Alberta to spend billions

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080708/...ent_alberta_col

The oil-rich Canadian province of Alberta said on Tuesday it will put C$4 billion ($3.92 billion) into two funds that will be used to pay for carbon capture and storage programs and to boost use of public transit to cut the province's carbon-dioxide emissions.

The Alberta government said it will set aside C$2 billion in each of the two funds, with the cash coming from its budget surplus for this year - a figure last pegged at C$1.6 billion but expected to be billions of dollars higher due to the increased royalties the province is collecting from record high oil prices.

I guess we'll have to see more details of how these funds will work.

[Wilber]

How would this work with a carbon tax? Do you tax them up front and then reimburse them for what they capture and store? It gets more complicated every day. Kind of throw a wrench into some of the proposed wealth redistribution plans.

[noahbody]

The money going to public transit is a good investment. Spending $2 billion to capture what is a fraction of emissions is idiotic. What a waste of money.

[Wilber]

The money going to public transit is a good investment. Spending $2 billion to capture what is a fraction of emissions is idiotic. What a waste of money.

In many places I would agree but if the majority of your emissions come from the energy production industry, building more public transit won't do much to solve your problem.

[August1991]

How would this work with a carbon tax? Do you tax them up front and then reimburse them for what they capture and store? It gets more complicated every day. Kind of throw a wrench into some of the proposed wealth redistribution plans.

Capture and store is a form of tax evasion. The only question is why the government should subsidize it.

[Wilber]

Capture and store is a form of tax evasion. The only question is why the government should subsidize it.

So the important thing really is the tax, not reducing atmospheric emissions and global warming.

[August1991]

So the important thing really is the tax, not reducing atmospheric emissions and global warming.

Wilber, I'm sorry to break this little fact of life to you but any tax is an invitation to tax evasion. People avoid/evade payimg taxes. It's a fact of life.

In the case of a carbon tax, the easiest way to avoid/evade the tax is to reduce CO2 emissions.

So, yes. The really important thing is the tax.

----

PS. I'm not completely convinced of this human-caused global warming hypothesis.

Edited July 12, 2008 by August1991

[Wilber]

Wilber, I'm sorry to break this little fact of life to you but any tax is an invitation to tax evasion. People avoid/evade payimg taxes. It's a fact of life.

In the case of a carbon tax, the easiest way to avoid/evade the tax is to reduce CO2 emissions.

So, yes. The really important thing is the tax.

----

PS. I'm not completely convinced of this human-caused global warming hypothesis.

Point taken but any tax lawyer will tell you there is a big difference between avoiding and evading.

I'm not completely convinced either but it's a good excuse to impose a tax.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Wilber

[blueblood]

Capture and store is a form of tax evasion. The only question is why the government should subsidize it.

Well when the industry that makes the Alberta gov't piles of money is potentially under attack, the gov't must cover it's ass.

Looks more like an investment. And that's IF Dion wins. With a policy like this, Harper has ammunition come election time.

[Riverwind]

Capture and store is a form of tax evasion. The only question is why the government should subsidize it.

The government subsidizes a whole mess of 'alternative' energy sources so there is no way to argue against the subsidies for sequestration unless you want to end all other subsidies.

Nuclear power produces waste products which must be stored safely for a long time so I don't think the CO2 sequentration problems are any worse.

Of course, one could argue that carbon sequentration costs too much but it is not clear to me that it would be more expensive than alternatives like solar or wind power without subsidies.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Its amazing that we have to spend 2 billion trying to replicate something that the vast majority of plants do every day. Pine trees are one of the best sources of carbon sequestering we have in the plant kingdom.

This leads me to two thoughts.

First, pine trees can be used to capture the carbon, and buried so that the carbon does not get re-released (deep enough to prevent decay from releasing it into the atmosphere). An large fossil fuel powered power generation plant (1000 MW) can produce around 8 million tons of CO2 per year. If we were to plant the equivalent quantity of pine trees to absorb that CO2, we would need about 6 million trees. Forestry companies typically thin pines to about 300 an acre a few years after the initial planting, so we would need about 32 square miles of pine trees (20000 acre = 31.25 mi²) to compensate for the CO2 released by the power generation plant.

Secondly, forestry companies have been successful at developing "super trees" that grow significantly faster than native species. Surely its worth spending some money on looking into creating a tree that is equally adept at capturing carbon.

