|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
 Posted: Tue May 17, 05 6:46 pm Post subject: Carbon rationing......... And you. |
 
|
Introduced by Professor John Whitelegg who currently advises the UK Cabinet on government transport strategy and organised by our local Green party, on Wednesday 130405 Mayer Hillman, author of the fascinating and uncompromising How We Can Save The Planet, (yes, I already had a copy), gave a very poorly advertised public talk to a group of only 20 students and local people at Lancaster (UK) university. On the previous evening he had spoken to a larger and more challenging audience at Lancaster town hall.
Mayer is not a tree-hugger and, believing their environmental policies to be inadequate, is not a member of the Green Party, nor of any other group, environmental or otherwise.
For over an hour he spoke with a powerful logic and immense intelligence. He warned that our planet has a finite capacity for absorbing greenhouse gases and that the seriousness of the current situation is already clearly evidenced in many ways (including the early opening of daffodils in our gardens and emphasised by the recent incidence of floods, hurricanes, big waves, and glacier and icecap melting). He added that last year due to climate change 160,000 extra people in the third world died and 20,000 in Europe. All of these changes are attributable to human activity.
Mayer emphasised often that carbon rationing, [think of wartime rationing which for the good of the (western) world was unquestioningly accepted by all] is the only way forward and that an equal share is the only fair way. To achieve fairness the ration will have to be reduced each year.
Up until now every government�s criterion for success has been economic growth and the belief that people should be enabled to travel further and faster and be provided with low cost airlines. Greater fuel economy in aircraft and motor vehicles has not led to a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases.
Now that we all more or less know what the consequences of our actions are, we can no longer go on behaving in this way. We could not be said to be doing so unwittingly.
In How We Can Save The Planet Mayer outlines many people�s responses to the situation, e.g. that they think there might be a technological solution, or they make excuses, such as others (the US) are far worse.
Mayer emphasised the exponential rate of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution to 370ppm now. The concentration had been the same for half a million years until the industrial revolution. The government�s target of 60% reduction of emissions by 2050 is desperately inadequate. We cannot wait until 2050. Their ceiling of 550ppm is too high. We need a reduction of 90% in 20-25 years, based on 10% per annum and diminishing returns. We have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to protect the environment.
Mayer discussed the other options including carbon sequestration and the use of alternative fuels/energy sources. However, these could make only a very small contribution.
The planting of trees he dismissed as an almost totally inadequate response and was scathing of those organisations which (profit from and) promote carbon neutrality by tree planting.
The only realistic solution is to introduce carbon rationing. The average CO2 emission in the UK is currently 10 tonnes per person and it needs to be reduced to a little over one tonne within 20-25 years. A rationing scheme should use the principle of contraction and convergence - contraction of greenhouse gases and convergence to equal rations. The archbishop of Canterbury has supported this principle. It is not a matter of making personal sacrifices - rationing must be imposed by the government and Mayer believes that in Europe carbon rationing will be mandatory within just a few years, the initial ration introduced at the current national average and then decreased each year to the necessary level. Trading will be allowed, thereby encouraging energy thrift and costs will depend on demand and availability.
I asked how carbon rationing might be / will be implemented at individual and household level and Mayer explained that the wartime ration book would very simply be replaced by a swipe card which would allow the use of electricity or gas and the purchase of fuels for vehicles.
One return flight from London to New York would be three year�s ration. If your work is too far from your home then you will have to move house, or find another a workplace closer to home. Tourism will change enormously and the Olympic Games would no longer be considered to be in any way viable. If the US did not adopt carbon rationing, they would be seen as a pariah in trading terms, (far more so than now), and economics would very soon force their hand.
By the way, my wife and I cycled to the university.  |
|
|
|
 |
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 05 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
| Quote: |
| Would this be the same people who spend long weekends flying to New York shopping? People who care seem to be aware and are changing their habits but as for the bulk of people in Europe I very much doubt they will do anything until they are facing a life threatening catastrophe. I do hope I'm wrong but I cannot see things changing much for many years |
Oh, man, don't give in to the doom and gloom. Try this:
"That'll be �17 and 10 carbon points"
Tradable quotas are the best way to tackle domestic CO2 emissions, write Richard Starkey and Kevin Anderson
Thursday April 29, 2004, Guardian
It's 2025 and you've just filled the car with unleaded petrol and handed over your credit card. Nothing unusual so far. Now imagine you also hand over a second piece of plastic - let's call it a "carbon card" - for the attendant to swipe. It's not cash being debited this time, but "carbon units" from your personal allowance. Welcome to life under carbon rationing.
