But those who use things that contribute the most to these emissions should pay more carbon emissions tax than those who contribute less. In the main well off people have a greater carbon footprint than those that are less well off.

This is not an attack on the rich. The rich pay for all they use and they are welcome to whatever they pay for. But, they do not pay for the extra carbon emissions that are caused by their ability to pay for that extra.

Going back to, “who should pay a carbon emissions tax” lets take airline travel for an example. Here is a calculation for various travelers traveling in different classes on an airline. I do not know how accurate these figures are but it is the differential that we are interested in.

These are the return flight carbon emissions from a trip from New York to London.

Economy Class = 1,826 lbs.

Business Class = 3,706 lbs.

First Class = 5,936 lbs.

This means that people in business class are emitting twice the carbon as those in economy and those in first class 3 times the amount. Ha! You might say but the first class passenger is still just one passenger and they are already paying much more than economy class. As mention before they are not paying for emissions they are paying for the extra space, extra luggage allowance, they get to use metal knives and forks (plastic for economy weighing less) and a host of other things. Apart from this lets just work out a couple of things.

The average unladen (no fuel no passengers) weight of a around 190,000 lbs. Typically this size aircraft with three classes (economy, business and first) can take 180 passengers. Overall this works out to 1055lbs per passenger.

Hold on a minute, first class passengers get over 3 times the space of an economy class passenger. Their luggage allowance is higher and a heap of other things. If the aircraft had only one class (economy) the aircraft could hold 255 passengers (Boeing 767 stats) This then would equate to 745lbs per passenger. So technically first class passengers are at least taking up 2235lbs of the weight of the aircraft compared to the economy class passenger 745lbs.

What about the weight of the passengers? Well they do add weight but the average weight of the passenger is what? 150 – 160lbs. Just a small part of the overall weight.

Looking at this it would be unfair for an airline that may have to levy a carbons emissions tax on a per passenger basis. It should be charged per class seat. As politicians are always spouting they believe on the “user pays principle”

Now paying for emissions due to cars is much simpler. All one has to do is put a carbon tax on petrol. If you have a fuel-guzzling monster you pay more tax through your petrol purchases and this is how it should be. Cars using LPG which emit less CO2 the tax per gallon should be less than gasoline.

One thing I hear about is that wood fires should be banned. Well maybe they should. But, just look at this carbon calculation. I have a wood fire and calculate that I use about 55lbs of timber a day over a 10-hour period.

Open Fire 55lbs wood 275lbs carbon.

Wood slow combustion heater 55lbs wood 12.5lbs carbon.

Electric fire 30 kilowatts 66lbs carbon

Natural gas/lpg 108megajoules 16.66lbs carbon

All calculations were done using the Carbon Calculator at Carboncops

Well, what a revelation. The most efficient way of heating and the least emitter of carbon is a wood slow combustion heater. This is what I have. Apart from this I live in on a country property and all the wood I use is natural fallen timber which would rot away and produce carbon emissions anyway.

The big baddie is the open wood fire and in this case should probably be banned. Also consider that my 55lbs of wood consumed in my slow combustion fire over a 10 hour period is less than that would be consumed in an open fire over the same period.

So how do we make user pays here? Electricity and natural gas is easy they can be given a carbon emissions tax but what about wood. Difficult. But open wood fires being by far the worst of any should be banned, specially in the city areas. Sorry guys get a natural or LPG simulated wood fire if you want the ambience.

In all we all should be trying to do something to reduce our carbon footprint I recommend the “Home Renewable Energy” Book that will give you some ideas how.

So what do you feel we should consider on who pays a carbon emissions tax to try pay for the reduction of global warming . We all know what causes global warming so we should not be reticent in trying to fix it.

For your interest here are some related articles on carbon emissions tax.

