[KevO]

A German scientist is proposing something that I've long thought must happen and something that I've been debating for a while in some quarters and that is that we each have a personal CO2 budget.

My thinking is that each person is allowed to use only so much- approx 5 tons a year. And it's not tradeable or offsetable.
Everyone gets the same figure regardless of stature or house size. Once it's used up , you're switched off - as simple as that. If you don't use it then that would carry over to the next year but it cannot be tradeable or offset as that would allow the rich to continue polluting on the backs of the less well off.
The 5 tons obviously includes everything - all energy use, all travel, all purchases.
It obviously means that people would have a choice to a point as to what they do. If you choose to fly to India or New Zealand then be ready to spend months without energy at home. Or if you have more than one car or home then you have choices, to a point.

As drastic as this measure may seem to be, if we still have a chance to do anything, then this has to be implemented. Obviously economies will have to adjust in a way that is difficult to comprehend but if we go up another 4 degrees (and I think 2 to 3 is virtually guaranteed thanks to thermal inertia) then economies will be over anyway. There is no growth way out of this.
I am looking for Rob Hopkins to lead on this in the UK.
Most people can live very comfortably on 5 tons a year. The richer ones would struggle but the rich have for too long fed off the poorer.
My footprint is approx 7.5 so I need to cut mine by 30% - which I could easily do.
The average UK is around 9, Quatar - 55, the USA- 19, Russia -10, France -6, Cuba -2.5, Brazil -1.9, Nepal -0.1 for a full list see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

What's your approx footprint? see
http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/carboncalc/html/

The German proposal article is at
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,646506,00.html

[dsula]

My thinking is that each person is allowed to use only so much- approx 5 tons a year. And it's not tradeable or offsetable.

Not a good idea, because it doesn't encourage saving. If it's tradeable it encourages me to save to sell it to some rich dude.

Much better at the consumer level is to TAX energy at a high rate. Slap on some $5/gallon tax on gas and some $1/kWh on electricity. Done, solved. and while we're at it. Slap on an increadible tax on imports. Say $100 per mile per container. Now that was simple and didn't need much overhead or additional burocracy.

[pup55]

The German proposal

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So industrialized nations would have to pay massive sums of money?

Schellnhuber: Yes. Up to €100 billion ($142 billion) annually. If the richest sixth of the world's population were to pay this amount, each person would have to pay €100 per year. The West would give back part of the wealth it has taken from the South in the past centuries and be indebted to countries that are now amongst the poorest in the world.

Great.

Edit:

Sorry for the following rant: I am as open minded about this stuff as anybody but some days, today is just such a day, that I am pretty sick of being personally blamed for a lot of the crap that the western nations have "inflicted" on the rest of the world.

I cannot help being born where I was born. I am no more in control of that than one of the 200 million Pakistanis that, by his having of 12 kids, is in danger of being part of a complete humanitarian catastrophe in a couple of years.

I will gladly send my $200 check to this fund if it goes directly into some program to reduce the birth rate in some of these places.

[Concerned]

My thinking is that each person is allowed to use only so much- approx 5 tons a year. And it's not tradeable or offsetable.

Not a good idea, because it doesn't encourage saving. If it's tradeable it encourages me to save to sell it to some rich dude.

Much better at the consumer level is to TAX energy at a high rate. Slap on some $5/gallon tax on gas and some $1/kWh on electricity. Done, solved. and while we're at it. Slap on an increadible tax on imports. Say $100 per mile per container. Now that was simple and didn't need much overhead or additional burocracy.

Actually great idea it FORCES savings.

You selling to a rich guy be it me or Bill Gates. Means you have money to spend on some carbon producing activity from eating to investing and the ultra rich get to keep polluting as normal. In other words nothing changes.

Anyhow it won't happen we will collectively burn every extractable ounce of energy and ride the energy curve down. Giddy up.

[Concerned]

The German proposal

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So industrialized nations would have to pay massive sums of money?