We believe that carbon rations - or to use our preferred term, domestic tradable quotas - are the fairest and most practical way to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The government has pledged that the UK will cut CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050. That's a hugely ambitious target achievable only if each of us limits the CO2 emitted in our name.
Climate change is "more serious even than the threat of terrorism", according to David King, the government's chief scientific adviser. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution says curbing the threat requires a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions of about 70% by the 22nd century.
There is substantial disagreement about how this should be done. The commission took the view that "every human is entitled to release into the atmosphere the same quantity of greenhouse gases" and endorsed a policy of "contraction and convergence" under which nations gradually move towards sharing emissions. The commission says this would require a cut in our CO2 emissions of 60% by 2050 - government policy since the 2003 energy white paper.
Much thought has been given to applying the per capita principle to the allocation of emissions between nations, but almost none to applying it within nations.
Here's how our scheme works. 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 (say 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. The remaining units are auctioned to organisations.
Then, when citizens or organisations purchase fuel or electricity they surrender corresponding units from their carbon card.
Now comes the clever bit. Each card links to a national database allowing individuals to trade their carbon units. Say, for example, you need to drive to work, but have no carbon units left. No problem, the garage simply goes into the national market and buys the number of units needed. The cost is added to your bill.
Or perhaps you don't own a car? Then you can sell your surplus units into the market for hard cash. And because the size of the cake is fixed, these trades will not affect the overall emissions produced.
How does carbon rationing measure up as a mechanism for emissions reduction? The standard test for a proposed environmental policy measure is to assess it against the three Es: equity (is it fair?), effectiveness (will it achieve its target?) and efficiency (will it be cost-effective?).
If the atmosphere is viewed as a common resource then it seems fair that people have equal shares. Allocating emissions on this basis is surely fairer than by ability to pay, as, for example, under a carbon tax. According to government figures, there are about three million households in fuel poverty, that is without sufficient income to heat their homes adequately. Fuel-poor households generally use less energy and so, as below-average emitters, most would be better off because they could sell their surplus units.
To be effective, the scheme would need to be technically and administratively feasible and acceptable to the public. Clearly it requires a central database to hold the carbon accounts and record transactions. Computer experts say such a database is not a problem using current technology, and neither is linking our 11,000 garages to it in real-time.
There is one obvious sticking point: the government would need a list of individuals entitled to carbon units. In other words, it would need a population register: but one would be created for the proposed ID card scheme. In fact, the ID card could act as the carbon card.
Finally, the scheme scores well for efficiency. According to economists, its market approach is the most cost-effective route to reduce emissions.
� Richard Starkey and Kevin Anderson are scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Umist
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 05 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
| Milo wrote: |
Catch me cycling much further? 
|
Many is the time I've had to cycle through a her of fresians on Bailrigg Lane. Great animals, but rather more inquisitive than I like in a whole herd of cows at once.
There's some cracking cycling to be had up there. One of my favourite runs was out from Lancaster down to Chonder Green, out through Glasson Dock, down past Cockerham Sands and all the way to Knot end, over on the ferry, and back from Fleetwood/Blackpool on the roads. Out through the back of the city (up past Bowerham, down into the valley and out into the farm fields) was also great fun. North around Morecambe bay...
Gosh, but I was a stupid student There's also some phenomenal foraging to be had around there.
| Quote: |
* I'm not convinced that he's got a good answer on the way forward.
You don't have to be convinced - yet!
* To change the way we (especially in the West, but globally) relate to energy useage is the greatest social engineering experiment in the history of mankind. The scale of this is just awesome!
YES, isn't it. Mayer's mind is huge! Talk about thinking outside the (ruddy) box - he's thinking on a HUGE scale. |
He's thinking on a huge scale... And not convincing me. I'm a soft target. If he isn't convincing me (at heart someone who's pretty damned green), he'll struggle. He only seems to see part of the picture. |
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
mochyn
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 24585
Location: mid-Wales
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Peter
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2400
Location: Milton Keynes
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
mochyn
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 24585
Location: mid-Wales
|
|
|
|
|
joanne
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 7100
Location: Morecambe, Lancashire
|
|
|
|
|
whitelegg1
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 409
Location: Woodford Green
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts