[Terrapreta] Carbon tax

[lou gold]

very interesting analysis jim and i believe that you have identified another
way. a way that could be good.

but i wonder how you would sell it to a public that thinks the old ways are
over the map -- this would include both old common law notions and indian
eco-sensibilities. i still think that carbon sequestration combined with
soil abundance to 'solve' hunger and GW is the most powerful sell.

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net> wrote:

> If it weren't already obvious, I'm not keen on gov't solutions but, ya
> know, there is a simpler way of doing this -- and, at least in US, could
> have been done through equitable court action before all the states made
> it illegal bring class actions suits for environmental issues. This is
> before we institutionalized politics into the environment with the EPA.
>
> There was a time in both statute and common law that if someone changed
> (not unnecessarily damaged, just changed) my/our property or any those
> common things we all need like air and water, I/we could bring suit to
> have the change-or make things as they were -- regardless of damage.
>
> For example, instead of jumping through all these hoops in making laws
> that will create artificial markets, create bureaucracies and,
> invariably, not treat someone fairly, just make the change-or correct
> the changes made. Like, if you take some carbon out of the ground or
> bring it into the country, you have to put it back in the ground (or pay
> to do so).
>
> One obvious industry to spring up over night would be the making of
> charcoal that is to be buried. If it turns that TP can revolutionize
> agriculture, so much the better. If not someone just has to pay to bury
> it, period.
>
> Yes, this will drive up the price of petro products, and only the most
> valuable of those products will continue to be used. But, what is so
> equitable about doing this (the way it was done for centuries in equity)
> is that everyone is then paying (not subsidizing) the real cost of what
> they are using, i.e., they are paying the cost to keep environment they
> way it was. And, we won't be a the mercy of some beaucrat or regulatory
> agency that is in businesses back pocket (I think they call them
> "captured agencies -- like the FDA, FTC, SEC . . .)
>
> Notice too, this completely avoids the issue and arguments about what
> damage is being done to whom and even how it's being done. Whether GW is
> anthropogenic is not longer an issue. It simply protects a long used
> principle that each of us has the right to peaceful (none polluting) use
> of our environment. (None of this should imply, however, that
> environmental damage won't happen and shouldn't be cured.)
>
> This may seem academic. Maybe it is because using such concepts as
> inalienable rights seems pretty passe these days. It is also not likely
> that bureaucracies will cede power to the courts voluntarily, but if
> Legislatures were seized with real demand for such action, it would act
> very much like a gigantic class action suit.
>
> Might not seem like an easy thing to do, but neither will implementing a
> carbon credits scheme -- which can have the unwholesome effect of
> actually casing more carbon to be generated above ground so it can be
> sequestered. That has happened with some other gases like freon.
>
> Jut looking for a better way.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080416/e5de5f74/attachment.html