The water the would cause this damage could be leveraged instead to irrigate the world’s hot deserts which in turn have the capacity to sequester as much as 15 gigatons of carbon dioxide annually.

One terawatt (TW) worth of ocean heat converted to productive energy through the process of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) would negate the potential for thermal expansion of the world’s oceans, which is the principal driver for sea level rise over the coming century.
The currently most viable approach to getting water into a desert environment, the only terrestrial locations capable of taking up the water that would otherwise cause sea level rise and the resultant damage, is to convey power to desalination plants adjacent the desert.

Existing technology can desalinate water at a cost of about 1.5KWh/m3 using Reverse Osmosis. One TW could therefore produce 5840 km3 of the missing photosynthesis ingredient annually, which is enough to cover the world’s hot deserts with .375 metres of water. Enough to reclaim between 12 and 20 percent of the deserts to productive agricultural use, which in turn would sequester between 2 and 3 gigatons of CO2 annually.

Another source of water for desert irrigation and sea level rise is melt water from the icecaps and the runoff of the major rivers as they empty into the oceans. Some of this can be captured and transported to the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East as ballast in oil tankers deadheading to their home ports.

The global capacity of the world’s tanker fleet could carry about the same amount of fresh water as Saudi Arabia is currently desalinating at significant cost.

The capital cost to produce 1TW of OTEC power is estimated at $(U.S.) 8.5 trillion, which is offset by the generation of $1.16 trillion dollars worth of power annually, based on Germany’s average cost of 13.23 cents/kwh.

We don’t need to address the carbon problem through taxation, we need to implement solutions.

The water the would cause this damage could be leveraged instead to irrigate the world’s hot deserts which in turn have the capacity to sequester as much as 15 gigatons of carbon dioxide annually.

One terawatt (TW) worth of ocean heat converted to productive energy through the process of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) would negate the potential for thermal expansion of the world’s oceans, which is the principal driver for sea level rise over the coming century.
The currently most viable approach to getting water into a desert environment, the only terrestrial locations capable of taking up the water that would otherwise cause sea level rise and the resultant damage, is to convey power to desalination plants adjacent the desert.

Existing technology can desalinate water at a cost of about 1.5KWh/m3 using Reverse Osmosis. One TW could therefore produce 5840 km3 of the missing photosynthesis ingredient annually, which is enough to cover the world’s hot deserts with .375 metres of water. Enough to reclaim between 12 and 20 percent of the deserts to productive agricultural use, which in turn would sequester between 2 and 3 gigatons of CO2 annually.

Another source of water for desert irrigation and sea level rise is melt water from the icecaps and the runoff of the major rivers as they empty into the oceans. Some of this can be captured and transported to the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East as ballast in oil tankers deadheading to their home ports.

The global capacity of the world’s tanker fleet could carry about the same amount of fresh water as Saudi Arabia is currently desalinating at significant cost.

The capital cost to produce 1TW of OTEC power is estimated at $(U.S.) 8.5 trillion, which is offset by the generation of $1.16 trillion dollars worth of power annually, based on Germany’s average cost of 13.23 cents/kwh.

We don’t need to address the carbon problem through taxation, we need to implement solutions.

I had read a number of your reports from CIBC and am now in the middle of your book. I finished the chapter discussing carbon tariffs last night. I found the fact that an economist advocated a carbon tariff surprising, enlightening, and positive.

I am a consultant in plastics and a member of the U.S. Society of the Plastics Industry Global Business Committee that advises the SPI on international trade lobbying positions. At a meeting of that group in Washington last September, we heard a presentation by the Peterson Institute folks regarding the expected upcoming trade difficulties from attempts to manage climate change. They described it as the next big thing in trade and went so far in the meeting as to suggest it having enough difficulty to potentially cause a failure of the WTO. That was the first time I heard or thought about this topic.

I find myself in agreement with you. My own work has included assessment of peak oil and other energy issues on the plastics industry. If we collectively believe there is a climate change issue to go with energy scarcity, it is rapidly becoming clear that voluntary behavior will not be sufficient to address the issues. Allowing yet another vacuum source on North American industry and jobs in the form of carbon taxes here but not elsewhere would simply be criminal.

Finally, I agree with your writings (and others) that suggest the energy cost problems had more to do with the recession than they are given credit for and that rising energy costs, all else being equal, has to reduce globalization trends by some measure that is probably meaningful. This only makes sense. Given that historically we are a labor scarce society, this does suggest tightening labor markets from increased local manufacturing would eventually offset the rising energy costs to some degree. It will be interesting to see how it balances out.