Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: Carbon Quotas; would they work?
Hi all!
I just got done reading David Stahans - The Last Oil Shock.And found it to be a very great read. one thing that i thought was of interest,was carbon quota's. Meaning that each year each person gets to purchase a set amout of quota,close to what the average person would need for that year in car fuel & home use.Anything used beyond that would have to be purchased at a higher price. And each year the amount of quota would be lessened. The system would be issued to countrys on a population size basis. Meaning that the US would not be able to be the biggest consumer right from the start.
So if we could get this implemented does anyone think it would work?
If we kept it out of the politicians control and ran as its own corporation. and the rich or well to do & the poor would all receive the same amount of quota.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: carbon quota's?
horsedrawn wrote:
So if we could get this implemented does anyone think it would work?
If we kept it out of the politicians control and ran as its own corporation. and the rich or well to do & the poor would all receive the same amount of quota.
First - why would I want it to work? Why should I support something that makes energy more expensive for me? Why would I want to uplift the poor at my expense?
Now then - why should I want to exclude the politicians? I certainly don't want some supra-national corporation to take my money!
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: Re: carbon quota's?
its not about supporting the poor. its about being equal to all.And the price would force people to conserve and to do with outall the extras they deem as must haves to live.
If one uses less than what they have bought as quota then u can sell it to some one or trade it for what one thinks they need.
Joined: Nov 08, 2005 Posts: 258 Location: The Maple State
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: carbon quota's?
I was just reading about this last night in Richard's Museletter:
Quote:
Implementation
The ODP sets a target, but does not specify how nations would meet that target. In the book The Oil Depletion Protocol, I discuss Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) as one policy tool for achieving substantial cuts in total oil consumption. Another policy tool now being discussed is “cap and share.” www.capandshare.org
This proposal grew out of Contraction and Convergence, and from FEASTA proposals described in pp. 71-74 of my book. The essence of Cap and Share is simple: each adult would annually receive a certificate for an equal share of carbon emissions rights, and would have the opportunity to sell the certificate at any bank or post office at the current market rate. Fossil fuel extractors and providers would bid to acquire these certificates, with the amount of their acquisition setting the limit for their yearly trade in hydrocarbons. Each year the amount of carbon represented by the total number of certificates issued would be reduced to meet scientifically set carbon reduction targets. Citizens could also choose simply to hold or destroy their certificates, which would further reduce the total carbon budget for society. The system could be implemented at the national or international level.
The income that citizens would receive from selling their certificates would substantially offset the higher cost of fuel from providers. Meanwhile, the true cost of hydrocarbons would increasingly be reflected in products and services throughout the economy. The system would include a provision to help countries with special needs make the adjustment: for the first 20 years after the global adoption of the system, everyone would get the same allocation at the rate appropriate for the year 20; the remaining permits would make up a “convergence fund” that would be allocated to national governments according to an agreed set of criteria. Presumably a highly fossil-fuel dependent nation like the US would need lots of those convergence fund permits to enable it to get by as it rebuilt its transport, agriculture, and housing infrastructure to operate on dramatically less energy. Each year the convergence fund would shrink until year 20, when it would disappear.
If implemented internationally, Cap and Share would result in an enormous transfer of wealth from the industrialized north to the less-industrialized south. This is either a great advantage or disadvantage to the proposal, depending on one’s perspective.
One way or another, nations will implement a rationing system for fossil fuels in the years ahead. Whether that system takes the form of high prices, taxes, tradable personal quotas, cap-and-trade, cap-and-share, some combination of these, or another proposal altogether, remains to be seen. The sooner all of the options are brought together and discussed so that their costs and benefits can be transparently assessed, the better.
The Equity Issue
If international equity is a subtext of Cap and Share, that is at least partly because it appears to be a precondition for less-industrialized countries to participate in any global carbon emissions reduction plan. China and India look enviously upon the wealth accumulated by the US, Japan, and Europe as a result of historic fossil fuel consumption. What right do wealthy nations have to draw a line in the sand now, saying, “It was fine for us to use fossil fuels, but you must forgo them so as not to spoil the environment”? Since the bulk of the carbon emissions released thus far have come from the industrialized countries, shouldn’t those countries shoulder the lion’s share of the burden of the energy transition? Further, shouldn’t the nations that haven’t had their share of fuel-based economic growth get a chance at it?
Obviously if you are a moral person or a conscious member of the lower or middle classes this is a preffered solution. So as Jack pionts out, this will never happen.
Noticed up here in Canada the Green Party last year was co-opted by the elites (just before the GW think-tank/editorials denial stopped getting equal press with science). Just this week these so-called earthy people released their plan for GW. It deals with getting taxpayer support of CO2 sequestration (in a large part for oil extraction).
Carbon quotas support from the Greens? Ha! Maybe in the past when it was still influenced by earthy people. Now they want 12cent/Litre gas tax. Won't hurt Jacks!
Last edited by keehah on Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: carbon quota's?
horsedrawn wrote:
its not about supporting the poor. its about being equal to all.And the price would force people to conserve and to do with outall the extras they deem as must haves to live.
If one uses less than what they have bought as quota then u can sell it to some one or trade it for what one thinks they need.
1) OK, so why should I support equality?
2) Why should I add a cost to buy a quota from someone?
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: Re: Carbon Quotas; would they work?
The UK govt is giving carbon trading some serious consideration with 3 cap and trade schemes getting attention (Tradeable Energy Quotas, Domestic Trading Quotas, Personal Carbon Allowances), here is a link to a government document giving an overview.
- too complex and costly to implement in time
- would put a variable price on carbon (winners and losers)
- won't stop affluent ppl polluting
- the 'equal share of credits per person' ideology has issues with equality between rural (car use) v city (better public transport) and north (more heating required) v south (less heating required)
- potential 'double counting' problem with ETS (power generators are in ETS - electricity needs to be removed from a domestic scheme)
- poorer ppl won't have the money to mitigate their emissions therefore still lose out relative to the wealthy
- need reductions now, not in 5-10 years time
I'd prefer a flat rate levy, with no exemptions, on primary energy suppliers charged on a per kilo of carbon basis for all fossil fuels sold\imported into the UK. Therefore coal is charged more than oil and oil more than gas. All reveneue gets invested back to
- reduce fuel poverty
- build large scale renewable energy projects
- improve public transport (cutting back on the road budget would also release a lot of cash to help this)
- eventually discount all council tax bills.
If eventually all revenue is recycled back to the public through the council tax mechanism then the levy could be eventually be raised to a much higher level than the cost of the externalities, i.e the carbon producers pay through the nose but there is no net effect on the public.
It's tax based which is never popular but if the govt published in advance what the levy was going to be over say a 20 year period business + the public would have time to adjust. This could be put up faster than carbon trading.
A levy would remove the need for any cap and trade system, domestic or EU.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
