TEQs Report launch today

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:31 pm

RalphW wrote:I used to be anti this kind of scheme as far too complicated

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.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:42 pm

A tax is a very simple idea. You just need a system of sanctions to punish those whom don't pay to back it up. All taxes work this way.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:10 pm

Somebody said it's about as complicated as Oyster Cards.

(I don't understand Oyster cards.)

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:11 pm

stumuzz wrote:A tax is a very simple idea. You just need a system of sanctions to punish those whom don't pay to back it up. All taxes work this way.

Everybody hates taxes but they are accepted as a necessary evil.

TEQs will be accepted when they are seen as a necessary good.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:09 am

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.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:55 am

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.

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.

Have I understood it correctly?

Post by **clv101** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:57 am

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.

No, that's what'll with the current, rationing by price system.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:45 am

JohnB wrote:
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.
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.

Have I understood it correctly?

Sorry i disagree.

The the landed rich do not need to grab the lot. They will prosper within a tex on production scheme. The Duke of Bedford will prosper greatly because there will be greater demand for land (which is not taxed) for turbines or bio fuel. The majorities who do not have access to land but are taxed on their labour and their consumption will be worse off because yet another tax is being levied.
Remember, the majority of people live urban or suburban and are forced, because of their lack of access to land into consumption. So until there is access to land or to the produce of land (shelter, energy or food) the Teq’s will be an unfair tax on production, which by necessary implication will hit the poor.

Anyway, my thoughts on TEQ’s are clear. They are a middle class navel gazers view on what’s fair, and because it will need world wide compliance will never happen.

What are your thoughts on REACH. A piece of environmental legislation which is having a profound effect on the amount of pollutants going into the atmosphere. I have a meeting this afternoon with a chemical importer from China who may be going bankrupt because the chemical it sells cannot be proved to be less harmful than one already on the market in the EU.

Could we not use REACH jurisprudence and apply it to FF’S.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:47 am

clv101 wrote:
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.
No, that's what'll with the current, rationing by price system.

All energy comes via the sun from the land. If you do not give fair access to land, well, it's just not fair.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:04 pm

stumuzz wrote:Could we not use REACH jurisprudence and apply it to FF’S.

OK, I'll bite.

How would it work?

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:01 pm

emordnilap wrote:
stumuzz wrote:Could we not use REACH jurisprudence and apply it to FF’S.
OK, I'll bite.

How would it work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registrati ... _Chemicals

You campaign to make Carbon Dioxide from FF use a chemical hazard.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:27 pm

The better off could afford more energy efficient products (which under such a scheme may attract a significant premium). Also, I saw in the report (I've only briefly skimmed through it so far) that there are some TEQ being auctioned? Surely the rich could afford to bid for these?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:28 pm

To me, the TEQs do seem rather like a second form of money, the difference being that they are (at least initially) distributed equitably. Wouldn't a citizen's income do exactly the same, only be simpler?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:49 pm

That wouldn't have the same incentive to reduce carbon burning.

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"

cubes · Post by **cubes** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:09 pm

I've a few more questions:

1) For central heating/home electricity consumption - how will the use be monitored? without smart meters you're going to get big demand for units every 1 or 3 months?

2) Is there anything to stop Tesco (or anyone else) from charging you money and TEQ when you go shopping? It would probably be cheaper for them to do that than buy them off the market.

3) What happens if you go overdrawn on your TEQ and don't replace them? Does your electricity/gas get cut off? I can forsee lots of petrol tanks with hole in the bottom.

Still, nothing unsurmountable as far as I can see.