• An accounting standard for carbon? - Almost since its inception the Tax Justice Network has been developing and promoting the International Financial Reporting Standard calling for country-by-country reporting by all quoted companies.This is now the subject of discussion …
• Implications of a cap-and-trade program - Market-oriented approaches to reducing carbon emissions (such as a cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax) are much more efficient than command-and-control approaches (such as regulations that require across-the-board reductions by all …
• Saskatchewan premier warns against carbon tax - The federal opposition Liberal Party, under leader StephaneDion, is pushing a carbon tax in its campaign for the Oct. 14election, along with a promise to cut personal taxes at thesame time. Wall, who leads the right-of-center …
• British Columbia levies carbon tax - British Columbia has introduced North America’s first carbon tax as part of its 2008 budget. A summary (pdf, 176kb) of the new tax says its purpose is to “encourage individuals and businesses to make more environmentally responsible …

So how does the carbon emissions trading scheme work? My take on this is that a government works out how much carbon emissions are sent into the air for each industry (company). It then reduces the total by a percentage in order to meet their international obligations. Each industry has to then meet the reduced target or pay a fine depending on how much they are over.

Where the carbon emissions trading scheme comes in is that when an industry reduces it’s emissions below the fines level it can sell the amount it is below to industries (companies) allowing them either to avoid the fines or emit more emissions. Isn’t this like a wife abuser donating to a woman’s refuge to offset beating his wife?

So how are these industries (companies) suddenly reducing their emissions that enables them to reduce their emissions not only by the governments required amount but enough to enable them to sell them to other companies so that they can use them as carbon offsets. You would think that if they have managed to do this they would have been able to do it before the carbon-trading scheme came into existence. Trouble with large (and even small) companies I guess there is a certain amount of creative accounting going on.

Apart from all this there is one very fatal flaw in this that affects you the consumer. All companies are out to make a profit so if the bottom line suffers because of big fines, what do they do, they just put up the costs of their product to you and me. The same occurs with those companies who meet or reduce their carbon emission targets. If there is a cost to this that affects their bottom line once again they put up the cost of their products to us.

So in effect it is the usually scamming by big business (I make no apologies calling it scamming) that actually does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. A sleight of hand that gives the appearance of reducing emissions, in fact all it seems to have done is create another great way for new companies to appear that actually trade carbon emissions and make money, probably the only winners out of this.

So once again as with other things with the carbon emissions trading scheme we are having the wool pulled over our eyes mainly by politicians trying to make it seem that they are doing something about global warming but trying to do it in such a way that will appease the outcry from those monolithic polluting companies. The carbon emissions trading scheme is a non-event as far as saving our planet.

Here is a interesting document you can download to find out more about offsets, called “The Carbon Neutral Myth” It is free.

Here are some more articles related to Carbon Emission Trading and its effects.

• Carbon Trading Plans Around the World - Companies and governments are turning to emissions trading as a weapon to fight climate change, in a carbon market worth US$64 billion last year. Cap-and-trade plans force participants — often energy-intensive industries — to buy …
• Oliver Tickell: Carbon trading has become a licence for polluters … - Oliver Tickell: Far from incentivising emissions cuts, the EU’s carbon trading scheme provides a grotesque subsidy for the biggest polluters Go to Source article from guardian.co.uk Environment.
• Environmental Graffiti | Archive | November - Environmental Graffiti correspondent Richard Rhodes is the managing director of eco-business e-photoframes. The company recently conducted a study on the carbon offset policies of major airlines. Airlines are estimated to account for up to 3% of global C02 emissions according to the European commission.
• Trading the carbon market - Carbon trading — also known as “cap and trade” — is a system designed to cut the carbon emissions which contribute to global warming. Generally in a market-based cap and trade system, a central authority — such as a government or …
• New Zealand Gas Prices to Rise Under New Carbon Trading Scheme - In 2011, gas prices (measured at current levels) are expected to rise seven cents per liter under a new carbon trading scheme written into law in New Zealand. The law passed last night after a 63-57 vote and the costs of the emissions …

I saw in the Sun newspaper the other day a question posed to some Melbourne citizens what they thought of a seawater desalination plant. Great they said, we’ll be able to wash our cars whenever we want. This made me speechless. The “Melbourne will get clean pure water” was to be used for washing cars.

