To let you all know. I have started an e-petition to Tony Blair.
The petition calls for international adoption of Contraction and Convergence, and the adoption of Carbon Rationing to ensure we hit our UK targets. You can add you names at the link below:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Carbon-Rationing/
The aim is to keep pushing this petition over the coming year, try and get some momentum going, so by next year's climate talks we have a significant petition to put before Gordon Brown or Tony Blair or whoever is PM at the time.
To my mind, the next year is vital. The politicians are on the verge of failing to give us binding targets, and to try to hit non-existent targets with weak legislation on green taxation. I see this petition as a charter for climate action. If you agree with me, and the 10 points that make it up, please sign. If you want to discuss it please reply to this topic.
thanks
Alex
i've signed it...
...well, i've TRIED to sign it and i'm still waiting for the confirmation link e-mail...it's the CLICK that counts, eh ?
WELL DONE for this by the way.
you're a star, man.
Petition Follow Up
Jo - I believe they had some trouble with hotmail accounts, apart from that the petition signatures should be pretty straight forward. If it didn't work, please try again. If it did great - there seem to be two candidate Jo's on the list :-)
The good news is we have 187 signatures. So, we're running at about 75 a day this week so far. I want to try and accelerate signatures. We're a long way behind the people who want to reinstate hunting. But then they have a national organisation that they can use to get the message out through.
Can anyone who has signed the petition please forward it to everyone they know. Below is a little blurb about the petition that you can forward to friends:
The Climate Change Petition is a charter for action on climate change. Deniers and weak politicians wasted the last 20 years, when action could have been taken. Now, they refuse to put in place the measures that stand a chance of saving the planet from the most significant impacts. In Nairobi, the governments failed once again to make any real progress on enforcing global cuts in emissions. This is simply not acceptable.
The UK government is considering green taxes but are wary of binding targets. This approach has the potential to lead to no significant emission cuts but a lot of self congratulation, while increasing the tax burden on those least able to afford it. This is no answer: a few taxes on petrol, flights, energy and consumption will change little. Will the government put a £1 per mile tax on flights inside Europe? Only such an extreme measure would curtail flights. The taxes will not work fast enough.
The Climate Change Petition demands that the British government champions contraction and convergence as the only sensible approach to fair global emissions reduction, and that it supports that with a programme of carbon rationing in the UK. These two policies can provide a framework within which regulation, incentives and even a few green taxes could have an impact. Without these frameworks we will fiddle as the planet burns. But, only once we are comitted to these frameworks is it worth putting the effort into the other methods - by all means ban incandescant lightbulbs, by all means remove duty on biofuels and provide billions of pounds to kickstart renewable energy. But only by implementing carbon rationing will we drive the change in British society, and only through Contraction and Convergence can we provide an equitable global solution.
The Climate Change Petition will run for 11 months. The aim being to build a significant force of commitment behind these two policies, to demonstrate to Prime Minister Brown, Blair or whoever it is by November 2007, that we believe in these solutions. By signing up to the ten points on this charter we are saying to the Prime Minister that the time for talk is over and the time for action is upon us. We can't waste another decade pussyfooting around. The fundamental policies are known, they must be implemented. The British government must champion rationing, implementing it as soon as possible. The British government must drive the international community to agree to Contraction and Convergence before 2012. We can't waste 25% of the years we have left to make the global 60% cut talking about it.
We need action and we need it now!
The Climate Change Petition can be signed at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Carbon-Rationing/
To everyone who has signed it. Thank-you. To everyone you pass the link onto - thankyou in advance.
Alex
Green Taxes in the Petition
One of our group members has signed the petition because he agrees with C&C and carbon rationing, but commented that he had some serious problems with paragraph 5. I must say that I felt the same.
I completely agree that green taxes are not the answer to climate change and that we need carbon rationing (which by all means can be called personal carbon allowances). However, I'm not sure that agreeing with the C&C framework and its implications for the UK means that one also has to agree with everything in paragraph 5. Taxing aviation fuel, for example, would be perfectly compatible with carbon rationing and I couldn't see anything wrong with it. Lots of climate change campaigners have been calling for this for some time and might find it hard to sign this petition as a result. Plus I was very conscious of contradicting myself when I signed this particular C&C petition and the petition for a tax on high-energy light bulbs at the same time!
Obviously, the petition is written and cannot be easily changed now, but might it be easier to get signatures for the essential core message (C&C and 90% cuts by 2030 in the UK) without also challenging people's views on green taxes?
Almuth Ernsting
Green Taxes
Hi Almuth,
I do realise there are contentious elements in the petition. It is difficult because there will always be areas of disagreement. For me the fundamental problem we face is that the route the government and the other political parties seem to be taking is one of green taxation, and some targets or if we're lucky binding targets. They're not making much of a fuss about regulation and incentives, and milliband talks of quotas/rationing but there seems no mention of a bill to trial it.
