[Terrapreta] Hansen's Proposal

[Brian Hans]

Duane et al.
   
  If there is a cap and trade, a $ value will be placed on CO2 emissions. If one can purchase a sequester CO2 system for less than your CO2 emissions, the emitter will invest in that sequesteration system. I suspect an industry with regulations will develop around the above concept once those caps are more fully developed. Companies have already staked out a marketplace in Europe based on this model. 
   
  An example is the european CO2 rate = ~ $40/ton of CO2. At ~ 3.5ton of CO2/ton of Charcoal, this mean that charcoal into the soil is worth ~ $140/ton. 
   
  My guess is that this is why there is such a big push for carbon tax (and talk on this forum) in the minds of modern terra preta peoples. 
   
  Brian
  
Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org> wrote:
                            Terra Preta enthusiasts! 
   
  All this recycled talk of cap and trade, emission limits, carbon tax, and tax and dividend focuses on reducing emissions. Canada’s National Post newspaper has featured many such articles this past week.  Please note that Canada’s public discussion of such has gone far beyond that of the US since Canada was foolish enough to both sign onto and ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
   
  I don’t see much dialogue on the possibility of providing incentives for technologies which actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That lack is also apparent in publications of the IPCC.
   
  This is one topic area where list members might interface with the huge, repetitive, and boring discussion of means to reduce emissions which is taking place outside this list.   
   
  Duane
   
  -----Original Message-----
From: Mary Lehmann [mailto:mlehmann3 at austin.rr.com] 
Sent: June 7, 2008 3:23 PM
To: lou gold
Cc: Terra Preta
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Hansen's Proposal
   
    Lou, this article is highly relevant to the future of biochar. Peter Barnes has a better plan than Hansen's because rationing is more effective in limiting use than taxation is. Barnes is somewhat of a chicken, though, for not including privately owned land in the sphere of nature's resources. People didn't make privately owned land! Land is one case where taxing it (and not improvements) does work. (The supply, hence use, is already limited.) Taxpayers don't understand this beneficial aspect of taxing land. Highly taxed land is also cheaper and curtails sprawl and speculation sharply.

     

    All cities and other governing bodies should be concerned with this issue, which is really one of protecting the Commons (land). So is the whole purpose of biochar, assuming protection includes carbon sequestration.

     

    I don't like the blog-and-string-of-replies form, but if you think of a simple way to look into and discuss this further, and wish to, let me know.

     

    Can't write more as I'm getting ready to go away for a week.

     

    Mary

    ==================================================

   
      On Jun 6, 2008, at 1:19 PM, lou gold wrote:

  


  I THINK THAT THIS CAN GAIN TRACTION

IF YOU AGREE SPREAD THE WORD 


June 6, 2008, 11:17 am 
  James Hansen: Tax CO2 Emitters; Pay Citizens    _______________________________________________

    Terrapreta mailing list

    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080608/a0a70181/attachment.html