Schellnhuber: Yes. Up to €100 billion ($142 billion) annually. If the richest sixth of the world's population were to pay this amount, each person would have to pay €100 per year. The West would give back part of the wealth it has taken from the South in the past centuries and be indebted to countries that are now amongst the poorest in the world.

Great.

Edit:

Sorry for the following rant: I am as open minded about this stuff as anybody but some days, today is just such a day, that I am pretty sick of being personally blamed for a lot of the crap that the western nations have "inflicted" on the rest of the world.

I cannot help being born where I was born. I am no more in control of that than one of the 200 million Pakistanis that, by his having of 12 kids, is in danger of being part of a complete humanitarian catastrophe in a couple of years.

I will gladly send my $200 check to this fund if it goes directly into some program to reduce the birth rate in some of these places.

Don't take it personally as what has happened in yours and mine trivially small life and lifetime.

In aggregate what "The West" and "East" have done over the last 200-300 years is belch millions of ton's of pollution into our environment, including Dioxins, Benzene, Nuclear waste and other nasty compounds. The saying about defecating in ones home comes to mind.

[dsula]

Actually great idea it FORCES savings.

You selling to a rich guy be it me or Bill Gates. Means you have money to spend on some carbon producing activity from eating to investing and the ultra rich get to keep polluting as normal. In other words nothing changes.

Wrong. You want policis in place that do REWARD good beahviour (eg. you save energy, you make money) vs. punish bad behviour. Much better from a psychological point of view. And you also want policies to allow for individualism as individualsim and freedom is the source of inovation and necessary change.
However again, the best and simplest policy is tax it at the source, not at the tail.

[Maddog78]

So someone who lives in Winnipeg get's the same limit as someone who lives in Florida?

You go live there through 5 months of -30C and then get told your heat is being switched off cause you are over your carbon limit and you can't travel to anywhere warmer cause again, you are over your carbon limit.

Canada is cold. Canada is big. Canadian cities are spread out.
What are we supposed to do, shut the country down cause we are over our carbon limit?

[Outcast_Searcher]

You want policis in place that do REWARD good beahviour (eg. you save energy, you make money) vs. punish bad behviour. Much better from a psychological point of view. And you also want policies to allow for individualism as individualsim and freedom is the source of inovation and necessary change.
However again, the best and simplest policy is tax it at the source, not at the tail.

I agree with your reward principle. So, here's an alternative idea:

If you tax it at the source, it just gets passed along to the users at the tail. Since energy usage demand is highly inelastic, you may not get as much change as you'd like - you WILL get much dislocation (pain),

How about taxing it at the tail, but offering some kind of large offsetting tax credit to each taxpayer?

For example, add a $5 per gallan gasoline tax. Have an automatic, say $2500 per taxpayer tax credit to offset, no strings attached. You've just created a very significant incentive to use less gasoline.

Examples:

1). The guy who bikes, who uses an electric car, or who only consumes 200 gallons a year by driving a SULEV hybrid car gets a big tax credit.
2). The lady driving the giant Yukon filled with kiddies many miles a day will pay incredibly high gasoline taxes.
3). While bus fare should rise, the poor, who take the bus instead of driving a car they can't afford get a big tax credit to more than offset that.

I'm sure this specific off-the-top example will have all sorts of problems and objections -- but I think the PRINCIPLE of a large tax on energy to disincent massive consumption to the end user, OFFSET by a tax credit to strongly reward efficient use would do a LOT to change consumption habits over several years.

I can't see our politicians having the guts to ever do this, by the way...

[Rod_Cloutier]

Nothing short of everyone receiving the same wage for the work they do in society is really fair. Why should we be allowing doctors to earn $300,000.00 a year when skilled trades people only make $30,000.00 or 1/10th as much? Not to mention poorer, unskilled labour people who earn even less. Why should a CEO of a company get millions a year in bonuses, where the average working guy on the street, who puts his pants on each morning and goes out to do the real, hard physical labour that keeps the economy running gets no bonus?

