GreenHouseGas Initiative

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rough draft:  (take / edit & put into effect / action)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
An emphasis needs to be focused on re-establishing / improving health of soils including moisture content.... organic matter in soils is one of the best ways to hold carbon / co2 within the earth and not up in the Earth's atmosphere.... great example / well written article on GHG & soil health "(The) Solution Under Our Feet"..... see in north bay / Marin County areas' Common Ground March 2015 issue, Page 40: http://www.sopdigitaledition.com/archive/commonground0315/#/40/
 
Imagine & take actions:  Vote & vote with your purchases for Organic foods & help GREATLY improve the & your world's health (Including eco-systems that result in what kind of climate we experience!) by linking to your local area's effort to stop Global Subsidizing of Non-Organic foods!!!!!! 
{If there is not one yet for your area, imagine links here that help to
stop the VERY ILL legacy of non-organic foods' both "direct and indirect" subsidy, subsidy that has links to most every form of unsustainable human activity and approach to economy}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Universal GHG Initiative 
 
 with (Minimum) GHG Taxation 
 
 
(Minimum, in that few nations/states already are much engaged in this effort, including taxation to fund - yet, without universal approach / application, we will not meet needed effectiveness) 
~~

Currently, energy efficiency, conservation, alternative production efforts - such as improved vehicle gas mileage, non-universal conservation efforts, utilization of solar, tidal, wind power, regional cap & trade programs, and other alternatives are often negated / offset by cumulative global activity (As eight people decide to drive cars less, they are soon replaced with 6 or 7 that fill the stagnant capacity / partly a result of not considering the long-term / partly due to roller-coaster boom-bust fuel price fluctuations often seen in the fossil fuel markets).  In this, subsidy & short term lowering global-market energy "prices"during "economic busts" we have seen results of stagnated transformation towards better and ill ways in general.  (Costs borne onto the public, through greenhouse gases being dumped into systems of ecology that support life, by in large, are still not near enough considered in many activities & transactions around the world).  Prices for energy are lowered in this basic or short-sighted (Short-sighted, including the concentration / wasting of resources) application of economics when having been seen as disconnected from ecology and the inherent market shortcomings of simply treating as oversimplified legacy of "supply & demand" while hiding from effects of fossil fuel subsidy (And, other concerns).  For energy produced via mined “fossil fuels,” this still equates to near stagnant or still increasing rates of GHG emissions -- producing ill effects that are still stagnant at best; or, still likely increasing for decades.  This will most likely continue to rise without further, universal addressing of the man-made market shortcomings. 

While carbon has become the popular poster child in the infancy of the concerns for this, we need to be concerned about CO2, Methane (MH4) and a couple of other approaches to activity resulting in vectors having effects on atmosphere/ecosystem & climate.  To make a great impact, there are less than a half-dozen major concerns besides fossil fuel production that need to be a part of the effort towards potentially better days, these include CO2 release in cement production and methane emissions in a few major industries that need to be addressed.  With recycling improving for such items as aluminum and plastic products, this helps; yet, again conservation efforts are most often negated in systems with much momentum, biases such as subsidies and the basic shortcoming of supply and demand where conservation efforts by some are outweighed by making for cheaper prices giving inclination or tendency for people not considering well the benefits of conservation and proactive mitigation (Therefore often leading to little if any long-term gain by largely voluntary consideration).  Addressing roots of the vast majority of emissions are central to a taxation that does not disfavor or favor any specific industry, only makes the application of a relatively small tax very effective in that it is focused on the relatively low (Yet, important as we know as people, ecologists, economists and neighbors) cost borne within each action that produces / emits gases causing the greenhouse effect & resulting ecologic & climate disruptions.  In summary of this universal initiative -- any lowered consumption, by some, giving lowered general market prices for fossil fuel based energy -- often, still leads to increased fossil fuel consumption by others that choose not to conserve, making for little if any gain.  This initiative will help magnify positive results automatically rewarding genuine sustainable efforts made by each and every person, company, organization & nation.

With still increasing population that are still buying into the largely short-termed life style of much energy input for little (If any) quality-of-life gain, is resulting in much slowed transitions in this concern with energy production and other processes that release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane into the atmosphere. This lack of addressing such market forces, still highly degrades chances for sustainable economy, ecology, living.

In addition, we are (As nations, corporations, and cumulative effects in our individual activities) often still ignoring the larger “externalized” from product "costs" - pollution, toxins, degraded economy-ecology; and, in this, increasing health costs & increasing potential for much more damage and costs thru further destabilization of climate.  As larger areas of the world are experiencing a destabilized climate costs increase while most approaches to reconstruction still only make worse in the near and long-term (A proverbial “snowball" or feedback-loop effect of extreme proportions we have just started to realize in recent years though much of the basics of climate science we are concerned about goes back more than just decades though we are just now more fully starting to experience & witness these results).  

One major concern towards sustainability we can now affect relatively quickly is the amount of atmospheric CO2 {And, methane} that results in many of our current approaches and in production that has generally been highly resisting changes towards better due to this market shortcoming (And; with the legacy costs, extreme amounts of biased favoritism thru lobbied legislation, and subsidy - this will be a small but important part of trying for better).


Taxation:  Based on emissions (of fossil fuel "production's life cycle average CO2 emissions)

This type of taxation will spread costs without favor or disfavor; yet, according to average GHG emissions that go into/are produced in a product’s life cycle…. This will make monetary costs to individual products (Their producers and consumers) low, yet still have positive impacts / strengthen ability to change course of the activities contributing to exponential increases in ecosystem degradation leading to very destabilized climate.  This can be done by saving some administrative costs of individual nations / localities that try for similar through similar mechanism.... lowering the administrative cost may help gain the interest to approach more effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions.  And, as very near 100% universal application is required to see the results needed alongside negating resonate / building feedback from trying to mitigate with (often) ever more ecologically costly endeavor, decreasing resistance to adopt / administrative costs is one of the primary concerns to much improve upon.  

