The very first time I read Fleming's proposals I thought, "That's it! Simple. Brilliant idea." I don't think the proposals have changed that much in the interim.RalphW wrote:I used to be anti this kind of scheme as far too complicated

Moderator: Peak Moderation
The very first time I read Fleming's proposals I thought, "That's it! Simple. Brilliant idea." I don't think the proposals have changed that much in the interim.RalphW wrote:I used to be anti this kind of scheme as far too complicated
Why? Surely the idea is to share out what's available equally, so the rich don't grab the lot. The proles will have access to the same amount as the rich, and the rich will only get more buy buying it from the proles. Some proles will grab the money and starve or freeze, but most will use what they need and only sell any surplus. The price of the product will remain affordable by everyone, because the rich won't be able to outbid them and buy the lot, as they are only able to buy their share, plus any extra that they've paid an extortionate price to the proles for. So surely the rich lose out, the proles exploit the rich, and the only "tax" is the cost of running the TEQ system.stumuzz wrote:Without sorting out the land and private property rights issue. It will be just another tax and a rationing system to keep the proles in penury.
Sorry i disagree.JohnB wrote:Why? Surely the idea is to share out what's available equally, so the rich don't grab the lot. The proles will have access to the same amount as the rich, and the rich will only get more buy buying it from the proles. Some proles will grab the money and starve or freeze, but most will use what they need and only sell any surplus. The price of the product will remain affordable by everyone, because the rich won't be able to outbid them and buy the lot, as they are only able to buy their share, plus any extra that they've paid an extortionate price to the proles for. So surely the rich lose out, the proles exploit the rich, and the only "tax" is the cost of running the TEQ system.stumuzz wrote:Without sorting out the land and private property rights issue. It will be just another tax and a rationing system to keep the proles in penury.
Have I understood it correctly?
All energy comes via the sun from the land. If you do not give fair access to land, well, it's just not fair.clv101 wrote:No, that's what'll with the current, rationing by price system.stumuzz wrote:Without sorting out the land and private property rights issue. It will be just another tax and a rationing system to keep the proles in penury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registrati ... _Chemicalsemordnilap wrote:OK, I'll bite.stumuzz wrote:Could we not use REACH jurisprudence and apply it to FF’S.
How would it work?
Beth Stratford the Report editor wrote: "I'm still convinced that TEQs are the best tool we have for shifting social norms, giving people a tangible sense of their fair (and rapidly diminishing) share of fossil fuels, and - most importantly - guaranteeing fair access to energy in the context of a descending carbon cap. It's a tough sell - but then any policy which is actually commensurate with the challenge ahead will fall into that camp"