Keith Forrester: Meredith Article 16 proponents/teen speakers were way off base

To The Daily Sun,

As a board-licensed professional environmental engineer of 35+ years, BSCE/MSEE Environmental Engineering, five years internship, and 40 years of experience in air pollution mathematical modeling, emissions generation and reductions, air pollution control technologies, and permitting and compliance, I spoke in opposition to Article 16 at the March, 2020, Meredith Town Meeting.

I support implementation of scientific based, best-management environmental engineering practices for air pollution, as is provided since 1963 under the Clean Air Act and its legislative and regulatory modifications to date, including regulation derived from ongoing studies of CO2 emission controls and impacts.

There are numerous environmental engineering and sciences experts who work for federal and state environmental protection agencies, who provide good engineering and science practices for managing CO2 where needed. The Clean Air Act also requires input from regulated community which retain highly educated and experienced environmental experts.

Article 16 proponents and their teenage speakers at the Meredith Town Meeting, were clearly not from that educated and experienced group.

The are many sound reasons for rejecting the basis of Article 16. Here are a few:

— Fossil fuel end-users are the CO2 polluters: Article 16 ignores the fact that the clear majority of CO2 emissions are generated from fossil fuel users, NOT THE PRODUCERS. Stating that fossil fuel producers are “the CO2 polluters”, is incorrect.

Electricity and steam-heat generators, end-users of electricity from plants such as the coal-fired Eversource power plant, home and business heaters, and petroleum fueled automobile operators, are the clear majority CO2 polluters by choice. The USEPA has reported FOSSIL FUEL usage at 65 percent of global greenhouse gases.

New Hampshire CO2 generated from transportation fuel is 6.87-million metric tons annual (MMT), followed by residential heating fuel at 2.78 MMT, electric power generation fuel at 1.82 MMT, commercial heating fuel at 1.31 MMT, and industrial heating and use (including fossil fuel producers) at the lowest number of 0.78 MMT.

— N.H. property owners will carry the CO2 TAX BURDEN, not the producers: It is both ignorant and incorrect to claim that the proposed CO2 TAX will be paid by the oil, coal, and gas producers. As the former Exxon Co, USA corporate environmental specialist and engineer, and gasoline, oil, diesel, and gas purchaser since 1975, I can report that the fuel producers will SIMPLY PASS ON THE COST of any CO2 TAX TO THE CONSUMERS at the pump. As an example, the 1984 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) regulation compliance costs and all costs associated with groundwater remediation from leaking tanks and lines, has been paid by the consumer-polluters.

— N.H. property owners will pay the largest CO2 Tax induced fuel costs, since many fossil fuel users working indirectly or directly for property owners, will pass-on their increased fuel costs.

The proposed CO2 Tax will create a sharp increase in fuel costs to large blocks of heating oil and auto fuel users including school buildings, town and city buildings and operations (DPW), and government buildings and operations. All freight will have a CO2 TAX fuel surcharge, increasing the costs of all transported and manufactured goods.

The Article 16 proposal to return the CO2 Tax to “all residents,” would clearly be unfair and mostly burdensome to property owners and auto fuel purchasers. Furthermore, when has government ever returned taxes to us residents?

Keith Forrester, P.E., Pte.

Meredith