[Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense
Kevin Chisholm
kchisholm at ca.inter.net
Wed Dec 19 12:18:45 CST 2007
Dear Sean
Lets explore Gerrits concept further... taxing people for rectifying the
damage they have done.
There are two elements here:
1: The cost of teh damage
2: The cost required to clean up the C to prevent future damage.
Say we consider 1.00 Tonne of pure C that is perfectly burned to CO2.
1: How much damage will it do?
2: What will it cost to remove 1.00 tonnes of C from the Biosphere?
3: What would the the various profits and administrative fees associated
with running such a program?
Best wishes,
Kevin
Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Gerrit,
>
> No, you have a perfectly simple and workable idea, I think. I agree
> with you 100%. It would called a "fossil carbon tax", used to pay for
> cleaning up the fossil carbon from the atmosphere. I don't know why
> there is resistance to this idea? It might not be as high as $0.15
> per gallon or high enough at that, but the principal is still the
> same. If we tax the suppliers, then they will pass the cost on to the
> consumers.
> Suppliers are fewer to monitor.
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gerald Van Koeverden <mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>
> *To:* jimstoy at dtccom.net <mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net>
> *Cc:* Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:07 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense
>
> the simplest way of dealing with fossil carbon is merely to charge
> the users by how much it costs us to rectify the damage they are
> doing, no?
>
> thus if it costs us $.15 to neutralize the CO2 effect for each
> gallon
> of gas, then that much should be charged extra and should be paid to
> somebody who does the job...
>
> is this too simple?
>
>
> On 18-Dec-07, at 8:40 AM, jimstoy at dtccom.net
> <mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> wrote:
>
> > Sean,
> >
> >> Hi Jim,
> >>
> >> Are you using an axiomatic basis for your argument? Presuming
> >> that taxing
> >> fossil carbon resources is a bad thing is the first premise of
> energy
> >> suppliers in the current time frame. You suggest suppliers will
> >> become
> >> criminals or involve themselves in criminal activities, if
> taxes are
> >> levied. Prohibiting oil would not work any better, as you
> >> suggest, liking
> >> it to illegal drugs, as this would also create illegal black
> >> markets, you
> >> say.
> >
> > No, that's not quite what I said. I meant something more
> general, that
> > putting a gun to the market's head (including taxes) rarely solves
> > anything. And further, the problems we have (the ones you want to
> > overcome) are the outcomes of such forceful acts already in palce.
> > They
> > have created the monopolies that you rail against and badly
> > distorted the
> > voluntary actions of market players.
> >
> > I only used an example of what might happen, not an argument for
> > what will
> > or won't happen.
> >
> > Convincing our fellow beings is always better than commanding
> them.
> > One
> > cannot always predict the outcome of commands.
> >
> > My point about logic would be that if one uses the right set of
> > assumptions, one can "prove" just about anything. Verily, you
> can only
> > assume the market will follow your logic. There are simply too many
> > variables to contain. There is also the problem of unintended
> > consequences. Look at the world around you and the laws created to
> > solve
> > its problems. Then, tell me that there is any great probability
> > that new
> > laws will do any better than the old ones, the ones that brought
> to
> > where
> > we are.
> >
> > Seems to me, trying to legislate solutions is more chest beating
> than
> > creative problem solving.
> >
> > Jim
> >>
> >> My use of the logic does not require that same pre-supposed
> >> premise. My
> >> premise is "Supplying fossil carbon fuels leads to the
> consumption of
> >> fossil carbon fuels and the consequent emissions problems".
> >> Logically
> >> following this premise, then and trivially, stopping emissions
> >> requires
> >> stopping consumption of (and emissions from) fossil carbon fuels
> >> (MT -
> >> modus tollens, denying the consequent).
> >>
> >> Or, my preferred illogic to apply here (denying the antecedent, a
> >> beautiful fallacy to use against corporate monopolies), disrupt
> >> supplies
> >> of fossil carbon fuel into the economy, by using market forces,
> >> and price
> >> it out of the market. Then, the consequence of the other
> >> inference, "If
> >> the price + tax is too high, then suppliers cannot always sell
> fossil
> >> carbon resources", can be confirmed by a some what weakened
> >> validity (MP -
> >> modus ponens, affirming the antecedent).