{Similar in amounts to equivalency to "per tonnage" of emissions based on industry averages ever more scientifically and efficiently measurable rates of emissions across "production" industries, these per-ton equivalency charges are becoming standard benchmarks {Often within current CO2 tax and "Cap & Trade" systems} and what costs that were wrongly seen as risks or externalities by disconnecting effects of centuries-old non-holistic perspectives ("Short sighted") on ecological systems and the intertwined value / importance to life & quality of life concerns / issues} Based on emissions from initial origin site of extraction & processing, for "end-users / consumers" this will mean a small fraction of a percent; and, at the high-end of products (Like, tar sands oil or coal) again only in terms of emissions averages, still a relatively low percentage similar to that of a point-of-sale fee that a credit card company would charge (Credit card charges on instantaneous transactions) - roughly, for the very high-end emitting productions 2 to 8% (Again, this is equivalency for the "worst emitting" consumer products automatically figured by amounts of pre-taxed fuels that go into producing product..... most products will be fractions of percent of end-cost / price).  Releases of CO2 and methane taxed by emissions' (Quantity / qualitative attributes) that are detectable and relevant in cumulative amounts, affecting GHG levels -- will be applicable to such in other production that is independent of fossil fuel usage, such as some cement/concrete lime-process emissions and various ghg emitters that do not chose to pro-actively mitigate (Like feedlot cattle production or slash & burn operations) -- noting there are often neutral to low-cost options {And, some that lead to higher quality product and or lower monetary costs after relatively short time-spans for return on any monetary investment with increased long term investments} to be proactive on these means / ways of productions.  There are a variety of approaches to these concerns that are reliable and with new technology to audit the resulting benefits (Such as drastic reductions in methane emissions) that can help others adopt better & best approaches in terms of profit, conservation, and positive public borne results.  An example of this is cattle / dairy operations.... several approaches to mitigate and or utilize resulting methane emissions towards much reductions in GHG.  As this allows choices to be proactive about mitigation, individuals will (still) be allowed flexibility to address the concern; yet, adoption of best practices will be a benefit that will see benefits for producers, consumers and non-consumers.  (The dairy & cattle industries are starting more to approach this concern in several ways.  Some efforts look like unsightly, plasticky, uncomfortable experiments on cows wearing colostomy bags, capturing methane to be utilized like "natural gas" is in chemical & hydraulic fracturing -- this will likely be replaced by better proactive science in the flora (Pro-biotics like those bought or cultured in foods for people) that helps the digestive processes of cattle look less like a "Matrix" of an industry, let alone not have to be replacing such bags after exposure to extremes of hot, cold, wet and dry weather that dairies often try to operate within.  Also, healthy flora (Especially when you've got four healthy or unhealthy stomachs going to the feed trough) gives better digestion, also giving benefit of "better production" along with lowered CH4 emission.

Specifically, for Fossil Fuels:

·         For production in exports, half of (Universally worked-out & agreed upon) tax applied at production site / nation

·         For production in exports, half of (Universally worked-out & agreed upon) tax applied at importing site / nation

·         For domestic consumption, when produced by wholly domestic companies, apply 80% of full minimum tax…. 80% in-lieu of 100%, a potential for improving local to region / national production & compliance -- will also promote stronger local economy to help overcome the many negative ecological {And, long-run economic} cost effects sprung by many programs/funding/subsidy that promote import & export marketing over more usually sound regional or local {Perhaps make this 'domestic clause' last for approximately half the duration of this tax program}.  Local is not always the best option; yet, promoting through subsidy and cross-trade for cross-trade sake / ill use of resources has a costly legacy still building momentum in some areas of commerce -- a concern needing to be re-considered to be the exception instead of business as usual in promoting cross-trade far-flung products that either used to be produced locally (Before subsidy and other corporate-government programs publicizing costs into bloated programs under too often (Not always) the guise of cultural exchange.... where, more often, the undermining of sustainability, local economies, ecosystems, and cultures have been trampled).  Actually, more local production of energy & fuel for energy is helping overcome some of this in some areas of the world.... this is more about continuing programs that will give long-run health to "both sides" in trade partnerships rather than favor other not-wise. 

The fossil fuels Universal GHG tax is to be dismantled / no longer applied in approximately 12 to 15 years after full application (Or, no longer applied after green house gas levels are well diminished to specific levels & needed structural transitions have made much needed progress (ie, more sustainable, cleaner, less costly energy production / emissions have been well facilitated).

With very near universal application and adherence alongside any complimentary actions individuals, states, companies, and nations take or have taken, this is capable of likely meeting major (Not 20 or 30% by 2030... the often said by many as "okay") world-wide reductions / permanently facilitated transitions within 2 decades.  The other components of any universal taxation considering GHG emissions likely should continue beyond this as, though less significant in the sheer quantity, emissions such as methane are more prone to continue as there will be an ease of return to such market activity / production as "cheap / low quality production of beef" (Slash and burn lands for forage / feedlots to supply "cheap" usually international chain markets/marketing) and such tends to win an uneducated market and unless we drastically improve education of the benefits of better quality food production (We likely will achieve more of this as people are generally more aware of this than in recent decades; yet, often with "economics," we are susceptible to cyclical nature of health & educational endeavor let alone the ever clever marketers of too often not the brightest choices).  

We, most of us, are aware that another couple decades with not only not generally re-stocked; yet, still diminishing snow packs, water tables, aquifers, arctic ice, continental ice shelves, permafrost -- the effects of this and a destabilized atmosphere leading to much more destabilized weather patterns / bio-systems, and economies in scrambles to try to deal with.....  No telling what, in very undiplomatic / destabilized international relations let alone results of, No telling what likely lies ahead on current roads where workings of geologic/ecological systems get quickly (Decades of, in geologic terms is very quick, and as more people are realizing, decades of such isn't quite like a 2 hour movie) and totally unbounded to make a quite beautiful planet to live on become a much more torturing and not so enjoyable place to be.  

