1. Optimum control of carbon University of Tainan February 23rd 2008 Richard Wilson Harvard University

2. The Carbon problem Some factors are well determined but it becoames elss certain as we go down the list

3. 1829 Jaques Fourier in Comptes Rendues postulated that the earth is a greenhouse 1870 Tyndall in Bristol showed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and measured its properties 1897 Arrhenius in Philosphical Magazine related CO2 concentrations to historic temperatures CO2 when released spreads uniformly throuhout the world If no other effect, the effect of CO2 on T is easy to calculate H20, an even more important greenhouse gas, is very non uniform and usually increases with temperature  T =  T 0 /(1 -F) where F is a water vapor feedback factor ~ 1/2 F is uncertain and could approach 1

4. Carbon Concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from 150 ppb to 300 ppb and are rising The carbon cycle is now well enough understood that we know this is due to anthropogenic activity The temeperature rise has been less well understood. It could be: Changes in sun activity particulates added to a greenhouse effect and are being reduced Note that temperature was flat 1940-1980 But IT IS RWISING NOW The effect on human affairs is less clear Man can adapt: New grain every 5 years! Some people may beneft BUT WE ARE MAKING A CHANGE IN AN IMPORTANT CLIMATE PARAMETER IN A TIME SCALE SHORT COMPARED WITH HUMAN EXISTENCE WE CAN ONLY DO IT ONCE. LET US BE SLOW.

7. Carbon dioxide concentrations are a global problem and should be globally managed. Preferably internationally, but if not, at the level of the US Federal Government or the European Union, or Asean countries

8. Politicians and economists have been slow to grasp that the carbon cycle is NOT the same as the sulpur/nitrogen/particulate cycle. We must teach them to take advantage of the difference.

9. Regulation and control is easier and more efficient the further upstream one goes. For particulates we are limited to emissions control For carbon we can go to the coal mine, oil well, gas field, or port of entry. Let us do so!

10. Particulates, sulphates, nitrates, are pollutants to be brought to zero Carbon Dioxide is a substance to be managed

11. At best, present schemes are sector by sector control and cannot transfer between sectors Diffreence between carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes is small compared with advantage of upstream control

12. Regulation by a city (Boulder, CO) or by a state (CA) or a country (in EU) is harder to regulate as far upstream as for USA or EU EU or USA can set example for the world and hopefully UN follows

13. Control by emissions limits or efficiency standards or subsidy for non carbon fuels is inherently “centrally planned” Which do you trust the least? Wshington Politicians, Sierra club Lawyers? Starry eyed scientists? The market place?

16. We argue: apply control, or tax when carbon leaves the ground and enters the surface pool NOT of CO2 emissions or mpg Only a “few” places oil wells, mines, ports etc Not the myriad of places which emit There is talk of a gas tax. It should be a carbon tax There should be no exceptions.

19. Erice meetings constantly urge a return to nuclear power. The list of initiatives listed in 2006 Stern report - proposals or tokenism Germany and now UK 20% renewable electricity: wind 50% more expensive than coal or nuclear

20. But: German experience ( Birkhofer at Erice in 2005) Wind about 50% more expensive that coal US subsidy 2 cents per kwh

22. The European Union and the United States of America are both considering federal plans to manage carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The WFS recommend that this control be as far upstream in the carbon cycle as possible, Viz: oilwell, coal mine, gas field, or port of entry. This becomes possible, now that regulation is considered on a large geographical scale.