The two billion is being spent on mechanical solutions to carbon sequestering. Why not look to nature and improve on what already exists?

[noahbody]

The two billion is being spent on mechanical solutions to carbon sequestering. Why not look to nature and improve on what already exists?

It takes years for a tree to grow. If we don't act by 2012, we're DOOMED!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It is merely a tax grab aimed at a political solution to a green problem. It makes the production of oil sands appear to utilize a smaller carbon footprint. This is aimed at the end user or consumer of the products. It is an effort to retain a customer, a purely business decision made by government.

[Dig]

It is merely a tax grab aimed at a political solution to a green problem. It makes the production of oil sands appear to utilize a smaller carbon footprint. This is aimed at the end user or consumer of the products. It is an effort to retain a customer, a purely business decision made by government.

Or, it could be an attempt to keep the vast majority of us in Alberta employeed.

We've been dodging the Liberals for years, if this helps, I'm for it.

[fellowtraveller]

Well when the industry that makes the Alberta gov't piles of money is potentially under attack, the gov't must cover it's ass.

Looks more like an investment. And that's IF Dion wins. With a policy like this, Harper has ammunition come election time.

Do you mean that same industry that is subsidizing the Canadian economy?

That one?

[myata]

How would this work with a carbon tax? Do you tax them up front and then reimburse them for what they capture and store?

Captured carbon won't be released into the atmosphere and therefore should not be taxed. It's not a form of tax evasion, but the very response the tax was intended to produce. Government can provide incentives for that, because it (presumably, expressing the will of voters) wants the results. In the same way as government may sponsor some development projects or social programs.

Accounting (and importantly, verification) could be a serious issue.

[eyeball]

Its amazing that we have to spend 2 billion trying to replicate something that the vast majority of plants do every day. Pine trees are one of the best sources of carbon sequestering we have in the plant kingdom.

This leads me to two thoughts.

These lead me to two words. Pine beetles.

[fellowtraveller]

Speaking of pine beetles, I saw their effects first hand this summer.

The hillsides in central BC are visibly devastated

[eyeball]

Unfortunately these hillsides are now one of the biggest emitters of CO2 and the beetles have jumped over the Rockies. A boreal feast stretches to the east of that...

It probably doesn't matter how many billions Alberta spends, it'll be too little too late because the damage has long since been done and is compounding even faster than the interest on...billions.

Edited August 5, 2008 by eyeball

[AngusThermopyle]

A boreal feast stretches to the east of that...

Yeah sure, all the way to the prairies. You make it sound like they'll be catching the Dartmouth ferry within the next month or two, it just aint so. However even without being able to head too far east the problem is still a large one that we have to try to fight.

Alberta will be the stumbling block that stops the Beatles (Pine that is) just as it was for the Norway rat, no rats in Alberta ya know. This is due to a combination of factors. Rats are human dependent, as such the South Eastern border is guarded against rat entry by rat hunters. To the south lie plains and prairies, impassable terrain for rats. The west has the Rockies, once again impassable for rats. It will be a similar situation for Pine Beatles, they can not cross the prairies. Therefore unless transported by man they have no chance of spreading east beyond the bounds of the mountains.

[eyeball]

Yeah sure, all the way to the prairies. You make it sound like they'll be catching the Dartmouth ferry within the next month or two, it just aint so. However even without being able to head too far east the problem is still a large one that we have to try to fight.

Alberta will be the stumbling block that stops the Beatles (Pine that is)

I don't know too much about Pine Beatles and Alberta prairies but as far as pine beetles go...a boreal feast does indeed stretch to the east...

The beetle has shown a taste for the jack pine found in the boreal forest, the massive northern eco-region that stretches from Alaska to Newfoundland.

Story

[AngusThermopyle]

Yikes! I forgot all about the northern forests! That could spell trouble, maybe we should burn it down. That'll stop the little bastards!

[Wilber]

Captured carbon won't be released into the atmosphere and therefore should not be taxed. It's not a form of tax evasion, but the very response the tax was intended to produce. Government can provide incentives for that, because it (presumably, expressing the will of voters) wants the results. In the same way as government may sponsor some development projects or social programs.

Accounting (and importantly, verification) could be a serious issue.

I wouldn't presume too much. I agree with you but the proposed tax is on the carbon content of what is produced, not what is emitted. They are fixated on the carbon content of the fuel and ignore the emissions produced by the fuels users. In short, results are secondary to the tax.