Submitted on July 2nd, 2009 by Erich J. Knight (not verified)
What the CFC/Ozone success story was for raising the importance atmospheric chemistry, I feel biochar soil technology will be for carbon soil chemistry, Mycology and Microbiology. The historical climate work of William Ruddiman showing the agricultural origin of most excess CO2 begs this anthropogenic solution of soil carbon sequestration.
The same relationship I felt held for the NOX & SOX success story in raising the prospects for Cap & Trade and would mean,(with the EU lessons learned) for the cap & trade in carbon. I thought the relatively painless process for both industry and consumer in clearing the air and acid rain would offer the best carbon solution.
Dr. Hansen and the Economist magazine have turned me around with their Tax & Dividend proposal . The simplicity of calling carbon by it's name, at it's source, reduces the overall complexity, for the public most of all. This plan puts the $$ directly into the hands of consumers, they can then decide to save it by hitting the light switch or spend it by leaving the lights on.
A system to deal with CO2 equivalence of other GHGs will be complex enough by it's nature of not having a choke point source.
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMea...
Politically, C tax & dividend (I prefer the name Tax & Share) may be to late to the stage this year to have a legislative chance, but I am changing my arguments for it, and will spread theirs.
Here is a post concerning modification of where the dividend should go, by Folke Günther, a chemical engineer in Sweden:
Date: Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar-climatechange] Emailing: 20080604_TaxAndDividen...
I agree with Jim's proposal on a global carbon tax .
However, I don't think the tax should be paid back to everybody, indiscriminately.
Instead, the tax collected to restrain emissions should be paid to those who sequester carbon from the air.
By that the counteracting measure could be very profitable
(In Sweden, the emission tax is 1 SEK per kg CO2, or 3.77 SEK (about $ 0.5) per kg carbon.)
If the same amount would be paid to those who bury char in their own land , a normal farmer, making char of the haulm could get an extra pyment of about $ 1000 per hectare! (assuming a harvest of 8 tonnes per hectare)
Many would join in. Here we are in a potential situation similar to that depicted by the anti-biochaists.
The solution to that is to restrict the payment to those following certain rules of an 'ethical' charring.
I mentioned that in my paper 'Carbon sequestration for everybody<
www.holon.se/folke/car... >' about Mrs Ruth Less.
A Microsoft spokesman said the company actually has more ...
Poll
"I've had quite a few people [investors, advisors and entrepreneurs] contact me to say what a good article they thought you had written on the MaRS contingent and on Alternative Fuels."
Michael Hepworth, vice president of business development for Ontario-based Alternative Fuels (Full story »)
Global premier sponsors include
Lead sponsors/partners include
All sponsors | All partners
TAX & DIVIDEND
Submitted on July 2nd, 2009 by Erich J. Knight (not verified)What the CFC/Ozone success story was for raising the importance atmospheric chemistry, I feel biochar soil technology will be for carbon soil chemistry, Mycology and Microbiology. The historical climate work of William Ruddiman showing the agricultural origin of most excess CO2 begs this anthropogenic solution of soil carbon sequestration.
The same relationship I felt held for the NOX & SOX success story in raising the prospects for Cap & Trade and would mean,(with the EU lessons learned) for the cap & trade in carbon. I thought the relatively painless process for both industry and consumer in clearing the air and acid rain would offer the best carbon solution.
Dr. Hansen and the Economist magazine have turned me around with their Tax & Dividend proposal . The simplicity of calling carbon by it's name, at it's source, reduces the overall complexity, for the public most of all. This plan puts the $$ directly into the hands of consumers, they can then decide to save it by hitting the light switch or spend it by leaving the lights on.
A system to deal with CO2 equivalence of other GHGs will be complex enough by it's nature of not having a choke point source.
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMea...
Politically, C tax & dividend (I prefer the name Tax & Share) may be to late to the stage this year to have a legislative chance, but I am changing my arguments for it, and will spread theirs.
Here is a post concerning modification of where the dividend should go, by Folke Günther, a chemical engineer in Sweden:
Date: Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar-climatechange] Emailing: 20080604_TaxAndDividen...
I agree with Jim's proposal on a global carbon tax .
However, I don't think the tax should be paid back to everybody, indiscriminately.
Instead, the tax collected to restrain emissions should be paid to those who sequester carbon from the air.
By that the counteracting measure could be very profitable
(In Sweden, the emission tax is 1 SEK per kg CO2, or 3.77 SEK (about $ 0.5) per kg carbon.)
If the same amount would be paid to those who bury char in their own land , a normal farmer, making char of the haulm could get an extra pyment of about $ 1000 per hectare! (assuming a harvest of 8 tonnes per hectare)
Many would join in. Here we are in a potential situation similar to that depicted by the anti-biochaists.
The solution to that is to restrict the payment to those following certain rules of an 'ethical' charring.
I mentioned that in my paper 'Carbon sequestration for everybody<
www.holon.se/folke/car... >' about Mrs Ruth Less.
FG