Defining Biofuel: Biofuels can be defined as any carbon-based fuel where all the carbon in the fuel is derived from atmospheric carbon dioxide. The carbon must only be derived from the biosphere and not fossil materials.
At $10 a tonne CO2-e minimum, paid to farmers for carbon dioxide removed, it would cost the world US $10 trillion to remove the one trillion tonne CO2 overload now in the atmosphere.
I think it’s now so important we should make that $15 or even $20 a tonne
The bill we now have to pay to return the atmosphere to its million year normal is therefore going to be between $10 trillion that’s ($10,000 billion) and $20 trillion. It could be spreads over ,maybe ten years. But we must start very soon. Apart from the fossil fuel people’s political influence, there is absolutely no reason why we can’t.
This is what we have to do, how and why.
# Stop all government subsidies to fossil fuel production, transport or use.
The funding: Discontinuing the taxpayer funded subsidies handed out to the fossil fuel and agrochemical people would easily give us sufficient to fund farmers to remove it all the CO2 excess causing the over heating of the biosphere.
Farmers just change their farming techniques so as to increase soil humus levels while they farm and that will remove all the carbon dioxide overload from our world’s atmosphere. It’s turning carbon dioxide into humus. And we pay them a decent price per tonne for carbon dioxide sequestered and the job gets done.
But artic and sub-artic permafrost is thawing and releasing methane at an accelerating rate, so the time we have is fast running out.
How much money is there if we stop subsidizing those people and use the money saved to pay farmers?
Answer: An IMF (International Monetary Fund) Fiscal Affairs Department report stated that in 2017, global fossil fuel subsidies grew to $5.2 trillion per year. That equates to 6.5% of combined global GDP. And those subsidizes are still rising.
The IMF reported that China lead all countries in the level of subsidies provided to fossil fuels, which the IMF report estimated to total $1.4 trillion in 2015. The United States followed with $649 billion in subsidies, Russia with $551 billion and the EU with $289 billion.
How much does the Australian Government spend on subsidizing fossil fuels?
The IMF estimates that annual energy subsidies in Australia total $29 billion, representing 2.3 per cent of Australian GDP. On a per capita basis, Australian fossil fuel subsidies amount to $1,198 per person.
Australia ranked below most countries for mortality rate from pollution related illnesses, with the IMF attributing 2.6 deaths per 1,000 in Australia to local air pollution associated with fossil fuels. This is less than half the rate observed in China (5.3 deaths per 1,000) and significantly below Russia (10.0 deaths per 1,000) and the Ukraine (16.0 deaths per 1,000), where little by way of regulation exists to protect people from air pollution.
The IMF found that the removal of fossil fuel subsidies would also have significant economic benefits, including improved budget bottom-lines for governments. The net benefits of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would amount to 1.7 per cent of global GDP.
Global warming is happening. The temperature in the biosphere (That’s were Earths life is) started to rise around the mid 1900s. The rate of the rise is accelerating.
Subsidizing corporations, and financially supporting nations that dig the stuff out or pump it out from where it harmlessly lay hundreds of feet below the Earth’s surface is well beyond avaricious. irresponsible, criminality. Aided and abetted by gullible stupidity.
We demand that those idiotic subsidies stop.
An keep demanding until they do stop.
# Tax Funded Subsidies to the Agrochemical Companies must stop now.
That frees up more funds to pay farmers to remove all that excess carbon dioxide.
In general agricultural chemicals used on, or incorporated into soil severely damages the established microbiological activity that developed over geological times that converts dead plant material into soil humus.
There is a minor exception to the “stop now” demand. Organic farming improves the humus content of the soil farmed. Some specific agricultural chemicals are used by organic farmers. Ceasing their subsidies is not at all necessary. What those chemicals are, is well known. There is little ambiguity.
The quantity of active humus in a soil is a good and reliable measure of that soil’s fertility. The herbaceous food mammals live on must contain humus for those animals to survive and thrive. Evolution did the selecting over several million years.
In the last 30 years I have never heard of any, even remotely feasible, alternative for “detoxing” our atmosphere than the creation of massive quantities of humus rich , massively fertile and productive soils. It’s the perfect solution – the carbon dioxide overload gets turned in rich soil humus.
We want it to happen in all the world’s agricultural lands. It happens by our farmers systematically moving to a fertility enhancing, chemical free form of agriculture. It’s what always happens when farmers decide to become “organic”.
In view of the huge quantities involved, it becomes clear that soil fertility enhancement is our only practical option.
We must ponder the question, “Does irreversible global warming become the price humanity pays to ensure the world’s agrochemical industries survive and prosper?”
# Agrochemical purchases should not be claimable as a tax deduction
It is madness to give a tax deduction to farmers for the purchase of chemicals that prevent, or massively inhibit an increase in the humus and hence the carbon content of their soils. Chemicals that often significantly decrease the humus content of their soils.
If they wish to use such chemicals, OK, it would be their prerogative. but under no circumstances should the rest of us effectively subsidise the use of such chemicals.
# No fuel taxes to apply to biofuels power transport
The quickest way to have a country switch from petroleum-based transport fuels to plant derived transport fuels is to use the taxation system.
A driver filling up his vehicle at a service station must see a biofuel pump advertising a much lower fuel price for the biofuel than the petroleum-based fuel when he buys fuel.
The system for levying taxes of motor fuels vary widely around the World. Sometimes even from state to state within a country. Taxation incentives to initiate a significant swing away from petroleum-based fuels will therefore need to be slightly tailored to suit the taxation laws of the country.
One system would be simply to levy a tax on the energy content of the fossil fuel proportion of the finished product.
Another approach might be to allow the cost of the proportion of biofuel in the product to be a tax deductable item for all vehicle users. There are many possibilities.
When the switch to a high use of biofuels effect taxation revenue, then all fuels could be taxed on a “blend ratio” where the fossil energy component is taxed at a much higher rate.
# Registration fees should be abandoned on all motor vehicles modified to run on biodiesel. They should also be abandoned on spark ignition engines capable to running on fuels containing at least 75% ethanol.
Some countries, Australia being one, have a mixture of state and federal revenue systems. In Australia motor fuel taxes are a federal system whereas motor vehicle registration charges are a state issue.
So, in Australia all vehicle registration charges need to be reduced to no more than a token charge for spark ignition vehicle designed to operate on an ethanol content of over 75%.
When the proportion of biofuel compatible vehicles becomes significant, enough to materially diminish State revenue then the token charge on biofuel powered vehicles can be increased to where it to becomes meaningful.
Concurrently fees on fossil fuel powered vehicles would have to rise by several times the new higher charge on high ethanol compatible vehicles.
# High import duties be levied on all fossil fuels.
As a policy all countries should impose high tariffs on the importation of fossil fuels into their country. The tariff money collected should best be used to reduce some other government charges, such as removing import duties om motor vehicles configured for biofuel use.
# Phase out fossil fuel use as a tax deductable expense for business.
This would be a massive incentive for businesses to start converting to the predominant use of biofuels. This conversion to biofuel incentive is extremely powerful and could almost guarantee a major switch to biofuels use in commercial transport.
It is appreciated that in many cases the cost of fuel is a major expense, and therefore, not allowing deductions for the purchase of fossil fuel could be prohibitively disruptive.
To prevent this disruption the non-deductibility of fossil fuels could be schedules to come over a 10 year period. No change from “as is” the first 5 years then at that point the non-deductibility demand would begin to apply on a sliding scale. The sixth year 20 % of fuel purchases to be non-deductable. It would then rise to 40% the seventh year and another 20% in subsequent years until all fossil fuel purchases were a non-deductable expense.
An effective alternative for consideration might be to allow commercial uses of diesel in transport to claim a – taxation double deduction – for all purchases of biodiesel.
It might be argued that unscrupulous transport companies might collect biodiesel fuel dockets from their friends and use them. This would be illegal. However, the upside is, it certainly would boost the sales of biodiesel and so help “save the planet”.
Irrespective of how it is done, by the end of the financial year 2031, the cost of fossil fuel-based transport fuels must no longer be a tax deductable expense.
Organic Food and Chemical Food – Cost the Same to Produce
The cost of high production organic food is much the same as that for chemical based agricultural, despite constant, well promoted claims to the contrary. Good examples come from the Rodale Institute of Kutztown. Pennsylvania. They have been trialing organic systems for 70 years. They have a 37 year long parallel trial of chemical farming versus organic farming that shows the comparisons. They are the longest documented time trials in North America, and possibly the world.
In summary they found that, for first three years conventional chemical, outperformed strict organic. But from 1984, (the trials started in 1981) so after only three years, organic easily outperformed chemical, in both yields and profitability – and especially in times of drought.
Numbers, Quantities, Money and Disinformation
A summary of what has happened
For many millions of years the Earth’s atmosphere contained approximately two trillion tons of carbon dioxide (2×1012 tonnes) Since the 1940’s we have added another two trillion tons. One trillion of that has been absorbed by the oceans. Ocean water acidity has risen accordingly, and is now beginning to affect marine life, particularly crustaceans.
Reducing or even eliminating carbon dioxide emissions cannot stop the ever increasing temperatures in our oceans and the entire biosphere. Rising temperatures will continue for probably centuries. So it’s essential, we remove that excess.
The fossil fuel industries’ current emphasis on the concept of “decreasing emissions” by, for example “switching off that extra light” as a solution to Climate change is an absolute nonsense. If implemented to any great extent it would, at the very best, simply decrease the rate at which things get horribly worse.
The simple arithmetic shows that increasing the organic matter content of the world’s agricultural soils, down to a depth of 30 centimeters, with an additional 2% of soil organic matter (principally humus) would remove all the excess carbon dioxide now overloading our atmosphere.
In 2005 a report was published ‘Modelling support for Future Actions – Benefits and Cost of Climate Change Policies and Measures’. ENV.C.2/2004/0088. It was commissioned by European Commission DG Environment. This report estimated that if a “business as usual” scenario continued to operate the costs of Climate Change were estimated to be Euro 74 trillion (approximately US $90 trillion). The fossil fuel and agrochemical interests have ensured that “business as usual” is generally prevailing.
Eight years later in – September 25 2012 the Guardian reported that, according to a new study, Climate Change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP. And – The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.
Our soils become rich, erosion effectively ceases, and our foods become highly nutritious and climate and weather destabilization ends. And that period gives us the time to change to non-fossil carbon energy system.
The whole combined process is so easy, so sensible and so incredibly economical, but it is unfortunately and obviously, just not happening.
This paper estimates fossil fuel subsidies and the economic and environmental benefits from reforming them, focusing mostly on a broad notion of subsidies arising when consumer prices are below supply costs plus environmental costs and general consumption taxes.
Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP.
Something to think about ?
CUBAN TRADE EMBARGO AND BIG OIL. Cuba can produce too much ethanol and big oil would not like that.
So is that why the trade embargo stays!