RATION EMISSIONS?

As the Senate takes up debate on perhaps the most complicated controversy it could face, global climate change, British leaders – already operating under a cap-and-trade system like that the Senate is working on – put forth an even more controversial and aggressive solution.

During World War II, food, fuel and many commodities were in very tight supply. The only way to manage them was through rationing.

The ravages of that war are but a distant fable to most in the U.S. but such memories are stronger in Europe and the U.K. Now, in response to the urgency of reaching levels of greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions reductions significant enough to mitigate global climate change, UK leaders are once again considering rationing.

The idea is not unlike cap and share, described many times by NewEnergyNews. In the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), businesses and industries have caps on their emissions and can buy allowances to generate above the cap or sell extra if they conduct business without reaching the cap.

In the UK rationing scheme (or a cap and share system) allowances would go to individuals. If they live in such a way as to not need their full quota, they may sell to other individuals, businesses or industries for profit. If they need or want to generate GHGs beyond their share, they would be free to buy.

Proponents see the idea as allowing individuals to grow in awareness of global climate change and their role in it and to profit from that growth and awareness. Opponents see the idea as introducing unnecessary complexity and cost into a situation that is already too bulky and slow moving.

Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, UK: "It's got potential, but in essence it's ahead of its time, the cost of implementing it would be quite high, and there are a lot of practical problems to overcome…It's not as if the government isn't taking lots of other action to get our emissions down."

Perception of the value in the idea could come down to the question of who should have power and who should get the profit in the system implemented to mitigate climate change.

And it could have something to do with the age-old ideological question about how much responsibility the citizenry is capable of.

Or, as Environment Secretary Benn said, "…interesting idea…"

The truth is we don’t see nearly enough interesting ideas coming from political leaders. Good to see one under scrutiny.

An idea whose time has come back? (click to enlarge)

MPs call for personal carbon allowance
Michael Holden (w/ Matthew Jones) May 26, 2008 (Reuters via Yahoo News)

WHO
The Environmental Audit Committee of the UK Parliament;

Britons remember rationing and see global climate change as another urgent fight. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
The committee suggested establishing a “personal carbon allowance” to cap emissions individual by individual the UK. The rations would permit trading of allowances for profit.

WHEN
Seeing the need for stronger efforts if the UK is to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 60% by 2050, the Environmental Audit Committee put the rationing proposal forward May 26.

cap and share is a similar concept. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
- The parliamentary committee plan is proposed only for the UK.
- Proponents of cap and share want to see it implemented around the world.

WHY
- MPs assert that “personal carbon allowances” would be a fairer system than a carbon tax and motivate individuals to reduce their own “carbon footprint” in order to sell their allowances at a profit to those who exceed their caps.
- Opponents claim the idea would be too complicated and expensive to implement.
- Estimated cost: 700 million to 2 billion pounds.
- Proponents point out the plan would motivate every UK resident to have a heightened awareness of global climate change and of the GHGs they generate.

There may very well be costs. Who will pay? (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Environmental Audit Committee report: "Existing initiatives are unlikely to bring about behavioural change on the scale required, with many individuals choosing to disregard the connection between their own emissions and the larger challenge…Personal carbon trading might be the kind of radical measure needed to bring about behavioural change."
- Tim Yeo, chairman, Environmental Audit Committee: "It engages people at all levels in their decisions, about whether they heat their house to a slightly lower temperature, whether they really need to put air conditioning in their flat, whether they really need to take that flight…It does so more directly than any other system…"