Suburbanites beware: Here comes teh gas tax?

That sounds just as likely to come from the nanny-state Gliberals as anyone else.
captain morgan
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

It didn't turn out to be rev-neutral in the UK either. I like the idea, though because it will likely cause some people to cut back on their consumption.

There are a number of European nations that have (or are presently) opting out of both the Cap and trade scheme as well as Kyoto... the common reason relates to the reduced ability of European manufactures/industry to compete in the global market.
Ron in Regina
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

We are all in the position of 'being corrected' relative to this issue. As it stands, all we can point to are the announcements (or conspicuous silence) from the American administration.

What we do know is that the coal industry in the USA (and Canada to a lesser degree) are by far and away the largest polluter (air-borne toxins) as well as the largest emitter of CO2... From my perspective, I don't really buy into the CO2 issue, however, IF the focus of the US administration is based on CO2 emissions, coal usage (energy production) should be the biggest target.

In the end, the problem that the Americans have is that they have a significant dependency on coal-fired plants that produce electricity. Hitting that industry with higher costs would translate to the consumer and with the economic situation in the States, there is no way that the democrats will pass legislation that will impact the cost of living to the locals.

I guess that we will just have to wait and see, but in the meantime, it sure is annoying to watch the Americans rail-away at oil consumption or the tar sands when coal is the biggest villain in this area.

captain morgan
Highly appropriate Ron.
Ron in Regina
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Highly appropriate Ron.

Just offering visual perspective Cap'. A picture is worth....etc...

Then don't by Chinese goods so they can live as good as you do.
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You mean 'pray tell'... And since you asked so nice, I will:

The carbon tax is based on usage of emitting substances and seeing how they are measuring usage against payment, there is an equation. In short, just for you, the more you use, the more you pay.

You mean the carbon tax is based on the emissions of carbon. That's all it is.

This in no way answers "the equation will balance". I wasn't looking at balancing any equation, people before me have already done the work on that. The carbon burned by biomass balances much sooner than fossil fuels. Any more red herrings?


You fail to grasp the big picture on this in realizing that it isn't just physics that is in play here... That's your problem

Absolutely not. I know what is being taxed. It has little to do with the physics, however. The goal of the carbon tax, very much has to do with physics.


But they still count right or does that not support your management model?... Sorry about that. (I'll give you some time to repeat that a few times)

Of course they do you ignorant twit. A carbon tax is not a carbon dioxide tax, so obviously hydrocarbons count, seeing as how they *SHOCKER* contain carbon.


.. So, the significantly higher volume of carbon particulate that ends up in the oceans that result from burning wood along with the higher CO2 output relative to, say, methane, doesn't increase the acidification?

Carbon particulate doesn't. Carbon dioxide does. I will make this very easy for you. just one more time. Since you use relative to methane, let's look at that. When you burn the methane, it combusts for the most part into carbon dioxide and water vapour. The carbon that moves into the atmosphere has three places it can go. It can be used by the biosphere, it can be dissolved in water, or it can remain in the atmosphere. When you manage a wood lot with the goal of increasing the stored carbon, the carbon dioxide proliferated will also go to those same three places. The difference? The trees on that wood lot will still take up the extra carbon, and the new trees replacing the old one that was just cut down will eat up more carbon, and then some. That's what increasing the carbon content does. Burning methane has no such mechanism.

Selective wood harvesting that increases carbon storage. It's just one wood lot. But many others can do the same. Some people call these credits.

This does have to do with the physics. It's called Henry's law. Burning methane puts more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and thus contributes to ocean acidification. My 'management' system which increases the carbon content of the woodlot produces short term increases in carbon dioxide, but long term it draws out more than it put in, so it actually helps to alleviate some of the acidification.


Wow, you've defied the laws of physics... Congratulations.

Not at all. Which law is it you think I broke?


.. So, organics aren't the building blocks for hydrocarbons?.... Wow, another startling revelation that debunks more conventional science!

Where did I say that? You have it wrong anyways. Hydrogen and carbon are the building blocks. They're only considered organic once they form C-H bonds. You should actually try reading some science before you lamely try to make me seem uneducated...They can, and they are in the case of fossil fuels. But that doesn't make it the lack context.

What's your point here anyways? Oil and gas are derived from living creatures. Yup. Coal is derived from living creatures. Yup. Takes millions of years. So? We're burning millions of years worth of sunlight in very short order.


Let's take a look at your compelling position on the reduction on income taxes in BC, shall we?.. And let's also bear in mind how it relates directly to the carbon tax, OK?
So, it seems that the carbon tax is independent of the prov income tax credits, doesn't it... Perhaps you'd know this if you bothered to inform yourself, but alas, that isn't in the cards, is it?
While the one-page article from the newspaper was extraordinarily detailed and specific, it doesn't link the carbon tax to the personal income tax cuts that have been available for years in BC does it? Further those very same cuts are available to everyone regardless of the carbon tax... So it seems that you must rely on linking unrelated variables to make an argument... Well, it ain't working so well for ya.
Further, I highlighted a couple of words in your shallow research. The first is 'intended'... Now, I'm going to need you to open your mind a bit on this and think outside the theoretical and focus on reality... Just 'cause BC intends to have a revenue-neutral tax, what is the probability that it will actually happen?
Lucky for you, they provide the answer further on.. I highlighted that for you as well... '70% went back to individuals'... Does this provide a clue that the tax isn't really revenue neutral? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the...

