Considerably modified, Hansen’s idea has been incorporated into a bill
2013 2013-05Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 6 →
The words are the paper's own, from its digital file; the division into articles was made by machine, so a box or caption can end up inside the article next to it.
Scan page 6
carbon fee on fossil fuel producers and cement mak ers upstream at the point of production or entry, and would be in the form of dollars per ton of carbon di oxide equivalent (CO2e) emitted from fuel extraction and use. The CO2e would include other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxides, sulfur hexa fluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride. There is no mention of black car bon or soot, which has a huge warming effect when it lands on ice masses, greatly increasing the heat ab sorption factor.
Apparently, there would be no fee charged on prod ucts such as fertilizers or petrochemicals that use fos sil fuels as raw materials or feedstocks to which value is added in the production process. Tariffs would be imposed on imports from countries that do not enact similar fee and dividend legislation. The non-regres sive plan also requires an annual increase in the car bon fee, which would start out at $15 per ton of CO2 and rise $10 per year or more if emission reductions are not proceeding at the desired pace. Combined with this would be a phase out of fossil fuel subsidies, including tax credits, over five years rather than an immediate and abrupt halt to the gravy train.
Then, 100% of the fee revenues would go to the gen eral population on a per capita and monthly basis as a dividend with two half shares for each family with children under 18. The money would be directly de posited in each individual’s bank account, with none going to the federal government for its tax-and-spend policies, thereby eliminating the influence of industry lobbyists. The idea is that the dividend would help ordinary people cope with the increase in transpor tation, heating, and electricity costs that the Energy Giants would pass along to consumers at every level.
It is thought that less well-off people, especially the poor, who are already low consumers of fossil fuels by virtue of their income status, would benefit the most and even have an incentive to conserve more while high-end consumers would receive a proportionately smaller dividend.
A decline in the use of hydrocarbons would logically follow. This assumption is based on the fact that the top one-fifth of the population has a carbon footprint that is three times that of the bottom one-fifth. At this rate, Hansen projects a 30% reduction in emissions in
Scan page 7
(continued from page 6: “Combating climate change The problems with James Hansen’s fee and dividend proposal”) er, which is actually more efficient since it doesn’t have to travel through miles of transmission lines that create harmful electromagnetic fields.
Other aspects of his proposal include im proved land-use practices such as refores tation that allow for the natural seques tration of carbon, which is all well and good. The capacity of our climate sinks is declining and needs to be reinforced. But he proposes the use of biochar by burn ing agricultural residues that would bet ter serve as mulch or compost to return nutrients to the soil and enable better moisture retention in an organic system of food production. Plus, charcoal making is a filthy process and should be abolished.
The real stinker in his plan is the deploy ment of nuclear power plants using In tegral Fast Reactor designs and thorium fuel. There are many problems with tho rium (3-4 times more abundant than ura nium) because it contains no fissile iso topes, which have to be added to achieve criticality. Therefore, either enriched uranium-235 or plutonium-239, made in indefinite future. Luis M. Alvarez / AP