If aviation is a major source that should be reduced by flying less, wouldn't that come out in a straightforward cap-and-trade system?
On May 8, 10:41 pm, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree, John, that there should be fees on all greenhouse gas > emissions, but I especially focused on aviation, since there are few > ways to fly without causing emissions, so it seems a suitable place to > start with the idea to make polluters pay for the cost of cleaning > things up. > > Good point Andrew, fees may contravene the Warsaw convention - that's > why all this should be worked out at C4 (the Copenhagen Climate Change > Conference, later this year). > > I propose that a new treaty be negotiated at C4 that includes aviation > emissions. I suggest that such emissions can best be offset by > carbon-negative activities such as carbon air capture and storage > (CAC&S). > > Such an arrangement would help get CAC&S as an industry off the > ground, and further innovation and economies of scale will then bring > the cost of CAC&S down substantially, which would be in the interest > of air carriers that have to offset their emissions. > > Fees could be imposed on conventional jet fuel at the airport where > refueling takes place. The proceeds could then be used to fund CAC&S > which could take place anywhere in the world. Government doesn't have > to operate all of this, but it should check that gases are indeed > captured and kept out of the atmosphere (and, I should add, the > oceans). > > Air carriers could also fund CAC&S facilities in advance, which could > give them credits equivalent to the fees they would otherwise have to > pay. Since safe storage is a major part of the operation, I can see > that capture could well take place close to, say, limestone deposits > that could soak up the captured carbon. Market mechanisms can best > sort out such details. > > Alternatively, captured carbon could be reused in ways that replace > fossil fuel usage. In that case, there won't be financial assistance, > since there will be no storage. Yet, it will be financially attractive > since the industries that buy the carbon would save on the emission > fees they would otherwise have to pay if they bought CO2 that was > produced from fossil fuel. I've discussed that in more detail in the > article at:http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/funding-co2-air-capture > > The question is what will be the effective way to reduce greenhouse > gases. In part, that will depend on what's politically most > attractive. I can see the logic of making polluters pay for the cost > of cleaning things up. Extending that logic back to the past would > make western countries also pay for past emissions by funding extra > air capture, but all this should be worked out at C4. > > Generally, I believe the best way to go is to reach a broad commitment > at C4 to reduce greenhouse gases, while leaving it up each country to > decide how best to achieve the agreed reduction targets. That > agreement could be backed up by the threat of fees imposed on products > imported from countries that fail to reach their targets, and the > proceeds of these fees could then be used to fund CAC&S. > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Andrew Lockley > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I believe such taxes would contravene the Warsaw convention > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Convention > > A > > > 2009/5/8 John Nissen <[email protected]> > > >> Hi Sam, > > >> You wrote on your blogspot: > >>http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/ > > >> "In conclusion, it would make sense to impose fees on conventional jet > >> fuel and use the proceeds of those fees to fund air capture of carbon > >> dioxide." > >> I would go further, and have a fixed levy on all fossil carbon extraction: > >> enough levy to pay for air capture and putting more than the same amount of > >> carbon back in the ground. Fuels would become very much more expensive for > >> everyone, but fuel use would help to reduce CO2 levels, since more carbon > >> would be put in the ground than taken out. There would be a rebate where > >> fuels were used with CCS, to give a financial incentive for the CCS. > >> (Effectively CCS would be paid for out of proceeds of the levy, according > >> to > >> how much CO2 was captured and sequestered.) > > >> BTW, I have suggested this to Prof Hansen, who is attacking the > >> cap-and-trade system as the "temple of doom" here: > >>http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090505_TempleOfDoom.pdf > > >> Cheers, > > >> John > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