As an example on green taxes on aviation. It seems to me that as the demographic for short haul flights tends to the more well off end of the spectrum, then in order to imapct them with a green tax would require the government to take a decision they're not going to be willing to take. If it costs about £50 return to a city in Europe and they tax that at 20% it goes up to £60 - no impact. So, the tax would need to be more prohibitive - perhaps 50p a mile. So, then the £50 ticket might go up to £200. However, a lot of people have got used to this lifestyle and spend money like that for a night out drinking. So, £200 won't stop them now. So, do we make it £1 a mile = £350, or £2 a mile at which point I think we might start to have a real impact. Ye s- when a cheap flight in Europe costs over £500 return that will slow people down. However, the lobbying that will follow if the green tax on aviation is set that highwould be enormous - people just won't take it, and the politicians will back off. The only way they could make it work would be to spend the tax money on incentives to take the train, and probably to fund an extra day's holiday for the perceived lost time. Instead the money will vanish into the next black hole in the middle east, nuclear arms or id cards. So, for me taxation will hit poorer people more, and will not have the political will behind it to have any impact. Rationing, however, will allow redistribution from rich to poor. The petition mentions regulation and incentives - these are the instruments we need first to support change and to make rationing work.
For instance i believe that rather than trying to tax incandescant lightbulbs we just ban their production. Why achieve the same thing through a slow means with taxation when we can do it in one hit? There are certian no brainers that don't hit people's perceived lifestyle choices that could get us the first couple of years of cuts quite easily.
The petition can't be changed - it's one of the rules of the website. After I sent it off I did think of allowing for limited green taxation in one of the final two points. I still feel though that if we put green taxe son businesses they pass them on to consumers, and if we put them on consumers they won't change many lifestyles but will drive a negative repsonse to delaing with climate change and hit poorer people far more than richer ones. I live in South Oxon we have the 7th worst household emissions in the UK - that's because of all the ig houses belonging to rich people. Rationing would make them think. Green taxes would just make them annoyed about a niggling extra few pounds a month.
The Petition is written with multiple purposes. To build support behind these two policies, to edcuate a little on why they are useful policies and more effective than the other choices, and to generate debate on the issues. In the end if enough of us have the conversations with enough people we can cause change. It is clear to me that these next two years will have an enormous impact on our chances of making the necessary cuts - we can't let self congratulatory green washing win the day.
I expect to have to have a debate on tax versus ration, redistrubition of wealth versus money for war etc. It is the price of writing such a petition. The petition hopes to attract a few people outside its most obvious audience.
I am encouraged by the number of signatures so far as we're over 300 and speeding up.
I don't actually believe there is no place for green taxes, I believe however they give the government a get out. They will say they're doing something when they're not. The problem is there can only ever be a small number of places where green taxes will be effective. How expensive does petrol need to be before it becomes too expensive? Surely an incentive on other modes of transport would be more useful and investment to make them more effective. The time for action means we don't waste time on actions that get in the way of the only things that will really work. The other fundamental point for me is that I don't believe we can take away liberty too easily: if we tax certain things we're specifically stopping people from doing them, but if we ration we allow people to choose how they spend theirs. If someone wants to live without heating and eat raw food in order to afford a train journey to india within his ration I would support his rights to do that.
I do realise that creating a charter like this which tries to portray the international, national and local level actions seems to prescribe an awful lot. But, if we say "We want action" and don't specify it then they will choose other options - nuclear, clean development, clean coal, off shoring of emissions etc etc.The only way I can find to hold the governments of the world to account is to make it clear what we want and keep shouting it until we get it. For that to work we must be very specific about our requirements. We need C&C and we need rationing. Of course other pieces will play a part - but they are worthless without the other two, in my opinion. People like to believe that small actions will sort things out. They won't without big change around them. These two policies are the only ones I've found that face the whole problem.
Once this petition is up and running I'm going to seek people in other countries to start parallel ones. We need to get this ball rolling fast.
My father has an interesting view on green taxes. He thinks their greatest value is as a threat to people. If we threaten them with green taxes they'll be more willing to accept rationing.
Hope that helps.
Alex
Personal Carbon Allowances
Alex, did you intentionally use the the term carbon rationing, used widely by campaigners instead of personal carbon allowances preferred by David Miliband? Some people argue that the term carbon rationing is a turn off, whereas 'personal carbon allowances' is much more friendly.
