Completely cancel the reduction obligation – in the face of the tree planting tax – VLT

Bo Heigstrom asks the questions; What other options are available, and how do you get heat without burning? But I think he already knows that. Sun, wind, water, and nuclear energy produce electricity that can be converted into heat without the formation of carbon dioxide.

Regarding what Karl Erik Anderson wrote, I agree that neither trees nor peat make good biofuel. This is because the carbon dioxide they emit is not fully replenished until after 100 to several thousand years. However, there are some biofuels that have a turnover of only a few years, which is better.

However, I question that The use of hydrogen gas to make hydrocarbons largely uses carbon dioxide from the air, even if it does not dilute the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is because it is better to use hydrogen gas directly as fuel for vehicles without the need for an additional industrial process.

But the main point of this post was the public perception that biofuels produce no carbon dioxide emissions. It is fraudulent and misleading to claim this. They even produce temporarily higher emissions because the energy content of many biofuels, such as ethanol, is much lower than gasoline and diesel.

If you want to reduce emissions here and now, and keep driving, an electric car is the best choice if the electricity comes from sun, wind, water or nuclear power.

But also without All electric cars can reduce emissions by planting trees that offset the car's CO2 emissions, for example through a VI forest.

So the advice our politicians should take is to scrap the reduction obligation entirely, and instead impose a tax on tree planting of €66 per car mile traveled. Then ask an organization to plant fast-growing trees in Africa. It is a much better and cheaper alternative than the reduction commitment to meet our targets for CO2 emissions from traffic until 2030.

Per Johan Fager