| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Milo |
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 |
I think some form of tradable carbon units would be a good idea. People who are carbon -ve can trade their units so that someone could fly if wished. I think this would encourage many people to adopt energy efficient schemes and ways of reducing emissions. Gradually a countries total emissions could be reduced.
The thing is can you actually see USA reducing it's emissions? There's not much point if they don't start. |
||||||
| cab |
Hmmmm... Cycling to Lancaster University. Gosh, that brings back memories. You live up in Lancaster?
I can't disagree with Meyer on anythng he says is wrong. I'm not convinced that he's got a good answer on the way forward. 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! |
||||||
| Milo |
As I understand it, (i.e. as best I can), Europe would / will adopt carbon rationing and the US would / will come to be viewed as a bigger, fatter pariah than even now it is. Relatively soon no nation would want / need to trade with it. Once fully aware of its isolated position (and its reliance upon foreign oil) it would conform. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
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. 
|
||||||
| Milo |
* Hmmmm... Cycling to Lancaster University. Gosh, that brings back memories. You live up in Lancaster?
Catch me cycling much further? 
* 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. |
||||||
| Milo |
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 |
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.
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 |
Having lived in Thornton, Stalmine and Garstang your cycling routes are all very familiar to me. I spent my stupid student days at what was then Charlotte Mason College of education at Ambleside - what a fine place to waste three years!
"He only seems to see part of the picture." Don't worry about Mayer Hillman - quite certainly I haven't managed to convey fully what it is he's getting at nor, more importantly, the how of it. Buy the book! £7.99, very small print on what looks to be recycled paper and he makes nothing from sale! |
||||||
| mochyn |
Well, all I can say is "Bring it on!" The sooner we get this started the better. I'm an optimist, but I know a lot of people out there aren't going to do anything off their own bats. Sadly, we're all going to have to be compelled to be more sensible if we want a planet that's still habitable in the next century. And if I hear one more person say "It doesn't matter what I do as long as the Yanks keep on like this" I might just hit them. Ever heard of personal responsibility? (By the way, that's not aimed at any individual here. You all know I'd hate to offend anyone here!) | ||||||
| Blue Peter |
Do you think that the Americans would mind? Or do you think they might say, "Oh goody, more oil for us!"? Peter. |
||||||
| Milo |
Thank goodness, a supporter in Mochyn!
(Hey, I went to school in Wales - I know what You mean!). Anyway, don't you think, folks, that recent events show that we are far too concerned about what America thinks. Let's be realistic, but remain optimistic. |
||||||
| mochyn |
I'm generally against being told what to do, but it seems that, as people won't act intelligently, it's going to have to happen.
I do all I can to spread the word, and I know some of it takes, but then I pass through the village at night and see houses where I know there are only two people in with almost every light on. I'm fed up with the Americans being held up as examples all the time: I know they're there and doing a lot to trash the plante, but I can only try to change things by example from here. I've always thought that when kids get stroppy and demand constant attention the best thing is a bit of healthy neglect. If we stop listening to the Americans we'd probably all be a lot better off! Can't wait to get the wind turbine... Off to put extra socks on: it's b*** freezing here! Where in Wales were you, Milo? |
||||||
| joanne |
Where where ? tell me - I keep looking and can't find anything 
I must admit the bike ride up to Glasson Dock and round Conder Green is lovely although its years since I've done any cycling - infact I don't even own a bike at the moment - Going looking for one this weekend funnily enough as the Kids are desperate to go on family bike rides Back to the subject at hand - This would have been something I would have gone to if I'd known about it - The trouble is John Whitelegg irritates me beyond belief and anything that has his name attached to it would put me off. Anyone who lives around the Lancaster and Morecambe area knows that the solution to the traffic issues is very complex and emotive and that Whitelegg's solutions are too simplistic to work unless the social problems are resolved as well. (I'll stop now before I get on my soap box) Joanne |
||||||
| whitelegg1 |
That's Whiteleggs for you! | ||||||
| Blue Peter |
I think that a very large armoury means that we can't ignore them, I'm afraid, Peter. |
||||||
| cab |
Get talking to the cocklers and have words with them about following them and filling a bucket. That's a great start. Stick close to them, though, you know how dangerous the sands are. Out Chonder Green way, on the mud flats, there used to be plenty of marsh samphire. On the banks of the Lune, up-stream from the city, I used to pick all the wild garlic in the world, and many other greens. The hedgerows all round Bailrigg were teaming with forage, including lots of fungi, some fruit, greens... In the University campuss I used to get lots of wood sorrel, assorted mushrooms, beech, hawthorn, blackberries, etc. The trees around campuss were always good shelter for forage. Up Morecambe way, just get out of the town and look. Loads of stuff. The Lancaster Canal was also a great source for me; watermint was especially plentiful down there.
Let me know if the smokery in Glasson is still there. Smoked salmon, from the river and smoked in the town, local smoked lancashire cheese... Oh, heavenly! I used to ride down there to get smoked salmon offcuts (they used to take pity on students willing to put that much effort in!), mostly to impress girls, but also 'cos it tasted so good! Glasson is (was, at least) a great little place. Haven't been there since '95, though!
Get on the soap box and tell us about it! |
||||||
| joanne |
Cab,
Thanks for that - I suspected I was looking in the wrong places - another reason for buying a bike they are much easier to park, whilst you nip over a fence and pick a few 'shrooms
I'm aware of the Wild garlic but the Cockle beds have been decimated and are now closed - I didn't know about the Marsh Samphire - I'll definately go looking for that and I'll take a look round the Uni campus for mushrooms and wood sorrel Blackberries, beech and hawthorn - yes I know plenty of places for them - the old railway lines down by the side of the river are teeming with them and Elderflowers Havent been down the Canal for years properly, used to walk the dogs down there all the time as a kid - one of my earliest memories is the whole family picking Elderberries & Blackberries so my parents could make wine - although that was further down the canal near Torrisholme. As for the Smokehouse - you'll be pleased to know that its still there bigger and better than ever - infact they now have a website and are very well known around the local farmers markets - I just love their smoked garlic and the lancashire cheese you mentioned Here is their website: http://www.glassonsmokehouse.co.uk I'll have a think about the transport issues and maybe start another thread Joanne |
||||||
| Milo |
Mochyn
* Off to put extra socks on: it's b*** freezing here! Why can't you put the central heating on like a normal person?!
