Tag Archives: global warming



Let us examine the 80% of allocated funds ($720 million of $900 million) of the world to other than Africa. Does this breakdown address the highest need to deal with Global Warming? It would appear that all these agencies are off the mark to “helping countries build Resilience to climate change’s impacts.“ Building this kind of Resilience is like locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen.

 What comes first? An Emission absorption solution or manufacturing of face masks for everyone.  The situation cannot be changed by improving security after a major theft. We must deal with the Security Problem first! The door (Our world as we know it) cannot be vulnerable to attack.

To correct the problem we must fix the barn door (Emission absorption Solution) or harness the horse (Reduce Emissions). Now we really must catch the horse (Solve the emission problem), but very few people (the Millennium Development Goals Achievement Fund (MDG-F) are searching for the horse. This includes all of the participants starting from the largest: UNDP, UNICEF, FAO, UNESCO, ILO, UNFPA, WFP, UNIDO, UNWOMEN, PAHO/WHO and IOM.

In the meantime, our governments are simply thinking about taxing some polluters a little and readjusting the tax to keep it neutral. Our Governments are only talking to locksmiths. In other words, they are not addressing the problem at all. (Remember: the horse has already bolted).

 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:

  1. 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/haIn 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 COemission absorption from the production of BIOCHAR.
  • The value of the capture of carbon in the form of Biocharis $250/year at the tax rate of $15/ton. (The LDN Fund offers $150/year based on $10/ton of carbon emissions.)


  1. 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 to $2.50/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.SEVEN BILLION TREES

This part of the fund will support each 1.5 acre farm that will have access to $150/year in 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.


Carbon Tax NOT Enough






Farmers who plant trees get generous payments for 15 years. The rate in England is £1.28 ($1.72) per tree, plus grants for fences and gates.

With perhaps 20 years to go before conifers are harvested, they often sell to pension funds and other investors.




Carbon Tax NOT Enough

Carbon emissionsCarbon Tax Failure: NOT Enough

There is a failure of the press to cover urgency of carbon tax. Carbon should not flow unpriced into the atmosphere, any more than you should be allowed to toss your garbage in the street. It makes no sense that the fossil fuel industry is allowed to put out their waste for free, using the atmosphere as an open sewer.

Nearly all of those decisions share a common, crucial element: they are shaped, by the relative prices of available energy choices. The only way to get enough change is to send a price signal so that everyone from investors to car buyers will change their behavior automatically:  a kind of perpetual motion machine. 

A straightforward plan is simply to tax carbon directly. Canada has introduced the gradual approach of a $10/ton of carbon emissions to finally get the ball rolling, while some of the provinces have elected to increase this tax to $30/ton.  In the meantime, Exxon has been planning for $50 a ton to make sure it won’t put a crimp in their business.  

Yes, carbon tax is inevitable but one thing stands in the way: PRICE POINT.  If we want to move the needle, we have to move the market. We need a top down message. A steadily rising tax on fossil fuels will send a strong price signal. A proposed carbon tax pending in the New York state legislature (A.B. 8372:  proposes to increase the tax gradually from $35 to $185 per ton.) 

Is that the only thing that needs to be done?

To keep the pressure on carbon emissions, a “fee-and-dividend” approach sets a price on carbon, and then rebates all the revenue straight to citizens, perhaps even sending them a monthly check. Yes, the price we pay at the pump goes up but the check covers the increased cost.  It’s called revenue neutrality.

 It’s one arrow in a quiver full of other arrows we’re going to need. As we see temperatures shattering new records every month, we need to do everything:  not just a price on carbon, but dramatic subsidies for renewables to speed their spread.

We know what to do, but building a will to do it seems like an insuperable obstacle.

The definition of quixotic: foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals especially marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action.  Our rash ideas are bringing us to the opposite direction with no change in sight.

The clock ticks and each month we lose ground and face a warmer future and a bigger challenge to reign in green house gas effects on our life support on this planet. Building such an effort requires an international cooperation far beyond anything accomplished thus far, with an effort comparable to, or greater than, World War II.

In the pre-industrial global carbon cycle before 1750, there was zero carbon change. It was not unlike a chemical equilibrium that automatically balances itself.


Carbon cycle for the 1990’s: in billions of tons of CO2

Our CO2 emission debt is still in the RED. This does not even consider the mounting debt load that has already accumulated in the global carbon cycle, as we witness temperatures shattering new records every month.

Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. The dead wood and weeds can’t simply be stored in air tight underground. Burying a biomass will eventually result is methane, which is 23 times more harmful to the climate: it will inevitably attract termites which would mess up the project by puncturing holes in the airtight burial chambers.

There is an easier solution. If you heat this wood properly, the resulting by product is charcoal. Charcoal applied to agricultural land increases the fertility of the soil. This has been used in the past by Indians in the pre-Columbian Amazon basin. Continue reading Carbon Tax NOT Enough

Electricity: the Dominant Energy

Big Hydro’s Big Days are behind us

The $6.5-billion Romaine ” big hydro” development in Quebec, Canada will produce 1,550 MW: $4200/kW. British Columbia’s plan to build a new $8.8-billion hydro project on the Peace River for 1,100-megawatt: $8,000/kW. Manitoba may be in the worst shape of all: it has green-lighted the $6.5-billion, 700-megawatt Keeyask dam: $9286/kW (9 cents per kilowatt-hour).

The average cost of electricity from a hydro station larger than 10 megawatts use to be $1,000-$5,000/kW (3 to 5 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour). The HUG$954/kW

There are additional indirect costs: damming interrupts the flow of rivers and can harm local ecosystems, and building large dams and reservoirs often involves displacing people and wildlife.

carbon cost
Carbon Costs

Cheap and abundant U.S. natural gas, with its lighter (than coal) carbon footprint, is eating Canadian hydro’s lunch. Export prices averaged 6.5 cents per kw/h in 2008. By 2012, that was down to 3.1 cents per kw/h – far below the production costs of any new hydro projects being built now.

Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions or global warming, which uses the global warming potential unit, the Carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e)/kWh: 400 for natural gas and 700 to 1000 (without scrubbing) for coal.

Carbon Emission Costs
Carbon Emission Costs
Burning Question
Burning Question

Continue reading Electricity: the Dominant Energy