If we are failing to act well & quickly enough now, I would bet a more co-operative atmosphere of much more and more genuine toward cross-cultural concerns -- will, in the very least, make people's relating with one another much better, no matter what we could likely face.  Given it may be close-to "too late" in some ways of "mitigating" the negative potentials where ice flows, "permafrost," and frozen methane melts into chain reactions that we have long understood the base mechanics; yet, still often choose ignoring for some short sighted ways.... No time, like the present to further better approaches with genuine action).

Noting again, there are programs and individuals / companies that are utilizing proactive mitigation towards emissions in the cattle / dairy businesses and concerning "natural gas" emissions.  Though not as immediate as the general GHG emissions on fossil fuel productions, the other areas will / should be considered and approached with similar taxation and programs to promote proactive mitigation within a relatively short time span (Couple of years) of core initiatives through fossil fuel taxation. 

~~

General approach concerns, scientific & national / industry compliant equations to make for efficient application with concerns built-into process:

(This mostly applicable to fossil fuel industry, though can serve as template for pilot programs in cement, livestock, and other significant sources GHG emission)

Industry & independent / scientific / human-experience knowledge bases utilized to tabulate relatively major & semi-major / cumulative and site-specific sources of CO2 and potentially MH4 (Relevant & relatively sizable GHG emission - audits will apply scientific & experience based taxation formula) emissions & application of averages towards formulation for fair taxation (With agreed upon independent, scientific audits with random verification / updates that will achieve highly accurate ongoing application, and reformulation of "averages" to calculate average emissions over the "life of the product & disposal").  Any producer, where allowed by law, can "opt out" of this by not accepting "mitigation" (Such as methane leakage at pipes, valves, well-site & other infrastructure) - and would simply raise their resulting tax liability (Most often, in effect, increasing likelihood that a specific producer is self choosing not to be a producer in the market for a long term, or simply will take on costs "as added cost of doing business" in relying on other efficiency their company may have that in giving them an edge over more costly production innate to such production as seen in tar-sands).  Perhaps, for at least the non-large scale productions resulting in methane production, proactive mitigation of smaller producers/emitters of methane could be helped to be financed by a relatively small percentage of Universal CO2 tax funds being put towards this effort.  As methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (In terms of quantity needed to cause such ill effects), this is not to excuse or exempt the lower amounts of methane emissions of some industry; yet, this would likely get beyond the resistance likely to diminish the large-scale cumulative effect of methane by "smaller" (Quantity) emissions.  

Revenues to be utilized within the revenue-producing nation at roughly 80 to 90% (Use, to be decided by individual nation within agreed upon guidelines towards "sustainability" / improved ecology&economy efforts related to this effort / tax).  Approximately 10 to 20% of revenues going to a fund for both “developing countries” and for countries / nations that want to apply for “super-fund” type mining remediation & bio-remediation that is not likely {In near future} to be able to be affordable and is Not tied to a likely remedy (Such as original operators / company has absconded / totally disbanded for many years, where assets have highly dispersed).  These revenues would go towards such efforts / programs as clean-up through local or national legal systems that have ability to apply fair and relevant legal outcomes / reparations & funds for damages.  Priorities for use of these funds (The 10 to 20% of revenues) will be for water & soil restorations immediately still affecting populations (Plus, long-time degraded sites where much of original populations have moved due to such pollution).  These funds also to be applied to other than “Super Fund" sites as well in supporting funding of local educational efforts that improve resource usage towards local & regional organizations that have ‘strong’ interests with local populations in seeing local ecology / economy & health concerns improved / restored.  
*Depleted soils (Nutritionally / minerals and carbon containing organic matter) have had science prove and are further proving  that "modern" agricultural approaches generally deplete soils via feeding fossil fuel based fertilizer and other generally ill approaches..... the synthetic chemical approaches generally degrade nutrition and health of soils / ecology and people.... along with getting away from subsidizing mono (and, near mono) amongst other ill practices can go a long way when combined with improving health of soil: for example of some studies & put into practice on this:  carboncycleinstitute.org and www.osu.edu/giving/areas-to-support/academic-areas/college-of-food-agricultural-and-environmental-sciences/agricultural-sustainability.html 

From domestic tax (Within revenue-originating country) fund and from non-domestic sourced funds, this revenue should also see application towards (By a relatively low percentage of revenue) towards programs for *indigent communities to apply for community based programs towards a stronger local economy, this application centered on need for energy production on a decentralized basis (This as complimentary to any other programs such as remediation as discussed above).

A potential resource for solutions to improve degraded ecological systems that have had multiple / systemic costs such as Salmon / fish populations decline and the effects of this (Harvest / populations that are affected by / relate with) due to river energy production reliance on dams; or, acidification of bodies of water, rain; and, similar concerns resulting from energy production/emissions.  Perhaps also integral towards stable source in funding seed-money type programs that further promote local efforts that do not lead to cutting or burning large swaths of forests within relatively short spans of time.  On national level, some small percentage of funding could (And in best interests, should) be a utilized toward returning land away from ethanol based on what was food crops such as corn (Where marginal and costs are more than benefit in ecology & economics, let alone has often increased some food costs dramatically, increased stress of increased irrigation and degraded natural ecological systems / depleted soils in either lack of land left fallow or wild). 

*indigent communities – defined as a population of peoples that has need due to related concerns (History of or potential of CO2/MH4 output; and or, that financial help will give resources towards improving local economy / ecology & general or specific health concerns related to past or impending mining operations and or demonstrated / sought after need for future energy production that will not increase green house gas output or various other pollution related to energy production).  Communities of people that have seen oppressive economic results from having resources degraded and have not had returned investments, with little chance of better transitions ecologically & economically without some supportive input - be it educational, decentralized (energy / alternative) related infrastructure, and or legal efforts. 