Where in Wales were you, Milo? Brecon, from '66 to '74. As for John Whitelegg, he lacks something in style certainly, but I do enjoy listening to someone with a big brain and the ability to spout its contents! |
||||||
| tahir |
Very true, it's very easy to say but... I'd have to say that I'm not the most eco friendly person in the world but I do try my hardest to do something however small and to encourage others. |
||||||
| cab |
Ahh, yes, the old railway line. That's a marvellous walk. Used to do that one at night, looking out for bats.
You star!
That's straight in the bookmarks. |
||||||
| Andy B |
Just had a look at the glassonsmokehouse thing and thought, how does all the road miles for mail order food fit into all this carbon stuff? It might be great stuff but it's not local to me, or lots of other people and would the polution caused by sending me the stuff offset the sound ways that it's produced, and i am thinking all mail order food here. |
||||||
| sean |
And as if by magic | ||||||
| joanne |
Its a very good point Andy - One I have thought about quite alot being someone who uses the internet alot for purchasing. |
||||||
| tahir |
The problem is that unless we go back to eating local from local shops then the food miles are always going to rack up.
Sainsburys have Essex grown mushrooms in store nowadays but I bet they've been through a distributor and their own warehouse before ending up back on a shelf in an Essex store, and then of course there's the petrol consumed in driving to Sainsburys and back |
||||||
| mochyn |
Central heating, Milo? I don't think so! We have a Rayburn in the kitchen and a woodburner in the parlour. Only the Rayburn is on now, but the woodburner's looking very tempting...
And when I have a go at Americans, I don't mean individuals, I mean the government. I have some good friends who are American and who woldn't dream of wasting energy! So aplogies to anyone who took offence, I spoke not clearly enough. |
||||||
| cab |
And then you have to ask yourself where the peat used in growing those mushrooms came from, how far it travelled and whether you approve of its extraction from that location. Mushrooms in particular are a minefield. |
||||||
| ButteryHOLsomeness |
i'm american and even I don't give a damn what the americans think (actually i prefer to be called a Scots-woman-in-training  )
i think it's a great idea... how would it effect people on buses? i sold the car about 4 years ago when we moved from skye as we really didn't need it in glasgow and now edinburgh. i live in a fairly affluent neighbourhood (uni housing otherwise we couldn't afford it) i can just see me getting the wealthy crowd in their bmw's and mercedes benz's in a frezny over buying up my unused rations
|
||||||
| ButteryHOLsomeness |
probably so... one of the big problems with americans reducing their petrol consumption is how america is laid out. there's just so much space and so little public transport (i lived in the 10th largest city in the US for 8 years... they had a bus system in the dying city centre that covered about 2 miles!). all the shops are far away and they don't have a lot of pavements in many cities... not a good combination if you're trying to get people to use their cars less. i once lived about 1/2 mile from a grocery store when i was in texas, that was actually very close compared to most people as grocery stores tend to be in commerically built up areas. however, if i had been able to withstand walking on no pavements alongside a 5 lane road in 38C weather, through a majorly busy traffic area with no real pedestrian crossing AND if i could manage to get my groceries home before the melted, curdled or spoiled then by all rights yes i should/would have since i have always been fairly green minded... i'm not defending americans overall because, having lived there the first 28 years of my life i know how wasteful they can be as a whole BUT i can certainly understand why they are so resistant to changes... i think their arrogance about it all is really just a facade to hide how ashamed they are that they built themselves into this prediciment and they have no idea how to rectify the situation... |
||||||
| JYC |
Why don't we just run our motors, etc with lpg or veg. oil.
I have been looking into lpg, but it's not easy to find a garage that is handy for fuelling up! I wish that I could use public transport, but to get to work it takes me 25 mins by car, 2 hours by train and 3 hours by bus. I have to cross a bridge but the ferries don't run regularly, and public transport is rubbish. The best that I can do is to car share, which doesn't always work out because of the geography of my project area. It also works out cheaper than public transport. It's maddening, as I used to live in the city centre, biked everywhere and used to refuse to drive, but now I have little choice. |
||||||
| Milo |
Wow, we're just about getting back on topic?
Some of you might be interested to see where I first launched this topic - on a US-based VW owners' club forum! It's got to 13 pages so far. Not all the content is totally predictable, although much of it is, disappointingly so. Undoubtedly there are some good green North American folks, but it seems to me that they're in a tiny minority - the rest seem to think that the US is the world, or that the world is the US's. http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111029&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Sift through that, should you feel so inclined. Update Oops, at 14 pages it was deleted. Got a little too political, I suspect. |
||||||
| Milo |
LPG isn't properly green, of course, just greener than petrol and diesel, (which I suppose are brown?). "The UK is Europe's largest producer, producing 6.4 million tonnes in 2001. Of this over 3 million tonnes were exported. Only 50 thousand tonnes (7.75%) were used as autogas. The rest was used for domestic or agricultural heating or in chemical or refinery operations...." |
||||||
| mochyn |
How can you tell it's a gander at that height? | ||||||
| Milo |
.
(I've just realised that avatars and signatures don't show up unless we're logged in - anyone not logged in when reading your question would be well puzzled, n'est-ce pas?). |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I like the idea of carbon rationing, I don't like the idea of tradeable credits, responsibility shouldn't be negated by wealth. | ||||||
| sean |
But it seems reasonable for me to be given money by people who want to run a Range-Rover Sport. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Watched that too, the tank must have got clarkie about 20 times. I disagree with the trading, in that the majority of the worlds wealth is owned by the minority, Therefore you could conceivably have a similar 'world' output of greehouse gases but with a insignificant redistrobution of wealth. |
||||||
| sean |
Didn't see it. The Indie motoring section reviewed it.