I am fully cynical enough to believe that some sort of collapse event is necessary to restore fair trade, and fair returns on effort. It really should be the people who do the hardest work, are employed in the more dangerous careers, and physically demanding work who get paid better. Some ivy league graduate who has never done any real physical work in his life should not be earning 300 times what factory workers make.

The only really fair was to distribute income would be to pay everyone the same wage. A doctor the same as a shoe maker, a lawyer the same as a security guard, a physicist the same as burger cook. If everyone made the same wage then only the smartest, frugal, thrifty and cautious people would be the ones who "will have made it". The people who abscond their money on gambling, drugs, alcohol, ect would only have themselves to blame. This change could create a new cultural awareness of limits, resource scarcity, and thrift, from which we would all benefit from.

One days pay, for one day's work is a long way comming however. The economy and the ideology it is based apon would have to collapse in its entirety before new ideas could be attempted. As we stand, the global market economy is a juggernaut that is unstoppable, growing and consuming more each year, becoming bigger and more formable as time passes. Until the juggernaut collapses, we are all at the mercy of unfettered consumerism, and its consequences until the enviromental limits are exceeded and collapse occurs.

[dsula]

How about taxing it at the tail, but offering some kind of large offsetting tax credit to each taxpayer?

For example, add a $5 per gallan gasoline tax. Have an automatic, say $2500 per taxpayer tax credit to offset, no strings attached. You've just created a very significant incentive to use less gasoline.

What you're trying to do is to give the taxes back to people in form of a credit. That can be done. It should be implemented such as to avoid any additional burocracy.

[dsula]

The only really fair was to distribute income would be to pay everyone the same wage. A doctor the same as a shoe maker, a lawyer the same as a security guard, a physicist the same as burger cook. If everyone made the same wage then only the smartest, frugal, thrifty and cautious people would be the ones who "will have made it". The people who abscond their money on gambling, drugs, alcohol, ect would only have themselves to blame. This change could create a new cultural awareness of limits, resource scarcity, and thrift, from which we would all benefit from.

Total crap.

[seldom_seen]

This is a terrible idea, because...

1) it's not enforceable
2) not affordable, would require a massive bloated super-organization of bureaucrats to administer
3) doesn't address exponential population growth, which means it doesn't address energy depletion.
4) would probably be run by a thoroughly corrupt organization like Goldman Sachs (see cap & trade).
5) very few countries would sign on (China no, India no, Russia no, ME countries no).
6) "Global solutions" do no work. Globalization is dying. The era of the global super organization is fading in to history. Pollution needs to be dealt with locally.
7) This is another "ignore the 800 pound gorilla breathing down your neck" idea, like telling everyone to be vegetarians so no one has to talk about population.
8) the collapse of the global economy and peak oil is already doing the job for us.

[dsula]

the collapse of the global economy and peak oil is already doing the job for us.

yep, exactly right. Stop population growth and then let's talk other stuff.

[rangerone314]

So, here's an alternative idea:

If you tax it at the source, it just gets passed along to the users at the tail. Since energy usage demand is highly inelastic, you may not get as much change as you'd like - you WILL get much dislocation (pain),

How about taxing it at the tail, but offering some kind of large offsetting tax credit to each taxpayer?

For example, add a $5 per gallan gasoline tax. Have an automatic, say $2500 per taxpayer tax credit to offset, no strings attached. You've just created a very significant incentive to use less gasoline.

I can't see our politicians having the guts to ever do this, by the way...

Right about that... the Republicans would be on that like white on rice.

[rangerone314]

The only really fair was to distribute income would be to pay everyone the same wage. A doctor the same as a shoe maker, a lawyer the same as a security guard, a physicist the same as burger cook. If everyone made the same wage then only the smartest, frugal, thrifty and cautious people would be the ones who "will have made it". The people who abscond their money on gambling, drugs, alcohol, ect would only have themselves to blame. This change could create a new cultural awareness of limits, resource scarcity, and thrift, from which we would all benefit from.

