|
Hi, What I propose is to use the tax to fund geoengineering. That is entirely different from cap and trade. I sent an email about cap and trade on 23rd July, see below. Since then I've read about "cap and trade" versus "fossil fuel tax", in the chapter: "Using the Market to Address Climate Change" of the "connections" section: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5983 of the report http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5984 This gives some of the relative pros and cons of the two market mechanisms, but without the firm conclusion that Prof Jim Hansen would have - describing Cap and Trade as the "Temple of Doom"! Cheers, John On July 23rd, John Nissen wrote:
dsw_s wrote: "Here's an example where cap and trade would not work. However a carbon tax, comprising a levy on fossil fuel (carbon out of the ground), could help to pay for this "carbon stock management" type of geoengineering"That makes no sense. If you can give carbon credits for something when the tax rate is fixed, you can give credits for it when the tax rate floats. On Aug 22, 5:49 pm, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote:If people know they are paying a tax for a purpose (i.e. a hypothecated or dedicated tax), and a good purpose (i.e. to help to preserve the planet), then they may be more willing to accept for it to be imposed by government. I don't think tying the two together increases the difficulty - rather the opposite. Cheers, John --- Eugene I. Gordon wrote: I suspect that most trees that are cut down are not used for fuel, but rather for construction, furniture or paper. In the case of building and furniture the carbon remains locked up. In the case of paper, the paper is probably buried rather than burned. Why not simply tax fossil fuels to such an extent that use is reduced independent of the carbon issue. How the tax is used is another issue. Tying two difficult issues together only increases the difficulty. If the farmers are paid enough, and they won’t as the article points out, the lumber industry will simply pay more. From:[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf OfJohn NissenSent:Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:57 AMTo:GeoengineeringSubject:[geo] Saving the rainforest Here's an example where cap and trade would not work. However a carbon tax, comprising a levy on fossil fuel (carbon out of the ground), could help to pay for this "carbon stock management" type of geoengineering - natural carbon air capture and storage, by keeping the carbon locked up in trees... >From New York Times, August 21, 2009http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/science/earth/22degrees.html?_r=1&th&emc=thhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/science/earth/22degrees.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th By Degrees In Brazil, Paying Farmers to Let the Trees Stand QUERENCIA,Brazil— José Marcolini, a farmer here, has a permit from the Brazilian government to raze 12,500 acres ofrain forestthis year to create highly profitable new soy fields. The New York Times But he says he is struggling with his conscience. A Brazilian environmental group is offering him a yearly cash payment to leave his forest standing to help combatclimate change. Mr. Marcolini says he cares about the environment. But he also has a family to feed, and he is dubious that the group’s initial offer in the negotiation — $12 per acre, per year — is enough for him to accept. “For me to resist the pressure, surrounded by soybeans, I’ll have to be paid — a lot,” said Mr. Marcolini, 53, noting that cleared farmland here in the state of Mato Grosso sells for up to $1,300 an acre. Mato Grosso means thick forests, and the name was once apt. But today, this Brazilian state is a global epicenter of deforestation. Driven by profits derived from fertile soil, the region’s dense forests have been aggressively cleared over the past decade, and Mato Grasso is now Brazil’s leading producer of soy, corn and cattle, exported across the globe by multinational companies. Deforestation, a critical contributor to climate change, effectively accounts for 20 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions and70 percent of the emissions in Brazil. Halting new deforestation, experts say, is as powerful a way to combat warming as closing the world’s coal plants. But until now, there has been no financial reward for keeping forest standing. Which is why a growing number of scientists, politicians and environmentalists argue that cash payments — like that offered to Mr. Marcolini — are the only way to end tropical forest destruction and provide a game-changing strategy in efforts to limit global warming. Unlike high-tech solutions like capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide or making “green” fuel from algae, preserving a forest yields a strikingly simple environmental payback: a landowner reduces his property’s emissions to zero. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of theUnited NationsFramework on Climate Change, said that deforestation “absolutely” needed to be addressed by a new international climate agreement being negotiated this year.... read more » image_jpeg_part 22KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
- [geo] Saving the rainforest John Nissen
- [geo] Re: Saving the rainforest Eugene I. Gordon
- [geo] Re: Saving the rainforest John Nissen
- [geo] Re: Saving the rainforest dsw_s
- [geo] Re: Saving the rainforest John Nissen
