Carbon emissions consequences

Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have been taxing carbon emissions since the 1990s. The results have varied with the tax collection methods. In Finland, Norway, and Sweden the carbon taxes had little impact on emissions, as industry just included them in its cost of operation while the governments treated these taxes as general revenue. In Denmark, the collected carbon taxes were invested in subsidizing the development of alternative energy technologies, and as a consequence the per capita emission by 2005 dropped below the 1990 level. 

I have devoted more space to explaining the dangers of nuclear power than to the consequences of using fossil fuels, because while the consequences of carbon emission are well understood, the inexhaustible nature of thermal power and the implications of terrorists using breeder reactor fuel for military purposes are largely unknown. 

As a consequence of the increased focus on reduction of carbon emissions to the environment, more and more offshore oil and gas installations are now being analyzed for and also realized with power supplied from the onshore Norwegian power system. These projects, from the early studies to realization, involve several challenges that have to be managed by the oil and gas companies. Central challenges are the offshore installation power delivery reliability and the impact these large loads have on the existing onshore power system. 

Transition to LCH4 fuel will reduce airline DOC. Currently, fuel is 33 % of DOC and LCH4 is less than 30 % of the cost of jet-fuel. This gap will widen as the cost of jet-fuel increases due to limited availability. Multi-national carbon emissions policies increase airline DOC. Environmentally, LCH4 use will reduce CO2 emissions by 20 % compared to jet-fuel, reducing carbon tax commitments. Consequently, the reduction in DOC will allow a reduction in fare prices, supports customer growth and increases income streams. 

The economic objective, Fi, is measured by the total CLSC cost, including total material purchasing cost (PC), total installation cost (BC), total production cost (MC), total capacity expansion cost (CEC), total transportation cost (TC), and total disposal cost (DC). The environmental objective, F2, is measured by the total carbon (CO2) emission, including total production carbon emission (PCOE), total installation carbon emission (BCOE), and total transportation carbon emission (TCOE) in all the CLSC. For a MCSCD problem, we also need to consider material supply constraints, flow conservation constraints, capacity expansion and limitation constraints, and transportation constraints. Consequently, the MCSCD problem may be formulated as a multi-objective mixed integer programming model. 

We cannot sustain the present level of carbon emissions without disastrous ecological consequences in the future. Low carbon homes are sustainable homes. 

---