Will we ever reduce the amount of travel or transport?

[Mart]

What’s wrong with a personal Carbon quota ? Apply to every consumable, including fuel. Everyone gets the same annual allowance, but they can be transferred/traded/saved.

Surely if we have to meet a Carbon target it’s, ok maybe idealistic, way of achieving it equitably.

I've always liked this idea in theory, but the complexity would have been hard. But these days when we are able to move money via mobile phones, and even trade cryptocurrencies, am I right in thinking (because I don't understand these trading platforms) that monitring and trading carbon vouchers would be pretty easy?

Have we mentioned these before, if so, apologies for repetition, but perhaps funds from selling carbon vouchers, if spent on home energy improvements, could get a bump up from the Gov. I'm sure there could be a 101 ways to create a virtuous circle around this.

Just a thought, but would we all start driving at about 45mph along the motorways?

The big problem with a tradable system of carbon credits is that everyone will immediately sell them and carry on exactly as before. It'll be exactly the same as adding extra tax on flights/fuel.

I kinda assumed that since the goal was to reduce total emissions, the personal allowance would take that into account, so even if all credits are traded, you'd still see a reduction. Also, as efforts are made to consume more, you'd see the price rising (like an auction), so at every step a cheaper option (lower carbon) would become available, effectively pricing out some carbon consumption/emission.

Over time you'd simply reduce the personal allowance. It's close but not exactly the same as a carbon tax, but it would penalise higher users at ever higher prices, and hopefully bring in monies for the lower users, either because they can't afford to consume as much (such as a holiday flight), or they choose not too for environmental reasons.

For instance, if a carbon tax doubled the cost of energy, then low users would still pay twice as much, and wealthy high users would pay twice as much. But under an allowance based system, low users may not see any increase, possibly earning some money, whilst the high users could end up paying many, many times more as they fight over the extra units in a bidding war.

Well, that's the hope/theory anyway.

[Mart]

Sorry to harp on about this, but I was just wondering if anyone had some data relating to energy consumption/carbon emissions and how it correlates to wealth?

I was out walking the dog, and assumed that the average emissions per person (let's say the UK for now) would be higher than the median, but I don't know if that's a fair and accurate assumption, or completely false.

My thoughts was that if you multiplied the median carbon consumption by the population, and issued that out to everyone, then total emissions would fall, and the cost of carbon credits would rise significantly as the wealthier fought to get their hands on some ..... thus making other cleaner/greener sources of energy more economically viable.

At least that was my thought, but it hinges on the idea that emissions/consumption don't rise in a linear fashion with wealth, but are more exponentional?

[Bugtownboy]

Good thoughts, Mart There’s a good comparator in flights - I can’t remember if it’s miles flown or number of flights, but I have in mind that 15% of flights are made by 1% of the population.

Please don’t ask me to reference it, but I do think your basic argument is sound.

[AE-NMidlands]

Sorry to harp on about this, but I was just wondering if anyone had some data relating to energy consumption/carbon emissions and how it correlates to wealth?
I was out walking the dog, and assumed that the average emissions per person (let's say the UK for now) would be higher than the median, but I don't know if that's a fair and accurate assumption, or completely false.
My thoughts was that if you multiplied the median carbon consumption by the population, and issued that out to everyone, then total emissions would fall, and the cost of carbon credits would rise significantly as the wealthier fought to get their hands on some ..... thus making other cleaner/greener sources of energy more economically viable.

At least that was my thought, but it hinges on the idea that emissions/consumption don't rise in a linear fashion with wealth, but are more exponentional?

Legitimate concerns in my view too.
The original article (which I only quoted selectively, partly in trying to avoid getting too political) does go into that a bit, but there is definitely a social equity aspect to it. I think it said that 15% of us take 70% of flights, for example.

I am sure that the graph of energy consumed against wealth is massively skewed to the right(!) and I think someone has already pointed out in another thread that subsidising domestic fuel is a massive hand-out to people with enormous old (Stately) homes - and lots of others in big energy-inefficient old houses. It might be justified in political terms by helping the poor, however better insulated, drier and healthier housing would deal with the root cause of that problem (as would fairer wages and benefits.)
Not many poor people drive Range-Rovers, or SUVs - if they even have a car.

