World Bank wants to Tax me on Solar Wind, and live stock?

[pcjunkie]

Thanks loner

Just a quick Google - volcanics / humans

Volcano Gases
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

Media
http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans/

Alex Jones = Conspiracy! Not true! Ahhh!

http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change.html
http://www.marine.csiro.au/marq/edd_search.Browse_Citation?txtSession=8381

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
.......
Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don't produce CO2 at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles.

There is now agreement at the top government level of the Earth's most prolific fossil fuel CO2 producer-the United States-that we need to reduce our dependence on oil in order to confront the challenge of global warming. As we work toward that goal, let's look forward to the day when volcanologists will give a different answer to the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?"

volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large

. since 2006 has been China with an estimated annual production of about 6200 megatonnes. ... with 639.4 million metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent,

When you take into account that America and other nations like the UK have the most to loose (old ways and habits + old business models of supply v demand) then you can understand why certain groups have their reasons to deny, twist, challenge, contort and otherwise misinform.

Spain produced 45% of its energy last month using wind alone. If Europe had a "wind network" a system of interconnecting supply lines then Europe could simply disconnect the Nuke plants, disassemble the coal plants and rely entirely on winds.

America and Australia and even Asia is no different.

In Australia we are subject to High pressure subtropical weathern patterns. Its why we are dry, baking hot and prone to fires.
http://www.bom.gov.au/
If you take a second look at that weather pattern, regular as clockwork you will see a trend.
Top half is always sunny - coastal areas are 70% windy and the only time the wind stops is when a high pressure system is located directly above you. From Canberra -East coast, as it approaches the wind hits the East coast ranges - 6000kl of hills.
When it passes the wind comes from the north West. Again it hits the same ridge 6000kl if hills.

If the top half had wind and the southern half did not then the southern half could use the top half's energy and vise versa but that would never occur. In fact, you would only ever have 1 major city leeching form a national grid. The wind would be blowing everywhere else.

Tasmania and Vic have Hydro power with storage re-acquisition. In other words the dams, like those in Spain can collect the water used on a slow day and pump it back up into the dams. Giga liters of it.

For a national grid you could offset peak demands by using geo sequestration or ground coupled heat storage supplied through both Solar and Natural Gas fires turbines dotted around the country.

Essentially the base-load shifts from Coal to Wind with Solar and gas picking up the shortfalls.
America could do this tomorrow sharing the load with Mexico, the Caribbean, Canada and Alaska. All it takes is a distribution grid designed for the purpose and these don't cost anywhere near what a single coal plant would cost to build. THe entire grid comes in at 3 billion. A new Coal plant is 6 billion and a new nuke plant is 12 billion. (give or take)

All it takes is for Corporations to stop polluting politics and allow the organic change to take place.
Energy prices would drop by 70% as the entire bulk of energy is supplied by both government and private interests using low cost "free" energy that is reliable as any union run power plant.

Europe is well on the way to doing this, the penny is yet to drop though.
Spain could sell excess to France, the Dutch and Norway could sell to Italy, Scotland and Ireland could sell the the UK. All they have to do is run the extension lead across the landscape, plug it in and away you go.
If Russia, the Middle East, North Africa and nations around the Med got together they could have 100% of the energy supplied totally by Natural "free" energy. THe bonus is Morocco and other nations get a share in profits and energy. This would stop the flood of economic refugee's and rebalance the populations and economies creating a world where for once, each nation cannot do without the other and for that peace and politics will steady out. North Africa will gain the most, Russia has the most to loose and Western Europe has a safe, reliable, steady power supply.

Simple, elegant and its real!

If you wanted to you could expand this model and the entire Southern Oceania and Asia could power share with offshore turbines in natural and man made island in the ocean itself where the wind blows 95% of the time. Between Australia, New Guinea and Asia the waters could hold oil platforms brimming with turbines. New Zealand could share with Pacific islands with a patchwork of towers on remote islands and again on man made islands built on submerged atolls.

Its so easy to do, cheap, economic and painless.

[pcjunkie]

Sorry to hijack the thread



It won't matter.
Carbon taxes will slow economies down and they will hurt but it will not undo economies. It hasn't in Europe.
What it dies do is slow needless spending and that is only good for the people, bad for the oligarchy. They are shooting themselves in the foot at the end of the day by greed.

Cars in 5 years will be almost all electric. In 10 years absolutely without a doubt and that method of energy will be spreading into Logistics and transport. Small trucks, then large and finally prime movers. The economics to do this will be there, oil has no hope of competing but the Oligarchy will not control it, thousands of smaller companies will and these will employ millions of people globally. Third world nations will gain the most - the west will not even notice.

Battery technology will be so good and reliable you could run trains without power lines and trams or street cars, for you Americans, without overhead power supply.

The writing for this change is on the wall. Most car manufacturers are building or flirting with the concepts. Battery storage technology is being invested into by more than 100 billion worth annually - globally.

