User login
Navigation
Search
ideas for a local carbon rationing scheme
14 December, 2005 - 19:44
Some of us here in the West Midlands are keen to set up our own carbon rationing scheme. The idea is that we can't blame politicians for not taking it up at a national or international level if we activists cannot demonstrate that it can work at local level. We are a small network (60 or so on our email list with maybe a 10 or so active members) that formed in the run-up to the Climate March in London on 3/12/05.
Below are 12 points that describe what type of thing is envisaged. The aim would be to reduce personal carbon emissions by 90% by 2030 as per George Monbiot's speech on Dec 3? Do you have any thoughts/advice/experience of other groups trying the same thing?
Here are 12 ideas that could form the basis of a local carbon rationing
scheme:
1. The scheme could be administered by a carbon book-keeper who would not be a member of the scheme.
2. Each member would have a carbon ration credited to their carbon account by the book-keeper at the beginning of each year.
3. For simplicity, the ration would apply to domestic fuel use, car mileage and air travel only (these account for 96% of the average UK citizens personal CO2 emissions).
4. The ration would be 4.5t i.e. 4500kg C02 in 2006 (roughly 10% less than 2005 national average) and would reduce at an annual rate of 10% thereafter (this leads to a 90% reduction in 22 years).
5. Each member would receive a quarterly account statement showing their balance at the beginning and end of the quarter and together with all the CO2 debits they had communicated to the carbon book-keeper during that quarter.
6. To remain in the scheme, each member would have to, before the end of each year, submit to the book-keeper a paper copy of (1) all domestic fuel bills, (2) their last two MOTs (if owning a car) and (3) any plane tickets purchased during the year.
7. Extra ration (up to 2x the current year's ration) might be
purchased and credited to a member's account at any time through the book-keeper from spare ration left over from the previous year.
8. The cost of 1kg extra ration of CO2 would be 10p, say, in 2006 and would increase at an annual rate of 10% (which in 2006 roughly equates to £4.20 on a return Birmingham-London train ticket or £188 on a return flight London-Athens).
9. The proceeds of these purchases would go to the member or members from whose stock of last year's spare ration it was taken.
10.The book-keeper would take from the biggest stock first and then equally when 2 or more stocks are the same size.
11.If no stocks of spare ration from the previous year remain, extra ration might be obtained (at double price perhaps?) by sending evidence to the book-keeper of equivalent expenditure on energy efficiency measures (e.g. insulation, low-energy light bulbs, etc) either for one's own benefit or someone else's.
12.To join the scheme, would-be members would simply submit to the book-keeper a paper copy of all the domestic fuel bills, MOTs and plane tickets they had paid for over the last 12 (or ideally 24)
months.
There will no doubt be loads of holes to pick in these ideas - I have already thought of a few myself but think that they could be worked around/through. Anyhow I thought I would get it out there for discussion and to give us a chance of starting this in January.
As the scheme expanded I guess it could turn into a network of local groups with a book-keeper for each group. When spare ration from one local group was exhausted the book-keeper could put out a request to other book-keepers to see if they had any spare and so on.
Keeping it local would have a number of benefits e.g a book-keeper would only have to keep tabs on his own local group and any intergroup transactions; most people in the local group and would know or get to know each other and their book-keeper and as a result feel confident noone within the group was taking them for a ride by not declaring all their flights for instance; and so on...
15 December, 2005 - 15:01
#2
I agree the initial target is not very ambitious although I think aiming for 90% reduction in little over 20 years is! Cutting out flights will cut the average persons emissions by 34% straightaway.
I guess the intention is not to scare anyone off. It is good if some are able to beat the annual target. They benefit the following year from being able to cash in there spare ration and it should also enable the group as a whole to achieve its overall target.
I agree that the book-keeper could be part of A group but I imagine some prospective members would insist their book-keeper was not member of THEIR group. That way he would be seen as relatively independent and impartial.
PS. Can anyone give me the science references on which George M based his claim that we need to reduce by 90% by 2030? I will need them to convince any potentianl scheme joiners of necessity of this depth of cut.
andy
15 December, 2005 - 16:13
#3
This sounds like a brilliant scheme - one CCC ought to follow if it goes ahead. It'd throw down the gauntlet to critics who say environmentalists are always protesting against something rather than being proactive.
I looked on Monbiot's site for references to the 90% cut - usually he's impeccable, but couldn't find one straightaway (it may be there somewhere).
However, if you go on to the website for the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (www.tyndall.ac.uk), you find this reference within their report, 'Decarbonising the UK':
"More recent research at the Hadley Centre and elsewhere has suggested that a ‘safe' atmospheric CO2 concentration may be 450ppmv or lower, the difference being due primarily to the inclusion of bio-geochemical feedbacks in the Hadley General Circulation Model (GCM). Indeed, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has acknowledged that a CO2 concentration of 450ppmv rather than 550ppmv relates to a temperature increase of 2°C.The corresponding CO2 emissions reduction required for a 450ppmv concentration is some 80 to 90% lower than 1990 levels. Hence, the decarbonisation challenge for the UK (and other industrialised countries) is even greater than that assumed in the analysis (of 60%cuts by 2050)we present in this report."
