fuel 1.3
million cars a year.

The creation of a smart grid water system has immediate benefits. First, it addresses the dire
need of repairing or rebuilding the existing infrastructure, a plan that on its own would costs
an estimated $1 trillion. Additionally, adding sensors to monitor water flow and shut off valves
intermittently within the system could prevent or limit the number of leaks and breaks within
the system. Sensors to monitor quality could also ensure all Americans have access to clean
drinking water. Utilizing the grid being created for electricity and transportation would also
allow water systems to be more evenly distributed throughout the country. This would
remove the dependency on fewer bodies of water and alleviate the effects of droughts.
Making water a federal subsidy instead of a municipal one would prevent areas with less
economic prosperity from falling into a state of decaying infrastructure.

The transition from the existing decaying infrastructure to a new smart grid would improve
upon millions of American lives, however it also has monetary benefits. Reducing water loss
by even 50% would save an estimated $25 billion dollars a year. Energy used to produce and
transport the water would also be saved. For example, in South Bend, Indiana, the city
partnered with IBM to implement an Intelligent Water software platform to improve
wastewater management. The implementation of this platform reduced wet weather over
flows by 23% and brought dry weather overflows down to near zero. This avoided nearly
$120 million dollars in infrastructure investments and $600,000 of fees associated with sewer
discharge.

20 | P a g e
The Need for a Fiber Optic Network
The current state of the nation’s internet network has little effect on the strategy in reducing
carbon emissions. However, there is a financial and social impact and utilizing the
development of the smart grid would be an efficient way to provide an upgrade.

Internet connectivity has quickly become a crucial part of modern society. Still, 25% of
Americans do not have internet service at home and while internet service has expanded for
decades, its adoption has slowed in recent years. The main contributing factors are cost and
access. About 8% of households say they cannot afford internet, while 20% of homes do not
have access to service that provides speeds of 25mb/s, the minimum the FCC says is
necessary for most online applications. There is also an issue of a lack of competition within
the marketplace. About 55% of US households have just one provider with speeds of
25mb/s. The United States ranks 114th out of 196 ranked nations in terms of internet costs,
while ranking 10th in terms of internet speed.

Fiber optic cable offers speeds of between 75 and 100 times broadband alternatives.
According to a survey done by Goldman Sachs, it would cost approximately $140 billion to
provide the majority of the country with fiber optic internet. A separate study also concluded
that each doubling of internets speeds in a modern economy there is a .3% associated growth
of GDP. At that rate, the investment becomes a net positive upon completion after three
years of GDP growth.

The completion of a new fiber optic grid could either be used to subsidize internet for all
Americans or could be leased to existing internet providers. Individual states or municipalities
could negotiate costs or there could be a fixed cost model. This limits the economic
disruption of removing these existing companies and provides an additional revenue stream
for the government. It would also address concerns about a government controlled internet.

In addition to economic growth, there are security advantages to a new fiber optic network.
Cybersecurity remains a top threat to America’s safety and security. A separate intranet
being built could connect all of the utilities used on the smart grid and eliminate the possibility
of foreign hackers disrupting or damaging them. This same intranet could also connect
federal buildings allowing interdepartmental data transfer to be unexposed to outside threats.

21 | P a g e
Investments in New Technology
Achieving the IPCC goals for 2030 and 2050 will require advancements in many new
technologies. The following are a list of example technologies that could benefit from
additional government funding.

Large Scale Energy Storage: In order to decrease dependencies on fossil fuels there will
need to be improvements in large scale energy storage. Improvements in energy storage will
diminish the reliance on nuclear and hydro energy and allow to transfer to a portfolio that is
mostly renewables.

Carbon Sequestration and Scrubbing: There are plenty of natural carbon sequestration
options that should be invested in, but large scale artificial sequestration has multiple
advantages. It creates a buffer if there are delays in reducing our carbon output. They also
have an added advantage of reversing the effects of climate change if a 100% renewable
portfolio is ever achieved.

Nuclear Fusion: This technology remains a consistent dream of the scientific community, but
little advancement has been made. Some of it can be attributed to a lack of funding. Fusion
has immense potential as an energy source and unlike fission reactions, fusion does not
require radioactive material. As vehicles become electric and added to the electric grid and
the direct energy created in industry is replaced with indirect energy form the electric grid, the
energy generated by our electric grid could potentially triple by 2050.

22 | P a g e
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Table 2 below shows spending per category over 10 years. As seen in the graphs on page 9,
some spending is incremental. Initial heavy investments in energy production lead to the
quickest results. Consequently, the high speed rail as a slower ramp up allowing for design
and land acquisition to occur first before construction begins.

Category Investment in USD over 10 years

Energy Production 5.35E+12

High Speed Rail 1.25E+12
Improvements to Vehicle Fuel Economy 1.00E+11
City and School Bus Replacement Program 1.20E+11
City Subways/Commuter Rails 2.80E+11
Forestry 1.00E+10
Agricultural Incentives 4.00E+10
Nationwide Fiber Optic Internet 1.00E+11
Building Upgrades 1.00E+11
Water Grid Upgrade 9.00E+11
Scientific Advancements 5.00E+10
Administration and Design 2.00E+11

Total Investment by Year 8.50E+12

Table 2

23 | P a g e
APPENDIX A
Phase 1
Total Cost: $537 Billion
Phase 2

2|Page
Total Cost: $489 Billion
Phase 1 & 2

3|Page
Total Cost: $1.03 Trillion
Phase 3
Total Cost: $252 Billion

4|Page
Phase 4

5|Page
Total Cost: $373 Billion
Phase 5

6|Page
Total Cost: $157 Billion
Phases 1-5

7|Page
Total Cost: $1.8 Trillion
Civilian National
Service

BUILDING SKILLS, EQUITY AND A SENSE OF COMMUNITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS ____________________________________________________ 3
Goals __________________________________________________________________ 3
Strategy ________________________________________________________________ 3
Financial Implications______________________________________________________ 3
Funding Elements ________________________________________________________ 3