I see your point about trading in global terms, but is that not better than telling developing countries not to bother developing, at which point they turn round and tell the west to ****off, and there are no controls. |
||||||
| tahir |
I agree with JB, I don't see why rich nations should be able to buy off their environmental obligations. | ||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Well we don't have any moral high ground, the fair solution is for us to reduce AND subsidise the developing countries not to add to the problem. Any other method seems to put the onus on reduction with someone else when we created the problem. |
||||||
| Milo |
One of my first (wicked?) thoughts during Mayer Hillman's talk was,
For the first few years after introduction, will wifey and I be able to save up enough credits to still do a 3 week long annual holiday in France in the campervan? Quite certainly I still don't properly understand how the rationing and trading is intended to work in practical terms. Initially I too was disappointed to hear that there was to be any trading at all, but it is slowly making sense to me. It will make the concept more acceptable to rich nations, (who surely are the big stumbling block). How else might one raise the relative wealth of poverty-stricken individuals in poverty-stricken countries? Then there are all sorts of practical questions like how does a Bangladeshi rice farmer's disabled grandmother "cash in" her carbon "chips" when her nearest ATM, (or some similarly envisaged facility?), is 700 miles away? There've been times when the UK's government has been involved in some pretty shady stuff. Can we rely on all of the world's governments to fairly organise and distribute the carbon trading wealth of their people? It seems to me that it would be a mistake for governments to be directly involved in the day to day running of any system once it was fully established, yet undoubtedly any such system would have to be constantly administered perhaps in a similar way to that in which conventional banks are now, (with or without high street premises). BUT all these are surely minor obstacles compared with what appears to be a major global disaster in the offing. |
||||||
| thos |
There are many problems that will need to be worked out, but a tradeable market appears to be something implementable, perhaps at an EU level. It could work at this level - to do it at country level is too small and it would take forever to get agreement at world level. The EU is a big enough unit for it to work in, and if the EU controlled its emissions that would be a good step forward.
I cannot imagine straight rationing leading to anything but misallocation, stagnation and corruption, so an open market seems preferable. |
||||||
| Milo |
MH envisages that it'll be the EU who get it rolling.
Not all of this article will be news to you, but I hope somebody will read it - I've just paid £1.00 to access it! You'll find it far more informative than my intro to this topic. A modest proposal to save the planet - The Independent 270504 Our leaders are finally waking up to the fact that climate change, far from being a 'green' fantasy, is a real, imminent and potentially catastrophic threat to humanity. Yet preventative action seems to be as remote as ever. Isn't there something we could be doing? In an extract from his acclaimed new book, Mayer Hillman advocates radical changes to the way we conduct our daily lives that would ensure a future for our children. Climate change is the most serious environmental threat the human race has ever faced; perhaps the most serious threat of any kind. The dangers can hardly be exaggerated. Within 100 years, temperatures could rise by 6C worldwide. Much of the earth's surface could become uninhabitable, and most species could be wiped out. In the UK, over the next 50 years, we will experience hotter, drier summers, warmer, wetter winters and rising sea-levels. In most of our lifetimes, millions of British people will be at high risk from flooding; there will be thousands of deaths from excessive summer temperatures; diseases from warmer regions will become established; and patterns of agriculture and business will have to change for ever. This is not the view of alarmists, but the considered opinion of the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists. It is acknowledged by most governments and their advisers. Last month, government-funded scientists at the University of Washington in Seattle made the key admission that the troposphere is indeed warming at 0.2C per decade - precisely as predicted by the main global-warming models. The UK Government's chief scientist warned the same month that if global warming continues unchecked, by the end of this century Antarctica is likely to be the only habitable continent. The World Health Organisation blames climate change for at least 160,000 Third World deaths last year. Tony Blair admitted that climate change was "probably the most important issue that we face as a global community". The message is clear. Doubting the imminence of significant global warming may once have been an intellectually defensible position. It isn't now. Decisions must be taken as a matter of urgency. We cannot rely on optimism. We need to think beyond energy efficiency and renewable energy, towards ideas of social and institutional reform and personal changes that require much lower energy use. Yet government action is only scratching the surface, and current policies on transport and growth can only make things worse. We are on the road to ecological Armageddon, with little apparent thought for the effects on the current population, let alone those who follow. It doesn't have to be like this. Nor does anyone want it to be. The UK government said in 1990 that it was "mankind's duty to act prudently and conscientiously so that the planet is handed over to future generations in good order". This is crucial. As well as posing the most demanding challenges to the character and quality of our way of life, the issue has to be seen and acted on from a moral perspective. Taking this as a starting point - that it is a matter both of necessity and of responsibility to try to save the planet - only one solution has a realistic prospect of success. This article is an attempt - made more fully in the book I have written with Tina Fawcett, How We Can Save the Planet - to bring that solution to the centre of public debate. The direction is simple and generally agreed: cuts must be made to greenhouse-gas emissions. The difficult part, where moral as well as scientific questions arise, is deciding by how much, by when and by whom. Should the most "energy profligate" nations and individuals be obliged to bear the greater burden of emissions reductions? The solution set out here - first at a global level and then at a local, individual level - is radical. But it can achieve a sufficient decrease in emissions, by a set date, transparently and fairly, so that it can command wide public and political support. For the UK to adopt this strategy will mean that it can meet its own commitments to greenhouse-gas reductions and show global leadership. The most plausible way to reach a just - and thus realistic - global agreement on emissions reduction is the system known as Contraction and Convergence (C&C). This brilliant and simple method was first proposed by the Global Commons Institute (GCI) in 1990, and its unique qualities have been widely recognised. A large number of national and international bodies have endorsed it, including - in the UK - the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Cabinet Office'' Performance and Innovation Unit, and the Greater London Authority. C&C is founded on two principles: first, that global emissions of carbon dioxide must be progressively reduced; and second, that the reductions must be based on justice and fairness, which means that the average emissions of people in different parts of the world must ultimately converge to the same level. This latter requirement has not been included for moral reasons alone; climate change cannot be restricted to a manageable level without all countries sharing this common objective. C&C simplifies climate negotiations to just two questions. First, what is the maximum level of carbon dioxide that can be permitted in the atmosphere without serious climate destabilisation? Second, by what date should global per capita shares converge to that level? The targets in the Kyoto protocol are not based on a reliable understanding of the safe limits of greenhouse gases: rather, the reductions were determined by what was considered to be politically possible in developed countries. By contrast, C&C would use the best scientific knowledge to set maximum safe levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere (now estimated at 450 parts per million), and hence the maximum cumulative emissions. While the date of convergence would be subject to agreement, the principle of equal rights for all would remove the potentially endless negotiations that would otherwise occur, with each country making a case that its contribution to global reductions should be modified in light of its special circumstances. Another important element of the C&C proposal is the ability of countries to trade carbon-emissions rights. Countries unable to manage within their agreed shares would, subject to verification and rules, be able to buy allocations of other countries or regions. Sales of these unused allocations, almost invariably by vendor countries in the Third World, would fund their development in sustainable, zero-emission ways. Developed countries, with high carbon-dioxide emissions, gain a mechanism to mitigate the expensive early retirement of their carbon capital stock, and benefit from the export markets for renewable technologies this restructuring would create. The next step is for our government to adopt the principle of C&C, and to lead diplomatic efforts to establish it as the basis of future international agreement. The UK cannot act unilaterally. But this does not mean it cannot be in the vanguard. What would happen if it did? Or, put another way: how can a reducing emissions quota be shared out? Based on the equity principle in C&C, the obvious answer is for a system of personal "carbon" rationing for the 50 per cent of energy that is used directly by individuals. Indeed, as part of a global agreement, per capita rationing would be the obvious mechanism for all countries. The main features of this would be: * Equal rations for all adults (and an appropriate fraction for children); * Year-on-year reduction of the annual ration, signalled well in advance; * Personal travel (including travel by air and public transport) and household energy use to be included; * Trade-able rations between individuals; and * A mandatory, not voluntary, arrangement, instituted by government. Clearly, giving people equal carbon rations - an equal "right to pollute", or an equal right to use the atmosphere - is equitable in theory and reflects the international equity principle in the C&C proposal. There may have to be some exceptions to this rule. However, in general, it will be better for society to invest in provision for the energy efficiency of "exceptional" cases so that they can live more easily within their ration, rather than to keep tinkering with the ration. The more exceptions granted, the lower will have to be the ration for the rest of the population. The rations will have to decrease over time, in response to the need both to reduce emissions and to allow for a rise in population. Giving due warning of future ration reductions would allow people to adapt homes, transport and lifestyles at the least cost and in the least disruptive way to them individually. Experience has shown that industry has been able to produce more effici- ent equipment (fridges, washing machines) at no extra cost if given time to adapt the design and manufacturing processes. The same is likely to be true of people adapting to low-energy, low-carbon lifestyles. With personal travel and household energy use included, half of the energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our economy is covered. The other half comes from the business, industry, commerce and public sectors, which produce the goods and services we all use. In theory, it might be possible to manage this half by calculating the "embodied" emissions in each product or activity (such as all the emissions from the processes entailed in the production, transport and disposal of, say, stereo equipment, or cars) and give consumers a further allowance for buying products. But this would be very complex and data-intensive, as well as being very difficult to apply to some goods and services - how could you "carbon rate" a haircut, or a hospital stay? It would be much simpler to make the non-domestic sector directly responsible for reducing its share of CO2 emissions (for which a separate rationing scheme, on similar lines but not described in detail here, would be needed). Not everyone will need to use their full carbon ration. Those who lead lives with lower energy requirements, and who invest in efficiency products and energy renewables, will have a surplus, which they can sell. Those who travel a lot, or live in very large or inefficient homes, will need to buy this surplus to permit them to continue with something like their usual lifestyle. Thus people will want to trade carbon rations. Economic theory says that by allowing trading, any costs of adapting to a low-carbon economy will be minimised. Price would be determined by availability of the surplus set against the demand for it. For this purpose, a "white" market would be created, possibly via a government clearing "bank", or a version of the online auction system eBay (cBay?). There would be little chance for a "black" market to develop. History suggests that appeals to reason and conscience have not been sufficiently effective in achieving major changes in our irresponsible patterns of behaviour and consumption. To be effective, therefore, carbon rationing would have to be mandatory. A voluntary approach would not succeed: the "free-rider" would have far too much to gain. But managing carbon rationing should be simple. Each person would receive an electronic card containing that year's carbon credits. The card would have to be presented on purchase of energy or travel services, and the correct amount of credits would be deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct-debit systems and credit cards could be used. A number of social, technical and policy innovations would be needed to make it possible for people to live within their carbon allowances. On the technical side, these could include "smart meters" that inform people how much of their annual ration is left; which appliances are using most energy; and how much carbon could be saved by, for example, reducing the time spent in the shower, or by heating bedrooms only in the late evening. Alternatively, energy companies could install sophisticated carbon-management systems in houses, which take these decisions automatically and guarantee carbon savings. In terms of policy, equipment that uses less energy could be favoured through devices such as VAT, labelling, minimum standards and subsidy. At present, the purchase of the most efficient types of equipment is encouraged, whether it be cars, refrigerators or washing machines. In future, the emphasis will be on items using the lowest amount of energy or with the lowest emissions, with much better information available at the point of purchase of everything that uses energy, from new and existing homes to televisions and mobile phones. It will thus be in the economic interest of manufacturers to supply goods that make the lowest use of carbon. Socially, one would envisage that attitudes would change so that thrift rather than profligacy in energy use and carbon emissions was increasingly preferred. There has been no recent experience of long-term rationing (other than by price) in the UK. The nearest comparison is the food rationing introduced in the Second World War, when the availability of food, clothing and other goods had to be reduced drastically. Despite difficulties, contemporary opinion polls showed that rationing and food control were, on the whole, popular. Equity - the principle of a flat-rate ration for all - was a key feature of its introduction and maintenance and was widely accepted as the only fair approach, to which no one could reasonably object. In the case of climate change, the principles of carbon rationing are far more straightforward than the quite complicated wartime system. But the benefits would be less immediately obvious. It is therefore particularly important that a cross-party consensus be achieved on the benefits of C&C and the adoption of carbon rationing. The future of the planet is too important an issue to be treated as a political football. It would be devastating if there were no common purpose, and instead political groupings vied with each other to obtain electoral support by making less demanding commitments on climate change in manifestos. However, the likelihood of achieving such co-operation is by no means remote - it is just that a consensus has not yet been sought. None of the main UK parties has expressed reservations about either the significance of climate change or the need for serious, concerted action to limit its impacts. The challenge now is to convince politicians - and the electorate they represent - that the time for concerted action has arrived. Carbon rationing is not a perfect solution. It will have its losers as well as its winners. Energy-intensive industries, such as motor manufacturing and international tourism (dependent as it increasingly is on flying, which is the most damaging of all human activities from a climate-change perspective), will no doubt object strongly to the concept of C&C. Its adoption will lead to a steady reduction in demand for their products and services, with consequent job losses. The future of international events attracting participants from across the world - whether for sporting, cultural, academic or business purposes - is, clearly, threatened. But such consequences cannot be considered a sufficient justification to reject what is so obviously the only assured solution to a planet-threatening problem. The rationing system will bring rising environmental benefits in its wake, particularly in terms of the imperative of limiting damage from climate change, while spheres of the economy that are not energy-intensive - such as education, non-motorised travel, local shopping and leisure activities and domestic tourism - are likely to prosper. The important thing to remember is that this proposal is for a phased reduction, over a sufficiently long period to ease the transition towards ecologically sustainable patterns of activity. And if a world with personal carbon rationing seems unacceptable, just imagine how much less acceptable would be a world in which effective action had not been taken to tackle climate change. The point of departure must be that, if we do not make substantial alterations to our lifestyles, the problem of climate change will intensify. Education will be vital to break the cycle of denial. The media, too, will have a role to play - although given the proportion of their income derived from advertising "high carbon" products and activities, they are unlikely to lead the way. Meanwhile, anyone who cares about our future wellbeing and that of the planet should not turn a blind eye to the likelihood that the consequences of inaction will be awesome. For most readers, the notion of calculating one's own carbon-dioxide emissions will be an unfamiliar one. The tables are intended to aid the development of what might be called "carbon literacy" - a vital first step towards adopting energy-thrifty lifestyles. The concept is not very different from the familiar idea of a household budget in which we manage our expenditure so that we do not run into debt. We must now learn to apply the same kind of simple management skills to energy-dependent aspects of our lives - at home, at work, in our travel and in our leisure activities. There are three stages to the process: first, to calculate the carbon emissions from the energy we currently use; second, to calculate how much we can actually be allowed; and third, to work out how best to make the necessary transition from our current emissions to sustainable emissions. CURRENT HABITS DIRECT HOUSEHOLD ENERGY USE Most of the energy used in households is gas and electricity. In each case, your usage will be indicated on your bill, in kWh (kilowatt hours). To calculate your carbon dioxide emissions, multiply your annual consumption of electricity in kWh by 0.45; and multiply your annual consumption of gas in kWh by 0.19. This will establish your emissions from these sources in kilograms of CO2. (For heating oil, the multiplier is 2.975.) Finally, you should divide each total by the number of people in your household to give you your individual emissions. TRAVEL USE First, estimate the annual distance you travel, in kilometres, for each method of transport: car, rail, bus, bicycle, air, etc. The table shows all the options. For car travel, discount journeys in which you were not the driver (to convert miles into kilometres, multiply the miles by 1.6). Next, multiply each annual total by the "kilograms co-efficient" shown in the table. You can make this calculation both for yourself as an individual and, if you like, for your household. When you have added up all your major sources of personal CO2 emissions shown in the table, you will know your approximate annual emissions from direct energy use. Compare this with the current British individual average of 5.4 tonnes CO2 to see how you are doing. However, remember that about half the energy in the UK economy is used by the industrial, commercial, agricultural and public sectors to provide our goods and services. So, your total should actually be doubled to cover your share of these non-domestic sectors of fuel consumption. For the projections in the rest of this article, however, we will focus simply on your domestic consumption. SUSTAINABLE USE * The UK government's 60 per cent reduction target for 2050 would stabilise carbon concentrations at 550 parts per million (ppm). A more realistic view, in the light of current scientific knowledge, is that the maximum concentration in the atmosphere that should be considered safe is 450ppm. The table shows the degree of reduction required for both targets. Either will require substantial changes in our lifestyles. Compared with expected average emissions figures for 2005, the 550ppm scenario requires a personal reduction of 63 per cent by 2050, and the 450ppm scenario requires an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. In both these scenarios, the ration shown would be equal for everyone in the world by 2050. For the 450ppm scenario, which requires a faster rate of change, the ration would be equal by 2030. The figures in our tables, including the total you have calculated of your own emissions - should shock you. Under the 450ppm scenario, a single return flight from London to Athens would exceed your entire personal carbon ration for the year in 2030. Even on the less rigorous 550ppm scenario, your annual ration in 2030 would not be enough to cover a return flight from London to New York. Yet there is no need to despair. Energy-use patterns have changed considerably in recent decades. Energy used for personal travel has almost doubled since 1970. Under the 450ppm scenario, CO2 emissions from personal travel would have to halve over the next 20 years. If a significant reduction in motorised travel is made in parallel with energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies, this will not represent a much greater rate of change in mobility than the UK has already experienced in recent memory - it will just be moving in a different direction. The change isn't going to be easy, but it is not unrealistic. CHANGING OUR HABITS Climate change cannot be limited solely by the actions of individuals. However, each individual needs to make a contribution by reducing his or her "carbon impact". This advice suggests ways you can do so. HOME USE As with any destructive habit, part of the answer is simply to face the facts. So, having looked at your annual energy consumption in order to audit your current emissions, it is worth considering in more detail how that energy is used, so that you can identify the major areas of opportunity in which to make savings. The split of energy use in the home between heating and hot water depends very much on your house and style of life. For gas central-heating, the average split has been estimated as: 70 per cent space heating; 28 per cent water heating; and 2 per cent for cooking with gas. This split between heating and hot water also applies to other fuels. A more efficient or newer house will use less heating energy; large, inefficient or old homes will use more heating energy; households with more people will use more hot water. Think about your own household and how you might differ from the average. How electricity is used in your home will again depend on what lights and appliances you have and how you use them. The average UK home uses 24 per cent of its electricity on fridges and freezers, and 24 per cent on lighting. Lighting can easily and cheaply be made more efficient, but the same is not true of fridges and freezers. But heating is where we are most wasteful. Many people can make very significant savings simply by learning to use their heating and hot-water systems more efficiently. Are you making the best possible use of times and thermostats? Are there minor adjustments you could make to be less profligate with heat? Simply switching off your heating half an hour earlier could save more than 5 per cent of your energy bill. Areas to consider include: * Bathing and showering options: could you use less, or less hot, water?) * Lighting: installing energy-saving light bulbs in the four lights you use most could save 200kWh per year, or more than a quarter of the electricity typically used for household lighting. * Saving on standby: turning off all the TVs, rechargers and other gadgets that you leave on standby can save up to 10 per cent of your electricity. (In some cases you may need to unplug them.) * Washing machines: switching from 60C to 40C could save 40 per cent of energy per cycle. * Dishwashers: again, a 55C cycle uses around a third less energy than a 65C cycle. * Kettles: boil only as much water as you need. * Cooking: using a microwave rather than a normal oven will save energy. * Microwaves: switch off the electronic clock display, which could well be using as much electricity per year as you use for cooking. * Insulation of lofts and cavity walls: this requires some investment, but it is one of the most cost-effective ways in which to save energy. Insulating unfilled cavity walls can save up to 30 per cent of your heating energy and will pay for itself within a few years. * Ultra-wasteful options: avoid patio heaters; air conditioning; a large, frost-free fridge-freezer; a power shower; a 300-500W security light that switches on all the time; heating your conservatory. TRAVEL USE Again, your first step here should be to face the facts. Begin by writing up your own transport use diary, for a week or a month. Note the day of the week, time, origin, destination, purpose, method, cost and duration of each trip. This information will be critical in helping you to prioritise changes in your patterns of travel. Having understood your patterns, you may find it easier to see ways of making them less carbon-expensive. Flying needs to be drastically reduced: it is not only the most damaging means of travel per mile but is also associated with the longest journeys, and thus adds both considerably and disproportionately to climate change. Other changes might include walking and cycling for local trips; using more buses; combining several purposes in one journey; or simply cutting out less essential long-distance car and rail journeys. It is also possible to reduce your own carbon emissions when you do travel by car. Government advice includes: * Plan ahead: choose uncongested routes, combine trips, share cars. * Cold starts: drive off as soon as possible after starting. * Drive smoothly and efficiently: avoid harsh acceleration and heavy braking. * Travel at slower speeds: driving at 70mph uses 30 per cent more fuel than driving at 50mph. * Use higher gears. * Switch off the engine when stationary. * Don't carry unnecessary weight. * Use air conditioning sparingly. GENERAL USE Individuals are also responsible for, and can control, their indirect energy use as consumers. Modifications to consider include: * Buy food and drink that has not been transported over long distances. Where possible, buy local, or at least British, produce. * Choose more seasonal food, which is less likely to have been grown abroad or in heated greenhouses in the UK. * Buy recycled products, or those with a high recycled content. * Buy products that are recyclable, and whose packaging can be recycled. * Avoid disposable products. Buy better quality ones, which have a longer life. * Reduce the amount of waste you produce. Re-use what you can, and recycle the rest. * Compost garden and vegetable waste. Incorporating all these changes into your lifestyle will not be easy. But that does not mean that - if we adopt carbon rationing - they will all be negative. On the contrary, many of them should be highly positive in their effects. Better health, quieter and safer streets, more stable communities, less oil dependency, and less road danger will be among the wide range of likely benefits. But they run counter to current trends in society, and require thought and commitment. The challenge facing us is to invest that thought and commitment today, while there is still time. It is all too clear that we cannot go on as we are now, paying little more than lip service to this most critical of issues. If we in the developed world do not agree to substantially restrict our own carbon dioxide emissions, there are only two possible outcomes. Either we will witness and bear the costs of an inevitable and devastating intensification for future generations of the problems caused by climate change - as well as the burden on our consciences. Or poorer people, mainly in developing countries, will have to be prevented from having their fair share of the fossil fuels required to maintain even a basic standard of living. Burying our heads in the sand on this topic to avoid facing reality cannot continue. Responsibility lies with government to take the lead in international negotiations for the urgent adoption of the contraction and convergence framework, and for the early introduction of an equal per capita annual carbon ration. We have to choose a better future. Dr Mayer Hillman is Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute. This article is an edited extract from 'How We Can Save the Planet', by Mayer Hillman, with Tina Fawcett (Penguin, £7.99) _________________ |
||||||
| Guest |
PERSONAL CARBON ALLOWANCES
Background document L for the 40% House report Tina Fawcett, Environmental Change Institute University of Oxford, 03/05/2005 INTRODUCTION This paper introduces a new policy idea: personal carbon allowances (PCAs). The primary aim of a PCA scheme would be to deliver guaranteed levels of carbon savings in successive years in an equitable way. PCAs could be used to achieve the government’s current target of 60% reduction by 2050 or other future targets. The way in which this could be achieved is described, as are the benefits of the policy to both individuals and society. Personal carbon allowances could equally well be described as ‘rations’, ‘entitlements’ or ‘quotas’. Mayer Hillman has been developing and promoting the idea of personal carbon rations for several years. The description of PCAs here was developed in partnership with him (Hillman and Fawcett 2004). KEY FEATURES The main features of PCAs are: • Equal allowances for all individuals; • Tradable allowances; • Energy used in the household and for personal transport are both included; • Year-on-year reduction of the annual allowance, signalled well in advance; • A mandatory arrangement, with Parliamentary approval, not a voluntary arrangement. The system would be based on equal carbon allowances for all adults. Children would probably receive somewhat less than the adult allowance because their emissions are likely to be lower on average. Within a scheme of equal allowances, it might be thought necessary to give additional allowances to some classes of vulnerable people (e.g. the elderly or fuel poor). However, in the longer term it would make far more sense for the government to subsidise efficiency and/or renewable energy measures for such individuals rather than grant them extra allowances. The more exceptions that are made, the lower will be the available allowance for everyone else. The carbon allowance necessary to cover current consumption will vary considerably between individuals. Those who lead lives with a lower energy input by investing in household efficiency, renewables, and by travelling less will not need all of their allowance and will therefore have a surplus to sell. Those who live in large or inefficient homes or who travel a lot, will need to buy this surplus to permit them to continue with something like their accustomed lifestyle. Thus people will want to trade carbon and trading will be an integral part of a carbon allowance scheme. In addition, by incorporating trading within the scheme, economic theory says that savings should be made at least overall cost. PCAs would cover all household energy use and personal transport energy use including air travel, that is, all direct use of energy by individuals. By including all these activities, half of the energy-related carbon and carbon equivalent emissions in the UK economy would be covered. In addition, combining energy use in the household with personal transport in a single scheme would give people flexibility in how the allowance is used. Carbon allowances will have to decrease over time both because of the need to reduce global emissions and to allow for the expected rise in national population. A national reduction of 60% by 2050 (designed to stabilise carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere at 550ppm) would result in allowances falling by a little more than 60% from today’s average, to allow for the expected growth in the UK population. If a more risk-averse target for maximum atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 450ppm were chosen, then the reductions needed by 2050 would be around 80%. In order to be effective, carbon allowances would have to be mandatory. A voluntary approach would not succeed: the ‘free-rider’ would have far too much to gain. CARBON ALLOWANCES IN PRACTICE Administration of carbon allowances