[Terrapreta] How to STOP using Fossil Carbon resources?!

[lou gold]

Well, you didn't really answer my question which was of a rather practical
political nature but I'm not gonna nail you over it.

What do you think of replacing the income tax with a carbon tax?

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:

>  Hi Lou,
>
> Well, the first thing to do is to TAX Carbon emissions and the sale of
> refining of fossil carbon fuels.  We don't need a "Federal Tax Holiday" on
> gasoline taxes in this country.  We need to raise the Federal Gas Tax
> immediately and use all of the funds (way beyond a paltry $3 million) to
> develop renewable energy sources.  We need to remove oil and coal subsides
> and food-for-fuel subsidies and use these monies too to develop renewable
> energy sources that do not use food-for-fuel and do not mine fossil carbon
> from the ground.
>
> Then we need to keep raising the taxes on fossil carbon and the production
> of fossil carbon products, fuels, fertilizers, petrochemical plastics, etc.
> We need not tax the shit out of everyone, but in America we need to tax
> carbon heavily, as the only viable impetus to get people to change.
> Eventually we should make the USE, production, and sale of fossil carbon
> ILLEGAL.  Fossil Carbon is a DIRTY WORD.  We MUST STOP burning fossil carbon
> or sequester the CO2 emissions from all we burn.  Coal should ONLY be used
> for chunks found in museums.
>
> We also have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as fast as we can.  We
> can't mess around with hymming and hahhhing about this anymore!
> STOP using fossil carbon energy, find, make or build replacements for the
> lost energy, conserve on the use of fossil carbon fuels down to altogether
> nothing, and get CO2 out of the atmosphere NOW.
>
> We're on the path to planet wide destruction and massive worldwide action
> and understanding of this problem is imperative.  The lives of billions of
> people and untold billions of lives of living species of plants and animals
> are at great risk if we can't find the way to do this.  I am on the path to
> completely remove myself and my family from "the grid" while still living in
> "the grid" and I hope to be able to show other people how to do this.  I
> want a ZERO CARBON FOOTPRINT before I die.  I want a NEGATIVE CARBON impact
> before I die.  I can vow to find another way!
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> *To:* Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
> *Cc:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; James Thomas <jthomas at yakama.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 12:25 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] (tire pyrolysis)
>
> Hey Sean,
>
> I keep hearing you say "STOP the continued consumption of fossil carbon
> resources." How? How in terms of practical politics? How will you stop
> Peabody Coal? How will you stop China? I really hope and pray that you have
> an answer because I'd love to see it happen.
>
> hugs,   lou
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> >  Hi James,
> >
> > Wow! That NIMBY thing just bites.  It squelches many unconventional and
> > environmentally beneficial alternatives.  There is no wind farm off the
> > coast on the eastern seaboard because of NIMBY (and its not even in their
> > back yards).  There is a Senator from a state with little or no wind
> > resource, who claims that the unsightly nature of wind turbines offends the
> > aesthetic sensibilities and the livelihoods of too many people to be
> > acceptable in any other state, even outside his district (where there will
> > never be wind farms).  Tidal power has been stymied by people who want their
> > ocean views undisturbed.
> >
> > I think NIMBY used to crush technological innovation with energy is
> > self-serving, too conservative, and immoral in this day and age.
> >
> > Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of carbonaceous matter in an
> > oxygen limited environment.  It has greatly reduced emissions versus
> > complete combustion (burning), a great array of potentially useful products,
> > and it is by definition much cleaner than burning (lower overall
> > emissions).  Many of the products from pyrolysis can be used as direct
> > replacements for what are now petrochemical products.  Waste management
> > using pyrolysis can be much cleaner from an emissions standpoint than
> > refining of petroleum into petro-chemcial products and fuels now is.
> >
> > Charcoal, which has a similar energy density to mineral coal, is made