Naming
Hi John,
It's a good point. I hadn't actually heard them called personal carbon allowances - that's not a bad set of words. I had other choices in my head. It was either Personal Tradeable Quotas, Domestic Tradeable Quotas or Carbon Rationing. Given the three I felt the last one would put less hackles up over the word "tradeable" but more importantly it has an element of "it does what it says on the packet".
I agree rationing has some negative conotations. In the end the choice was made because of the words strongest in my head. I think I heard George Monbiot speaking in Reading and at the march, and those were the words he used on both occasions - and as such they got re-enforced.
What I am doing with all of these points is continuously re-working the briefing materials I send out to people to send on to others. I think most of us who are close to the climate change issue know what C&C and Carbon Rationing mean, and have a feel for why they are the fundamental building blocks. The further away form the core, the more explanation we have to give. I find that even in more broad based green groups - many are still having the debates we were having 205 years ago.
Alex
Tradeable rations
I don't agree that rations should be tradeable. Tradeability would enable the rich to buy more carbon rations at the expense of the poor and elderly, who would be encouraged to sell their capacity to keep warm and to travel. Second world war rationing was not tradeable, that was the point of it, and that is why people enjoyed better nutrition then than at any time before or since. If carbon rations are shared equitably and are non-tradeable (and if they replaced money as the means of purchasing air travel etc,) this measure would actually improve the quality of life of the poor while restricting the excesses of the rich. An unofficial market in rations could easily be prevented by other means.
Tradability
Hi Roy,
I know this is a complex area. The starting point for me is that those people who control their emissions are rewarded under a trading scheme. This is redistribution of wealth - I see nothing wrong with that. Trading also allows for steady change - without trading we would probably have to set initial targets higher to enable heavy consumers the chance to learn a new lifestyle, otherwise there would probabl be civil unrest of some sort. If we set equal quotas the cost for that learning profits those who already control their emissions.
Secondly, in the second world war there was a black market in rations - the rich are able to work black markets more effectively than the poor. If it's in the open, those with spare ration will be able to see what they can get for their efforts. What other means would stop a secondary market. If say it is a carbon credit card, what stops me walking to the till with someone and paying for their petrol? What if I'm car sharing - I might want to do that?
Also, if you don't want to sell your spare rations you don't have to - just retire them from the system. Of course a group of people can get together, sell their rations and use the spare money to insultate someone's home. There are many good things we can do with the money to drive the success of the scheme.
It seems to me what matters is we set a ration that reduces annualy until we hit the target. There are few prizes for doing better than a well though through plan. As such, the more comfortable we can make the transition to low carbon society the better.
I also believe that in order to get the high emitters behind these changes we need to learn to portray the policies in ways that they accept. Rationing supports their right to choose how they live their lives - they already know how to pay for what they want, so it's nice and comfortable for them; meanwhile businesses will produce better low carbon alternatives, and slowly the dinosaurs will change. Secondly, trading gives them a comfortable feeling. I'm no fan of market means and spent a long time trying to find an answer without it - but I don't believe it exists, and I do believe that an open visible market is going to be better than a black market. We mustn't make this into carbon prohibition otherwise we'll end up with carbon dealers on every street corner :-)
I believe that with trading we can set a first year ration of lower than the previous year's. Without trading we have to implement a mini C&C. Simply saying to someone whose emissions are 100,000 kg that this year they can only emit 9,000 kg is just not going to work. That's too much of a lifestyle change to expect them to make.
Alex
Miliband wants you to write to your MP
Anyone who's unsure about the wording, or indeed anyone who's ok with it, can also write to their MP to support the notions of C&C and 'Carbon Allowances'.
I have received from my Labour MP a letter inviting my views on a recent speech by David Miliband proposing 'Carbon Allowances', which could have been either on 19 July or 12 September. The letter I got read as if it had been promulgated from Miliband's office, suggesting he wanted supporters of 'Carbon Allowances' to send letters of support to him via their MP.
So, please write in your own words to your MP if you support the principle of 'Carbon Allowances'. You could also use the opportunity to include views on 'One Planet Living', Contraction & Convergence, the Stern Review, emissions trading and of course the government's opposition to annual CO2 targets (for example). If you have an opposition MP, please ask them to obtain comment on your letter from the appropriate DEFRA minister.
A well-written letter, or email, refreshes the channels other expressions cannot reach. http://www.writetothem.com/.
Petition Update
Hi,
The Petition is still alive. We've got up to 2400 signatures, including Colin Challen MP, Caroline Lucas MEP, Mark Lynas, Mayer Hillman and Aubrey Meyer - please sign, and get anyone you know who hasn't signed to sign as well. We've got a few months left to try and move this further up in the government's radar. It seems the first 2000 people are easy to find - it's the next 1000. Though the march last year had many more than that, we just need to get all of them to sign too.
See you at the Green gathering perhaps.
Alex