[Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Greg,

The difference is that this encourages people with lots of money to directly invest towards reducing carbon flow, rather than penalizing people for using, what in some cases, amounts to basic living necessities.

There is some sense to this last statement by you.  But, the question I have is whether there is any real difference to the poor consumer between a "Carbon Tax" and the "Carbon Trading" scheme.  You see, under the Kyoto Prototcol, which operates the "Carbon Trading" scheme, countries do not have to participate in "carbon trading", if they are not signers of the treaty.  But, the signatory industrialized countries either meet the CO2 emissions reduction targets or agree to pay for the "carbon credits" to be issued.  It is not voluntary for signers to opt out of paying.  Signing the Kyoto Protocol will enact a "carbon tax" on emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Now, tax who?  Consumers of fossil fuel or suppliers?  Suppliers will argue that they do not emit the CO2 in the fuel.  But they do emit CO2 during production of the fuel.  If suppliers were required to pay a "carbon tax", then they would pass it along to the consumers anyway.  So, in the end, the consumer will see an increase in the price they pay for fossil fuel.

This is the "Inconvenient Truth".  There ain't nobody is going to get out of paying for this clean up operation.  The problem is not going away by itself and neither suppliers nor consumers are volunteering to do the bulk of the paying pain.  I think that suffering the pain of paying now is better than the pain of waiting to pay later.

We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to try and provide a better world than it is now for them to live.  We need to provide them a better world than the direction it is headed into now, too.  Ante up, Bup!

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Greg and April<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net> 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:07 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense


  You are putting words in my mouth.


  What I'm saying, is that taxing the CO2 that fuel produces is not going to fix it, because it will continue anyway, but adversely affect the people least able to afford it.


  Carbon Trading with a bonus for net negative production is the most likely way to achieve the end goals, without adversely affecting as many as possible.

  Part of the responsibility, sits with the governments to ensure that they don't cause inflation of the carbon credits, but a tax has never been the answer.

  I thinking of the fly with this but it could be that 2 kinds of carbon credits should be issued - Carbon Neutral and Carbon Negative.    As the names suggest, Carbon Neutral credits only apply to lowering CO2 expenditure, while Carbon Negative credits apply to operations that have a negative CO2 flow.


  In places where there is a negative CO2 flow, the government should just issue a Carbon Negative credit, which is worth a certain number of Carbon Neutral credits.    

  The person or company can then sell some or all of the carbon neutral credits that the Carbon Negative credit has an allowance for - then each year the government gives a tax break worth a given amount for each carbon neutral credit that is redeemed.    In theory some one could buy enough of them over their working life time to live tax free once they retire, but doing so would mean that allot of money has been applied towards the future ( both in terms of tax breaks and carbon investment ).


  It could also be applied to things other than CO2 - such as how excessive farm nitrogen use causes a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that does nothing to help CO2 sequestering, and increases nitrous oxide which is also a greenhouse gas.


  The difference is that this encourages people with lots of money to directly invest towards reducing carbon flow, rather than penalizing people for using, what in some cases, amounts to basic living necessities.


  Greg H.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Gerald Van Koeverden<mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca> 
    To: Greg and April<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net> 
    Cc: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
    Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 20:57
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense


    All you are saying is that we can't afford to 'fix it'...we can throw $500,000,000,000.00 at trying to keep control of the oil business in the mid-east, but damned if we can afford to deal with the consequences... 




    On 19-Dec-07, at 2:00 PM, Greg and April wrote:


      Look what happens when the cost of fuel goes up by $.20 in the course of one month.    

      Business tack on delivery fees & gas surcharges and keep on going as usual.
      Cost of living goes up and things go on as usual.
      To keep up with cost of living wages have to go up and things go on as usual.

      Only one thing really happens, and that is the gap between the people that have money and those that don't have money grows even wider.

      People with lot's of money have the resources to deal with things like a carbon tax - one only has to look at Al Gore to see that in action.    His utility bill is more  in one month, than twice my mortgage, and what does he do?    He doesn't cut back, he forms a company to by carbon credits, and then uses even more.

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp<http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp> 

      We see the proof every year - increasing the cost of fuel, regardless of it's use is a good way to kill people. 

      Every year in summer and winter we hear about people ( usually elderly ) who die, because they can't afford the utility bill that would other wise keep them alive, and now people want to raise that utility bill even higher, with a carbon tax?    What about the cost of medical attention?    

      For some of my medical needs, I have no choice but to drive over 80 miles one way ( more than 160 miles round trip ) - are you going to buy me a new car that get's 45+ mpg ( or pay the CO2 cost of my getting medical attention )?    What about the cost of the carbon that it takes to make that new car?    Even at 60 mpg, it will not pay off the energy that was used to make it, for more than 5 yrs.

      A tiny burst of common sense is fine and dandy, but, having a larger burst and fully thinking it through is even better.   

      Greg H.

        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
        To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; Greg and April<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net> 
        Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:25
        Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense


        Hi Greg,

        Even something as small as a $.05 charge per gallon of liquid fuel, would 
        have a major ripple effect, all around the world, yet would accomplish 
        little in return.

        On what basis do you make this claim?

        Regards,

        SKB

      _______________________________________________
      Terrapreta mailing list
      Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
      http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
      http://info.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071220/2efb9bcf/attachment.html