Google even!

Once the tech reaches joule for joule per mm of space with oil based fuels the Oil game is going to die rapidly. Wars will end and politics will re-establish some sanity away from Oil barons like the Republican Cartel of late..
Greedy slimy bastards they are.

Batteries will be recyclable and 100% of them used again and again. The model is looking good, swap stations like BBQ gas bottle exchanges full for empty and away you go. Solar energy - Wind energy and batteries means that anyone in any nation no matter your budget will be able to establish themselves independently of the Oligarchy. Nigerians can then take their greedy tin pot corrupt leaders out the back and shoot them because no one will have money enough to by the government or its army.

[Cherryman]

We in the Netherlands have a new invention:

Tax per Kilometer

With other words, they are starting to tax movement.

This is the ultimate tax!

Let's say they invent a free fuel.. No problem.. It isn't how you got anywhere it is the fact that a good or a person has moved they will tax!

It will make all other taxes useless.

If a person in a western modern society moves.. or he has things moved to him (food..supplies ..whatever) then there is a taxbill attached!

Let's say a OU member invents a free propelled UFO, don't think you are free..  When arriving on the moon.. there is a taxbill :  You travalled a distance, pay up!

The other thing is, they implement it by putting a device in you're car wich communicates your location, distance, speed.. etc..   The idear behind is not only the tax, it is also fine's for taking short cuts or speeding...

Totall control!



You see the future?........

[pcjunkie]

You could expect that and truth is it already exists and has since the car was invented, fuel surcharge or tax excise per liter.
So this is nothing new at all. Attaching a carbon tax to it is just evolution. Though I do not know the details of this tax.

With electric cars / trucks etc things will change. Toll roads will proliferate (which means they can track you) or registering your car becomes grossly expensive, a flat fee. The only non invasive system would be to tax electricity more or land taxes more but can you imagine the impact that would have on the poor? The one good thing you see here is the government knows electric cars are on the way, they are redesigning the tax collection systems to compensate for lower fuel tax returns. This is great change and its important but you need to be careful of the design being implemented. GPS is bullocks and totally unnecessary. You can see insurance agencies and so on capitalizing on this and those bastards will use it to make more money than ever before.


You could expect that kind of tax because electric cars don't pay fuel taxes which covers the cost of roads. One of the downsides is there is only 2 user pays systems to fund the billions required for them that do not have a major impact on movement and privacy. Tax on vehicle registrations up front ($6000 US + per car and $16,000 + per truck) or a user pays system provided by electronic tags on major roads (Automated gateways or RFID already used in many countries) or a mix of both (with gateways on major roads and higher registration fees and or land taxes to spread it out). The costs on roads is staggering - hence the green movements push for far fewer of them. Roughly its $0.18 cents per meter to maintain and $1000 per meter to construct. Costly isn't it? 

That is the problem. We have to pay the tax, without it we won't have roads or roads that are dangerous. But I wonder how far governments will go with this. Can they be trusted? probably not so be weary of the devil in the details as these bills enter government for review, they might just be taking more than they really need to. 

I fear if governments involve private interests in roads and taxes. That is where it becomes horribly sketchy. In most countries a private business has more rights to privacy than the average citizen. This is just wrong particularly if that business in dealing with data bases and government systems. You can investigate a government more readily than you can investigate a private business. Governments have factions and they also have members with nothing to loose but an opponent so whistle blowing and "document leaking" is rife. In a private interest the opposite is true.

The employee has everything to loose and can even be sued for conduct outside the terms of employment. (Got you by the testicles really). So I would prefer governments handle toll road taxes entirely, through a department and then you can challenge that department easily because it is effectively faceless (which is good and bad) but what it isn't is a protected entity hiding behind an army of lawyers and medieval laws designed to protect money men.

Governments, taxes are fine, so long as the government and tax is for the people, for the benefit of the people. It's when private interests userp the people and control the government that things can go terribly terribly wrong very quickly and fighting it is impossible. Not only do laws change to reflect that position the government becomes a shadow faction of Corporations operating as a democratic front but effectively its a plutocracy. America is a fascist plutocracy, there is very little government by the people, for the people. Sarkozy is doing the same thing only the French are more inclined to protest and protect their way of life - Americans are too busy fighting each other and this is why Fox news are so sensationalist. Its by design!

As for the UFO thing.
Yes you would pay taxes. The government has laws and regulations that control flight for reasons of safety and Sovereign protection from enemies. This is a good thing and it employs people both military and civil to ensure those protections take place. So if you do fly you pay a tax to cover those fees. About 2 to 4% of a plane ticket is a tax for these systems.

Like all things in government - the policy is a good policy, its the devil in the detail that undoes its benefits.

[jadaro2600]

electric vehicle = your exhaust coming out of a pipe somewhere else...  just considering the nature of how we generate electricity.