Do not ignore the fact that such taxes followed by rebates will give cap and traders strong arguments for such practice. And guess who makes out like a bandit with cap and trade practice? The likes of Al Gore, who is forcefully pushing this direction. Don’t get suckered into this tax direction and hurt the lower end of the economic spectrum.. Better for countries to establish massive campaigns to reduce use of fossil fuels by keeping homes substantially cooler, wearing warmer clothes, reducing use of A/C during summer, driving less or buying more fuel efficient cars, etc. Although by and large humans are inherently selfish, and such a campaign will take time to be effective, in the end it will work just as campaigns to end cigarette smoking have been effective.
Sorry, having had my say I am not interested in debating. Take it for whatever it is worth to you. Eugene I. Gordon (908) 233 4677 [email protected] www.germgardlighting.com From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bonnelle Denis Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:28 AM To: [email protected]; John Nissen; [email protected]; Geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: [CCP] Grow trees fast and bury them? Hello, Giving the CO2 a price may be implemented in two ways, which operate differently: - As concerns everybody as a consumer of gasoline for his/her car, natural gas or fuel oil for house heating, etc., a real-size feasibility experiment is going on in France, where the government tries to pass a bill for a new tax, which should be 17 €/ton of CO2 (25 $) at once, and with a final goal of 100 €/ton (in quite any other country, it should also be paid for electrical power, but not in the French project, due to the high rate of nuclear and hydro power). Previously, only smaller Scandinavian countries had introduced such a CO2 tax. One of the most prominent member of the commission who designed this tax (and proposed a 32 €/t price at once) is former Prime Minister Michel Rocard, who is also Nicolas Sarkozy's ambassador for Arctic climatic issues. What the current political debate shows is that it would have been absolutely impossible to create such a tax without granting every individual with a rebate. The reasons for this is that the people who live in distant suburbs (in France, there are fewer of them than in the US, but they are often the poorest) can't do without driving a car and using fuel oil to heat their home, and can't be blamed for it. - Another hot issue is that the businesses should be taxed as well, and some opponents to the carbon tax raise the fact that, due to excess initial CO2 emission authorizations (allowances ?), the existing European cap and trade mechanism generates an "industrial process CO2 price" which is currently lower than 17 €/t, which individuals deem as unfair. So, these Kyoto-related European quotas will have to be restricted so that this industrial CO2 price rise above 17 €/t, otherwise no CO2 tax can be passed. - For our debate, I think that a clear conclusion can be drawn : a 100 % rebate is absolutely needed for individuals, and very little money can be granted for carbon burying projects from a CO2 tax financing ; but businesses could rather easily be authorized to compensate their CO2 emissions (this is the true rationale and principle of a "cap and trade" scheme) through such projects, so that any technology which would eliminate CO2 at a lower price than, today, 17 €/t, and, tomorrow, 50 or 100 €/t, will become economically sustainable. Best regards from France, Denis Bonnelle. De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Mike MacCracken Envoyé : mardi 20 octobre 2009 04:46 À : John Nissen; [email protected]; Geoengineering Objet : [geo] Re: [CCP] Grow trees fast and bury them? 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 Hansen’s 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 “Catastrophe = Opportunity”. 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 ‘grow & bury’ 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 world’s 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 ‘The’ 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 world’s 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 world’s 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 ‘grow & bury’ 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 ‘secondary allowance’?). Governments throughout the world can ‘grow & bury’ against their ‘primary allowances’ to businesses/ industries for their ‘right to emit a specific amount’. 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 world’s 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 ‘Grow & Bury’ wood in every sense is ‘the single best way’ to put away enough carbon to save our planet. Some would argue (those who see burying wood is a waste), let’s 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 let’s 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 it’s getting government support because it’s 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 good’s disguise this is a bad making worse scenario. What we need is a unified plan from world’s governments keeping the end goal in mind. We are getting rid of harm from 6 billion people- that should be beneficial enough for us. Let’s 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 ‘environment-taxed’ for the amount they take out yearly. Since the ill-effects of carbon mineral’s 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 buyer’s 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=X3oDMTJnbHAzOWV1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1ODU3NDU0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMjU1OTQxMzg5> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=> Recent Activity Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangepolitics;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOGhsbTVkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1ODU3NDU0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNTU5NDEzODk-> Yahoo! News Fashion News <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hnlip3m/M=493064.12016309.12445701.8674578/D=groups/S=1705060471:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1255948589/L=/B=IMKZB0PDhC8-/J=1255941389789349/K=qibRD0lO8KFAMze1oz67Zg/A=3848621/R=0/SIG=12u6o6g3h/*http://news.yahoo.com/i/1597;_ylt=A9FJqa5Gxa5E2jgAYQKVEhkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MnU4czRtBHNlYwNzbg-- <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hnlip3m/M=493064.12016309.12445701.8674578/D=groups/S=1705060471:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1255948589/L=/B=IMKZB0PDhC8-/J=1255941389789349/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=groups/S=1705060471:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1255948589/L=/B=IcKZB0PDhC8-/J=1255941389789349/K=qibRD0lO8KFAMze1oz67Zg/A=3848643/R=0/SIG=131q47hek/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?o=US2005 <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14h47lj9t/M=493064.12016308.12445700.8674578/D=groups/S=1705060471:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1255948589/L=/B=IcKZB0PDhC8-/J=1255941389789349/K=qibRD0lO8KFAMze1oz67Zg/A=3848643/R=0/SIG=131q47hek/*http:/searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?o=US2005&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Groups4&s=Y&s2=&s3=&b=50> &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=1255941389789349/K=qibRD0lO8KFAMze1oz67Zg/A=5170420/R=0/SIG=11b5gu1oe/*http://new.groups.yahoo.com/specialKgroup <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=1255941389789349/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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