There we go, then - you may wish to pursue this further by looking on the Hadley site, but it seems pretty sturdy to me. Of course, further research is always being done. But it seems that the 90% position will only be strengthened (remember the growth in air travel too!).
Finally just thought I'd mention - COIN (Climate Outreach and Information Network), based in Oxford, would doubtless be very keen to hear about your scheme - they're setting up 'community climate groups' next year in Oxford and would love to hear ideas for initiatives. See http://coinet.org.uk.
15 December, 2005 - 19:41
#4
Thanks, for the Tyndall centre quote, Guy. I too had difficulty finding the reference on George Monbiot's website.
I have emailed the local carbon rationing scheme ideas to Coinet, Mayer Hillman, Kevin Anderson (Tyndall Centre) and Brenda Boardman (Environmental Change Institute in Oxford) asking for their comments/advice.
andy
16 December, 2005 - 01:24
#5
The Tyndall Centre, Kevin Anderson and colleagues, are, I believe, originators of the concept of 'Domestic Tradable Quotas', and this was taken up last November by the MP Colin Challen, who retained his seat in the election. He had a room full of people - 'Climate Change: Everybody's Baby' - at Portcullis House to launch his Private Member’s Bill. See www.colinchallen.org.uk. It's gone quiet since. Their idea of DTQs is described in a downloadable pdf from www.teqs.net.
The quotas they describe are for direct fuel purchases for the home or car, therefore no incentive not to use other transports freely. the quotas come out of the same pool as industry's; and aviation are apparently keen to join in here. There already is a scheme of Carbon Trading started within industry, and major energy users have signed up.
My preference is similar, but to include all transports (except local buses, to make life easier for them and help promote them). Air transport to be charged at the CO2 equivalent rate - ie, three times CO2 emissions or as close as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can assess. The logic is to change lifestyles, persuade everyone to demand less energy.
Renewable energy would be included - it also has impacts, and the simple shifting of supplier is too easy! Carbon trading by industry, commerce and the public sector can work towards more renewables, and Renewable Energy Certificates are working. On-site renewables, like solar panels, would not be charged for: like insulation, they reduce the households demand from outside. Wood fuel is tricky though - wood can currently be found everywhere. Anyone with a woodburner/open fire will be stoking up with no concerns - would a system of licences work, for anyone capable of burning wood or coal, and enforced by checking chimney emissions? Before we have no trees left?
For anyone interested, the Tyndall Centre at Manchester University are hosting "Decarbonising the UK: energy for a climate conscious future" on 25th January 2006. "The seminar will not only consider the nuclear debate within the context of UK energy as a whole, but will also present new insights into the scale of the climate change challenge in light of our recent research on the escalating emissions from international aviation and shipping." Book now - it's first come, first served - email harriet.pearson@manchester.ac.uk
16 December, 2005 - 11:38
#6
We have done some research into this and apparently it is OK to use 'found wood' - i.e. wood that has already fallen from trees as this would rot and give off CO2 anyway, so that is OK to burn in the home for fuel... if anyone wants to get their chimneys swept and start heating their homes the old-fashioned way... Also burning wood releases less CO2 than Gas / Oil / Coal.
16 December, 2005 - 14:19
#7
Currently the idea is to exempt wood from the scheme. The argument is that emissions from wood are not new CO2 that is coming out of the ground after millions of years but rather part of the natural carbon cycle. Of course careful management is required to prevent deforestation and destabilisation of that cycle.
I hope that our little scheme will encourage a revival of coppiced wood as a fuel source. Local woodland and agricultural land is seriously undervalued due to our economy's failure to account for the environmental costs associated with fossil fuel use and transporting food from far and wide.
I am already saving up for my hectare (100m x 100m) of woodland which is apparently all you need to keep a household in wood fuel indefinitely!
16 December, 2005 - 15:55
#8
Steve Isaac, WDCS points out that the government has created a Climate change communications fund - funding between early 2006 and 31 March 2006. They want to change attitudes.
17 December, 2005 - 13:42
#9
It is important to get the base level right. In the UK last year we hit 10 tonnes of CO2 per capita and rising (not the 4.5 tonnes mentioned in the proposal). That does NOT include flights as they were outside the Kyoto calculations. More than 1/3 of that figure comes from 'consumption' ie industry and agriculture, freight, service industry consumption for goods and food that we consume. So personal transport, domestic burning and flights contribute much less that 96% of personal emissions. Flights currently contribute about 3-4% of greenhouse gases but this is the fastest growing sector. It is the biggest and quickest single contribution an individual makes to greenhouse gas emissions. A return flight to New York (10 hours flying) contributes the equivalent of about 4.5 tonnes of CO to the atmosphere taking into account the enhanced effect of poluting at altitude.