Desalination contributes to global warming and this is just one thing that is causing this global warming controversy. Seawater desalination has a massive continuous energy requirement, contributing greatly to global warming. Ironically global warming is thought to be the prime cause of dwindling water supplies, which is perpetuated by desalination. The claimed use of “green energy” to run desalination plants is misleading. If it weren’t for desalination plants, that “green energy” could (and should) be used to reduce current greenhouse emissions.

Desalination wastes water. Desalination provides extra water, but will promote further water wastage (our government even advertises the lifting of water restrictions in Melbourne as one benefit!), rather than encouraging water savings. Thus it is self defeating.

Desalination produces truckloads of waste every day. Desalination produces truckloads of dry waste (salts, chemicals and organic sludge) daily that must be disposed of in landfill.

Desalination pollutes our ocean. Desalination produces huge volumes of waste every day (brine, chemicals and dead aquatic life) to be discharged back into our ocean. This has detrimental impacts of unknown severity on marine communities. Nearby communities here include the Bunurong Marine Park and
Coastal Reserve.

Desalination reduces our aquatic life. Desalination kills tonnes of aquatic planktonic life and other organisms which are taken in with the water to be treated, depleting life throughout the food chain over a wide area.

Desalination plants are big, ugly and noisy industrial sites. Locating one on this coast contravenes this government’s Coastal Strategy for preventing the spread of urban development along the coast. The Bass coast is a pristine environment that is going to be visually polluted by this monstrosity on our coastline. But do the Melbournites care. Apparently not, they just want to clean their cars.

Apart from all this there is one aspect that is still under investigation. There is no knowledge about the long term affects of boron. This is a naturally occurring substance but is present in quantity in water gained by the desalination of seawater. Whether this is above the recommended level is not know but we already consume naturally generated boron and this in desalinated water is in addition. You can read a document on Boron by USA authorities here.

Did you know that if water tanks were installed in all Melbourne homes they would provide as much water as the desalination plant and cost less. So why is the government so stuck on building one? Ha Ha! Maybe there is no money in it for those who will be building it and running it. Got to look after the corporate don’t we. Also you can consider that water tanks would not bring in any revenue to the government plus there is very little annual maintenance required for water tanks. The fact also is that water tanks can be plumbed straight into the non-potable areas. Hmmm can’t have this it means people would use less potable water thus reducing revenue to those corporates again.

On top of this, governments do not like being told they are wrong, they thought of the idea so they are going to stick with it come hell or high water. But why worry about global warming controversy certainly the government doesn’t.

Most talk is about global warming is centered around the impact we have on the environment. Huge emissions of carbon dioxide by transport, industry and other man-produced endeavors are the main reasons in this regard. While global warming is a controversial subject, what is clear is that it is not only caused by mankind.

If man were to disappear from earth, natural global warming would still exist to some extent.

Our earth is kept warm by the gases in the atmosphere. Some gases stop heat from escaping into space and this heat is contained providing warmth to our planet. This is natural with gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, not to mention water vapor, playing a natural part in this process. Our planet would be very cold if this natural global warming did not occur due to these gases. Experts estimate it would be somewhat 30 degrees colder, leading to massive ice formations throughout the world, as we know it.

A strange and useful, example is in the desert. During the day it can be hot as a furnace, but at night it can grow extremely cold. The temperature variation is due to a lack of natural temperature regulators. During daytime, there is nothing to regulate the heat such as a stretch of water. During the night, there is nothing available that stores the heat during the day.

The today’s debate on global warming isn’t so much whether it occurs, as it is what is natural global warming and what is due to man. A certain amount of global warming is certainly natural global warming, which is a fact that is not disputed. The question is what impact, if there is any, is our contribution to the massive amounts of greenhouse gases having on natural global warming and what could be the long-term implications to this.

The global warming issue is complex. One of the problems is the amount of time involved in the process of global warming of the earth. The concern is that the effects of our contribution to global warming added to natural global warming is speeding up the heating of the planet which is causing calamitous climate change.

