Anybody want to argue global warming?

[Aeson]

The point being, we can't just tax emissions and expect everything to go all rosy. We might reduce consumption and prolong the release of the carbon, but sooner or later all that carbon is going to be out there anyways if we're going to burn the fossil fuels.

[giblets]

1. If you can tax emissions you can also give tax credits to people who find ways to sink carbon
2. Slowing the rate of emissions will slow the rate at which the climate changes, giving people more time to adapt
3. Taxing carbon emissions promotes development of technologies that aren't carbon emissions dependent, making it easier to stop using carbon emissions in the future

[Aeson]

1. We can do anyways (or could if we weren't spending money on frivolous stuff... which is of course what we'd do with the tax too).

2. Yes, but emissions (without differentiating by source) are simply a red herring. We can emit all the carbon we want from renewable sources (such as methane from waste) without harming the environment (and in many cases, actually benefits the environment since that waste won't be burned). We can't burn an ounce of petroleum without adding to the carbon total. The eventual solution is increasing (or at the very least stop decreasing) the buffering capacity of the planet that matters in the long run. You are just agreeing with me about this with 1.

3. The more effectively sequestered carbon we release today, the more we'll have until we find a way to store it away again. It's as simple as that. Taxing carbon (or simply focusing on emissions) without regard to the source and/or detriments to the planet's buffering capacity is a huge mistake.

[giblets]

1. If paying people to sequester carbon is a good idea, then why not make people pay for releasing sequestered carbon? Where else should we get the money for paying people to sequester carbon?
2. The vast majority of what people call "carbon emissions" come from fossil fuels and giving tax credits to people who make methane from waste to counter the effect of the tax doesn't sound hard.
3. The whole point in a carbon tax is to discourage the release of "effectively sequestered carbon" into the atmosphere. Will it have this effect? Yes.

[Aeson]

You are agreeing with me. I am arguing against simply taxing carbon. Not sequestered carbon. I've gone to great lengths to explain this already.

[giblets]

What else could "carbon tax" possibly mean? Did you think it meant you would have to pay money for breathing? Are you just being disingenuous?

[Aeson]

I've very clearly been arguing against focusing solely on emissions (and especially without regard to the source of emissions) as a cure for the situation. I have also been very clear that burning methane can be (but not always would be) carbon neutral even when considering buffering capacity of the planet.

Breathing is generally not covered by carbon tax proposals. Burning down your strawman isn't either...

[giblets]

I'm trying to figure out what your point is. "Hurr we should subsidize carbon sinking." Wow, that's really profound.

[Aeson]

Subsidizing carbon sinking is not as efficient as not un-sinking carbon in the first place. Still better than nothing of course, which I'll give you credit for since you're the one who specifically brought it up. Why you want to mock your own argument is beyond me though.

[ricketyclik]

I think Aeson is using the term sink in a different manner than it normally is in this context. I think what he's getting at is that if the carbon emission is in fact a neutral (or effectively a sink, by offsetting otherwise burnt fossil fuel by burning a renewable, or something that would have ended up in the atmosphere anyway) then it shouldn't be taxed.

Aeson, that is in fact the case - carbon taxes aim at net emissions, not immediate. Or they should, because otherwise they'd be self-defeating, as (I think) you're pointing out.

[ricketyclik]

Subsidizing carbon sinking is not as efficient as not un-sinking carbon in the first place. Still better than nothing of course, which I'll give you credit for since you're the one who specifically brought it up. Why you want to mock your own argument is beyond me though.

Which is of course what I was pointing out to you in the first place.

[Aeson]

I actually started out talking about the focus on emissions in general. It's not the cure. It can't be. The buffering capacity of the planet is how much carbon can be held sequestered at any given point. If that is continually lowered (which it is through many means) then we have a problem until we can change it back. Emissions from fossil fuels is one component in that.

Carbon tax was just a related tangent. Some carbon taxes do exempt methane. Wiki says NZ has an exemption for farm produced methane. Which is more in line with what I am arguing for, but still not a solution.