The sustainable level of emissions at current levels of population and ability of the earth and seas to take up carbon is 1.3 tonnes of CO2 per capita globally. Population will go up and the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 is already declining and will decline very rapidly due to global warming soon unless we stop it and convert very quickly to compost based organic agriculture. We have to COME IN UNDER THAT SUSTAINABLE LEVEL very soon so that warming which lags behind emission changes does not push us over the Climate Change Cliff. We are still to borrow George Monbiot's phrase 'running blindfold towards that cliff'. We need to change direction urgently and enough. Running off a cliff at 45 degrees is still fatal. The government needs to help us take off our blindfold by planning and funding a crash education programme for the whole population. Then maybe change will not be 'electorally impossible'. Meanwhile we have to show what is possible and that there are people who want 'less', the MOVEMENT FOR LESS that Monbiot was talking about. A line that didn't make it into his spoken speech also said, 'We cannot call on others to stop flying if we still fly. We cannot ask the government to force us to change if we are not ready to change.' Let's DO IT!
I am currently keeping a carbon account on an excel spread sheet. I can forward it to anyone who is interested. Up to this point in the tax year with 3.5 months of winter still to come I have emitted 1173kg using public transport alone. I do this sparingly and never fly. I have emitted about 250kg by using gas and electricity in the home. I guess that by the end of the year with 1/3 added for consumption (which I consciously limit and do locally) I'll hit about 4000kg. That more than the government's (inadequate) target for 2050 ie 60% down on 1990 levels which were slightly higher than current. But it is still more that 3 times the sustainable limit. So whatever the carbon footprint people say to the contrary where it matters most I still need 3 planets!!
I think we should encourage this detailed carbon budgetting. A carbon return should be required at the end of every year from every household and every business in the country. It would concentrate the mind wonderfully and give people a real picture of where they consume and how much. There are many campaigners (even with in CCC) who still think that our life-styles don't have to change, that the laws of physics can somehow be bent for our convenience and that flying is OK. It takes a certain minimum amount of energy to move a mass through air. We cannot get away from that and there is a limit to how much energy we can get from fossil sources and a limit to how much we can get from renewable sources so in the short term the only options are cutting down or running off the Climate Change Cliff.
I recommend Mayer Hillman's book HOW WE CAN SAVE THE PLANET. Penguin 7.99.
Duncan
17 December, 2005 - 14:31
#10
Duncan - Ian and I are very interested in this and I would be grateful if you could forward the spread sheet you use to my campaiging e-mail address at: cathyclimatechange@yahoo.co.uk. We have read Mayer Hillman and seen him talk with Mark Lynas - you are right, none of us can fly any more. Fullstop.
17 December, 2005 - 18:48
#11
Andrew's scheme looks really interesting.
The other thing I'm interested in is the Carbon Credits Currency project being developed, I believe by CAT (I may be wrong, but I have heard of someone involved in it or similar). Colin Challen MP wrote of it ...
"The domestic market should be covered by Domestic Tradable Quotas. Carbon units would be issued free and equally to all adults in the UK and depending on their energy consumption individuals would have either surpluses or deficits in carbon units, which could be sold or bought on the market. Units would be surrendered automatically when things like domestic fuel or petrol were paid for.
The political attraction of DTQs, apart from their equitable nature, and indeed the use of markets, is that it avoids the pitfalls of environmental taxes including fuel protests, agressive effect, et al and that for the first time every individual of voting age would have a vested interest in the environment. The environment would shoot up the political agenda and the value of carbon units would be a regular source of pub talk.
The market for renewable energy, largely zero rated in terms of carbon emissions, would receive a bigger kick than from any of the government's schemes, even the Renewable Obligation, but of course such schemes are not mutually exclusive. DTQs, once introduced, would be hard to reverse or abandon, for here we are talking about a new currency of real worth, not based on the gold standard, so to speak, but the carbon standard which is rather more relevant to our future."
17 December, 2005 - 19:36
#12
Redefining Progress (a US think tank) .. www.rprogress.org .. can conduct an ecological footprint analysis of your local area and will help your local MP to do this. So I contacted mine - needless to say, never heard back.
They say ..
'From a sustainability perspective, when humanity's Footprint exceeds the amount of renewable biocapacity a draw down in natural capital is required and this is considered unsustainable. Global Footprint accounts over the last forty years indicate a twenty-five year growth trend beyond the amount of renewable biocapacity. In short, humanity's Ecological Footprint appears to have breached ecological limits and is thus unsustainable.'
18 December, 2005 - 14:33
#13
Just to let you know that Sir David King, the government's chief scientific advisor, wrote an article in the Guardian on Friday in which he discussed atmospheric CO2 content. "Many scientists have suggested that 400ppm [of CO2] would be a desirable target", he admits,"... but this target is not achievable... Thus I have suggested that we aim for a level of 550ppm by 2050". (read the full article at http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,9236,1668594,00.html).