> >>
> >> In turn, the inference "Supplying an X energy resource (without CO2
> >> emissions, and at a non-taxed price) will lead to more
> consumption
> >> of the
> >> X energy resource and NO CO2 emissions", will become the new
> >> operating
> >> premise. We can go on with suppliers using our weak abduction
> >> fallacy
> >> (affirming the antecedent - different antecedent, different
> >> consequent),
> >> just like they try to delude us with their (affirming the
> consequent)
> >> fallacy to consumers.
> >>
> >> We've changed the paradigm by using another valid logic argument, a
> >> (disjunctive syllogism). Either fossil carbon fuels are used, or
> >> some
> >> other non-fossil or non-carbon fuels will used. When the use and
> >> sale of
> >> fossil carbon fuels are prohibited (and/or they are taxed and made
> >> otherwise more expensive), then, therefore, the other no-fossil
> >> carbon and
> >> non-carbon energy resources will be used instead.
> >>
> >> Global World Business already uses logical fallacy to operate
> on the
> >> consuming public. Competition and good marketing skills demands
> >> this.
> >> "Taxes are only unfair to businesses!!!" is another fallacy they
> >> ruse,
> >> concocted to hide the fact that they would pass on any economic
> >> pain to
> >> consumers in a heartbeat.
> >>
> >> I think if we taxed fossil carbon suppliers now and diverted the
> >> revenues
> >> to the development of non-fossil carbon and non-carbon energy
> >> resources,
> >> then we have a chance to make the kinds of changes we need to
> >> make, and to
> >> finance it equitably on the market force we want to diminish the
> >> most,
> >> consumption. Do you see that? ... Tax the suppliers to reduce
> >> consumption, or is that reduce consumption by taxing the
> >> suppliers, who
> >> increase the price to consumers. Either way, it is still a valid
> >> argument. If supply leads to consumption, then all we can only
> >> logically
> >> say is that to reduce consumption, we have to reduce
> consumption.
> >> One way
> >> we can operate this logical assertion is by raising the price
> of the
> >> supply (because reduced consumption will follow).
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> SKB
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: jimstoy at dtccom.net<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net
> <mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net%3Cmailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net>>
> >> To: terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:02 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense
> >>
> >>
> >> Sean,
> >>
> >> I think we should be careful not to blame logic or a particular
> >> kind of
> >> logic for the problem or even to expect that logic will provide a
> >> solution.
> >>
> >> For the most part, people are logical. I find it rare that any
> >> one is
> >> illogical. Two reasons: 1) people rarely use logic and, 2) when
> >> they use
> >> logic they use it, well, logically.
> >>
> >> No, the problem is always with the premises, the assumptions we
> >> start
> >> with. Unfortunately, assumptions are usually based on our egos
> >> (who we
> >> think we are) and are rarely arguable in any real sense.
> >>
> >> Laws are usually the worst kind of solutions as they simply
> >> represent
> >> the
> >> institutionalized for of force (or violence). Lawa typically
> >> create more
> >> and larger problems. Laws just become the tool of the most
> powerful
> >> egos.
> >> E.G., your solution of "taxing the shit out of . . . fossil
> fuel
> >> supply"
> >> would simply create a black market - granting a legal monopoly
> >> to least
> >> controllable elements of society, essentially, removing all
> social
> >> control
> >> -- very much like making drugs illegal (notice how well that has
> >> worked).
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> If we truly understand the problem, we already have the
> >> solution. If we
> >> are truly aware, we find that the problem never existed.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Maybe we should consider creating the business of "Eliminating
> >>> Fossil
> >>> Carbon Fuel Consumption", and use the logic of eliminating (or
> >>> taxing
> >> the
> >>> shit out of) fossil fuel supply, in order to rid the world of
> >>> noxious
> >>> carbon dioxide pollution?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "The government's climate change policy works like this: extract
> >>> every
> >>> last drop of fossil fuel then pray to God that no one uses it."
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> SKB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Terrapreta mailing list
> >>
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
> >> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/
> >> listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org>
> >> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://
> <http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org%3Chttp://>
> >> terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
> >>
> http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/
> <http://info.bioenergylists.org%3Chttp://info.bioenergylists.org/>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> > http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list