 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
|
Making carbon rationing fair and equitable |
|
|
|
"Everyone ... would have a sense that their efforts at conservation will not be wasted by the profligacy of others, and that the system is founded on justice."A new Bill was recently (Summer 2005) presented in Parliament which describes a very practical way to deliver the promises described by party leaders on carbon emissions over the last few weeks. David Thorpe explains.Imagine filling your vehicle with fuel and handing over two credit cards. The first is your credit card; the second would be like a loyalty card, of the sort in wide use nowadays. But when it's swiped, it's not bonus points being credited to you, but "carbon units" being debited. As Richard Starkey and Kevin Anderson put it, in a newspaper article earlier this year, "welcome to life under carbon rationing". The Bill is the Domestic Tradable Quotas (Carbon Emissions) Bill, introduced by Colin Challen, Labour MP for Morley & Rothwell. Its supporters "believe that carbon rations - or to use our preferred term, domestic tradable quotas - are the fairest and most practical way to cut emissions of ... carbon dioxide". Here's how the scheme would work, as outlined by Richard and Kevin. First, the government sets an annual carbon budget - the maximum quantity of emissions permitted from energy use - which reduces year on year until the 2050 target is reached. Each year's budget is broken down into carbon units (1 unit = 1 kg of CO2). Households are responsible for about 40% of energy emissions, so this proportion of units is allocated equally and without charge to every citizen over 18. Colin Challen says this might be, to start off with, "about 6000 units on current figures". The remaining units would be auctioned to organisations. Year after year, the total allocation can be adjusted downwards to increase energy efficiency and the shift to non-carbon fuels. When citizens or organisations purchase fuel or electricity they would surrender corresponding units from their carbon card. Each card links to a national database and individuals would be able to trade units. Those who don't have a car, or use less power, can sell their surplus. Those who need more can buy it. The overall number of units is capped, and therefore the quick wins for carbon saving are achieved the most economically. The scheme has the benefits of seeming to be fair and equitable, and of leaving choice with the end user rather than having cuts foisted on them by government. The basic idea is like carbon trading for corporations applied to everyone. It takes the principles of Contraction and Convergence from the Global Commons Institute, and draws on ideas first expounded in a book by David Fleming in 1998, The Lean Economy, and by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Umist, where Richard and Kevin work. As Fleming puts it: "When anyone (consumers, firms or the government itself) makes purchases of fuel or energy, they surrender a quota to the energy retailer, accessing their quota account. The retailer then surrenders carbon units when buying energy from the wholesaler. Finally, the primary energy provider surrenders units back to the Register when the company pumps, mines or imports fuel. This closes the loop. "The Carbon Budget is at the heart of the scheme. Firstly, it guarantees the targets for reduction in carbon emissions. Secondly, it provides a long term quantity signal. Intentional reductions in carbon emissions take time; people will therefore need to take action now in the light of their knowledge of the quantity of carbon units that will be available in the future. "The Carbon Budget should be set (it is suggested) by an independent body." It will be in individuals' interests to help others to reduce their carbon dependency, argues Fleming. "Your carbon consumption becomes my business: people will want to try to influence each other's behaviour for their mutual advantage." It is also in everyone's interests that the price of carbon units should be low. "A high price would increase the cost of industry's purchases of energy, raising prices across the economy as a whole. However, the price of units would be to some degree under the control of the people who used them, since the more they were able to reduce their demand for units, the lower their price." Furthermore, carbon units lend themselves to local collective initiatives; they can be pooled as a fund, providing the basis for coordinated local action. Supporters also believe that DTQs provide a framework for establishing carbon reduction at the centre of public policy, aligning social values with individual responsibility. Households, industry and the government would have to work together, facing the same Carbon Budget, trading on the same market for carbon units. Everyone is given a stake in the system and would have a sense that their efforts at conservation will not be wasted by the profligacy of others, and that the system is founded on justice. What about fuel-poor households? They generally use less energy and so most would be better off because they could sell their surplus units. There is one obvious civil liberties issue, say Richard and Kevin: the list of individuals entitled to carbon units. In other words, a population register. But, they say, if we are to have a national identity card, this itself could act as the carbon card. Colin Challen believes that "people will take to it quickly. They are familiar with smart cards they use to get points on in supermarkets, so this kind of approach is common." He didn't expect the bill to become law (it didn't), but hopes that the idea will get on the statute book one way or another, at a later date. But if you support it, you can write to him at colinchallenmp@parliament.uk. Links:Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: www.tyndall.ac.uk/whatsnew/DTQs.pdf Domestic Tradable Quotas web site: www.dtqs.org Global Commons Institute: www.gci.org.uk. Last updated: 18.08.05
|