Admirably pragmatic (never setting targets you don't think you'll achieve is a good lesson in politics!), but unfortunately Sir David's use of the words "a desirable target" somewhat underplays the urgency with which many scientists view the situation. The press is just beginning to report studies that consider natural positive feedback mechanisms, i.e. 'turning points' in the world's climatic system where an incremental gain in CO2 levels and temperature results in a greatly increased feedback and exacerbation of the problem. Monbiot (not a climatologist, note you...) has mentioned the figure of 430ppm being the trigger point to abrupt change, saying (in his speech on Dec 3rd): "If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do."
However, there is still considerable uncertainty over this 'precise figure', and still much controversy over the workings of feedback mechanisms (don't worry, this isn't climate change denial, merely debate about the details of the process!). Here's an extract from a report by the Hadley Centre for climate prediction: "Work using an initial 128 models shows that the level of concentration at which CO2 would need to be stabilised to limit global climate change to 2.5°C can only be estimated as being somewhere in the range from about 430ppm to 630ppm (5% and 95% confidence levels)". (See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/environment/inquir...).
So, the middling point of 550ppm is a scientific advisor's informed compromise. Nevertheless, that level of dangerous uncertainty remains. I say we push for as great a reduction of emissions as we possibly can, utilising all technologies, efficiency improvements, economic incentives and legislative penalties as are available.
19 December, 2005 - 14:49
#14
It is true that getting the base level right is all important.
It is likely that ECONOMY-WIDE per capita emissions were approximately 10t CO2 per head in UK in 2005 with the DOMESTIC sector accounting for about half of that i.e. about 5t.
For simplicity and do-ability, the proposed scheme I outlined at the top of the string would only cover easily countable and demonstrable domestic emissions i.e. household fuel, car and plane travel. According to Mayer Hillman's book "How we can save the planet", these account for 96% of average personal carbon emissions in the UK as follows:
household fuel 43%
car 19%
plane 34%
total 96%
In the same chapter Mayer gives the UK per capita domestic emissions figure for 2003 as 5.4t. Not knowing the figures for 2005 yet I guessed at 5t. A reduction of 10% in the first year of our scheme would give us a target of 4.5t in 2006. (My own for 2005 was 5.5t!)
I have emailed Mayer for his comments/advice on the scheme and he has promised to get back to us in the second half of January after the deadline for the US edition of his book!
Duncan, we need a carbon book-keeper for our West Midlands group. Are you up for it? Please email me your spreadsheet and I will post it on our Climate Change Action West Midlands yahoogroup for discussion. I would like to see us up and running asap. I would be happy to be a book-keeper for another group if anyone is interested in starting one in their area.
Also, here is the science reference for George M's 90% reduction by 2030:
http://www.climate-crisis.net/downloads/THE_CUTTING_EDGE_CLIMATE_SCIENCE...
The abstract of the paper gives a global sustainable per capita limit of 0.33t carbon = 1.2t CO2. In other words, 0.6t per capita at a domestic level if we assume the domestic sector accounts for half the total. The proposed target of 0.5t average across the scheme members is therefore not too wide of the mark.
andy
p.s. I freely admit that there is nothing new in the ideas for this scheme. I have cribbed them all. The bizarre thing is that noone seems to have had a go a starting a scheme themselves. Many probably feel paralysed by a sense of "what is the point if I am the only one doing it?". Others may find too distasteful the idea of dividing up, and trading in, "rights to pollute".
Anyhow, I am meeting with a small group of FoE'ers in Stratford on 4th January (West End pub at 7.30pm) and hopefully one or two from our regional CCC group (currently known as "Climate Change Action West Midlands") to discuss how we get this started. You are all welcome.
It doesn't matter how small a group we are to begin with or how local. It can grow and divide and multiply organically. And as it does, those involved will know that they are part of something that is putting an absolute cap and causing an annual reduction of a small but growing proportion of Britain domestic emissions.
If we got all those who took part in the march involved we could save 5000t of CO2 in the first year and goodness knows how much in the second when we recruit next year's marchers!
21 December, 2005 - 01:40
#15
George Marshall, in CAT’s Clean Slate, had a series of articles where a number of volunteers tendered their fuel bills and travel accounts for Carbon Assessment. There was an element of prestige to get the tonnage low. So all that is required with a willing group is just that element of competition, and a suitable, user-friendly analysis method. I too have done an Excel spreadsheet: and you have to dig out all those bills and MOTs, and scan your diary for all the public transport other than the regular stuff. So I did a one-page table in Word: you look at it, quickly assess your full (and perhaps half) tons, a quick add and a quick divide by the number in your home – voila! No computer needed! If you’d like either, email me at antthehat {at} hotmail.com (Duncan – shall we compare programs?)
Then there are various websites that will compute your carbon emissions, or you could compute your ecological footprint. Is there an assessment of all these to help us choose the best?
Thanks Andy for bringing this topic up, Guy for the reference to the Tyndall Centre, and Andy again for the climate-crisis download.
