Just a note that I believe some of the bills in Congress tend in these directions. Congressman Van Hollen has a proposal much like the Hansen one and I understand that a senator has one that gets income from cap and trade system and then distributes most of money as suggested by Hansen, but holes back something like a quarter to work on non-CO2 greenhouse gases (just to note that CO2 only contributes about half of the 21st century warming influence of 21st century emissions‹of course CO2 warming influence goes much longer due to long lifetime). At some point, it is going to be understood that geoengineering is also something to be considered, and I understand some government sponsored planning activities are underway. Thus, things have gone a good way beyond Jim Hansen¹s proposal (that is, it has led to some legislative proposals, and some do keep some back for various purposes‹some for R&D, some for help to developing nations, some for dealing with other gases, etc.--and it is for this reason, that is, the dilution of the signal to the consumer, that Jim has seemed to be holding fast to a 100% rebate).
Mike On 10/19/09 11:31 AM, "John Nissen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Peter, > > Thanks for this proposal. It fits neatly with the simple idea to "tax carbon > out of the ground to put it back". > > Interestingly, Prof Jim Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, has proposed a > carbon tax on fossil fuels, which would be ramped up over a number of years > [1]. His objective is to dampen demand, so that, for example, by the time the > levy reaches $115, it would add $1 to the price of gasoline, and eventually > the CO2 would fall below a safe level, which he puts at 350 ppm. To quote: > > "The fee needs to increase gradually and be large enough to affect purchasing > decisions. By the > time the fee reaches a level of $115 per ton of CO2 it will add $1 per gallon > to the price of gasoline. > Given United States fossil fuel use of 2007, $115 per ton of CO2 would yield > $670 billion, enough to > provide a dividend (rebate) for each legal adult resident of almost $3000 per > year. With half a share per > child for a maximum of two children per family, the rebate would be $9000 per > year for a family with two > or more children. The carbon fee would provide a strong incentive to replace > inefficient infrastructure. It > would spur the economy. It would spur innovation." > > I have written to him to suggest that the money from the levy, rather than > providing a rebate, should be put into "carbon air capture" investment and > deployment. The growing of trees would be one of the most effective ways of > using the money. If the levy were ramped up at $10-15 per year, it could pay > for maximum afforestation (according to Sreeman Mishu Barua's plan) while > reducing CO2 emissions, thus allowing an overall reduction in atmospheric CO2 > level. > > However some of the money must go towards saving the Arctic sea ice, otherwise > we could lose the Greenland ice sheet (with disastrous consequences on sea > level) and we could trigger massive discharge of methane from frozen > structures (with disastrous consequences on global warming). Unfortunately > reducing CO2 level alone cannot save the Arctic sea ice, so we have to resort > to solar radiation management. The techniques favoured in the Royal Society > report [2] involve stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening. > > Would you support this idea concerning raising money through a tax on carbon > out the ground? If adopted internationally, it would be very equitable among > nations, since essentially the polluter is paying, and countries would > automatically become effectively carbon neutral after a time - i.e. when the > atmospheric CO2 level begins to fall. > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John > > [1] A post "Strategies to Address Global Warming & Is Sundance Kid a > Criminal?" is available at: > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf > <http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf> > > [2] royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35151 > > > > Peter Hale, Climate Concern UK wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Following may be of interest. A proposal from Bangladesh - seems thought out >> in some detail. >> Peter Hale >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "sreeman barua" <[email protected] <mailto:sanitarian%40inbox.com> > >> To: <[email protected] >> <mailto:my-climate%40sustainabletravel.com> > >> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 5:00 AM >> Subject: A Plan on tackling global CO2 rise & Global Carbon Trade; >> (dissemination, research & Action needed) >> >> Dear Sir, >> A CO2 reduction plan was envisaged during my M.Sc. in Environmental >> Technology, as a class-assignment in 1999-2000. It was a low tech plan which >> could easily be put into practice where the whole world could come to play. >> The plan offered a new dimension to carbon trade for businesses. The outline >> was as below- >> >> Fast-growing trees assimilate CO2 out of air fast (4 times faster than >> natural forests). We need to harvest these trees for their fast growing >> period in selected areas around the world. The harvest (dry hard wood is >>> >50% carbon and very slow degrading; about 25% of fresh wood is carbon) will >> be put away into caves, empty mines