A cap-and-trade scheme would make flights more expensive. However, I doubt that this would reduce the emissions caused by aviation. It's typically the rich that fly airplanes. The poor don't fly long distances a lot. Apart from the rich, there are other sectors such as government bureacrats, diplomats and the military that don't respond well to price incentives. Additionally, aviation is a growth industry.
The best way to tackle the problem is therefore to impose fees on fossil fuel and use the proceeds to fund carbon-negative activities, such as air capture and improving land usage (biochar, afforestation, etc). This will have the double impact of discouraging the use of fossil fuel, while at the same time encouraging carbon-negative activities, which makes the overall policy doubly effective. In conclusion, aviation seems a good place to start with fees tied to funding of carbon-negative activities. At UN climate talks in Bonn, the world's poorest nations proposed a levy of about $6 on every flight (excluding air freight). The levy could raise up to $10 billion per year and would increase the average price of an international long-haul fare by less than 1% for standard class passengers, but up to $62 for people traveling first class, according to a report in the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/06/aviation-climate-change-tax In the light of those amounts, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that fees imposed on conventional jet fuel could raise billions per year. Proceeds could then be used to fund rebates on air capture of carbon dioxide, which could be pumped into the bags on location to enhance algae growth. Air capture devices could be powered by surplus energy from offshore wind turbines. With the help of such funding, the entire infrastructure could be set up quickly, helping the environment, creating job opportunities, making the US less dependent on oil imports, while leaving us with more land and water to grow food, resulting in lower food prices. http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/funding-co2-air-capture Cheers! Sam Carana On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:44 PM, dsw_s <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