I’ve just been studying the Diggers and Dreamers website (communal living), and one of the articles there assesses the benefits/otherwise of a communal lifestyle. There can be a collective element of dematerialisation, but many of their places are in the sticks (more transport) and in older, hard-to-heat large houses. That said, I’m a believer in ‘shared walls’, especially when they involve sharing facilities. There are also low energy homes – earth-sheltered, straw-bale, etc. Other than Hockerton Housing Project (comfortable temperatures maintained largely without assistance – they rarely use their wood stoves), I have little energy use data.
Next – what do we do with all the relative barns currently standing and still being built?!
There’s a UK energy flowchart pdf at www.dti.gov.uk, click Energy>Information & Statistics>Energy Flowchart; that may help you sort out the household emissions from the rest. And help you realise the scale of a 90% cut! Then refer to Jim Oswald’s paper on supplying our transport needs from power stations or wind via hydrogen (100 power stations or carpet Wales in turbines) - www.oswald.co.uk/ocl/windaccountancy04.pdf
That £2m from the Climate Challenge will be much needed, if I can understand the conditions.
16 January, 2006 - 16:49
#16
I was really interested to see your idea for a carbon rationing scheme, because I have had the idea for some time to do a carbon footprint website. Now seems like a good time to start, after all the momentum behind the climate march, and the comments by James Lovelock in today's Independent (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece).
I have been going through the process of doing our own carbon accounting, and I think its fair to say you have to be quite dedicated. All the carbon calculators I have come across seem to be inadequate, and based on quite vague comments about lifestyle rather than recorded data on energy consumption (i.e. meter readings, petrol receipts etc.).
The idea with the new site would be to simplify the process of rigorous carbon accounting by allowing users to enter their meter readings (either from bills, or monitored more regularly) and be presented directly with their CO2 emissions. These could be tracked over time (and even back-dated using old bills), and directly compared to average per capita globally sustainable levels. This would increase awareness of emissions, and allow people to assess the effectiveness of their actions.
A second prong of the site would be a self-survey of the household, in order to make suggestions as to the most effective ways to take action. For example, the survey might require an inventory of electrical appliances, with their rated power consumption and average length of use, and then direct attention to the cheapest and highest impact remedies i.e. the 'lowest hanging fruit'. Solutions could be either behavioural (use 'this' less), or technological - in which case they would be rated in terms of energy and financial payback times, and other environmental impact.
In the longer term, I'd like to develop a community around the site that could develop a wiki-based knowledgebase of the most effective actions to reduce emissions.
What about integrating this with your carbon rationing idea? It would give a unified, easy-to-use carbon accounting process for local groups; serve as a focal point for the growing community; and also as well as a knowledgebase so we could learn from each other's experiences. Members would feel far less isolated and we could easily assess the group's impact as a whole. I'd like to hear what you think.
David.
PS Another idea for your rationing project would be to bring individuals/communities/ngos in developing countries into the scheme. Credits for excess emissions above the agreed base level could be 'bought' from these members, and thus aid overseas development at the same time. Quite logistically difficult though.
16 January, 2006 - 21:19
#17
Wow, sounds excellent. Please do post more on the forum as and when developments occur.
17 January, 2006 - 12:25
#18
I agree - all the carbon footprint web-sites are inadequate and much too vague and offer no incentive to people who have already reduced by the obvious things like flying. I recently came across the Univ. of East Anglia's scheme called CRED - Carbon Reduction - for more details see: www.cred-uk.org. They want organisations and individuals to reduce CO2 by 60% and use a visual aid of hot air balloons that is quite accessible. Again their carbon calculator is much too basic and 60% isn't nearly enough but they have set up 3 schemes now and are at least spreading the message. It might be useful for you - we need more hard-hitting sites on the web that tell people they need to take this issue seriously. Good old James Lovelock... Cathy.
19 January, 2006 - 01:29
#19
Sound idea. I've written an Excel program myself. It is tedious filling it in, more so if you use public transport. (With a car you can take mileages between MOTs, or check your VISA statements for fuel transactions.)
However, the CV and methane content of gas varies; the quality of coal varies; if you do your car as above, its performance varies for a host of reasons/you'll end up taking an approximation for the fuel price. Heating oil might be consistent.
And public transport? If the vehicle's half empty, your emissions double. There are different consumption figures for different vehicles - so for accurate figures you'll need the model, maybe the driver! You'll HAVE to use ball-park factors somewhere.
And that's without considering the impact from your consumption of manufactured goods, food, etc and their transport; and the emissions from your waste.
So, do your best, but I think what users will want is something quick and easy.
19 January, 2006 - 23:02
#20
Heh, thanks for all the positive feedback! I think I'll get cracking right away.
I think, Dragon, you're right. Its best to start with those emissions that are readily quantifiable, and those that people can have direct control over. Once you start getting into the indirect emissions it all gets rather complicated.