Revenue Disbursement (Roughly, minimum of 80 to 90% kept in originating nation)

Alongside funding projects towards diminishing atmospheric greenhouse gas content, some percentage of funds could go towards areas such as social security to enhance acceptability and recycle revenue towards originating nations' populace in such areas that they will see improvement such as concerns in "fixed incomes."  (This could also lower pressure for increased / renewed promotion for tax and other incentives that sometimes promote larger birthrates in support of aging population's financial needs for "social security").  Some nations may opt to apply these funds towards helping national / regional, and or local transportation needs that improve towards recognized beneficial transportation infrastructure..... thus, potentially helping out in other areas as this frees up part of current funding of current efforts towards more efficient and ecologically sound transportation infrastructure and modal options - and, where there was little or no major effort towards ecological sound improvement of transportation infrastructure, this will lead to "job creation."   

~~

In acknowledging that this will require a (mostly) “universal” effort, this will also help in decreasing administrative costs of the increasing number of local & national efforts to deal with some of the results & mechanisms of “artificially low” {History of industry / public money for massive infrastructure / legislation(s) that favor overseas trade while oppressing health of regional & local trade - ignoring “externalized” costs to gain public favor & subsidy -- and, now, just the market momentums / resistance of transition {Especially when often felt as “unilateral” given shortcomings of “supply & demand" when relatively few nations have adopted strong proactive measures} / addictions of habit towards not accepting “change” in many nations} costs & other efforts to lower the effect in production & use of petroleum-based products whether “just” creating islands of floating petrol based plastics, molecule to nano sized particle / synthetic petroleum product residue build-up; or, the more readily known / seen costs inherent in “spills” / toxicology in production, release, and usage.  As the lists of various maladies in creating a more likely atmosphere for frequent / numerous acute & chronic conditions such as soil erosion / compaction are very numerous even outside the eye-catching super storms…. Potential for furthering better or becoming desensitized to these concerns and not working towards better is a choice we make on daily basis.  We could also take this opportunity to work more towards utilizing fossil fuels we do use for what we might deem more priceless than quite extreme amounts of “conveniences” for some while tragedy for others is more likely to occur and spread {And, if we continue ignoring the likely outcomes by resisting such effort, too much of activity that degrades / stresses life supporting ecological balances will likely result in us going the way of the dinosaur; though, unlike dinosaurs, it will be our own fault and not quite as quick as their demise likely happened [Picture social / economic / further extreme upheavals than much of the current "developed world" experiences]}. 

Hopefully concerns for actions needed to be taken will continue to grow as awareness / education improves and people’s approach to / trends of consuming & producing products opens to better potential for change.   The overall effect will help make for a better / more balanced market with healthy / fair climate for alternative production overcoming market rigidity to transitions that have built up over decades due to multiple obstacles forged in market / industry favoritism and just being numb in our comforts - resulting via oppression of better transition that could have been more well underway.  

