[Falconoffury]

The main thing I don't like is that this is basically a dual currency system. I think it will be difficult to calculate how much money or TEQs go into a purchase in some cases. Food needed energy inputs to produce and ship, but how much TEQs do you charge for it? It just looks like TEQs are going to be conflicting with currency. It might make sense if a portion of the TEQs were not tradable. Assume that everyone has a bare minimum of energy needs.

I also disagree that dependant children should get any extra quota. Let the parents make sacrifices for their children, not all of the country.

[Liamj]

...Food needed energy inputs to produce and ship, but how much TEQs do you charge for it? ...

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).

I also disagree that dependant children should get any extra quota. Let the parents make sacrifices for their children, not all of the country.

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.

[MrBill]

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).

Pure BS. Show me the data that farms are currently closing because they cannot afford diesel, fertilizer and especially water? Farmland rarely goes out of the production, unless it is paved over to make room for urban sprawl, but instead the title moves from one owner to the next and/or the land is used for other purposes (i.e. crop to pasture). But farmland is increasing in value.


The UK

As 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.

Farmland for Sale

Canada

The 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.

Spring 2006 Farmland Values

The USA

Farmland, 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.

Farmers-to-be can't afford the fields

So if they cannot afford diesel and fertilizer then why are land prices rising between farmers, nevermind that which is being bought for land speculation by non-farmers, which is a separate issue. And food production certainly is not falling.

In 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%.

See FAOSTAT graph showing rising food productioin

So like the rest of your comments, poorly thought through, and wide of the mark with no hard data to back up your points.

[Liamj]

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).

[MrBill]

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).

Okay, I followed many of the arguments in the Oil Drum thread, but it is just too long and I do not have all day to read every response.

Basically, the majority are pointing out that the scheme is both difficult to implement, and will not solve the problem any more than a well-designed carbon tax. Also, again the part about giving someone, something of value, for free, means that someone else, has to then pay for that freebie. Therefore, it is simply a wealth transfer and makes the fossil fuel more expensive to the end user. As a carbon tax would do, but without the administrative hassle of trying to predict everyone's energy needs and then allocate supply equitably. Nevermind cheating and criminal activities.

No one, and I mean no one, in that thread plausibly pointed out how simply a plan could be implemented or how to address these other problems.

Conclusion: it is a poorly designed solution to a problem that it cannot solve. Any way you slice it peak oil is a geological fact and rationing it via higher prices, carbon taxes or physical allocation per person will not change that geological reality. Why waste so much time, energy and money to pursue an expensive, administratively heavy and ultimately useless program to ration a source of energy, which will in any case disappear?

And as I pointed out, anything less than a global roll-out would not be acceptable to anyone, as why should I limit my consumption, if some else gets that benefit in terms of additional supply and/or lower prices from reduced demand, regardless of whether you are an individual, firm or country?

The very reason some did not sign up to The Kyoto Protocol. Some said it was based on flawed science, while others just said, 'no way are we putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage while others are not bound by the same quotas.' Quite rightly.

Carbon trading schemes might play a part in reducing emissions, but then everyone has to play by the same rules. And you cannot hand out the carbon trading units for free. They should be auctioned. But that is fodder for another post. I am done with this TEQ issue though. Have a nice weekend.

Media portrayal of global warming turns people off, not on

[planetreboot]

I'm involved in an amazing community project, PlanetReboot, which is committed to creating a sustainable planet. We are creating a Scavenger Hunt based in Seattle to raise a minimum of $10,000 for carbon offsets by having teams of two scavenge around the city looking for clues. The money raised will go to NetGreen, a 501(c)3 non-profit based in Seattle, WA committed to empowering individuals, businesses and communities to achieve a net reduction in emissions today. Participants will only be using their feet, public transportation, and potentially bicycles or kayaks. In addition, we want to have film crews on some of the teams as well as at various checkpoints to document the event. Eventually, it will be one story of many in a larger documentary on what people in the world are doing to mitigate climate change! Imagine... inspiring Seattle to balance its carbon output from driving, using electricity, and other carbon emitting activities! The money will go towards projects such as wind, solar, planting trees, and other offsetting developments.

What is the alternative to doing nothing...? Al Gore illustrated the realities of climate change in "An Inconvenient Truth" and it doesn't look good. However, he ended the film with what we can do. We can do PlanetReboot, inspiring Seattle and the world to participate in creating a sustainable planet.