Thanks for the CRed link, Cathy. That's the ballpark I was aiming at, although more rigorous and more community-orientated, if possible. It will be difficult to be rigorous and user-friendly. Anyway, there's plenty of inspiration to be had there. I especially liked the 'flying' section of their carbon calculator.
I'll post any new developments, and please post any new ideas, or thoughts on how to integrate this with andy's carbon trading idea.
20 January, 2006 - 19:47
#21
Hi all you potential carbon rationers!
I have sent David/Tonderai a copy of the draft guide to the CO2 rationing scheme to be debated at the West Midlands CCC meeting on 23rd Feb. I will post a short version of it here soon.
I love the going global idea. That would involve really putting our money where our mouths are and would be fantastic for building the global climate movement. It would demonstrate how DTQs/C&C can provide a way to tackle BOTH climate change AND economic injustice.
A word of warning though: our local/UK scheme assumes immediate convergence to equal per capita CO2 rations of 4.5t CO2 in 2006 with a 10% annual reduction thereafter towards a sustainable level of 0.6t before 2030. If we go global, we might have to consider a convergence period (during which UK rations would be higher than our Bangladeshi partner's rations) to avoid putting everyone off joining!
20 January, 2006 - 21:01
#22
[ja: this document has been moved under resources to http://portal.campaigncc.org/?q=node/550 so it can be made accessible to others!]
29 January, 2006 - 14:21
#23
At the COIN (http://coinet.org.uk/) inaugural action groups event, we formed a group based around the idea of carbon rationing, and there was a lot of interest in the idea of local carbon rationing groups as a vehicle for educating ourselves, raising awareness and lobbying government to apply a similar idea on a nationwide basis. We decided to investigate the possibilities further, and as part of that process, I'd like to launch even more (!) debate on the specific strengths and weaknesses of Andy's scheme (above, or as a pdf from http://www.tonderai.co.uk/local_carbon_rationing.pdf).
If we are to "roll out" local schemes across the country, we really need a unified structure and approach so that groups could later be merged if required. Could this scheme realistically be stable and effective on a voluntary basis? A widely-used way to assess this (or any other) proposal would be by the '3Es' - is it equitable (i.e. fair to all members); effective (will it really cap members' emissions); and efficient (is the burden of admin acceptable)?
For background reading on the general subject of rationing and domestic tradable quotas (DTQs), recently rechristened "tradable energy quotas" (TEQs), the best I have found (some already mentioned in this thread) are:
* http://www.dtqs.org/ and http://www.teqs.net/ describe the work of David Fleming, a policy analyst who first put forward the idea (I particularly recommend his booklet at http://www.teqs.net/book/teqs.pdf)
* Richard Starkey and Kevin Anderson's final report on DTQs was released in December (at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme2/final_reports/t3_22.pdf) is a pretty hefty read, but is summarised on p.58 of the Tyndall Centre's "Decarbonising the UK" report (http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/media/news/tyndall_decarbonising_the_uk.pdf), and in their Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/opinion/story/0,12981,1205166,00.html)
* Collin Challen MP has championed the idea in Parliament, launching the Domestic Tradable Quotas (Carbon Emissions) Bill on 7 July 2004 (http://www.colinchallen.org.uk/record.jsp?type=article&ID=18) although I'm not sure what's happened to it since then.
Obviously though, applying these ideas at a local level is a different proposition - and I haven't been able to find any more on that!
NB Having discussed with John, I have moved posts relating to the science behind the necessity of a 90% cut in emissions - these will be republished in a new thread ASAP. I hope that's not a problem, its purpose is to clean up this thread and keep the discussion focused on rationing. David
29 January, 2006 - 16:32
#24
Here are some points raised from my discussion with Andy.
* How would we deal with 'green electricity' in the scheme? As you might know, most green electricity schemes are misleading to say the least. Although they may claim 100% renewable supply, the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) generated are sold again to companies or other electricity generators to meet their obligatory commitments to supply 3% from renewables. In other words, your switch causes absolutely no increase in the amount of renewables entering the grid, over and above the obligatory 3%. However, some companies agree to 'throw away' a certain percentage of their ROCs (e.g. Good Energy throws 7%, I think), boosting overall renewable supply by that percentage.
If we were to be really rigorous, we should say one could only decrease your accounted "Carbon Units" (CU, or 1kg CO2) by the percentage thrown away. However, a switch to a green energy company specialising in renewables does mean at least that greater investment goes into that sector. So, should we discount the entire electricity emissions for people switching to "approved" renewables companies (Good Energy, Ecotricity etc.) only?
* New members, joining after the scheme has begun: should they have to converge immediately to the level which the group is at (too large and sudden a jump), or should they start at the base level and decline at the same rate (wouldn't reach the sustainable level by the required time)? We thought a compromise between these two: they would start at the base level, but have to converge with the group over a specified number of years (2,3,5?)
