BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

Dear all,

We are all here because of a hope in opportunities envisioned carbon trading schemes offer. However, they are far from being clearly articulated and our politicians are lagging behind with legislations. And profiteering without real reductions in CO2 emissions is worrying sign.
Since our future is at stake, I suggest that we consider what can be done. NewScientist’s article “Dirty, sexy money” (19/4/08) is an excellent intro and its related web-pages offer plenty of news.
( http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/ )
As suggested in the article, we need carbon accountants but I would go a bit further. Current, energy ratings (mandatory in Australia for household appliances) can easily be converted into CO2 emission ratings. Factoring in energy sources and expanding the scheme on all larger energy consuming equipment can provide quite good base for carbon accounting.
Taxes are unpopular, but claiming carbon credits in our tax returns may also be very effective and attractive. And what we do may also be worth few carbon credits.
Based on recent food or biofuels issue, I would also suggest tax on arable land used for biofuel crops.
Exporting polluting businesses to countries that do not tax CO2 emissions needs to be banned by legislation.
Importing from countries that do not tax CO2 emissions should also be taxed.

I think that the above can be implemented by any country, without a wait for other countries to agree. And this is currently major issue among politicians.

We will also need a good math of CO2 capture by algae growing, afforestation etc. Results should be offset, though, by how much extracted biofuels will emit.

Accumulated and refined ideas, here and elsewhere, may provide good starting point to our legislators. Any thoughts?

Kind regards,
Damir

 Damir,

Our politicans already screw us over a great deal.  I'll beat yours do to.

Please don't give them another excuse to screw us over even worse.

The only things governments do well is waste money, destroy the value of their currency, trample on their citizens rights, and kill people.  Why invite such a group of losers to have even more power over your life?

If you assume an idealistic world, where the government is dedicated to carrying out the objectives given them in legislation, then your ideas would be great.  The public choice school of economics explained to us how the real world works.  The bureacrats will manage their bureaucracy to protect and increase their power.   Any thought of your rights or protecting the environment will be strictly secondary to protecting their power.

Governments are not the solution, they are the problem.

liberty1:

Governments are not the solution, they are the problem.

Although I partly share your sentiment, without our governments (being at least sympathetic to the issue) we would not be here discussing biodiesels.
Any people management manual will tell you that we must work with people as they are. And this includes politicians. Wherever you turn, private or public life, you have to work with people as they are. In progress, you can “educate” them about something you know and learn something you did not know. But, gently. Dismissals yield dismissals only and all of us loose.
Working with others as they are is a kind of art. Firstly, you have to discard stereotypes (an art in its own right) and see people as they are. (Quite a challenge since the most of us learned to “hide ourselves” behind a “picture of us” we would like others to see.) Secondly, you must master utilising the best and the worst of what they really are.
This could also be a good advice in a manual for married people.

Sincerely,
Damir

I'm not resolved on the issue of carbon credits. I find it fairly unimagineable that something you 'could' have done 'should' be worth money/credit for the sake of it not being done - It bears similarities with betting on a winning horse after the race has been won.

Therefore, my perception of carbon credits should be towards actual change - you fix your emissions, and can prove that you have, then you have made an actual difference.

I still find this an issue I am concerned with, for to prove that you have made an actual change, you then need to project what you would have been emitting - leading yourself back into the race that has already been won scenario I detailed previously.

In carbon trading, you need to deal with more substantial facts - to bring this to an algae table, if I were to pay you to extract 1,000 m/t of carbon from the atmosphere using algae, you would then go about extracting it, and report your success/failure as a reportable outcome. I think of this as a more apt method of carbon trading, as it deals with realities - albeit this is my opinion.

Which brings me to a little bit of a predicament I suppose - I had better chuck in a disclaimer due to my profession:

DISCLAIMER

This is a personal opinion, not a professional opinion. I have not made this comment based upon any professional material, nor is it made in any official capacity.

Mælinar:

Therefore, my perception of carbon credits should be towards actual change - you fix your emissions, and can prove that you have, then you have made an actual difference.

I have, since, drafted an initiative along similar lines and I hope to have some people looking at it. The bottom line is: emission - taxed, carbon neutral - not taxed, carbon capture - credited.

Also. I bet that not stating what you actually do is driving everybody crazy.

Best,

Damir

PS: I'm not particularly fond of using our poo either. But I wonder what makes it more lethal than seal's?

 Damir,

I agree - you need to discard the sterotype of governments as these wonderful organizations that work hard at solving our problems.  Please recognize them for what they are.  In most governments, they take 50% of what their subjects earn.  Their most basic mission is to preserve the lives and property of their subjects - during the last century, governments killed 100 million of their own people - not casualties of wars - they killed their own subjects.

We need to understand them for what they are - they steal our money and kill us.  If we give them another excuse to exercise even more power, what will they do?  Given their nature, they will steal even more of our money and kill even more people.  We don't get a choice of using their best and ignoring their worst - they have the power to impose their worst on us.

Disclaimer - I realize there are a few good people in government who are really trying to help their fellow citizens.  I am talking about what the general tendencies of governments are today and have been for all of recorded history. 

liberty1:

Damir,

I agree - you need to discard the sterotype of governments as these wonderful organizations that work hard at solving our problems.  Please recognize them for what they are.  In most governments, they take 50% of what their subjects earn.  Their most basic mission is to preserve the lives and property of their subjects - during the last century, governments killed 100 million of their own people - not casualties of wars - they killed their own subjects.

We need to understand them for what they are - they steal our money and kill us.  If we give them another excuse to exercise even more power, what will they do?  Given their nature, they will steal even more of our money and kill even more people.  We don't get a choice of using their best and ignoring their worst - they have the power to impose their worst on us.

Disclaimer - I realize there are a few good people in government who are really trying to help their fellow citizens.  I am talking about what the general tendencies of governments are today and have been for all of recorded history. 

Any kind of people, considering themselves better than others, inflict untold miseries on others. This is at the core of “power corrupts”. But this also includes us and is painfully visible in “pictures of ourselves” we offer to others and hide behind pretending to be better than others.
Totalitarian regimes excluded, politicians are not the only ones to blame for our miseries. What about producing “news” that incite hatred and even wars? What about our religious leaders? What about sackings to increase profits? What about thefts ruining so many lives? What about maniacs with shotguns waiting near abortion clinics? What about recent Austrian case?
We are all (especially in the west) in dire need of shrinks. We all pass the buck. Nobody wants to take responsibility for his own actions or inactions and their results. It is much easier to blame others, including politicians.
Politicians are not much better than us in this insane world. However, we need to give some of them credit for what they do and vote out those that do not deserve it. This is democracy after all and we deserve governments we voted into the office. And each of us is responsible for whom we are voting into office. All the rest is passing the buck.
We need to consider also that without a civilisation (and this includes a form of government) we would all be drifting around pulling carts behind us with some of our belongings, if we were lucky to have a cart at the first place.

That said, if American I would bet my hopes on Obama. What about you?

Sincerely,
Damir

 Damir,

Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart.

Bobby