Quote has been trimmed
Where did I say revenue neutral? Seriously, you have reading comprehension problems. You said that the problem was there was no reduction in income tax to offset the potential. There was an income tax deduction, as well as other taxes, because, this may be a shock to you, but corporations pay taxes too, and they aren't homeowners. They also got money back. The program took in $38 million less than it paid out.

Does your brain not work properly? Seriously close the gaping hole. Or move the goal posts further if you like...
captain morgan
Thanks for the reply Mr. Science.. Replying to your counter-intuitive, hypocritical arguments isn't worth the time. Apparently you don't have much of a grasp of your position as it seems to conveniently morph each time we go down this path... In the end it comes down to this.. Burning wood emits CO2 and leaves behind a big pile of C that (despite your ignorance) does contribute in the acidification of water, but that's another argument that you'll pursue despite what fact would dictate.

Stick to salmon feed pellet development alright and WEAR YOUR HOCKEY HELMET AT ALL TIMES! The damage is extensive already, but maybe without further damage, I'll see if we can't get the title savant added to your name.
Care to demonstrate how the carbon increases the H+ concentration in the water? Carbon dioxide does this readily, but it is a gas that will dissolve, as carbonic acid. Carbon will not. If you ever had an organic chemistry class, you'd probably know this. It's used to filter out impurities, and does not go into solution! Black carbon in the ocean settles and is buried in sediment. Here it is consumed by the benthic community. Algae, bacteria, as the primary producers they will consume it, and then it moves up the food chain from there.

My position is solid. An intensively managed woodlot can increase the carbon stored within it. This is drawing the carbon from the atmosphere. Suppose I have a forest with 5000 tonnes of carbon stored in the timber. If I can remove 400 tonnes of it by culling the living trees that no longer grow and burning them as fuel, and make room for 500 tonnes of new growth, then I have taken 100 tonnes out of the carbon cycle.

That's not rocket science. That this would alleviate acidification, though this example is far too small to make a measurable difference, is also, not a difficult concept.

If you feel that this is inconsistent, well then maybe you shouldn't respond anymore until you've mastered basic algebra.
captain morgan
Similar process that is responsible for the deterioration of the masonry and architecture in much of Europe.

Your wood management thoughts work in the short-term, but have an opposite effect in the long-term.

You did get one thing correct despite your unsupported commentary - this isn't rocket science... You need to look at the big picture and not a simple snap-shot in time.

You might wish to consider adopting your own advice.
"Done right," biofuels can be produced in large quantities and have multiple benefits, but only if they come from feedstocks produced with low life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, as well as minimal competition with food production. This consensus emerges in a new journal article by researchers from the University of Minnesota, Princeton, MIT and the University of California, Berkeley.

"The world needs to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, but recent findings have thrown the emerging biofuels industry into a quandary. We met to seek solutions," said the U of M's David Tilman, a noted ecologist and lead author of the paper. "We found that the next generation of biofuels can be highly beneficial if produced properly."

The article, "Beneficial Biofuels—The Food, Energy and Environment Trilemma," will appear in the July 17 issue of Science. Tilman, a resident fellow of the U of M's Institute on the Environment, said the paper resulted from a year of conversations and debate among some of the nation's leading biofuel experts.

In addition to Tilman, the article contributors include the U of M's Jonathan Foley and Jason Hill; Princeton's Robert Socolow, Eric Larson, Stephen Pacala, Tim Searchinger and Robert Williams; Dartmouth's Lee Lynd; MIT's John Reilly; and the University of California, Berkeley's Chris Somerville.

The paper coincides with climate change policy debates in Congress, and tackles land use issues that have generated much controversy in recent years: Specifically, the greenhouse gases released when land is cleared to grow biofuel crops (or when other lands are cleared to compensate for food crops displaced by biofuel crops) can—for decades to centuries—exceed those from petroleum use.

"It's essential that legislation take the best science into account, even when that requires acknowledging and undoing earlier mistakes," said Princeton's Socolow, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative.

"Careful scientific reasoning revealed accounting rules that separate promising from self-defeating strategies," added Socolow. "Future carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will tell us when we're kidding ourselves about what actually works. For carbon management, the atmosphere is the ultimate accountant."

To balance biofuel production, food security and emissions reduction, the authors conclude that the global biofuels industry must focus on five major sources of renewable biomass:

* Perennial plants grown on degraded lands abandoned from agricultural use
* Crop residues
* Sustainably harvested wood and forest residues
* Double crops and mixed cropping systems
* Municipal and industrial wastes

These sources can provide considerable amounts of biomass, at least 500 million tons per year in the United States alone, without incurring any significant land use carbon dioxide releases.

"We need to transition away from using food for biofuels toward more sustainable feedstocks that can be produced with much less impact on the environment," said the U of M's Hill, a resident fellow of the Institute on the Environment.

The U of M's Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment, said the consensus reached in this article is remarkable. "Technology experts, energy systems analysts, climatologists, ecologists and policy experts all agreed: Biofuels 'done right' have a bright future in solving our energy and environmental challenges. Both new and existing biofuel strategies have the potential for being among the green energy solutions we need today."

Source: Leading Experts Reach Consensus On Beneficial Biofuels - Science News - redOrbit (external - login to view)

If you have a subscription to Science you can get the article here (external - login to view), or pay for it.

Similar Threads

BEWARE the...??? uh...what is it?
by Twila | Nov 26th, 2008
Heparin... BEWARE!!!
by dancing-loon | Mar 19th, 2008
Beware of this business
by chickie74 | Jun 27th, 2007
Spammers beware!
by Ten Packs | Apr 25th, 2005
no new posts