Also, this helps get passed the narrow focus / perspective of lack of ownership of GHG emissions as some people (of any country) that imports much product made in another country yet does not include this in thinking about their "footprint" by being the consumer.  Sometimes we see reports that a certain country has decreased its CO2 / GHG footprint; yet, these reports often do not consider the footprint of "just buying something" ($'s traded for "cheap" goods with little if any thought that produced somewhere else, is still the treating the same atmosphere as a dumping ground).... that (often) is made / mined or grown / processed then shipped to overseas/transcontinental market (Sometimes likely, the item(s) purchased were formerly made {Sometimes a few years ago} in a now importing country yet we tend not to consider the production and shipping costs in terms of global ecology let alone 'our' nation's (GHG) footprints via imported "finished goods"). 

~~~~


Notes:

Suggestions for accounting and for auditing

In light of some accounting/financial firms having recently gone through much litigation due to corruption; and, some nations having cultures of many (Often known or seen as unethical yet accepted) taxation loopholes or business-culturally accepted "fraud" - this area needs to have national and regional oversight with international guidelines taking on various mechanisms for countries that would need to rely on new accounting & independent auditing organizations, with goal of ensuring universal compliance. 

Public and current tax revenue institutions / services (Such as the IRS in the USA) could be considered to manage funds gained for domestic use; yet, strict guidelines need to be ensured and enforced towards the independence of such funds from already existing private or public programs that are unrelated or neutralize the efforts towards the goals of this tax.  For example, constructing or maintaining roads that serve for promotion of transportation primarily via fossil fuel based energy usage would go against the efforts & goals in this and will not have access to these funds. 


In this approach to Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, this relatively “small” (Universally applied, alongside or instead of any current that is levied by some nations - with this very specific goal) tax, done in this way, will help towards improvements in that this will affect everything that is produced with energy that, in production, emits deemed to be taxable GHG (Considering averages of, in both production & bulk of emissions {ie, gasoline burning vehicles or coal burning plants calculated into averages for formulations of tax to apply at initial production for downstream markets}).  This includes potential alternative energy / device producers in that, the more efficient & non-GHG producing efforts towards what will be part of long-run transitions will have lower “burden” by this form of taxation.  {ie, if a company produces “solar cells” or wind turbines with non (Or, lower) GHG production in energy utilized to make their “end-product,” then this will lower their foot print in both this tax as well as ecological costs (Or, “savings” – is a better perspective, helping potentially lower some need (in some places) for public finance options for alternative energy production that such sources come and go with struggle to compete with fluctuations not only due to inherent “supply & demand” / the sometimes boom & bust effect of fossil fuel energy on the alternatives – yet, also, due to ecological and or human tragedy such as war and market inequities such as regional but not universal regulations.  

This tax (When very near universally-applied) will reward better ways and efficiency while facilitating / promoting industry improvements where high GHG output was too often generally ignored.  

This kind of taxation does not pick on individuals or industries in favor or disfavor simply concerns GHG emissions... for example, When one purchases a bike, food, or rents a car – the market will (In the long run) average-out the already applied tax (Taxed only at raw material extraction for energy production and the resulting average emissions from initial site to the average emissions in life cycle as a "product" and its disposal).  

Unless a company with large cash flow chooses to dump “below competitive cost” product onto market… largely illegal on the books in many nations, according to carbon emission-dependent inputs/results of the product & the product's use (ie, if a vehicle emits GHG in the use fuel).  If a food product (purchased) required more energy input and emits more carbon ("Greenhouse gas"), this additional process will make for relatively small increases in “retail price” and will save resources in thru administering the tax at initial sources.  As an example - when a car is rented, one can not only feel more assured that carbon output is automatically taken care of without additional administrative or 3rd party certification costs {What 3rd party administration costs / audits are needed, will bring market-of-scale efficiency in automatically applying costs downstream (to other products that depend on the carbon emitting inputs) once tax is applied at production and or import site}…. A benefit for those {People / companies / everyone} that has chosen & do this proactively.  (Like so many choices we make, if one chose to rent a more “economical” car according to use / needs; and or, chooses the “eco / green extra-dollar” option often seen when purchasing or renting products, the “Why bother,” effect does not as often come into play - if another car rental {Or, purchase} choice is made by someone with little concern for “costs” or amount / kind of fuel consumed (Simple theory of “supply & demand” cannot adjust for some needs like the inherent problems with emissions such as CO2}....  this type of taxation will spread costs without favor or disfavor; yet, according to GHG emissions that go into the product’s life cycle…. This will make monetary costs to individual products (Their producers and consumers) minimal, yet still have positive impacts while potentially saving some administrative costs of individual nations / localities that try for similar through similar mechanism.... lowering the administrative cost may help gain the interest to approach more effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions.  

~

Exemption potential for a nation that currently taxes (For purpose of GHG reduction... will mean a brief look into history of taxation / revenue flow, to determine application) at amounts at or above the Universal Minimum CO2 / GHG tax:

This is an option for people to consider as some nations / provinces are already trying for this effect thru similar taxation towards reductions in CO2 output.   Perhaps would be best to work-out agreements to transfer / “lower” this type of national tax as the Universal GHG tax would (At least 80% to 90% would stay in the nation)… likely a potential to be easily seen as beneficial and be required to be near neutral in any nation's current GHG/Carbon tax in revenue effect.  (Potentially, the Universal CO2 / GHG tax revenues could go towards efforts to lower methane emissions and other current programs that a particular nation has implemented... working with the producers to lower methane by basic logistical / structural improvements where many or some industries/producers would feel like they are being "unfairly" singled out by what used to be a very extremely negatively-used description of what a lot more people are now more acknowledging in concerns such as climate as being "progressive."  


~~~~


Some added notes:

Nuclear fission based energy: 
"Nuclear energy, is impossible to near impossible to insure for liability, as the risk (in human terms) is near infinite and yet medium to high immediate risk production is on-going due to squashed imagination and continued concentrated efforts towards centralizing power / energy generation."

The harnessing of nuclear-fusion energy from available energy direct from the Sun makes better sense in so many perspectives including "costing out" / consideration for risks in short term and long term waste stream (From CFC's to semi-spent radioactive materials "storage," immediate tragedies to excess heat venting raising water temperatures and atmospheric temperatures that get trapped by greenhouse gases.... gases that will now be at elevated levels for at least decades though these initiatives can go a long way towards reductions, it will still be decades before return to generally better levels).  The toxic attributes of nuclear related waste, even in the latest and near-future technology's best case & application scenarios with much subsidy while generally hiding from costs {and likely risks} until extreme tragedy like Chernobyl / Ukraine and Hokkaido / Japan regions and world has seen resulting in and from such tragedy & costs.  The technologies within nuclear applications still produce much in-stream waste heat and general "toxic and non toxic emissions" (Including the least acute short term concern with (banned, otherwise) CFC emissions; which, when combining the results of these with ecosystem related climate disruption, negative results multiply with nuclear applications to meet needs that can now largely if not wholly be otherwise met within less than another generation.  

On hydraulic fracturing:
For now, likely (Without drastic and relatively quick {Gradual strong changes in next decade+} changes in patterns and trends of specific types of fuel consumption / emissionscould be a potential for meeting market needs/demands while transitioning towards better and while seeing to it that those that apply chemicals in fracturing processes take responsibility for avoiding costs in long run water borne pollution that likely can result in many water veins, sheds and aquifers.  Let alone, the understatement of obvious where even if pollution is mitigated to be beneficial over long-distance imports, the increased load of water use results in likely degraded ecosystems including ground water amount, quality, and likely potentials in some destabilized ground structures (Again, public costs that won't likely see much of the liability accounted for or insured well / well enough).  

A free market helped to be conscience of the extreme degradation / costs borne by approaching with not enough concern for long-run other than public subsidy (Not really even close to a "free market" that many companies have gained much profit from public moneys invested in while stifling imagination and less risk) of and "externality-dumping."  Such fracturing should (have been) be approached with understanding as a helping potential towards transition.  Hopefully, more actions will be taken for positive regulations in the fields of mining including fracturing of the earth's crust, rock & formations that give form & health {Or, lack of} to watersheds and ocean beds we depend upon. There are worse choices that will likely increase elevated costs due to mining other fuels including more global / regional conflict due to energy related concerns, heavy metal releases, degraded streams, forest soils, and of watersheds in regions allowing mountain top removal in industry of mining.

