I think Mr Fleming proposes 1 TEQ = 1kg CO2 equivalent. Make with renewables - cheap; make with fossil fuels - expensive. I suspect this will raise the price of food relative to current, but at least you'd be sure food production was getting the energy it needed, when you surrender quota (currently farms are closing cos can't afford diesel/fertiliser/water).Falconoffury wrote:...Food needed energy inputs to produce and ship, but how much TEQs do you charge for it? ...
Now that would have an effect on birth rates! I like it, but probably political suicide; fecundity is a core privelidge that has been rebranded as a human right.I also disagree that dependant children should get any extra quota. Let the parents make sacrifices for their children, not all of the country.
I suspect this will raise the price of food relative to current, but at least you'd be sure food production was getting the energy it needed, when you surrender quota (currently farms are closing cos can't afford diesel/fertiliser/water).
Farmland for SaleAs you would expect, farmland for sale in the UK is land that is used for farming purposes such as producing cereals, milk, dairy products and livestock. Farmland that has no attached buildings such as cottages, farm houses and farm buildings is usually classed as agricultural land or ‘bareland’.
The price of farmland for sale has sky-rocketed in the UK over the last year. According to a recent report by Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors the price of farmland in 2004 rose by a staggering 30% to an average valuation of almost £10,000 per hectare.
Spring 2006 Farmland ValuesThe average value of Canadian farmland increased 1.5 per cent during the last six months of 2005. This is slightly lower than the 1.6 per cent increase in the first six months of 2005.
Many provinces continue to see growth in farmland values. Increases are on par with an upward trend since January 2000.
The largest increase is in British Columbia where values grew by 10 per cent. Ontario shows the second largest increase at 3.8 per cent.
Newfoundland and Alberta follow with increases at 3.0 and 2.8 per cent respectively.
Saskatchewan and Manitoba increased slightly by 0.5 and 0.2 per cent respectively.
Values remain the same in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec.
Farmers-to-be can't afford the fieldsFarmland, like other real estate, is appreciating throughout the country. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reported in May that farmland values in the region rose an average of 10 percent over the preceding year and as much as 14 percent in some states, including Illinois.
See FAOSTAT graph showing rising food productioinIn the past decade and a half, agricultural net production increased annually by 2.2%. This growth has been mainly in the developing world which increased output by almost 3.4% per year, while the developed countries increased by just over 0.2% per year.
Both crop gross production (63% of total production) and livestock gross production (37% of total production) increased by over 2% per year. Food crops gross production went up 2%, but the most important of them, cereals, just 1%. Oil-bearing crops increased by 4%, fruit and vegetables by 3.8%, eggs by 3.8%, meat 2.7%, milk 1.2%.
Liamj wrote:The Oil Drum thread is here, interesting in the comments is dadeby and others discussing the critical failings of the similar scheme proposed by UK gov (at end).
planetreboot wrote:I'm involved in an amazing community project, PlanetReboot, which is committed to creating a sustainable planet.
clodhopper wrote:Americans use much more energy per person than Europeans. The reason is not that we are more sensible, simply that we could never afford it. After the war we were poverty stricken, then as we got more prosperous, energy ,especially road fuel was heavily taxed, so that now we pay about $2/litre ($8/us.gall). This causes us to drive cars such as the BMW 320 diesel that does 45 mpg.
Taxing carbon instead of income would cause rapid innovation as companies were forced to develop products that use less energy to manufacture and use.
By taxing according to how much CO² will be emitted, each fuel will compete on that criterion, the only one that really matters for the purpose. Coal would be taxed more heavily than oil, and oil more than natural gas because of the level of CO² emitted compared to the energy content. Biofuels would not be taxed, but of course fossil fuel inputs would be. Therefore ethanol produced using coal for process heat would become more expensive than that using straw or biogas. Each form of transport would compete according to carbon use, therefore rail and bus would increase in popularity and not need a subsidy.
If a country adopted massive carbon taxes, they would be entitled to levy taxes on goods imported from countries that did not tax carbon thereby encouraging them to follow suit.
There is sufficient energy coming from the sun each day for all our needs, but we need to rapidly improve the methods of collecting and using that energy so that it can replace the solar energy that was collected millions of years ago.
We at www.peakfood.co.uk believe that peak oil is just one of the factors that could cause famine in the near future, even in the prosperous West.
www.peakfood.co.uk
americandream wrote:
Just another green bourgeoisie fool. The difference between you in Europe and the US is so minute in terms of your propensity for wastefulness that we are basically splitting hairs. You had a communist system in your European East that might have worked but you fools berated it for the very reasons that you are incapable of ever reconciling yourselves to the demands of this planets eco and resources imperatives, the lifestyle was not grandiose enough. Well, if there is any comfort to be gained, you will go down choking on your baubles and bangles. And incidentally, you are not going to be able to reform your way out of cornucopian capitalism....you will get strung along as you have been for decades.
Bas wrote:americandream wrote:
Just another green bourgeoisie fool. The difference between you in Europe and the US is so minute in terms of your propensity for wastefulness that we are basically splitting hairs. You had a communist system in your European East that might have worked but you fools berated it for the very reasons that you are incapable of ever reconciling yourselves to the demands of this planets eco and resources imperatives, the lifestyle was not grandiose enough. Well, if there is any comfort to be gained, you will go down choking on your baubles and bangles. And incidentally, you are not going to be able to reform your way out of cornucopian capitalism....you will get strung along as you have been for decades.
While I agree with your conlusions basically(though Europe is much more efficient with carbon/$ of GDP), I'd appreciate it if you'd give up your childish tradition of name calling when expressing/reasoning your opinion; it devaluates your opinion as a whole.
clodhopper wrote:Taxing carbon instead of income would cause rapid innovation as companies were forced...
coyote wrote:Boris, what's your alternative? Food prices are going to skyrocket anyway. We're not paying for gasoline what the stuff is really worth -- and it might be nice to have some more public transit in place before the world tilts.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests