Environment Agency wants individual carbon rationing
Carbon emissions and carbon footprints have been in the news a lot over the past few years. But while politicians and celebrities have taken up the cause of reducing these, it hasn’t really affected the individual, the ordinary man and woman on the street, yet. But the issue could soon be personalized in a very real way thanks to individual carbon rationing.
It’s believed, though as yet not proved beyond doubt, that carbon emissions as created by humans, are having a detrimental effect on the health of the planet. And so we’ve all been asked to help lower CO2 emissions by using our cars less, saving electricity, etc. And that’s fair enough because none of these measures are exactly harsh and they may do some good.
However, what would be harsh, in my opinion, is giving everyone an individual carbon allowance which would be used up by car journeys, flights on commercial airlines, electricity and the like. Basically everything that all of us do on a daily basis.
But that is exactly what Lord Smith of Finsbury, the head of the Environment Agency in Britain, is proposing. According to The Times, every British citizen would be handed an allowance which would be used up as we generated carbon emissions through our actions. Should we use all our allowance up then we’d be expected to buy more credits – use less and make a profit.
I’d like to think this is the ramblings of a madman and unlikely to ever actually happen. But Lord Smith holds a powerful position and is genuinely proposing this become reality within 20 years as part of a ‘Green New Deal’. What’s brought this idea on is the challenge of getting Britain to cut its emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Which unless something radical happens is really not feasible.
I think this is one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard. It would basically impose a tax on those who can afford to heat and light their houses, take foreign holidays, and drive a car. As someone who only does the former maybe I should be all for this, but I’m not because this is another idea that stinks of Orwellian 1984-like policy which stamps out freedom. Only this time it’s the environment being used as the scapegoat.
Related Posts:
November 11th, 2009
I actually agree with this idea. And I imagine you would not use up your credits as quickly if you sourced more of your electricity from a green energy source, and if you had a hybrid car, or used public transport… Which is what we need to do, so this is an incentive program. The revenue would go towards subsidizing green energy and energy efficiency to make going green, more affordable.
November 12th, 2009
Simon, unless you disconnect your house from the mains supply and reconnect to your own alternative “green” energy source, there is no way to truly receive more so-called green electricity.
Go outside, and look at the how many different electricity mains are connected to your building. You’re right – there is only one. It is the connected to the same grid that provides electricity to everyone else in your neighbourhood.
Despite the fact that you buy your energy from utility company ABC and your neighbour purchases his/hers from utility company XZY, it still comes down the same wires, from the same source. So you might be paying for “green” energy, and your neighbour might be purchasing “non-green” energy, but it’s still coming from the same place.
With the exception of hydro-electricty, the only way to generate the large amounts of power required for modern living, at a reasonable cost, is to do so from non-green methods. I’m talking about the baseload necessary to energise a major power grid. The options essentially are either nuclear or coal – both of which have distinct environmental disadvantages.
None of the green options are capable of carrying the baseload. Both solar and wind generation can only be utilised to cover peaks on a major grid, because they are both too variable and too expensive. Solar is useless at night, because major grid systems cannot store energy to be released at a later time like a battery can.
Other forms, such as geothermal and tidal energy, are still in the experimental phase. Geothermal energy created by extracting steam from water injected into hot rock is an idea being pursued in Australia, but the idea now appears to have some fundamental flaws in that may cause geological damage.
Your utility company is simply a retailer who buys the quota that it resells to you from whatever the cheapest source is at the time, because they are in the business of making money. And that unit cost changes on an hourly basis as the different energy generation companies who supply energy to the grid vary their unit pricing in response to load variations during the day.
So please don’t be fooled by the idea that “…if you pay a little extra, we can ensure that your electricity is provided from green sources..”, because the reality is that they can’t.
Hence why I agree with the author that personal carbon ration would end up being the same giant fraud that carbon tax is – the rich who could afford green options will look for loopholes, the poor who can’t afford to become greener will get screwed, and the environment will be no better off whatsoever.
November 12th, 2009
What effect would this have on businessmen flying out to attend conferences/who work at multiple sites? My dad works an hour away from home three days a week and catches a plane to Scotland for the other two days a week. Are they going to tax him for doing his job? Its insane.
I hope this never reaches the light of day. Its another excuse for the government to tax people. I’d question if the money made from such a tax would be invested in green technologies for the future as well. In fact, could they make a profit? How are the government going to track how far you travel in your car? Such a system would cost an awful lot of money, indeed it could reach many billions to install a box in every single vehicle in the UK.
The government needs to lead by example and really make a proper investment itself – why not invest in offshore wind farms and wave energy? If they invest in the research and implementation of wave energy in particular we’d reduce our carbon emission by a lot – we’re an island for pity’s sake, we’ve plenty of water to rely on.