The funding of programs such as the state of Colorado's efforts towards reducing methane emissions resulting from hydraulic fracturing in recently working with the oil & gas hydraulic fracturing industry could be duplicated in other places and could be agreed upon to use relatively small portion of CO2 emission tax revenue towards facilitating replication of these efforts.... this could be done relatively quickly and yet done well & universally.  

Mechanisms such as this "greenhouse gas" (CO2/CH4 - reversing bulk of negative causation) tax will go far towards improving what had long been a very unfavorable environment towards better or best approaches towards meeting current and future needs.  this would integrate / can be applied relatively efficiently very broadly across activities of people's lives and therefore will be extremely effective towards goal while only very rarely being felt as negative by individual consumers (And, producers) in rarely being even slightly prohibitive in monetary terms in the short-run; yet, provides basis for improvements in every person's potential to afford needs / reap benefits instead of negative legacies in the long-run.  (Systemically providing additional improvements in what used to be called "non-point" effects of pollution, toxins, ill-health effects such as cancer rates / costs and the many difficulties in dealing with concerns connected across borders within the flow of waters & air - alongside the potential for reversing causes of degraded ecosystems / destabilized atmosphere as well as helping lower burden in costs of health care)

We have generally gotten so used to extractive-mined fuels being promoted as "cheap" so that we often bought-into the the false perception that there are few if any costs except monetary from in-the-moment-of purchases --- the full costs and broad range of subsidy, accepted tragedies, and risks taken without transparency.... these costs, let alone very likely costs of looming risks have been pretty well hidden to our conscience as we try and go about "daily life." 


~~

Dedicated to positive efforts of people from every walk of life... we can (still) thank for the positive results from positive efforts and those who consider to listen, are willing to study alongside without bias, collaborate & act / have acted on this and similar concerns in positive ways.

No matter how one may feel about the commentary added to the basis of this potentially viable approach to transition away from some major negatives in our activity as people  – one cannot deny (Much longer) the facts & trends of life we can face & likely approach better than has (generally) been our usual on this concern.  Don't let long-term weather trends & trends of human consumption / activity of recent years be forgotten when the weather seems to be okay for a while or the increase in fluctuations within long-term trends make complacent. 

Quotes from many people could be well placed here as an example of their efforts that were not very fondly greeted at first; yet, most of us know and appreciate a lot of what their efforts have meant.  One example:

"On the map the Delta was bisected by the river, but in fact the river was nowhere and everywhere, for he could not decide which of a hundred green lagoons offered the most pleasant and least speedy path to the Gulf."  Aldo Leopold, from A Sand County Almanac, describing the Colorado River Delta as it existed in 1922

After seeing things different, in different light, in fuller perspectives, Aldo did much for ecology and economy in helping conserve and preparing some grounds / structure for "best practices / approach" for the time and a few decades in some respects; yet, as we often know - as populations grow and new devices are put into use, that something's got to give as too much strain / too much load is placed on any system be it man-made; or, a part of the ecosystems that make life possible.      

The Colorado River Delta, like many places in the world, has been highly affected by human activity.... it is, right now, still in much decline and in recent decades looks nowhere near what it looked like 90 years ago.... a link to a video I ran across.  One of many such examples regionally & world-wide where river levels, water tables, the veins and reservoirs are generally running much lower - a grand measure of the earth's ability to give endurance to life:

Colorado Delta, in less than a 100 years

~~ 

It is necessary for concern of destabilized / degraded (Degraded, in terms of human health and life supporting eco-systems) ecosystems that lead to results from increased temperatures (And, in many cases, additional material pollutants); and, to consider, much like a person with a fever, that after a few days of just a few degrees raised temperatures.... any benefits from elevated temperatures in a person's body soon turn into results such as hemorrhagic fevers {Like Meningitis, Ebola or bacterial "amoebic" infections} - though here to, many with some kind of unscientific agenda, still often say "No, this illness increase isn't related to warmed climates."  Yet, it has long been understood that such infections increase as vector populations such as bacterial and "amoebic" infections of waters increase with relative "small" range of temperature changes, increased water table stagnancy, and increased pollutants in flood-water runoff during increased storm surges and occasional heavier amounts of rainfall onto degraded soils. 

Increasing and systemic negative potentials alongside and as a result of general well documented trends towards decreased snow packs, permafrost loss, dried lakes / aquifers, global effects of massive arctic ice melt, and added challenges to forest health and agriculture.  On a geologic / atmospheric and ocean-wide scale, results of destructiveness of ecosystem degradation driven climate change, beyond local / regional concerns, are on scale of decades {Instead of days or weeks like people's health} to see drastic changes gain or lose momentum.  In this, concerns beyond the regional results we have already seen much of, the geologic/oceanic/atmospheric time-scales need full consideration through universal application of levying this effort in the form of taxing the choices that still lead to further greenhouse gas emissions (Including increased likelihood of "polar vortex" swings - much like "chills" that go with fever in a person's body, trying to deal with the challenging and re-balancing..... not that this is exactly the same of course; yet, more-so than generally has happened so far, we need to see more the perspective that seems so obvious yet that nature's "biology & ecosystems" are not separate of human health and that what has built up, in elevated levels of greenhouse gases / the cumulative effects, will take universal effort to bring healthy levels back).  What industrial revolutions that are still growing / spreading and haven't transitioned towards approaches that avoid greenhouse gas productions / emissions are adding to an elevated level of GHG - a level that will take decades to largely decrease both by potential in nature and within that, people's actions. 

~~ 

*Is especially important to note that such concern’s core to this tax/revenue mechanism is that individual products not be "individually taxed" (A potential for overall savings in not having to approach as much through individual taxes we are seeing come about).  The tax will be based on CO2 fuels used to bring a product (Including a fuel's average emission) to a consumer. ~ To improve upon current systems’ activity & emissions that (still) have immense effects on atmosphere and therefore climate, ecology, human health & being genuine in our actions or inaction concerning these within some concerns for viable sustainability. 