Other issues which have occurred to me since:
* The proposal could be unfair in certain situations. For example, imagine a group of 11 members where 10 members have overshot their allowance ("debtors") by 500CU, and 1 is under (a "saver")by 500. In this case the group would have overshot their target by (500x10)-(500)=4500CU, and debtors would pay off their CU debt at the previously agreed price (say 10p or 0.1pnd). The fund would receive 500x10x0.1=500pnd, and this would be divided up amongst the savers - i.e. given to the one saver who would receive 500pnd for his saving of 500CU. Is this fair? Whereas debtors would be paying 0.1pnd/CU, the saver would receive 500pnd/500CU=1pnd/CU for his savings. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but the situation is quite likely. Andy reported some embarassment of members at receiving money: this may well be the reason.
At the other extreme, one could say the price/CU should be the same for both debtors and savers. This would be more equitable: the saver receives 50pnd (the same as paid by individual debtors), and money would accumulate in the fund (see below). However, this runs into problems in the opposite case when there are more savers (say, 10 members under by 500CU each) than debtors (say, 1 by 500CU), and the group as a whole 'undershoots' the target. Here, savers are due 500x10x0.1=500pnd as a whole, but the fund only receives 500x1x0.1=50pnd from the debtor. The fund faces a shortfall of 50-500=450pnd and is bankrupt (we don't want to start lending money!). This could work if we already had a fund to start with (e.g. by asking for subscription at the start, but that certainly wouldn't be popular!) or traded amongst groups (but there might still be a shortfall somewhere). Sustained undershoots aren't really likely either, but its not a stable system all the same. We could alter the price to reflect supply/demand, but then you face the prospect of rocketing prices when the group overshoots (and CU are therefore in short supply). Members need to know what they'll be asked to pay beforehand, if they are to sign up voluntarily.
I suggest a hybrid where the price that savers receive is limited to be no more than that paid by debtors (equitable), but can be less (avoids the fund going into debt). For example, in the first (overshoot) scenario: debtors would collectively pay in 500pnd, and the saver would receive only 500x0.1=50pnd (rather than the entire fund, in andy's system). The fund would be 450pnd in credit, matching the 4500CU overshoot of the target, and savers and debtors would receive the same price (equitable) In the undershoot, the debtor would pay in 500x0.1=50pnd at the normal price, but the fund would be split between the savers who would be paid 50/10=5pnd each (rather than 50pnd each, in the 'equal price' system). Here the fund would be at zero. Although savers would receive less than debtors, this would be more acceptable because the group as a whole managed to get under its target :)
The advantage of the 'hybrid' is that a fund builds up when the group is over its target (and that it does not get into debt when the group is under). This fund could either be used to 'pay off' the group's debt with other groups under their target (in which case the other groups' savers would receive the full, rather than reduced, price for their saved CU); or split equitably amongst its member to invest in renewables/efficiency projects to increase the chances of meeting its target the next year (difficult to manage); or used to fund a community project which would lower the group's emissions (great!).
Hope that makes some sense. There are plenty of other questions, and hopefully we can use them to build the FAQ and/or alter the scheme. Apologies for the length of the post!
EDIT: see also: summary
31 January, 2006 - 10:52
#25
Tonderai / Andy Ross - are you still including flying in your schemes? Because if people have switched to 'green' electricity, have low heating bills and don't fly - they come under your goal for the first year of 4.5 tonnes easily, even if they still drive. I know you don't want to put people off but I think it's important to be tough too and not be afraid of telling it like it is = if we don't make drastic cuts to our lifestyle and show it's do-able and even comfortable, we are not going to be setting a good enough example - Cathy.
1 February, 2006 - 19:49
#26
Yes, flying definitely needs to be in there. A single return trip to the Far East (~12 tonnes CO2, I think) would more than blow the budget, so any carbon rationing without flying would be meaningless, I think.
As to the rate of decrease, there is a difficult balance here. Its important not to be alarmist, or complacent. So where's the middle ground? A 2oC rise is generally regarded as "dangerous". In order to have an 80% chance of staying under that we can peak at 475ppm (levels are ~380ppm now and rising by ~20ppm per decade) and then cut back to 400ppm (see Can 2°C warming be avoided?) - although admittedly 80% chances aren't ideal. How this equates to emissions is tricky. Retallack (see Setting a long-term climate objective) estimates 90% cuts by 2050. So I should think 90% by 2030 is a sensible objective.
Actually at a 10% decrease per year the first cuts are steeper than later ones (its an exponential rather than linear decrease). By 2015 we'd be at a third of current average levels (~1800kg) - this really surprised me when I plotted it out. Even for really committed members on a 10% cut per year, I should think we will quite quickly hit a point where its difficult to make progress without significant investment (solar water heating, mini wind turbines etc.) - which needs to be planned ahead. I think if we can show that we can "descend the energy staircase" (as David Fleming puts it) step by step by systematic change, we'll have much greater impact.
In the end, though, its going to be difficult to tell until we actually get going, and find out where everone is at the start. If the first members are all committed greenies, the average level might be quite low already.
