> it is more economically sensible to tax where substitutes are readily > available.
If you're taxing to change behavior, yes. If you're taxing to raise revenue without distorting markets, no. If we tax high-carbon activities to fund mitigation in other areas, we're taxing for revenue; if we tax high-carbon activities to encourage substitution of lower-carbon alternatives, we're taxing to change behavior. I don't immediately see a reason to prefer one over the other, rather than just going with cap-and-trade that's indifferent between having people substitute or subsidize. > So all of a sudden you are tax experts. Why don't you stick to > climate control issues about which you know something. I make no claims to be an expert about either, but I'm probably closer with taxation. On May 9, 12:26 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > With respect Eugene, I have more qualifications in economics than I do in > climate science. I've also got ample experience dealing with legislative > changes through my work in NGOs. > A > > 2009/5/9 Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> > > > 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-ch... > > >> > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
