3 ms·
> but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation It actually can be. A molecule of oil does not burn twice. If you tax all the fossil fuels at the source (i.e
by credit_guy 4y ago
> but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation
It actually can be. A molecule of oil does not burn twice. If you tax all the fossil fuels at the source (i.e. when they are extracted), then you tax all the emissions. The companies that extract the fossil fuels will pass some of the tax to those who buy from them, who will pass some of their purchasing costs to some who buy for them, etc.
You can take that tax revenue and pay people who remove CO2 from the atmosphere. For example if you own forested land you should receive a tax rebate proportional to how much CO2 the forest absorbs. This way you incentivize people to buy land and plant forests.
In the US we have 30 million acres of land cultivated with corn used for ethanol production. The idea is that corn-derived ethanol is not a fossil fuel, and legislating a 10% ethanol fraction in our gasoline is somewhat similar to a 10% reduction in fossil fuel use reduction. Of course, we use a lot of fossil fuels to produce that corn, but the bigger problem is that in the end all the CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere by the 30 million acres of corn is put right back in when it's burned in a vehicle.
If you start giving people a tax rebate if they plant trees on their land, then the farmers will immediately stop the whole ethanol charade and plant trees.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoJust accelerating the existing EV transition would help, here's someone who's done the numbers: https://www.carbonbrief.org/electric-cars-sales-in-the-us-could-prevent-one-tenth-of-global-cropland-expansion/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/electric-cars-sales-in-the-us-co... > A faster shift to electric vehicles (EVs) in the US would avoid around 10% of the global cropland expansion expected over the next 30 years, according to a new study. > Instead of growing maize (corn) to make biofuel for US cars, modelling in the Ecological Economics paper suggests large swathes of land could be left to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2). > This land sparing would bring “substantial” emissions savings, in addition to the direct benefits of electrifying US road transport, the researchers say.
- shawn-butler 4y agomore like 80 million acres, just to update your fact regurgitation
- credit_guy 4y agoNo. As per the latest USDA report [1]: - total area planted with corn: 90.7 million acres - total production 14.1 billion bushels - out of which 5.0 billion bushels used for ethanol The don't give the exact area used for ethanol production, but making the reasonable assumption that the yield per acre is constant (it's probably not, but it's also probably not that far off), you get 5.0/ 14.1 x 90.7 = 32.2 million acres. [1] https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0722.pdf https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0722.pdf