Simply put, we need more carbon effectively sequestered than we currently have, not less. (Whether that's fossil fuels, or plant biomass.) We're going in the wrong direction in that regard. A carbon tax, in and of itself, will only change how fast we're going in the wrong direction. (And then I haven't seen a tax that would do anything more than slow our acceleration, certainly not reverse it.)

[ricketyclik]

I actually started out talking about the focus on emissions in general. It's not the cure. It can't be. The buffering capacity of the planet is how much carbon can be held sequestered at any given point. If that is continually lowered (which it is through many means) then we have a problem until we can change it back. Emissions from fossil fuels is one component in that.

Well yes, the biggest in fact. And I believe most carbon pricing schemes allow for credits for the sinking of carbon.

Carbon tax was just a related tangent. Some carbon taxes do exempt methane. Wiki says NZ has an exemption for farm produced methane. Which is more in line with what I am arguing for, but still not a solution.

Methane should only be exempt if it's burnt, and even then the resulting CO2 should be charged for, in line with your own reasoning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NZ (and Australian, and probably most countries pricing carbon) exemption for agricultural methane is basically protectionism for the agricultural industry.

Simply put, we need more carbon effectively sequestered than we currently have, not less. (Whether that's fossil fuels, or plant biomass.) We're going in the wrong direction in that regard. A carbon tax, in and of itself, will only change how fast we're going in the wrong direction. (And then I haven't seen a tax that would do anything more than slow our acceleration, certainly not reverse it.)

Not if credits are available for sinks, which I believe they are in most carbon pricing schemes.

Just to clarify on the general confusion about your argument, the term sinks is normally used to describe the active, direct removal of carbon from the atmosphere, while emission reduction by source substitution is normally referred to as emissions reduction. Net result the same, molecule for molecule, but it's confusing when you start to get into double negatives.

[Aeson]

I was using the "buffering capacity" of the planet in regards the the total amount of carbon sequestered (short or long term) at any given period of time. I find this to be the most useful measure of where we stand, and of where we are going.

You introduced "sinks" to the discussion between us. I stated that fossil fuels are effectively sinks, and if you look at it from a long term perspective it holds up well. Fossil fuels didn't always just happen to be there. They are reservoirs of carbon that have been naturally sequestered over time. I think the use of the term holds up well when looked at from this perspective, and is actually how it should be used to avoid confusion.

Methane should only be exempt if it's burnt, and even then the resulting CO2 should be charged for, in line with your own reasoning.

Yes and no.

To clarify...

- Methane which is derived from anaerobic digestion and captured to be burned should be exempt or even credited*.
- The CO2 from that should not be charged if it is from a source that otherwise would have been released naturally. (waste matter)
- The CO2 from that should be charged if it is from a source that otherwise would not have been released naturally. (fertilizer inputs)

- Methane which is derived from anaerobic digestion (livestock stomachs) but not captured is much more difficult to price.

- Naturally occurring methane that is captured and burned should be exempt or even credited*

*to the extent that the CO2 released is less damaging than the methane. (I am not sure on how much, but IIRC methane is a more detrimental greenhouse gas, as well as an ozone destroyer.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NZ (and Australian, and probably most countries pricing carbon) exemption for agricultural methane is basically protectionism for the agricultural industry.

I do not know the specifics for the NZ law. I'd guess most of us are going to still like cheese on our pizzas and a steak from time to time. In any case, I don't think we'd be well served by making it economically more difficult for livestock farms to power themselves with methane, as that aspect of it is always a plus so long as we have livestock farms.

Not if credits are available for sinks, which I believe they are in most carbon pricing schemes.

If they are economically viable methods of sinking it. I haven't followed closely in recent years, but I would be very surprised if we're anywhere near being able to sink enough CO2 to fix the problem.

[giblets]

Subsidizing carbon sinking is not as efficient as not un-sinking carbon in the first place. Still better than nothing of course, which I'll give you credit for since you're the one who specifically brought it up. Why you want to mock your own argument is beyond me though.

A carbon tax promotes not un-sinking in the first place. So what is so bad about a carbon tax?