[Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta

[rukurt at westnet.com.au]

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Yes, absolutely, I agree.  The oil industry is not going to want to pay for carbon emissions.  They will (and do) fight tooth and nail to prevent it.  They would pass the cost onto consumers anyway, 
>   
And why shouldn't they? The problem with pouring CO2 into the atmosphere 
was not known until recently. The whole thing is driven by consumers. 
YOU expect a light to come on in the ceiling when you flick a switch on 
the wall. YOU expect to have fuel available to power your vehicle. YOU 
expect shops to carry the foodstuffs that YOU need to live. These have 
to be transported to the shops. And so it goes on. Without YOU the 
consumer there would be no market for fossil fuel energy in all it's 
various forms. Normally in commerce one tots up the costs of bringing 
something to the consumer, adds a profit and there is the price. If the 
consumer pays that price, we have a sale, if he doesn't then we don't. 
So of course the costs of carbon emissions need to be added to the price 
the consumer pays. Then the consumer may just start to look around for 
something cheaper and the suppliers will do their best to find it, 
because they will go broke otherwise.
But the whole thing is driven by the consumers, who want something 
cheap, and in general don't give a damn what it does to the environment. 
Especially not if the effects are still off some time in the future.

Please note: YOU= the general public
And I'm not saying the suppliers haven't been charging as much as the 
market will bear, that after all is what capitalistic commerce is all about.

Kurt

P.S. Sean K. Barry, would you PLEASE, pretty PLEASE trim your posts