1 February, 2006 - 23:31
#27
The Renewables Obligation is currently at 5.5%: see
www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_2.2.1.htm
I would not call Ecotricity approved, at least not their currently available tariff, since this does not appear to retire any ROCs. They wouldn't be able to price-match brown tariffs if they retired a significant amount.
Their old tariff retired 121% of ROCs, and cost about 72% more than standard tariff. See FoE's 2004 archive report: www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/green_electricity_tariffs_2004.pdf
Such was the higher retail price of real green electricity.
Good Energy currently claim to retire an additional 4.5% of ROCs, i.e switching to this tariff increases the greenness of supply by 4.5% of what you consume. That is, assuming they still also retire 100% Levy Exemption Certificates (see above FoE report). I've yet to get my head round the latter issue.
See also: www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/green_electricity_tariffs.pdf
6 February, 2006 - 02:57
#28
Green Electricity still comes with an environmental cost (ask anyone from CPRE!) although there's less CO2. If you accept renewable elec as CO2 free, you might have to allow nuclear, also alleged to be CO2 free! Also, it's very easy to convert to a green tariff (I'm with Good Electricity), you just pay a bit more. It doesn't change your habits though. So although a good green tariff is the right thing to have, Brownie points is what you get, not credits on your quota system. (Well, you might concede something, as they're paying more.)
As for the target, when more people overshoot than undershoot, or vice versa: decide your first target at the end of the year, as the average of everyone's consumption. Settle everyone's accounts. Then decide your next target. When I was envisaging a national scheme, I had people who flew buying lots of quotas (in the first years, at any rate) from people who didn't, but were perhaps "fuel poor". The fuel poor could thereby improve their homes, making them more fuel efficient; maybe adding renewables. You may find your group enjoys a similar redistribution of wealth; but it does depend on having some flyers and/or plenty of car milage...
OR, forget annual targets. If you let the financial incentives work, members will not want to lose money, rather gain it – so they’ll edge their emissions down. If progress is slower than planned, an increase in the trading price of quotas should spur things on! So, in effect, I’m saying set targets, but use them in a different way.
8 February, 2006 - 20:07
#29
Thanks for those figures, Jim. It does seem a Kafka-esque system, an utter maze. I agree, Dragon, that switching to a green tarriff should only discount you the ROCs actually discarded (the likelihood that enough people would sign up to green electricity and push demand over the obligatory level without "throwing away" ROCs is quite low). This should be relatively easy to implement using the FoE figures (although I note this has now been discontinued - does anyone know of other sources?).
The system you suggested, Dragon, moves a long way from rationing. Maybe it isn't necessary to set targets, but I'm not sure whether it would be effective. Shouldn't the emissions level of the group be set against an external level based on the science? There is a danger of drift and no real incentive to reduce emissions to the necessary levels. On the other hand, your approach is more flexible and may retain more members.
9 March, 2006 - 23:08
#30
The upshot of all this - debtors have a moral obligation to pay off their carbon debt, but the problem is how best to use the fund this creates.
1.) Split it all between savers (2 prices for debtors, savers): rewards savers, provides a price adjustment mechanism, but could be unfair in certain situations. Will savers feel uncomfortable with receiving all that money?
2.) Pay savers at the same price as paid by debtors (1 price only): rewards savers, and fairer, but no price adjustment mechanism. Fund resulting from a group debt could be invested in carbon sinks / community renewables / traded with other groups. A group saving, however, would mean savers were rewarded at a lower price than debtors, and no fund for investment (or the fund has to pay out more than it receives).
3.) Don't pay savers at all (no price for savers): greater fund for investment, but unfair, and no price adjustment mechanism. Maybe this could be an option for individuals?
Options 2 and 3 also introduce a whole new set of financial problems: who decides how to spend any funds? etc.
Hope that's a clarification! David.
This is a great idea - like some of the local bartering schemes - and it is good for Climate Campaigners to set an example, because if we don't who else will?
However, I question your initial target and the time it will take for you all to reach your needed 90%. We need to be trying to reach 90% in the shortest time possible and so does everyone else. I don't think the Climate can afford for us to do it so gradually. Therefore I suggest that you all look at what you can cut out immediately from the following:-
1) Cut out all flying completely;
2) Cut out all car journeys of under 3 miles or cut out your car completely if possible;
3) Switch to renewable electricity;
4) Fit energy-saving devices around the home.
Your plan should be to save what you can of that 90% immediately. Then you need a strategy for how to reduce the rest of your carbon footprint to the required 90% in the shortest time possible. Obviously this will depend on your personal finances (microgeneration is still very expensive) and your willingness to deprive yourselves of currently available resources. The remainder over which you have no control you campaign on, e.g. local councils / businesses / the Government.
One other point - why can't the Book-keeper be one of your group? Surely there is someone committed within the group who would agree to do it? The more people that reduce their own carbon footprint the better.