Clean Power Plan
As long as we emit more carbon than can be absorbed by natural sinks such as forests, concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will keep rising, and the climate will keep warming. So stabilizing climate change at any temperature requires achieving zero net emissions.
What does it take for such a fundamental transition of the global economy to happen?
ECONOMIC theory says that when an individual’s choice damages others’ interests, that Governments can try to reduce emissions in three ways:
- Subsidising alternatives,
- Imposing standards on products and processes
- Pricing the greenhouse gases that cause the damage.
The first is almost always a bad idea; Governments still hand out too many allowances. The second should generally be avoided; Neither subsidies nor standards should be needed if greenhouse gases are priced to reflect the damage they do.
The third is the way to go. Europeans do all three. America does the first and the second at state and federal levels. California has decided to do the third, and it looks as though a federal system to price carbon will follow.
Some Governments are trying to establish a longer-term carbon price: to set a binding target of cutting carbon emissions, for example, Britain plans a cut by 20% of their 1990 level by 2020, and a cut by 60% by 2050.
Carbon prices range from less than $1 per ton in Mexico to more than $126 per ton in Sweden. Estimates are that health impacts alone could justify a carbon price well above $30 per ton.
The European Union Allowances (EUAs) as of April 1, 2017, the EUA price was €5/tCO2e (US$5/tCO2 e).
In Canada, a minimum price will be CAN$10/tCO2 e (US$8/tCO2 e) in 2018. The framework requires this carbon price to increase in annual increments of CAN$10/tCO2 e (US$8/tCO2 e) to reach CAN$50/tCO2 e (US$38/tCO2 e) in 2022.
In the United States, the allowance prices dropped to US$3/tCO2 on April 1, 2017—a three year low—due to an oversupply of allowances and the US Supreme Court suspending the implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The EPA estimates the Clean Power Plan could have reduced the pollutants that contribute to smog and soot by 25 percent, and the reduction would have lead to net climate and health benefits of an estimated $25 billion to $45 billion per year in 2030. President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 United States federal budget defunds the Clean Power Plan. In addition, On June 1, 2017, Donald Trump announced United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The map below shows no action from the United States while the map above identifies the United States as the largest polluter in the world per capita.
It is true that carbon price alone cannot solve the climate change problem—complementary policies are necessary. Energy efficiency regulation can stop landlords from buying inefficient equipment and sticking the tenants with the energy bills. Labeling and certification schemes can help to increase consumer awareness of low-carbon, low-energy-cost alternatives.
Carbon taxes are easier to administer as carbon sources are concentrated. Yet, introducing a global carbon price may not be realistic. Adverse effects on vulnerable populations or opposition by powerful lobbies can make it difficult to put in place the carbon price that theory recommends.
Once many countries have carbon pricing instruments, it is also always possible to link carbon markets. Governments have a key role to play to smooth the transition and protect those who stand to be most affected.
What is then done with this money is irrelevant – a tax is ‘green’ if it accounts for pollution costs otherwise unaccounted for, whether it is best spent on the environment depends on whether society has other problems with greater marginal benefit. Yet what could be more urgent than solving our carbon emission problem effectively.
Carbon Emission to be Solved
The world leaders must find a way to absorb carbon dioxide emissions that is in our atmosphere now. Trees and soils are the only way to absorb the present glut of CO2 in your world.
Presently these funds are improperly managed because they attempt to make the tax neutral by redirecting the fund for tax rebates to working families, cutting sales tax and reducing the tax on manufacturing. All this is very admirable but it doesn’t solve the high concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which is presently causing global warming.
The Funds to Finance Rehabilitation
There are two sources of funds based on two different methods of absorbing carbon emissions: one from biochar in soils and the other from planting of trees.
On one hectare of farm land of 500 trees:
- Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Fund for BIOCHAR IN SOILS
LND Fund seeks to mobilize US$2 billion annually; they estimate that the average cost of land rehabilitation is $100- $150/ha. In Africa, five countries have voluntary committed to LND including Algeria, Chad, Ethiopia, Namibia and Senegal.
- 500 trees/hectare will yield 50 tons of Carbon from branches and weeds or (50 tons x ⅓) 16.7 tons of CO2 emission absorption from the production of
- The value of the capture of carbon in the form of Biochar is $250/year at the tax rate of $15/ton. (The LDN Fund offers $150/year based on $10/ton of carbon emissions.)
- The Carbon Tax Fund for TREES: the fund can support 500 trees for a total cost of $200/year for a period of 25 years plus an initial $750:
- There will be 500 trees with a NPV of $0.50/tree: at the rate of $15/ton, the Net Present Value (NPV) is $200/year.
- Add $1.00/tree for reporting and auditing for 25 years (that’s a one-off total – not per year): $500 to be monitored by Living Water MicroFinance Inc. for 25 years.
This part of the fund will support each 1.5 acre farm that will have access to $150/year n the form of micro finance assistance complements of the Carbon Tax Fund. Each $150 will be recycled nine times for a total of $1,350.
This micro finance will be made available to women farmers and their families who need support before the orchards become productive after 18 months: they will maintain this agroforest farms by planting vegetable like yam in between the new tree seedlings. The micro finance loan will be due after the harvest.
The tree farm is supported by a Today’s Tall Tree Nursery managed by Living Water MicroFinance Inc. in order to reduce the cost of tree seedlings. The fruit and nut tree seedlings along with nitrogen fixing trees are supplied by Today’s Tall Tree Nursery.
The reporting and auditing of trees for 25 years at the rate of $1.00/tree will help finance a Today’s Tall Tree Nursery to service over 100 hectare (beginning with 50,000 tree seedlings). The estimated fixed cost is $80,000. This decentralized system is preferable to the present centralized nurseries that have costly transportation costs for very vulnerable tree seedlings.
This calculation does NOT include income streams from the fruit and nut produce, which are reserved for the women farmers and their families. Later, irrigation can be added for a remunerative 275% crop improvement.
There will be a stipulation that all biomass on the 1.5 acre farm will be converted to Biochar every year. Creating Biochar on a farm involves incentives: the women farmer and her family will receive $150 based on the carbon tax rate of $15/ton for a total of 34 tons/year of carbon sequestered.
Living Water MicroFinance Inc. will arrange partnerships with African landlords (who provide a long term lease) for woman farmers and their families.
A Full Scale Aquaponic Tree Nursery in Africa supported by:
- A Micro Hydro Electric System: no dams: HugENERGY.us
- An Irrigation System: NORTHydro.com
- A Rabbit and Fish Farm: AfriCAPITALISM.us
- An Agroforestry Intercrop System: LivingWaterIs.com
- The Charitable Arm: SunnyUp.net
- God’s Loveletters: Godloveletters.com
- Thunder of Justice: ThunderofJustice.com
Stage 1 Agricultural Mechanization of Africa
Stage 2 Today’s Tall Trees Nursery: Carbon Tax Fund
Stage 3 Micro Finance & Landlord Cooperatives
Stage 4 Irrigation in Remote Areas using kinetic energy from moving water.
Stage 5 Electricity Created in Remote Areas using moving water without the use of a dam.