UK Petition to Support Carbon Rationing
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 12.24.06
graph from Climate Change Action
“The best indication of whether a person truly grasps the scale of the global climate crisis is not whether they drive a hybrid car or offset their flights, nor whether they subscribe to the Ecologist or plan to attach a wind turbine to their house. The most reliable indicator is whether they support carbon rationing.” - Mark Lynas in the New Statesman As Warren and Jeff have reported, they are getting very serious about carbon reduction on that other planet called the United Kingdom. They really do believe that "You can't bargain with the planet because it doesn't care whether or not targets are "politically acceptable". So unless we secure a deal determining how much carbon each nation and each person can emit, we simply will not survive." Using a new petition system set up by the Prime Minister's office that lets citizens set up petitions online (like that would ever happen here), Alex Kent set this up and it seems to be gaining steam. Only open to UK citizens, but a good model for this side of the pond. via ::ecostreet; petition below the fold.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Adopt Carbon Rationing and Contraction and Convergence.
1. We believe Climate Change is one of the most serious threats to mankind, and to biodiversity on this planet, and that rapid action is required.
2. We believe, we need a global cut in emissions of 60% by 2030, and that this is likely to require a 90% cut in UK emissions by 2030.
3. We believe, the fundamental international framework that can deliver these cuts is Contraction and Convergence. We urge the government to campaign tirelessly at an international level for the adoption of Contraction and Convergence. We believe this approach of sharing emssions fairly per capita worldwide, and a process of aligning all nations to that is vital.
4. We believe that supporting C&C in the UK requires adoption of carbon rationing, with a tradeable ability, not green taxation.
5. We believe, green taxation will alienate much of society and will be unpopular with many of the people whose emissions we seek to lower. Green taxes will hurt poorer people more than the rich. Green taxes will not enforce reductions. Green taxes take away personal choice in how we live our lives.
6. We believe, by implementing carbon rationing with binding targets we can force the country to only use its share, rewarding those who have spare ration, and allowing an element of personal choice in how a person spends their ration.
7. We believe, we must implement rationing with a trading ability as otherwise there will simply be a black market.
8. We believe, carbon rationing can bring personal and business emissions within an overall target and ensure fairness between interests of corporations and citizens.
9. We believe supporting these frameworks we need incentives for energy efficiency in the household, and for the use of renewable energy sources.
10. We believe we need regulation for businesses to drive changes in fuel consumption, energy efficiency, food miles etc.
"Using a new petition system set up by the Prime Minister's office that lets citizens set up petitions online (like that would ever happen here)"
Like Blair is ever going to pay attention to it. It's a gimmick and no more, don't be fooled. If UK Gov doesn't pay attention to massive anti War demonstrations, there's no reason to expect they will suddenly be interested in public opinion now. The current most popular petition is one against the road pricing proposals, with 66000 signatures, but do you think No. 10 will pay the slightest attention? I'm certainly not holdng my breath. Maybe I should...I'd earn some carbon credits that way. People have been hand delivering petitions to No.10 for ever, this is just a gimmicky way of looking like they're in touch. Utter sham.
I'm also unsure as to when I became a citizen, as given we have a monarchy (agree with it or not), surely we're all technically subjects?
I partly disagree with their comments regarding green taxation. However, I believe proper implementation of carbon rationing eliminates any need for green carbon taxes. Furthermore, I believe rationing is more effective and efficient than green taxation at reducing GHGs and thus would rather see rationing than taxation. Too bad I am not a UK citizen so I could add on my name.
Contraction and Convergence sound good, but convergence is fundamentally (not just politically) unsound.
Why? Simply because the notion that an equal per capita carbon cap should apply around the entire world imposes an unfair burden on countries with different geographical configurations. Namely, unless you want to depopulate the higher latitudes you must deal with the fact that cold winters require heating, and that the sun may not even be visible for months due to high cloud cover frequency.
Also, some countries are simply bigger than others. Or, more precisely, they are less dense, and so more travel is intrinsically required. Australia cannot be expected to function as a national entity on the same travel fuel as Austria.
Also, some nations may have a much tougher time coming up with alternatives. Solar power is less effective with latitude, wind may not be available in the right seasons or velocities, hydro availability varies greatly, etc.
Note that these items can be quantified in a standard way and allowed for in any fair convergence formula. However, the "one size fits all" approach is just a plainly bad idea. Requesting national economic suicide is not merely a political problem, it is impossible.
Thanks for publicising my petition. A few thoughts in reply to the comments.
Yes, of course a petition has limited value when you have a government that ignores Anti-war protests. Who knows whether our new prime minister will have any better grasp of democracy than the last. None the less we use all methods - we try direct action such as the climate camp, we try protest such as the campaign against climate change annual march, we try to build public opinion through political parties and through newspapers, and we use petitions. This is only a small part of the whole but we have to use all of it. The one thing that does happen is the government has to create an answer which we can then use for publicity, and debate.
On Green taxation - fundamentally if you have rationing then green taxes are irrelevant, and are being use dby govenrment to hide their lack of effectiveness. Yes if the government put £500 on short haul and £1000 on long haul then they could cut seats, but if that isn't copied thorugh europe it just displaces flights to different hubs. Green taxes have the problem that they don't sopt the rich from emitting. Rationing ensures someone cuts back and with the trading ability it becomes a redistributive mechanism.
On C&C - it does work. The northern hemisphere is richer and could easily cover heating requirement without fossil fuels or nuclear. The balance comes to that anyway when you compare levels of development. More energy is needed ton fuel development in the Global South, and that requirement more than balances the "requirement" for heating. It can be done. There are numerous reports this year starting to demonstrate the potential for 100% renewable energy in Europe, using wires from north africa, or spreading renewables, or using reservoirs from summer to winter. We have many choices - only by putting C&C in place can we drive it.
Have a great life
Alex