I'm inviting you to join the PlanetReboot committee. This is going to be a big deal, and as such we need 20+ people to make this possible. The more people involved the better. Even if you think you don't have anything to offer please send me an email that you might be interested. If you are on-board, by all means e-mail me. The PlanetReboot committee will have its first meeting the week of September 25th to discuss our game plan! I'll let you know where and when by Friday.

Please forward my invitation to anyone you know who might be interested!


Cheers,

Trevor Gauntlett
PlanetReboot
[email protected]

[seldom_seen]

I'm involved in an amazing community project, PlanetReboot, which is committed to creating a sustainable planet.

A 'sustainable planet'? What does that mean?

[HamRadioRocks]

What do you think of the idea?

The web site for the movie _An Inconvenient Truth_ points to www.nativeenergy.com, where you can purchase offsets for your carbon emissions. The idea is to buy renewable energy capacity. Native Energy produces renewable energy with your money and sends it to the local utility company, which is required by law to purchase the excess electricity capacity of those who produce more energy than they consume. Each unit of excess capacity produced through renewable energy means one less unit of electric power that has to be produced with fossil fuels. The net effect is that you reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned.

If you buy a large enough amount of renewable energy capacity (and thus conserve fossil fuels), you can effectively become carbon neutral. In other words, the reduction in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at the power plant offsets your contribution to fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

This sounds a lot like the Second Nature program that my local utility runs that I participate in. Since I participate at the 100% level, that means that for every kWh of electricity I use, the utility produces an extra kWh through renewable energy. The cost of the Second Nature program is just 2 cents per kWh. Since I average about 200 kWh over the course of a year, I'm paying just $4/month.

[thylacine]

Are there any stats available from areas where these schemes are in operation that show any noticeable decrease in carbon emissions as certain individuals opt for power from renewables?

I'm sure the local gas/coal power stations are still belting out co2 at the same old rate even in areas where these schemes are in use.

Don't get me wrong - I think that diversifying our power generation is great, but I think that these schemes will only work so long as a small proportion of power users opt for power from renewable sources. If everyone went for it - would they switch off the coal/gas/nuclear stations? No.

[clodhopper]

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

[Smudger]

I totally agree . And as an aside the US also needs to specifically add $1 onto the cost of a gallon of petrol every two years until it is comparable with Europe. All the money raised needs to be put into the public transsport system.

[americandream]

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

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]

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.

[Blacksmith]

If you read this post like a politician it will read "Carbon Tax plus Income Tax means more General Revenue". Don't forget the Income Tax was only temporary.

[americandream]

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.

Who cares. If childish name calling wakes the mugs up rather than BS waffle, then I'm all for it. The clocks a ticking away and green clowns as well as arrogant idiots are the the helm.....

[Boris555]

And this mass transit system you propose with your taxes...

Does it go to each and every one of the hundreds of thousands of small farming and ranching communities across the 9.6 MILLION square km of the US?

If not, everyone's food prices are going to skyrocket because us farmers will be paying most of those taxes to get the food you eat raised, harvested and to your markets.

But you don't mind paying lots more for what you eat. You HAVE to eat. We'll just pass the cost on to you. Enjoy.

[coyote]

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.

[TommyJefferson]

Taxing carbon instead of income would cause rapid innovation as companies were forced...

If organized force is acceptable to your way of thinking, then it's also acceptable if these companies develop an organization that forces their will upon you and yours.

Think bigger. Work for a world of peace instead of a world ruled by whichever group is better at applying force.

[mommy22]

Also, while I'm not sure that this is in the same line of thinking, I think that everyone who has a home garden/small farm should get an income tax/carbon credit. If one could verify that they produced so many pounds of fresh veg, or canned the surplus, someone smarter than me could figure out how much carbon is offset by not purchasing food from 1000s of miles away.

[Boris555]

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.

Small farms live and die on "the market". More taxation will kill the small farms and then the big guys will raise prices anyway.

ANd if you think the big CO2 producers will pay the most taxes, you are incredibly naive. I worked at the IRS for 8 years. My job was to study tax codes and apply tax laws. Guess who the tax laws all favor? Hint: It ain't you.

The solution is fewer laws and taxes, not more.