Global Warming Carbon Credits For You and Me!

anudeglory

Cardew wrote: »

How much impact is the question? .01% or 10% or 100%

Doesn't matter really, even if it was zero impact I think there are many other valid reasons as to why we shouldn't be wasteful of resources.

Cardew wrote: »

So having defined the problem as you see it, what's the solution?

I know - go on the dole, squat in other people's property, put up tents in Bishopsgate and convince each other in drug fuelled sessions that you are saving the world.

India and China are really impressed!

Don't! I'm not impressed either.

ceridwen

The jury is still out on this one as far as I'm concerned. I dont know whether it would be a good idea or no.

What does concern me is the idea that our personal "ration" might get reduced each year......presumably to allow for the fact that the population is still expanding each year? To me - that looks rather like each "extra"person born (ie the ones that increase the size of the population - as opposed to those that are "replacement value" IYSWIM) would be "taking" a share of the "carbon ration" of someone already here.

As I can see people continuing to argue for a while yet that "its a personal decision how many children I have" if they want to have 3 or more - then a year on year reduction in "carbon ration" for the rest of us would be very divisive. I think the only possible way this might work is if there were a "carbon ration" per HOUSEHOLD - not per PERSON. This "ration" to be set at the current household size and no extra "ration" given for any extra children born after the first two. Eg:
- a one person household would have 1 "ration"
- a two person household would have 2 "rations"
- a three person household would have 3 "rations"
- a four person household would have 4 "rations"

etc
- but if a 5th person "joined" that household (by dint of another child being born to the adults in it) - there would be no increase in "ration" to that household and the existing household "ration" would need to be shared out between those in that household.

This way would be fairer than expecting strangers to take a lower "ration" because someone in another household had decided to have a large family.

A_fiend_for_life

I'm not sure that it would work or at least it might work to a limited degree. It would have the same problems as the fuel duty escalator - if the government of the day doesn't have the nerve to tighten the screw they won't. They will also be tempted to over issue because of lobbying from businesses as has been seen.

Ken68

It will be little measures at first when government wakes up, for example, one car per household and better public transport. Oldies with bus passes will have to give up their driving licence and so on.
Small beer though when it is the power plants that are mostly responsible not to mention farting cows.

magyar

I'd still like to know who these 'they' are and when 'they' actually intend bringing in personal carbon trading?

ceridwen

Which is a valid point - as to the "they" concerned. Personally - though I am undecided on this - I feel it is well "on the cards" to come in at some point within the next 5 years. Reason - we are now in the "Emergency Ward" for life as we know it continuing - this is Climate Emergency Time. There is no doubt at all about this - okay, okay...I know we will still find a few doubters out theres....but I am finding that amongst those who give this serious thought there is now very little doubt to be found.

The question is whether carbon rationing is an appropriate response to this and, if it is, how it will be implemented.

I do have severe doubts as to whether it would work in practice - much as I would like it to in theory - as I can see only too well all the "get-out clauses". I know that - speaking personally - every time I run through one of those calculators about how many planets worth of resources I personally am using up - that I instantly think "Right - I'll halve that then - because I havent had the replacement person for me that I could have had" - hence my own figure of Planets used up instantly comes down from an average 2.4 Planets to 1.2 Planets (ie still 0.2 Planets too many) - but I have given myself "credit" for being childless. If I had had 4 children (2 for me and 2 for "him" in effect) - then I would have doubled my "replacement value" - so would have multiplied up that 2.4 Planets' worth to telling myself that I was using 4.8 Planets' worth

....but I know thats the way my mind works...and I believe I'm right...but notta lotta people would agree with me probably..:cool:

One HUGE erroneous bit of thinking that is provoked by this argument though is the one that goes "I want a large family - so I will have a large family regardless - but it doesnt matter ...because MY children will consume a lot less than THEIR children". A totally wierd and wacky way of thinking....as it takes no account whatsoever of the fact that every single human body takes up space ...for housing they will need....for sheer physically being another "body" walking down the street or through what countryside we have left, etc - never mind the fact that the second they get to teenage they will be deciding for themselves and may well turn out to be consumerism-mad.

weegie.geek

Officer_Dibble wrote: »

who does the culling if we exceed our limit

And where does one sign up for this? :j

ScoobyStew

Asheron wrote: »

Do you believe in Man Made Global Warming?

The question should be Do you believe Global Warming is Man Made?

You only have to look at the levels of CO2 to find the answers to that

Cardew

ScoobyStew wrote: »

The question should be Do you believe Global Warming is Man Made?

You only have to look at the levels of CO2 to find the answers to that

Is it that simple;)

So who do we pay to make things better;)

I am willing to take your money if it will salve your conscience!

cepheus

Personal carbon trading/allowances would introduce a nightmare of bureaucracy that would make conventional financial accounting appear straightforward and incorruptible by comparison. How do we allow for imports for example?

Why not simply limit the quantity of carbon mined at source each year and allow the energy companies to buy it using a fixed number of tradable permits. This would have exactly the same effect without 7 billion separate accounts.

Why? because this would be a transparent mechansim with few ways around it and no scams for industry and consultants to earn a fast green buck. It would also be ruthless in its effectiveness in reducing carbon emissions or exposing our reluctance to embrace realistic targets because of the true cost.