Experts argue that most of the warming is due to natural global warming they do not seem to take into consideration that the speed of warming is not natural and is something that we all should be helping to reduce.

First lets look at what causes global warming in the first place? The answer is greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, methane, CFC are greenhouse gases. Burning of fossil fuel emits carbon dioxides and water vapor.

The EIA report says about 72% of electricity is generated by burning of fossil fuel, and burning of fossil fuel emit greenhouse gases. Therefore I can state that saving the use of electricity can lessen the contribution to global warming.

Change your home’s incandescent light into compact fluorescent light. A compact fluorescent light uses only 25% the energy of incandescent light. This can be a major to help global warming.

Switch off all your electrical appliances if it is not in use. When you need to change your monitor buy a LCD monitor instead of CRT monitor cause LCD monitors uses about 56% less energy than CRT monitors. Turn off your computer screen when you are away from the computer. Set your monitor into screen saver mode will not save any electricity.

Don’t open your fridge’s door except when you need to. Stop those kids who seem to want to continuously open it to see if there are any goodies in there. This is because open the door for one minute will force fridge’s motor to operate for half-hour more.

Use solar heating to heat up your home and water so that you can save on the use of electricity.

When your car comes up for renewal consider buying an electric car or a hybrid car instead of gasoline car. Normally gasoline cars have efficiency of about 20-30 mpg; hybrid cars have efficiency of about 50-60 mpg while an electric car has efficiency as high as 130-140 mpg. Do you really need that lumbering gasoline guzzling behemoth?

Plant more trees in front or at the back of your house. Trees have shading effect that can make your house cooler during summer. Besides this, trees can absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis purposes. This directly reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Recycle paper, aluminum can and glass. This is because recycling uses 60-70 % less energy than producing product from raw material. The use of more energy means the burning of more fossil fuels making more severe the degree of global warming.

Conserve water. This action has two advantages: One, clean water becomes less and less available nowadays, experts believe that we will face water crisis on the next few decades and two, A lot of energy is needed to process clean water. Consider the possibility of installing a rainwater tank. The water collected can be used to flush your toilets and provide water for your washing.

A report was produced in Melbourne, Australia, that worked out that the local council, (this is just central Melbourne not greater Melbourne) would save $600 million a year if the rainwater flushed down the drains was saved instead of being processed before releasing into the bay.

Makes you wonder doesn’t it. So what can you do to help global warming prevention.

Virtually 100% of the observed temperature increase over the last 50 years has been because of the increase in the atmosphere of greenhouse gas concentrations like water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane and ozone. Greenhouse gases are those gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The largest contributing source of greenhouse gas is the burning of fossil fuels leading to the emission of carbon dioxide.

The greenhouse effect

When sunlight reaches Earth s surface some is absorbed and warms the earth and most of the rest is radiated back to the atmosphere at a longer wavelength than sun light. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of these longer wavelengths before they are lost to space. The absorption of this longwave radiant energy warms the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases act like a mirror and reflect back to the Earth some of the heat energy, which would otherwise be lost to space. The reflecting back of heat energy by the atmosphere is called the greenhouse effect.

The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide CO 2, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons.

What Causes Global warming by greenhouse effect

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere act like a mirror and reflect back to the Earth a part of the heat radiation, which would otherwise be lost to space. The higher the concentration of green house gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more heat energy is being reflected back to the Earth. The emission of carbon dioxide into the environment mainly from burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas, petrol, kerosene, etc.) has been increased dramatically over the past 50 years.

The increase of greenhouse gas concentration (mainly carbon dioxide) led to a substantial warming of the earth and the sea, called global warming. In other words: The increase in the man-made emission of greenhouse gases is the cause for global warming.

Now we know what causes global warming as far as gases are concerned what really is the problem is what causes these gases to occur. You guessed it! We do.

Global warming is occurring much quicker than can be attributed to natural causes and we are the cause of it.

So what can be done to help and reduce this great surge in the warming of the earth.

The “ What Causes Global Warming “ blog hopefully will point the way on how you can help to prevent this increase in global warming.