should be straightforward. Each person would get an electronic card containing that year’s carbon credits. The card would have to be presented on purchase of energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon would be deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used. There are relatively few sellers of gas, electricity, petrol, diesel and other fuels, and flows of fossil fuels are already very well recorded and tightly regulated in the economy – both these factors would ease introduction of such a system. BENEFITS The key benefits of a system of personal carbon allowances are described below. A framework for assured emissions reduction The most important benefit of a system of PCAs is that it provides a framework for assured carbon reductions. Current policies do not do this. With PCAs the carbon ‘market’ should recognise the benefits of renewable energy, household insulation and low carbon methods of transport. No longer might it be necessary to have separate government policies and programmes to promote everything from cycling strategies to efficient refrigerators. Equity Under a PCA scheme, everyone has an equal share of UK emissions allowances – a demonstrably fair system in principle (although equal shares is not the only possible approach to equity). In practice, initial analysis demonstrates that lower income households should generally benefit from an allowance scheme as they are responsible for lower than average emissions and thus should have spare Carbon Allowance Card 2010 1234 5678 9101 1121 Valid from 1/10 Expires end 12/10 Ms A N Other allowances to sell (Fawcett 2005). In terms of equity, this compares favourably with the possible alternative of carbon taxation which would disadvantage the poor because they spend a greater proportion of their incomes on household energy and transport fuels than the rich. However, concerns have been raised that some of the poor would be disadvantaged under PCAs (Ekins and Dresner 2004), and this requires further research. Education There is currently little information available to consumers, householders and travellers about the carbon impacts of their decisions. However, with carbon allowances, carbon becomes a parallel currency and the level of information and education on carbon issues will have to increase considerably. Possible information measures include: carbon responsibility in advertising - all flight tickets and travel promotional material to include equivalent carbon emissions; carbon labels - energy labels on appliances and light bulbs to include average annual carbon emissions. Other measures are described in Hillman and Fawcett (2004). Choice For individuals, carbon allowances provide choice. They allow people to reduce their emissions in the way that suits them best, whether through technical efficiency improvements and using more renewable energy, or through behaviour / lifestyle changes such as turning down thermostats and holidaying closer to home. But without carbon allowances there would be no framework for ensuring that they did so. Environmental virtue is rewarded A nice feature of PCAs is that people living lower carbon lifestyles will be rewarded for doing so by having spare allowances to sell. New business opportunities New businesses and public sector organisations would be expected to emerge to meet people’s need to manage their carbon emissions, and existing organisations would take on new roles. One possible new organisation would be ‘CarbonWatchers’ - a community information and support scheme equivalent to diet schemes such as WeightWatchers (Hillman and Fawcett 2004). Based on the diet clubs template, it would provide its members with booklets / electronic information explaining the carbon impacts of different purchases and travel options, set reduction targets for individuals, hold regular audits (the equivalent of weigh-ins) and provide both professional and peer support for participants. THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT Personal carbon allowances as a UK solution emerge from the key proposed global solution to climate change: “contraction and convergence”(Meyer 2000). Contraction and convergence aims to deliver global carbon savings fairly and with certainty. It will do this by first agreeing a contraction of global carbon emissions to ensure a ‘safe’ concentration of emissions in the atmosphere is not exceeded, and secondly converging to equal per capita emissions allowances, by an agreed year. PCAs are designed as a policy which will enable the UK to make national savings as its contribution within a global agreement on limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and which is based on the same principles as contraction and convergence. A RELATED POLICY PROPOSAL: DOMESTIC TRADABLE QUOTAS Starkey and Fleming (1999) have developed a policy proposal which has much in common with PCAs. It is called ‘Domestic Tradable Quotas’ (DTQs) – where domestic indicates a national as opposed to an international scheme. The basis of the policy is that the national government sets an overall carbon budget that is reduced over time. The 'carbon units'making up this budget are issued to adults and organisations. All adults receive an equal and unconditional entitlement of carbon units; organisations acquire the units they need from a tender, a form of auction modelled on the issue of government debt. There is a national market in carbon units in which low users can sell their surplus and higher users can buy more. Starkey and Fleming claim that the scheme would be effective, equitable and efficient. This work is being developed further under the Tyndall Centre ’Decarbonising modern societies’ programme by Anderson and Starkey (2004). This research has attracted some political attention. Colin Challen MP introduced a private member’s bill entitled Domestic tradable quotas (carbon emissions) (Hansard 2004). The aim of the bill was to introduce a national trading scheme for carbon emissions and to set a national ceiling for carbon emissions. However, it was not adopted. Nevertheless, the beginning of political interest in PCA-type schemes is encouraging. FUTURE RESEARCH Much more research is required on PCAs. Some of this will be undertaken under the UK Energy Research Centre ‘demand reduction’ research theme. In addition, Anderson and Starkey are continuing their research on DTQs. Research will address practical issues around implementation of the scheme and effects on different groups of the population. In addition there will be further exploration of the underlying principles and a comparison of PCAs in principle and practice with carbon taxation. REFERENCES Anderson, K. & Starkey, R. 2004, Domestic tradable quotas: A policy instrument for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich. Ekins, P. & Dresner, S. 2004, Green taxes and charges: reducing their impact on low-income households, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Fawcett, T. 2005, Investigating carbon rationing as a policy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from UK household energy use, PhD Thesis, University College London. Hansard 2004, H.C. Vol. 423 col. 81 (7 July 2004). Hillman, M. & Fawcett, T. 2004, How we can save the planet Penguin Books, London. Meyer, A. 2000, Contraction and convergence: the global solution to climate change Green Books, Totnes, UK. Starkey, R. & Fleming, D. 1999, Domestic tradeable quotas, Global Ideas Bank, Published on the web: www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=2462 [accessed Jan 2003]. |
||||||
| Milo |
Tear up Kyoto or make it tougher? 28 May 2005 Fred Pearce