> > via pyrolysis of biomass (mostly from biomass with high content of lignin,
> > cellulose, or hemi-cellulose), and if burned for its energy content would
> > not emit the same high levels of mercury, cadmium, radioactive isotopes, or
> > carcinogens and pyto-toxins as does the burning of fossil mineral coal.
> > Burning charcoal made using pyrolysis would be way better than continuing to
> > burn fossil coal, because the CO2 emissions from burning charcoal are
> > "carbon neutral", whereas those from burning fossil coal will only continue
> > to increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (very "carbon positive").
> >
> > Making charcoal from wastes and biomass, then amending charcoal into
> > soil, puts carbon directly out of the atmosphere and into the ground in near
> > permanent, sequestered storage.  Pyrolysis of wastes and biomass coupled
> > with "Terra Preta"-like formation of charcoal enhanced soils would be a very
> > highly "CARBON NEGATIVE" practice.
> >
> > The world needs "CARBON NEGATIVE" practices now, more than ever.
> >
> > We MUST be ever vigilant, though, that pyrolysis of biomass into
> > charcoal, to make "CARBON NEGATIVE" TP soils can never be used to justify
> > (through emissions offsets) the continued use of fossil carbon fuels!  The
> > world also desperately needs to STOP the continued consumption of fossil
> > carbon resources and the consequent emissions of billions of tons of "CARBON
> > POSITIVE" fossil sourced CO2.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > SKB
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* James Thomas <jthomas at yakama.com>
> > *To:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 11:17 AM
> > *Subject:* [Terrapreta] (tire pyrolysis)
> >
> > Re: the tire pyrolysis question:  A company headed by a New Zealand
> > Environmental Scientist  is attempting to do this very thing locally
> > here in Washington State; with  "Carbon Black" as a market product
> > syngas used to fuel the process once it gets going good and hot
> > (parasitic consumption) and the remainder used to generate electricity
> > for the grid and the biooil for market. They were planning on sinking
> > about $25 million into the process. Many people would be employed; air
> > pollution control would be a key point; all kinds of good things
> > environmentally were proposed. But in reality the NIMBY (Not in my
> > backyard) mental paradigm squelched the proposal, at least temporarily.
> >
> > With regard to the steel in the steel belts it was proposed that  the
> > tires would come in in bales, then chipped , then subjected  to
> > pyrolysis and the steel chips collected after pyrolysis . I am not sure
> > how the char and steel would be separated, but it appears not to be too
> > much of an obstacle, I suspect that the char would simply crumble away
> > from the metal chips. Bottom line is this is already being thought of as
> >
> > a way to reuse all of the waste tires in Washington State and
> > entrepreneurial spirit is attempting to make it happen. But the NIMBY
> > effect is limiting the potential.
> >
> > It has been suggested to put in this type of facility well away from
> > populated areas, but my question is " if this is proposed, where would
> > the employees live? Do you expect employees to live in an isolated
> > community way out in the desert, just so they can have a job with no
> > other life or other "benefits of civilization"? Sounds like the chorus
> > in the old "Tennessee" Ernie Ford song about sixteen tons of coal per
> > day being the miner's output:   "I owe my soul to the company store". Or
> >
> > do you expect them to commute or take a shuttle daily from a population
> > center? Then where is the proposed environmental benefit of less overall
> >
> > fuel consumption?  Pyrolysis obviously needs a better public relations
> > effort to be accepted by the public. People just don't have an
> > understanding that pyrolysis of tires or medical waste or gasification
> > or any of the other similar processes is not the same as "Burning Tires"
> >
> > . The burning tire image reinforced on the mental video screens by
> > images of Palestinian youths burning tires in protest of political
> > actions is permanently  embedded in the mental paradigm of most modern
> > urbanites, in my opinion. "Pyrolysis" is just a big  fancy word for more
> >
> > pollution  in this mental paradigm.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> http://youtube.com/my_videos
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080512/956d7371/attachment.html