Rationing Of Carbon Contemplated in UK
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 06. 2.08
In WW2 they rationed V8 Juice, among other things; in the UK, the Environmental Audit Committee says that a personal carbon allowance is the best way to cut CO2 without hurting the poor.
If you need fuel for your V8 and go over your allowance, you will have to buy credits from somebody else. 10 litres of gas would use up 23kg of credits; a flight to Rome from London would eat up 900kg. The chair of the Committee, Tim Yeo (of the Conservative party) says "We found that personal carbon trading has real potential to engage the population in the fight against climate change and to achieve significant emissions reductions in a progressive way,' he said. 'The idea is a radical one. As such it inevitably faces some significant challenges in its development. It is important to meet these challenges."
The Environment Minister, Hilary Benn, says "It's got potential but, in essence, it's ahead of its time. There are a lot of practical problems to overcome." But the rich who keep their lights on for no good reason would have to buy credits from the people who don't. Perhaps this is an idea whose time has come. ::the Mail
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- An Eco-Analysis of a Small Business
- 300 Hybrid Buses To be Driving the London Streets by 2011
- 10 Energy Myths Exposed: Solar, Wind, Nuclear and More
- Controversial Artist Justifies Bad Behaviour in the Arctic
Purolator Quicksider Electric Delivery Vehicle Displayed in Toronto
|
Green Ladywell Hosts Carnival of the Green
|
Rationing would be immensely inferior to a simple carbon tax.
Too clunky to manage, to easy to game, to open to pressure from lobbies and special interest groups with political clout (farmers?). At the mercy of bureaucrats that will bloat and bloat costs..
One can never accuse the British government of not being imaginative when it comes to inventing new taxes...
I'm guessing it wouldn't apply to Nondoms who probably have the highest carbon footprints of anyone in the UK.
I don't know where the notion that this is ahead of its time comes from. What we're talking about here is rationing, just like we all did in WWII. In America everyone was issued stamps that had to be spent along with the cash price of goods that were essential to the war effort. If we were able to do it then we can surly do it now.
Ugh. More gov't intervention. Baby out with the bathwater. Again and again and again and again until the planet is literally dying. And then some more. When will the people of this planet learn.
Ok... I think I'm missing something here... WWII - severe shortages of everything, collapsing economies, massive rebiulding with no money. 2008... shortage of some foods... more due to bad management, investors flooding into futures and ineffective policies mandating more land be used for biofuels than for food. And we are rationing carbon because??? Not even in my direst dreams can I equate global warming - man induced, partly man-induced or natural with anything remotely close to what was experienced afer WWII. Its just Gordy up to his old tricks of find more ways to tax Brits.
Sally, you might find it helpful to read the article! I think you'll find "Gordy" had nothing to do with this idea -- instead it was the Tories.
i think it's a good idea - but i think the whole carbon/global warming is a bit of a misdonomer (sp?).
the problem is pollution and waste - it's a dirty subject, and no-one, no-one wants to talk about it.
we are literally siting next to huge landfill, water pollution, air pollution and none of this is being addressed. it's even more potent as we are such a tiny island (UK).
Instead of a bulky and institutional fix like a "Carbon Allowance" (...Who is doing the accounting and monthly statements...?) why not just place graduated fees on the most certain sources of carbon and environmental threats?
For example, price gasoline (Petrol for some) at the pump in eight (8) tiers of price: Hummers and the big pickups at one end and Priuses and hybrids, Smart cars, etc at the other. The net tax effect could remain neutral but the big "toys" may pay a dollar or two more, and the eco friendlier cars may pay a dollar or two per gallon less. A deluxe 6,500 lb Range Rover might pay $5.50/gal (in the US) and the Prius might pay $1.50/gal. The moral basis is in place for such a graduated pricing: "Why should somene be able to threaten our country's security at a much higher extent without paying a much larger share of the worry?" The economic persuasion of such a scheme is obvious. Go ahead and drive the behemoth but you will not be subsidized for your undermining the petro supply; you will be penailized.
This same concept (Known as the Crytser Initiative) can be adopted to Home energy consumption rates, Water consumption, and even the taxation of suburbs based on their distance from mass transit and infrastructure and services.
Sally/Will,
Whilst one of the rare instances where our Dear Leader's fiscal fingers do not seem to be dipping first into our now rather bare national pot (a few salary and pension deals coming home to roost), I think you'll find that, though indeed chaired by a Conservative member, it was actually a cross-party effort.
And no matter what its provenance, with the electorate's current confidence and/or trust in anything that has a pol or civil servant attached, especially overseeing a trading function, it has about as much chance of flying as a Zinc Zeppelin.