Actually, the option I was primarily thinking of was for air capture to generate carbon credits in cap-and-trade. But any binding international agreement that limits net carbon emissions would likewise provide an incentive for a country to fund air capture so that it can gain an advantage in carbon-emitting activity.
On May 9, 10:43 pm, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: > The question is how we can best get carbon air capture started. > > With so many local things to fund (financial assistance for the poor, > subsidies for solar energy, building insulation, electric cars, etc), > what incentive is there for a country to fund air capture? > > Aviation causes lots of emissions. So, politicians are proposing all > kinds of ways to make conventional jet fuel more expensive. However, > what guarantees do they give that the proceeds will help reduce > greenhouse gases? The proceeds may well end up in countries like India > and Pakistan and cause people there to buy more polluting cars and eat > more meat. Politicians may promise anything to get elected, without > having to demonstrate that their proposals will indeed make any > difference. By contrast, we should come up with proposals that are > indeed effective in reducing greenhouse gases. > > One proposal is for aviation, by international agreement, to offset > carbon emissions by means of fees imposed on conventional jet fuel, > with the proceeds of those fees used to directly fund carbon-negative > activities, e.g., carbon air capture and storage, biochar burial, > afforestation, etc. > > Another proposal calls for an international agreement to reduce > greenhouse gases, with reduction targets set for each country to > reach. Local politics could decide how to reduce greenhouse gases, > provided that the internationally agreed targets are indeed reached. > Tariffs would be imposed on products imported from countries that fail > to reach targets, and the proceeds of these tariffs would then be used > to fund carbon-negative activities. Such carbon-negative activities > could take place anywhere in the world. Market mechanisms can then > sort out which methods are most cost-effective in reducing greenhouse > gases, all government needs to do is to channel the proceeds of these > tariffs to funding of activities that capture carbon and store it. > > Each of these propositions would get things like carbon air capture > started in a big way. The promise of such funding will attract > investors and business activities, while there's government > supervision over the funding to ensure that things are done in clean > and safe ways. > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:23 AM, dsw_s <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