STRATEGY ____________________________________________________ 4
Home Construction and Repair ______________________________________________ 4
Home Retention __________________________________________________________ 4
Food Recycling Program ___________________________________________________ 4
Public Defenders _________________________________________________________ 5
Inmate Reintegration ______________________________________________________ 5
Immigration Centers _______________________________________________________ 5
Learning Centers _________________________________________________________ 5
Additional Opportunities ____________________________________________________ 5

2|Page
SYNOPSIS
Goals
 Create a network of civilian service opportunities.
 Provide a pathway to subsidize college tuition for participants or help with job placement.
 Build a sense of community for participants and those who benefit from their service.

Strategy
 Create a network of civilian service opportunities for the sectors listed in the strategy
section. These opportunities would offer a modest salary, subsidized housing, and
subsidized tuition.
- These would ideally be for high school graduates looking to build additional skills for the
labor force or additional finances to put towards a subsidized tuition.
- Former felons could also benefit, helping them reintegrate into society as well as
relocate away from potential situations that might lead to additional incarceration.
 Develop a system with universities and colleges where potential students could apply prior
to time in service for future years of enrollment in the school.
 Provide relocation assistance so workers could migrate to states to expand service
opportunities. This would also be a method of developing residency for in state college
tuition costs.
 Provide $15 an hour salary to civilians in service. Provide up to $15,000 for tuition, books,
etc. for each year of service, with a maximum of $60,000. Provide subsidized housing
during time in service.
 Build a sense of community between service members and local residents and expand life
experiences for those involved.

Financial Implications
A $60 billion dollar a year program would provide opportunities for 1 million jobs, matching
military service opportunities. After accounting for costs in salary, tuition and housing, this
would leave roughly $15 billion for operational costs.

Funding Elements
Funding would ideally be pulled from an already exorbitant military budget, requiring a roughly
8% reduction in military spending.

3|Page
STRATEGY
Creating a civilian national service would allow American’s to build a better sense of
community and experience different walks of life. This would also offer roughly 1.5 million
Americans an opportunity to earn $15 an hour, money for college tuition, relocation
assistance and subsidized housing. This program would ideally focus on low income and
minority applicants first, but could be expanded if successful. This would be a tremendous
benefit to states with declining populations as it would bring in additional spending and
support for social programs. The following programs could benefit from this service.

Home Construction and Repair

Roughly 18,600,000 homes in the United States remain vacant. These homes could be
brought up to a standard of living making them available for subsidized housing for members
of the national service (civilian or military), low income housing, veteran subsidized housing,
homeless shelters or halfway houses. These repairs could also help bring homes of low
income residents up to current safety standards and reduce the carbon impact of homes.
Programs like habitat for humanity could also benefit from additional paid workers.

Home Retention
Millions of homes have been foreclosed on and 2.3 million people are evicted every year.
Some of those homes could be retained simply by educating and adjusting spending for the
individuals that live there. Helping home owners balance their budgets, working with banks to
make loans more affordable, or creating rentable space are all ways to help individuals avoid
eviction.

Food Recycling Program

The infrastructure plan also included lists a number of ways in which food is being wasted
along different stages from farm to table. Most of this food can be repurposed for use in food
banks or in school systems to provide meals for students. However, there is not currently an
appropriate system in place for capturing unused food from grocery stores or from farms that
designate food unable to sell based solely on cosmetic features. A distribution and storage
network could eliminated food waste as well as provide food to those in need.

4|Page
Public Defenders
Currently many public defenders are overwhelmed with unreasonable caseloads. In 2017,
Missouri’s 320 public defenders handled 80,000 cases. While volunteers would not fully fix
the problem, the could alleviate the workload by handling some of the less critical details and
scheduling. This would be an excellent opportunity for ex-felons to help improve a system
that may have wronged them or for any individual to build experience towards a law degree. It
also has the added benefit of making individuals more aware of how pervasive the problem is.

Inmate Reintegration
Approximately 76.6% of prisoners released are rearrested within 5 years of their release, with
56.7% occurring within the first year. A major contributor is a lack of opportunity for ex-felons
and being surrounded by others with criminal history. Creating a system of reintegration
could help mitigate the problem. On the last day of their sentence, inmates could be taken to
an office where they would be provided cleans cloths and a suit for interviews. They would
spend the day working with servicemen to build a resume, go over interview skills, and sort
through a national network of opportunities. Relocation assistance could also be provided as
well as subsidized housing for the first year. For first time offenders, a bank account would be
created with a small stipend to help them build equity. Additional services could be provided
at prisons themselves for inmates approaching release.

Immigration Centers
Currently there is an overload of immigrants seeking asylum in America. Processing their
cases and providing adequate housing and services in the meantime requires additional
manpower. American’s who speak multiple languages could be helpful as translators or to
help newly documented immigrants learn the language and help them assimilate.

Learning Centers
Currently there is a decline in retail shopping and America’s malls and shopping centers are
quickly becoming vacant. Adding learning centers like small aquariums, children’s museums,
etc. could help bring people back to these malls and shopping centers. They would also
provide early education for children and teens and help build a sense of community.

Additional Opportunities
Some additional opportunities are, but are not limited to, animal shelters, national parks,
museums, the Red Cross, libraries, the YMCA, etc.

5|Page