[Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense

[Greg and April]

That's just it, a fully open carbon trading operation is ( or should be ) open to everyone be it nation, state, county, city or even individual, that has the means to afford it, rather than penalizing all - even if they can't afford it.

If someone participates they ( and everyone else ) gains either by the reward of directly participating and a better environment, but, it should not be mandatory, otherwise resentment builds and people will look for ways to get out of it, rather than participate.    Look at how elderly die each year because they already can't afford utilities, so they try and cut back and end up dieing because they cut back to much.    Putting a tax on fuel is not the answer.    Remember not one society that has ever taxed it's population 30% or more has lasted more than 100 yrs, because it self destructs, and virtually every current world government is already at about that level. 

People may not understand the full implications of not having a better environment in 20--30 yrs, but, they understand very well the reward of paying less in taxes.    The entire idea is to use tax breaks to build up carbon reduction and eventual sequestering - and it has to be an on going thing that people can make long term plans for - like buying a saving bond, not like the US tax system that has a tax break for one year but not it might not be useable the next.

The problem with the current so called carbon trading scheme, is the fact that it's very difficult for individuals to participate and see any profit/benefit from it.    Add into it the fact that CO2 is only worth about $1 a ton at present ( IIRC ), because of deflation of the carbon credits - indeed some governments that signed the Kyoto Protocols are even using carbon credits to protect their fossil resource production.    In some cases the utilities is making profit from the use of carbon credits but are still charging customers a premium for renewable energy.    Add to everything else the fact that recent political shifts and "trade" agreements between certain nations, have made carbon credits cheaper for some nations than for others - this amounts to putting more of a monetary burden on other nations rather making it equal world wide.    

I have read the KP and the COOP agreements several times, and looked carefully at the who has and who has not signed, and seen how a few simple trade / monetary / treaty agreements and seen  how in several cases the CO2 burden of certain nations has been reduced, by just the few strokes of a pen, and as long as that sort of thing keeps occurring the world will never see any real reduction in anthropologic CO2 production.


Until there is a quick tangible reward ( like a tax break ), for actually reducing CO2, the wealthy will continue to that for them is but a paper tiger, but can actually harm those that do not have the money to be able to participate.


The people with less money in many cases produce less CO2 as it is, but, a given tax burden while equal all the way across ( say $ .50 per ton of CO2 ) is going to be a greater burden and cause more difficulty than for the well to do.    That is why you want people that have more money to voluntary invest more money, in real CO2 reduction - to cover what the poor can not.


This is why I'm interested in Terra Preta.    I want a farm, so I can be more self sufficient.    Further, if I can take a waste product, turn it into a high carbon form that will improve what would otherwise be marginal soil and have someone to pay me to do it, I have created a win - win - win situation.    I get paid to farm, carbon is sequestered, and everybody is happy.    The last thing I want, is someone coming to me and saying you have to do this because it's the law - I don't want to do it because it's a law - I want to do it because it's the right thing to do.    If someone wants to pay me to sequester 5 lbs of carbon, I'm more than willing to do it - and if that help's someone to do what they think is right rather than forcing them that's much better.

Personally, I don't buy the Anthropologic Climate change theory, but, that doesn't mean I am not willing to help someone that does, but, that help has to be voluntary  -  the moment that someone tells me that I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN IT ( cap's for emphases only ), even when I don't, and tries to force me to do it, is the moment that I will start fighting them with every breath I have, and there are allot of people just like me, that's why allot of people fight the anthropologic global warming.


That, is why a tax break for CO2 reduction will always be better than a CO2 tax - even if people don't believe in anthropologic global warming, they WILL take advantage of tax breaks if they can afford them.


Greg H.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sean K. Barry 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Greg and April 
  Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 22:08
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense


  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071221/ffff6e4c/attachment.html