{Noting, those that can afford to consume more will be taxed upon consumption, and CO2 averages of that consumption – by a person / population/ nation that does not afford itself to consume large or high per-capita amounts will automatically be taxed at different levels based upon this… and, again, as this tax will be activated at relatively {Relative, to amount of products that are produced with} few initial places of origins (Instead of being calculated on each product downstream).  The tax will be automatically built into subsequent products, the average added to a “price” in purchase of an individual product will often be very small percentage of the “retail or wholesale prices” – in even the top percentile of CO2 / GHG most costly (Products with highest inputs "requiring" {Previous perspective of "requiring"} greenhouse gas emissions) products, the average percentage for the highest emitting fuels would be close to a multiple 2 of the average transaction-charge basic credit card / electronic purchases usually charge in transaction fees in the USA.... this is for the highest GHG emissions results from most GHG costly products - which, with advances & product improvements, would decrease - most products that are already part of producing near non-measurable emissions of greenhouse gases will see no or very small fraction of a cost percentage-wise, as this tax applies to downstream (or, nearly out-of-the-emissions-loop) products}.  And, as products are moved into production with lower and lower greenhouse gas emissions, the producers will automatically see monetary benefit let alone improve towards ecosystem / climate stabilization. 

While much effort to apply such universal tax without any outright or extensive exemption is needed, there could possibly be consideration / by basic majority voting of oversight committee’s equally representing each nation.  No “favored nations,” unless perhaps on a basic population-count basis; yet, even then, population should be seen as relatively neutral - it is important to keep in mind that the tax revenue will be based on GHG emissions from products & processes consumed, so this will balance out tax liabilities accordingly in terms of high rates of consumption / emission and therefore is more tied to economies that see higher levels of more costly (or, less efficient) production.  There could be an emergency clause perhaps… to also only be allowed by basic majority vote, for short term financial effects of catastrophe (“Man-made or natural”) donations.  (Such allowance of the few exemptions that might be approved for “short-terms” relative to the life of this tax should be kept to a two year maximum).  An example of this could be the economy/ecology of Japan in the aftermath of Fukushima {Individual analysis of the efforts to decrease CO2 and the effects of having shutdown nuclear reactors; though, even in such cases, much effort needs to be made to not allow too much shifting of costs from clear & direct liability for causes in such effort to fairly treat such concerns; yet, still "be there" and available to allow funds to be applied-for in efforts to fund rebuilding in more sustainable manner than has often happened in many areas where disasters take place; and, still often, in hurry to rebuild sometimes ecology gets lost, forgotten, or ignored}.  In vast areas of damages, these funds could be applied to bring materials for rebuilding (With replacement or new supplies for renewable power generation such as solar) "at cost" {Fund for covering the difference in pre-disaster retail/wholesale price & "at cost"} to anyone or company applying for help to rebuild {With priorities set by need; yet, including the well-funded & people / property insured or under potential litigation - to enable supporting healthy approaches to recovery concerning the efforts this tax is central to -- building & re-building towards eco-conscience / considerate ways for improvements {Any supply towards people / companies that are insured or under litigation would need to sign local / national legal agreements for payback of such funding when funds are made available - this done to get eco (economy/ecology) healthy re-building started when a process slowed by sheer amount of needs or lengthy litigation is the case).  

*Note on "does not pick on individuals or industries in favor or disfavor" - though the suggested 20% discounted tax amount rate for local/national production by wholly domestic companies could favor (For a set time within this framework of approximately 15 years) more localized production / consumption of certain energy produced in some manner (Such as energy produced via natural gas, whether by hydraulic fracturing processes or not).  Such as marketing of natural gas by "independents" who sell to / within local consumption streams instead of for export to other nations. 



~~

 

If / when you see potential (in this and other), please take and build positive in economic/ecologic structures that are more holistic than what had largely become a pusher & addict type of relation in social-economics and marketing in many energy-production related fields.  

There is no copyright, patent, or trademark on positive collaboration in addressing such cumulative effects our activities result in; when, if ignoring, this likely means everyone pays a heavy price.  (Albeit, there definitely are positive approaches that are and will continue to earn benfits / profits & gain market shares for the brave people {"Independent consumers" and or "producers"} willing to develop in genuinely sustainable ways.  And, yes, many of these approaches will be able to be protected in some ways for legal benefits of those helping bring to improved markets.) 

In cumulative & individually, with nature as part of nature
"The Human race is challenged more than ever before to demonstrate our mastery, not over nature but of ourselves"
-Rachel Carson-

With respect and appreciation of the ability for individuals to come together in individual and cumulative decision making / life this planet potentially will still support if ecosystems we are a part of are honored.

~~
Some Last Notes: Emphasis needs to be shown that, strictly, amount of funds to be spent will be within "originating" (Producer / consumer) nation at high rate of 90+/- percent. Such efforts need to include improving stagnated elasticity towards sustainable "development." 

This includes what seems "simple" yet subsidy and ill development among other factors had stagnated or ruined potentials, for a time, of "sustainable" approaches / infrastructure, etc. (Such as, relatively small amount of funds could go to improve / initialize development of more efficient "work 'commutes' / non-commutes" - including carpool lanes / improved transit / transportation options..... on mass transit such as bus systems (And, rail.... ) - in many places of likely potential supporting populace.... where there are 30 or hour plus waits between route stops, decrease wait times between stops to 10 minutes.... this makes late or early buses / transfers more tolerable by people trying to meet their schedules / interests AND much increases likelihood that many more people will ride mass transit (Public and private).  Though apps & maps (Vote net-neutrality with you're app & internet purchases.... don't leave it to "free services" to start monopolizing and then sway towards biased.... it has happened in many areas of commercial business and even in corrupt instances of publicly funded... as examples are so numerous, we get used to such,and don't put it passed the paid-for or "free commercial services" to stay unbiased in giving you transit choices).... while maps & apps help overcome obstacles in somewhat complex of choice of routes (Complex in some areas of large cities / hubs, where options help give more solutions to "getting there on-time") if someone (Especially if recently used to relying on car transit), if someone misses a couple of connections within first few weeks of giving mass transit a chance, then most people will give up..... even with fluctuating prices at the pump, this is likely one of the biggest causes of resistance to change in this small yet important to concerns in places like the USA.  Funding the transition away from intensive resource use / greenhouse gas producing modes will help overcome much of these problems.