I would be delighted if carbon credits were issued universally and were tradeable - so that people who wanted more than their fair share had to bid for them, meaning that the poor sods cycling and the others waiting for buses in the rain could sell theirs at a big premium.
UNfortunately it would still mean that the financially-secure (who had already invested in pv, insulation, solar thermal, BEVs etc) could sit on their ration and sell it when the price was at its highest, unlike the "poor" who would flog off what they got given and didn't need asap to get their hands on some cash...
A

[Mart]

Cheers guys, I'm simply enjoying the thought exercise behind all of this.

I get the impression that a carbon allowance appears simple and in reach, but actually remains just beyond our fingertips, due to the complexities of getting it right, and of course fair.

[Stinsy]

Cheers guys, I'm simply enjoying the thought exercise behind all of this.

I get the impression that a carbon allowance appears simple and in reach, but actually remains just beyond our fingertips, due to the complexities of getting it right, and of course fair.

Don't forget that the people who'd lose out most from such a tax are very influential...

[Bugtownboy]

But Stinsy. It’s not a tax - brave new world of an equitable distribution of responsibility for climate/resource consumption.

Will it ever happen

If we are going to make serious change, we have to move away from a financial basis for responsibility. Whatever solution we could, potentially, deliver has to be totally equitable.

But, it cannot be a nationally imposed allocation, there has to be a reconciliation to recognise a global solution.

[Countrypaul]

One problem I can see with using a carbon allowance is the edge conditions where those who have the ability could/might largely avoid it.

If flying to say the USA from Derbyshire the normal route might be a flight to Heathrow or Schipol and from there to New York/Chocago/LA. For those that do it occasionally the flights would probably be booked in the UK - which flights would be liable to the allowance - any booked or just those with a UK airport? If those booked, the better off would quickly only book to say Schipol and book a separate flight to the US.

Presumably business flights would require the employer to pay for the carbon allowance (allowable against profits) - I'd bet that there would be a shift to more business flights and less personal flights amongst the better off. What about medical flights, emergencies might be quite clear, but if someone had to go to another country for an operation not provided by the NHS, would they be exempt?, how about those traveling with them? What about cosmestic rather than life saving operations - it could all become a little subjective.

What about those that have little choice such as the Scottish Islands? Would Helicopter flights qualify? How about back and forth to oil rigs, or wind turbines? As said in another thread, one apparently environmentally beneficial move can have unforseen consequences.

Would electric planes be exempt (I know there aren't enough to worry about yet, but...)?

All of these edge conditions would be ripe for abuse, and could incur significant overheads in administration. Nothing that could not be overcome, but might prove to be much more difficult than at first sight suggests.

Worst of all, if this goverment were to implement it how sucesful do you think it would be?

How many goverments would sign up to implement the same rules?

[Bugtownboy]

Mentioned it in one of my diatribes , it has to be a global solution. I recognise the difficulties, but there has to be a different approach to ‘consumption’ than we currently have.

Everything that is being promoted is just words, pi55ing in the wind at best.

I honestly don’t know how you change attitudes /systems. There is a massive conflict of interests in our financial growth driven economies and having a chance to reduce/stabilise AGW.

[AE-NMidlands]

If flying to say the USA from Derbyshire the normal route might be a flight to Heathrow or Schipol and from there to New York/Chocago/LA. For those that do it occasionally the flights would probably be booked in the UK - which flights would be liable to the allowance - any booked or just those with a UK airport? If those booked, the better off would quickly only book to say Schipol and book a separate flight to the US

er, no! The normal route would be from Manchester (accessable by train, bus or taxi from most of Derbyshire. There are car parks too.)
Admittedly lots of Manchester routes were confiscated about a decade ago so that London became the only practicable option for many destinations, but in most cases there is no reason to go via London from a lot of the country.

A friend in Sheffield was coerced into joining his boss on a transatlantic flight from Heathrow when he could have gone from Manchester: It meant he missed out on something unrepeatable the day before up here that he had paid quite a lot of money for, just because he needed to go south in time for an early flight from Heathrow. The flights all went sour on the day too, I can't remember how, but maybe it was the journey home that got screwed up: perhaps the Londoner just got a taxi home, leaving my friend 12 hours late with no trains home - not even a hotel booking.

I hate this assumption that everyone can easily take a flight from Heathrow! My last experience there was an early flight to the Azores, 4 or 5 a.m. bus from a hotel into the airport, check-in machines didn't work, queue (again) for 1/2 hr to check in (again) to be told "it's OK, just the machine ran out of paper, but why has it booked you and your wife at opposite ends of the plane?" Horrible place. One of our party missed the flight because of a failed rail connection from Doncaster, but on other holidays it has been "connecting" flights or luggage going missing that has let people down.
A