Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates: o Electrons cross both state and country borders. Theres a whole futures industry on buying electricity for speculative market demand. For example, California in <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0> 2000.
o All electrons look the same. Its impossible to look at an electron on the grid and say, hey, that electron came from a coal fired plant in Russia and that one came from solar cells in Tucson. We have the same problem with shady black markets that move tons of cash. At least cash comes in suitcases owned by people and moves far slower than the speed of light. And, since the grid uses alternating current, electrons really only move about most 3000 miles before they make a 180 turn round trip back to where they started from. Its the electromagnetic field that crosses borders. If we raise the price of our electricity through carbon offsets, then up goes the demand of some other defecting countrys coal-produced force field. Theyd make much more off the market differential than any CO2 subsidy theyd get after the administration took its share. This recursively works for all products that depend on electricity, such as aluminum cans, airplanes, and vacations. Right now, the US can produce petroleum-driven electricity far cleaner, cheaper and efficiently than any third-world country. If the goal is clean, wouldnt we rather get our electricity from us than them? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:54 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Howard > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we > might be able to compete. :-) > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > > growth! > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > Time to spend > some money on figuring out how to do it! > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by > 2025. [1] > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > [2], and > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > China) are at > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > dozens of > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > technology (etc). > > [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > [6] > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> ly_article.aspx?id=17963 > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