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. RADICAL alternatives to the current programme for limiting greenhouse gas emissions are on the table as negotiations begin on what should follow the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012. At the top of the agenda for the talks, the first round of which took place last week in Bonn, Germany, is whether the protocol should be extended with tougher targets and more countries signing up to them, or whether it would be better to tear it up and start afresh. With the US still refusing to ratify Kyoto, the second option is looking the more attractive to some. Meanwhile, the political landscape is changing. Major developing countries such as Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia and China no longer regard climate change as a problem only for the rich world. "Climate change is a new barrier to our economic development," says Argentinian climate negotiator Vicente Barros. His country has already suffered a 30 per cent decline in electricity production because changing rainfall patterns and melting glaciers are reducing flows in rivers they rely on for hydropower. Countries like Argentina are starting to accept that they may have to accept emissions targets themselves. "They are stepping up to the plate, arguing that climate change is a real and growing threat to their development," says Jennifer Morgan, climate campaigner at environment group WWF. "We have not heard that before." Many developing countries already have local climate initiatives. Argentina has the world's largest fleet of cars powered by natural gas, which produces less carbon per unit of energy than petrol. China is improving its energy efficiency so fast that even its breakneck industrialisation has brought only minimal increases in greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade. This will not be enough, however. To prevent dangerous climate change, the world will probably have to limit total CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from human activity to less than 600 billion tonnes for the whole of the 21st century, says British climate negotiator David Warrilow. If current trends continue, we will have emitted 400 billion tonnes by 2030, so room for future emissions is rapidly running out. So what to do when the Kyoto protocol expires? The obvious option is a "son of Kyoto". This could draw on the protocol's complex and painfully negotiated rule book while setting tough new targets for industrialised nations and first-time targets for some richer developing nations. The European Union has proposed cuts of 15 to 30 per cent for industrialised countries by 2020, goals that are up to six times tougher than current targets. But other countries want to tear up Kyoto and start again. This is partly to lure the US back on board, and partly because they believe other formulas could work better. Of the main alternatives being discussed in the Bonn corridors, one would allocate carbon-emission rights strictly according to population (see "Equal rights for all") while another would set targets for countries to reduce the emissions per dollar of GDP (see "To those that have..."). A third option calls for countries to adopt specific carbon-reduction technologies in exchange for similar pledges from other nations. Measures might include generating more electricity from renewables or maintaining natural carbon sinks such as rainforests. Such an approach might encourage innovation, but would not necessarily lead to real reductions in emissions. The world might simply end up heading for the abyss more efficiently. |
||||||
| Milo |
Cities lead way to a greener planet
04 June 2005 New Scientist. Fred Pearce Urban greenery WHILE national governments quibble and drag their feet on global warming, one tier of government is forging ahead. City governments are growing tired of waiting for national action, and are grabbing the green initiative for themselves. On 5 June, World Environment Day, city mayors from five continents are meeting in San Francisco to push their environmental agenda. They plan to sign up to a set of 21 "urban environmental accords" covering energy, waste reduction, urban design and other goals, complete with a scorecard to measure their progress (see "City targets"). "Municipal governments have the power to shape the future of the world's environment," says Jared Blumenfeld, environmental director for San Francisco, which has signed up to the accords. Last month, in the boldest repudiation of a national government yet, a group of American mayors swept aside the Bush administration's refusal to cut carbon emissions. The mayors, who represent 32 million Americans, pledged that their cities would meet Kyoto Protocol guidelines of a 7 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions. The revolt began in January, when Seattle's Greg Nickels, in his "state of the city" address, asked: "If the federal government is not going to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, why can't we just do it at the local level?" The response was overwhelming. Denver, Los Angeles, New York and more than 140 other American cities have signed up to the Kyoto targets. Cities and states in the north-eastern US will meet in New York next week to discuss a scheme to cap CO2 emissions from power plants while allowing those that have cleaned up their act to sell entitlements to those that have not. "To begin with, it will regulate emissions on large power producers, but the plan is that it will evolve to encompass other sectors," says veteran climate campaigner Adam Markham, who now heads the pressure group Clean Air-Cool Planet in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Markham believes this could become a national model and eventually allow the US to rejoin the Kyoto process. The cities' task is easier, he says, because many large corporations believe that carbon controls are inevitable in the long run, and want to get ahead of the game. "Cities can do a great deal on their own," Markham says. They can provide incentives for investing in renewable energy and building greener buildings. They can design their urban environments to be more energy efficient, build mass-transit systems, curb the use of cars, and provide incentives for power companies to switch fuels. So far, however, cities' track record has been spotty. As long ago as 1989, the world's climate scientists called for a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from industrialised countries by 2005. No nation adopted that target, but some municipalities - including Toronto - did. Yet not even Toronto has been able to buck the Canadian trend of rising emissions, even though the city has cut emissions from its own facilities by 42 per cent. The city is now taking steps that it believes will, at last, lead to a cut in overall emissions. It is, for instance, using cold water from deep in Lake Ontario to cool its buildings in summer, saving up to 90 per cent on electricity compared with conventional air-conditioning systems. It has also established an Atmosphere Fund to support local investment in energy efficiency and renewables. Phil Jessup, who heads the fund, was in London last month helping the city's mayor, Ken Livingstone, draw up a similar initiative. Livingstone has said he wants every large new building in London to be equipped with solar panels. "Toronto is undoubtedly the greenest city in North America," says Markham. "But big US cities like Seattle, Austin in Texas, Portland in Oregon and Salt Lake City have all launched big climate initiatives, and they are starting to make the White House very nervous. Not every mayor that signs the Seattle Kyoto pledge is going to be able to deliver, but a huge amount is happening on the ground at municipal level now." Perhaps the nearest thing to the model "green city" is Curitiba in Brazil. To transform this city of 1.6 million people, architect-turned-mayor Jaime Lerner turned to buses. Faced with a fast-rising population, worsening air pollution and imminent gridlock, he turned the tide against the car by pedestrianising the city centre and turning several key highways into the centre into bus-only roads. He followed up by planting millions of trees, digging ponds in the city's parks to absorb worsening floods, and recruiting the city's poor to recycle two-thirds of its garbage by offering groceries and bus passes in return for bags of rubbish. It was a social as well as an environmental revolution, and it has led Curitiba to be hailed as "the greenest city in the world." But people were already saying that at the Earth Summit in Rio 13 years ago, and still no new contenders for the title have emerged. Certainly, nowhere has got close yet to the ultimate goal of a zero-pollution city. It is hard even to judge which cities are doing well. But the urban environmental accords being signed this week in San Francisco will establish a baseline for the first time. "Of course they could be saved a lot of work if there were national standards and national, legally enforceable, limits on emissions," Markham says. Cities can hand out carrots, but usually only central government has the big stick. "Eventually national leadership becomes absolutely necessary." City targets Under the urban environmental accords, cities will be awarded points for reaching specific targets for improving their local environment and cutting their global warming footprint. The targets include: Supplying 10 per cent of peak-load electricity from renewables Cutting waste disposal in landfills and incinerators Promoting high-density, walkable, bikeable neighbourhoods Ensuring every resident is within 500 metres of a park and within 500 metres of a metro station or bus route Planting trees along sidewalks Protecting corridors for wildlife Cutting commuting in single-occupancy vehicles Putting organic and locally grown food in schools Cutting smog Banning leaded petrol Recycling water |