and natural faults- thus putting away >> atmospheric CO2 safely and cheaply for a very long time. After all, >> thousands of years old similar fossilized trees we use (oil, coal and gas) >> cause air CO2 to rise. Why not put back some? >> >> A Chinese saying is ³Catastrophe = Opportunity². Could we not witness the >> CO2 rise as an opportunity to store some energized Carbon (similar to >> currency?) for foreseeable future use? Businesses may choose to Œgrow & bury¹ >> calculated numbers of trees each year to compensate for their extra carbon >> emission need. This plan will help developing countries come to terms with >> the world¹s Carbon Trade agreement where they can even keep the harvest for >> themselves. The plan allows a proportionate trade between businesses and the >> earth, which is only apt. >> >> This act means no offense to tree-lovers, forest-lovers or nature lovers. >> Only newly grown, purposefully, commercially harvested trees will be used, >> leaving natural forests alone. Scientists will calculate the numbers of >> trees required each year and decide types of trees to harvest for total >> sustainability. >> >> Desperate time calls for desperate measures. I know this is not ŒThe¹ >> solution, but as an Environmental Technologist I believe it has the >> signature of being a substantial part of it. >> >> Here I urge all Environmental Action Groups and scientists to commission the >> plan as good enough to counter any other CO2 reduction plan (if not better), >> and press world¹s policymakers to acknowledge the same so that carbon >> traders may get this plan as a choice. >> >> Unique Advantages of the Plan: >> ======================= >> € Fast growing trees assimilate Carbon out of air 4 times more than regular >> grown up forest trees. More than 2 tons of carbon can be assimilated per >> acre per year with such trees. It is estimated that 6 million sq. miles of >> world¹s cultivable but not cultivated land can sequestrate 7.8 billion tons >> of carbon per year whereas total fossil fuel & cement production account for >> 5.5 billion tons. Yet, this plan is proposed only to be a part solution. >> >> € Commercially harvesting of fast growing tree means new business throughout >> the world and support from Nature activists (no antagonism socially). >> Presently a ton of carbon is being traded for ~$15.00 (so, money is there!). >> >> € Industries/ businesses may choose to Œgrow & bury¹ required No.s of trees >> (a carbon mass) as direct carbon trade (for the excess carbon emission they >> may do each year; can be seen as Œsecondary allowance¹?). Governments >> throughout the world can Œgrow & bury¹ against their Œprimary allowances¹ to >> businesses/ industries for their Œright to emit a specific amount¹. Direct, >> proportionate carbon trade between businesses and the earth is seen as the >> best here. The plan will keep a cap on totally undesirable secondary, >> tertiary profit-selling of carbon credits in the trade market. >> >> € Energy cost (financial burden) to execute the plan is minimal. Monitoring >> is easy. >> >> € Bigger, fast developing countries who are unwilling to sign an >> International Carbon Trade Agreement may find this plan most suitable. >> >> € Same land can be used over and over again to harvest fast growing trees on >> a 10 -12 year basis (since our cultivable land is limited and we cannot >> create unlimited forest). The cost to keep the land fertile comes into >> account. >> >> € Caves, empty mines, natural faults are there to store huge quantities of >> logs & chips- without interfering into any other natural & human activity. >> >> € With Safest & longest storable way and an energy source, the opportunity >> to use logs when in desperate need is always there (or when sustainable >> environmental friendly ways of energy extraction from wood will be invented >> in future). >> >> € No shortages of micro & macro nutrients needed to harvest such vast >> quantities of wood. >> >> € Easily calculable, executable and easy to monitor. >> >> € Biotechnology may invent trees of even higher CO2 assimilation capacity >> (harvest can be grown in isolation, no interference with natural progeny). >> >> Why Policy makers and decision-making, implementation centrally? >> ================================================= >> There are influential players in the market who are trying to impose their >> kind of solutions- defective and costly, which will only benefit them at the >> expense of everyone's misery. Do we not find the idea of carbon >> sequestration through burial of wood is a simple enough & reliable enough >> idea to propose to the topmost level (UN & World leaders)? Maths are all >> there; the plan is viable and simple! Only a unified action from a country >> (or From the World) can make a plan as big as this a success. You will never >> get it done (forget doing it in time!) disseminating the idea up for grabs >> at grass-root level. It is the vision, willingness and understanding of the >> policymakers we need to pursue. Our present vision has ended at growing more >> trees but cannot dread to think what we are going to do with those trees, >> especially when we need long-term carbon-sequestration and our arable land >> is limited? >> >> We need to focus the world¹s vision towards this plan and research along if >> needed. Each Log/ Wood/ Chip is to be seen as a cell of stored carbon & >> Energy. And ŒGrow & Bury¹ wood in every sense is Œthe single best way¹ to >> put away enough carbon to save our planet. Some would argue (those who see >> burying wood is a waste), let¹s use the wood as energy and bury the char it >> produces. There could be a debate on it and if found totally sustainable, >> and does not backstab our primary goal (Long term carbon sequestration) - >> then by all means let¹s do it! >> >> Let me tell you of a Bangladeshi Multi-million dollar MLM (multi-level >> marketing) company, the only product of which is tree plantation. About 2.5 >> million Bangladeshi national invested into it (it is popular!). The company >> is a lease-holder of thousands of acres of land (giving no heed to social >> antagonism against its own ideologies & involvements, often misusing legal & >> poor governmental administrative systems; because the more it grows, further >> it needs to grow). It plans to grow & sell trees on a 12 year cycle & profit >> its investors 4 times more then national banks. And it¹s getting government >> support because it¹s helping create green!(??) Country basis/ community >> basis plans as such (one which is bound to economic profit or has its own >> agenda) to grow forests will never work. Our prime goal will have to be >> long-term CO2 reduction. >> >> We know what will happen to those trees within a quarter of a century. All >> may be acting as temporary sequesters today but ultimately will be thrown to >> the nature as CO2. You do not keep using 10-15 year old wooden furniture/ >> materials, do you? In good¹s disguise this is a bad making worse scenario. >> What we need is a unified plan from world¹s governments keeping the end goal >> in mind. We are getting rid of harm from 6 billion people- that should be >> beneficial enough for us. Let¹s not complicate the plan with seeking >> economic gain out of it further. >> >> A Related Issue: >> ============= >> Now, so far we taxed the players at the outskirts of the carbon problem >> (those who are using carbon minerals). What about those who are at the >> centre; who are producing them? I believe countries unearthing carbon >> minerals must be Œenvironment-taxed¹ for the amount they take out yearly. >> Since the ill-effects of carbon mineral¹s use are global and the producers >> benefit financially at the cost of those ill effects, however necessary the >> commodity may be, they cannot deny environmental responsibility. >> >> Since buyer¹s demand cause producers to unearth in vast amount; >> hypothetically, producers could share the proposed environment tax with >> primary buyers in proportion to their demand. Never the less, there has to >> be adequate taxation, the amount needed to reverse the incurring ill-effects >> in the environment. >> >> Sreeman Mishu Barua, MSc(UK), REHS(USA) >> Plot: X-50, Block: A, >> Chandgaon R/A, >> 4212 CTG, >> Bangladesh. >> +88 (0)31 672678 >> +88 (0)183 0183 777 >> [email protected] <mailto:sanitarian%40inbox.com> >> ====================================== >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangepolitics/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbHAzOW >> V1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1ODU3NDU0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHN >> sawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMjU1OTQxMzg5> >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Recent Activity >> >> Visit Your Group >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangepolitics;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOGhsbTVkBF9 >> TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1ODU3NDU0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2 >> Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNTU5NDEzODk-> >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! News >> >> >> Fashion News >> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hnlip3m/M=493064.12016309.12445701.8674578/D=g >> roups/S=1705060471:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1255948589/L=/B=IMKZB0PDhC8-/J=125594138978 >> 9349/K=qibRD0lO8KFAMze1oz67Zg/A=3848621/R=0/SIG=12u6o6g3h/*http://news.yahoo. >> com/i/1597;_ylt=A9FJqa5Gxa5E2jgAYQKVEhkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MnU4czRtBHNlYwNzbg--> >> >> >> What's the word on >> >> >> fashion and style? >> >> >> >> Ads on Yahoo! >> >> >> Learn more now. >> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14h47lj9t/M=493064.12016308.12445700.8674578/D=g >> roups/S=1705060471:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1255948589/L=/B=IcKZB0PDhC8-/J=125594138978 >> 9349/K=qibRD0lO8KFAMze1oz67Zg/A=3848643/R=0/SIG=131q47hek/*http://searchmarke >> ting.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?o=US2005&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Groups4&s=Y&s2=&s3=&b=50 >> > >> >> >> Reach customers >> >> >> searching for you. >> >> >> >> Weight Management Group >> >> >> on Yahoo! Groups >> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14ibpkgb8/M=493064.12016300.12445692.11323196/D= >> groups/S=1705060471:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1255948589/L=/B=IsKZB0PDhC8-/J=12559413897 >> 89349/K=qibRD0lO8KFAMze1oz67Zg/A=5170420/R=0/SIG=11b5gu1oe/*http://new.groups >> .yahoo.com/specialKgroup> >> >> >> Join the challenge >> >> >> and lose weight. >> >> >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> >> __,_._,___ >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
