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.
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-->
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&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>
Join the challenge
and lose weight.
.
__,_._,___
