So all of a sudden you are tax experts. Why don't you stick to climate control issues about which you know something..
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:40 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Funding air capture and CCS Not that I'm a big fan of flying, but it is more economically sensible to tax where substitutes are readily available. For example, coal fired power stations can be replaced by wind. I suggest that we move this discussion off list, it's not geoeng. I note United Airlines? are trialling biofuel planes, and I note further that biofuels may have a higher net carbon impact than fossil fuels. A 2009/5/9 Stephen Salter <[email protected]> Hi All It might be possible to fly without releasing carbon. The attached paper suggest how this might work. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 [email protected] http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Sam Carana wrote: > 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-ta x > > 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 > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