The initiative, in general, gives incentive to overcome legacies of often lacking genuinely sustainable approaches in infrastructure and overcomes broken down elasticity (Broken down by subsidy that has taken place over decades and centuries old momentum of patterns), so that when positive gains are made (Such as, if individual car traffic drops 50% in a given area.... this gives incentive for cars to re-fill the capacity of already built / soon to be built roads). Improvement made (without ghg tax) whether decreased traffic and or efficiency (carpool mass / public transit, less fossil fuel use, etc) often offset due to capacity of roads (lag time to adjust) and fuel price still roller coasters toward bust in boom bust cycle.... giving negative incentives toward driving more miles / be more wasteful (offset/loss of savings in ecology and money/resources terms)
Focus needs to be on re-development - reformatting towards known to be sustainable.

Besides obvious of, if one country decreases petrol consumption this leads to cheaper fossil fuel price tag for consumers of another, the following passage shows inherent problems faced in infrastructure terms of vehicle traffic:  
(Insert rttc traffic example passage here: catalyzing 50 or 100 years into 5 or less)





A posted note on "Cap & Trade"

(Said in-spirit of acknowledging recent positive improvements & some acceleration in some major sustainability issues; and, that the good spirit of relating with world partners on trade issues as well as extending positive efforts across cultures and in light of, Some made the choices (Concerning climate disruptions) and some are dealing with effects of others' daily decisions & activities.... there are many complimentary approaches to improving our ways; yet, more universal action is a likely best choice, fear or no fear)   


    While there are some silver linings in current efforts (Such as "cap & trade" programs) in approaching this subject of pollution, emissions & activities that also affect levels of greenhouse gases; current efforts already on-line will most likely not grow enough to catch us up to the negative momentum of decades lost in not addressing this concern earlier.  The cumulative momentum of pollution & toxins still has us generally going on and towards paths creating very degraded / out-of-balance ecosystems (That will result towards more ill human health let alone further degradation should the positive in "civilization" not come to grips with the demand for such waste and illness in supply systems that are often the {Twisted and sugar-coated} "economic" equivalent of drug pushers & addicts).  

    While some in the efforts in "Cap & Trade" are trying to address well, the ability for this type {And others} of program to make (now) quick-enough results with major obstacles for global adoption / adherence concerns, is likely too costly or complex for growth & adherence by much of the world.  The people & companies willing to sell most anything (And, any amount) in the fields of the dirtier fossil fuels, will likely be able to do so and negate any gained ground by cap & trade as this can not address that, "If half the world were to adopt strict cap & trade and a 1/4 of the world's fossil fuel stock owners were to divest; this, with many still guzzling petrol, gives in the world cheaper prices to then buy, burn, sell & consume more of what was conserved by cap & trade, divesting and other yet not near universally applied."

Another potential solution to consider, a universal (Global) greenhouse gas tax.    
Transitions that are happening, towards better, still are having to compete within a very un-level playing field that is going to continue to addict & destroy people and the world we now live within.  Transitions that many are being and becoming a part of working/growing/living in better ways.... being the change towards positive is great (I would rather be more physically active outside right now instead of writing this), so must be the efforts be great, and by many, in changing the course of the many that are still making the "business as usual" type choices and oppressing others into having to deal with the aftermath of "business as usual" if not still acting/being comfortably addicted to the process of / largely causing continued degradation. 

~~

In such context of positive efforts such as some "Cap & Trade" programs -- the need for (more immediate) universal application / effectiveness is demanded by the concerns this is addressing. Great, if this can and does happen within current efforts and applications.  Yet, not being very to extremely complex can also help in not only transparency, yet need to address corrections / fair-adjustments that might likely need to be made without become constant political battles.
   Admirable efforts such as successes in cap & trade; or, even the more-individualized choices made every day by many people, to be more eco-concerned -- and, again, whether making an economic & ecologic choice as a manufacturer of a catalytic converter or bicycles (Or, in the deciding to ride a bicycle without too much concern for breathing dirty air); or, at the time of renting a car and choosing to pay for a carbon offset... will often be seen and likely still be avoided, as is often the response in something felt like considering unilateral disarmament.  A courageous if not positive effort (We have at least likely passed the tipping point where those that do invest in genuinely "green sustainable efforts" will be ahead of others in terms of "economic" & other concerns for health.  And, as a model towards potential for better quality of living & improving infrastructure investments something our (USA's) last half-century has often not been done very well / efficiently; and or, new / potentially better approaches.... 
For universal GHG tax revenue expenditures, there would be focus on something similar to  "GreenBanking," with some flexibility at national level on programs / efforts to fund - a good example of potential: Dedication of portion of California cap-and-trade dollars to housing and transit.
 
~~~~~
one sentence on "faith based" ghg / ecology health (Environmental) initiatives (Besides, non-denominational hooray! for long running / on-going, and more recent genuine and holistically considerate initiatives)...... (And, may these, 'their' efforts, help make this statement not peoples' enduring legacy):
 
(Who?, some, most of us 'modern' {though modern goes pretty far back in some ways like deforestation, etc} people at one point or more)...... People so (not) loved the world that we gave / bought-into much toxic and ecological destruction (to the world and selves).
~~~~~
 
~ deeply and genuinely consider one's actions and within the collective of many actions ~

!