Total crap.

Also from a practical standpoint, who pays for the doctor's or physicist's education loans?

[kellan1776]

Nothing short of everyone receiving the same wage for the work they do in society is really fair. Why should we be allowing doctors to earn $300,000.00 a year when skilled trades people only make $30,000.00 or 1/10th as much? Not to mention poorer, unskilled labour people who earn even less. Why should a CEO of a company get millions a year in bonuses, where the average working guy on the street, who puts his pants on each morning and goes out to do the real, hard physical labour that keeps the economy running gets no bonus?
.

Ahhh yes socialist tyranny...the last best hope for mankind and the last refuge for the simple minded followers. SO WHY would I go to medical school and residency and work 100 hour weeks to get paid 30k a year? Oh maybe the government forces me to go to medical school! Yes thats the place I want to live. Step out...for just a moment...from your delusional state and offer some real solutions that will actually work, and can be implemented.

[Rod_Cloutier]

So your saying that blue collar workers who face danger in the face every day. People exposed daily to toxic fumes, industrial accidents, falls, ect deserve to be paid less than some doctor that sits in a comfortable office. Who gets 3 martini lunches every day and gets to go home to a nice bath in his in-bedroom jacuzzi?

Actually the problem isn't with doctors, lawyers, and other white collar workers at all. The problem is with all the rich people that don't have to work. People who day trade stocks, sit a home living off of annuities, people who fraudlently sue others for money, and other parasites of society.

The tax structure could be restructured based on how many hours a person works to receive their paycheque. A truck driver, living in his truck away from home, working 70+ hours a week would pay less than someone, working in an office at a 40 hour a week job. That person working the 40 hour a week would then pay less taxes than the person sitting at home with the same income who does no work for society.

[Maddog78]

You are obviously not a professional person.
Are you that jealous of people who are?
So you think 4 + years of University and further interning should not be rewarded?
High School drop out labourers should get the same rewards?


When I was working my way through school as a roughneck in the summers months, my Driller used to yell at us, "You wouldn't go to school you as#h&les so make those f#@king tongs bite"

He was right. I never forgot that.

[dsula]

So your saying that blue collar workers who face danger in the face every day. People exposed daily to toxic fumes, industrial accidents, falls, ect deserve to be paid less than some doctor that sits in a comfortable office. Who gets 3 martini lunches every day and gets to go home to a nice bath in his in-bedroom jacuzzi?

Actually the problem isn't with doctors, lawyers, and other white collar workers at all. The problem is with all the rich people that don't have to work. People who day trade stocks, sit a home living off of annuities, people who fraudlently sue others for money, and other parasites of society.

The tax structure could be restructured based on how many hours a person works to receive their paycheque. A truck driver, living in his truck away from home, working 70+ hours a week would pay less than someone, working in an office at a 40 hour a week job. That person working the 40 hour a week would then pay less taxes than the person sitting at home with the same income who does no work for society.

You mean a flat hourly wage? In that scenario please answer this questions:
1. why should I go to school and study real hard, if I can drop out of high school and get the same pay?
2. why should I put real effort into my work if I know that even if promoted to shift leader or manager, my pay wont increase, just my responsabilities?

[Arthur75]

Since energy usage demand is highly inelastic, you may not get as much change as you'd like - you WILL get much dislocation (pain),

I think the fact that energy demand is inelastic is more or less a myth, top energy consumption areas are housing and individual transport.

For sure it requires some time, but with insulation and more efficient cars the US could easily cut their consumption by 30% or something at more or less same functionality.

Otherwise, James Hansen proposal to Obama seems to me the best approach :

A rising carbon price is essential to "decarbonize" the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public's near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... rack-obama

Maybe not making it 100% direct redistribution , but clearly identify the redistributed part, and use some of the revenue for common energy saving infrastructure such as public transport.

One key advantage of this system is that it is fully anonymous and does not require any measuring of citizens consumption or way of life, but it still clearly favors good behaviour.