PowerSwitch

Big international energy producers have considerable power over prices (and the political policies) of purchasing countries, as shown in the past by OPEC and very recently with the dependence on the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. In the long term I can see how TEQs can erode this but in a very long interim, until TEQs become internationally implemented or import tariffs are accepted and established and we have collectively moved much further away from fossil fuels to home produced renewables, how can TEQs help solve this? If part of the answer is that we will just have to accept higher energy costs for a while that isn't going to make TEQs seem very acceptable to the general voter. Sadly nor will the argument that doing nothing will have the same effect and worse.

Thanks for such a thoughtful and well-informed question Adam.

Just as you say, TEQs would improve this situation in the long-term but faces a challenge in the shorter-term. That's why we advocate for import tariffs, and the political reality appears to have moved in favour of the possibility for these to be unilaterally introduced alongside TEQs, as discussed here:
https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/faqs/#36

As mentioned there, the beauty of this is that since these tariffs generate revenue for the importing countries, this will provide a strong incentive for the exporting countries to themselves implement TEQs or a similar policy, so that they can collect this revenue instead of letting it flow overseas. In this way, TEQs' price-stabilising effects spread globally, thus helping to address the issue that you raise.

But yes, I share your sadness that the general public currently fail to perceive such benefits. Indeed, it seems to me unlikely that we will see such thoughtful policy implemented in the near future. Despite this assessment though, it also seems to me a possibility worth shooting for.

To my eyes, what is required is a major campaign to spread understanding of and advocacy for the system. That has proved far beyond our resources and skillset at The Fleming Policy Centre, so on Tuesday I'll be presenting at the Institute for Policy Studies to an audience of senior NGO representatives, in the hopes of enthusing a more significant partner. It will be an open online event in case you'd like to join us to discuss such matters:
https://ips-dc.org/events/teqglobaljusttransition/

Best,
Shaun

Shaun Chamberlin wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 14:53 But yes, I share your sadness that the general public currently fail to perceive such benefits. Indeed, it seems to me unlikely that we will see such thoughtful policy implemented in the near future. Despite this assessment though, it also seems to me a possibility worth shooting for.

The Wiki for a TEQ (where I went, not ever having heard of them before), seems to link back to the reference you provided as well.

I noticed the comments which would hint that this an acceptable form of rationing, except that word seems to be avoided, and platitudes related to the good of all, interest in the money staying domestic rather than going to the producers, etc etc.

The only question I have, after reading the summary (and noting that it just had to be hooked to one of the early peak oils of this century to discredit the idea) is that it seems to depend on a majority of the citizens involved (enough to get the right nunmber of elected officials on its side anyway) deciding that operating under a rationing system is alright, for the collective good. And unfortunately, they would also see that rich folks could just buy up as much of their energy share as they wanted, at the expense of those who in light of the winnowing down public support for quite some time now, will sell something just to stay even. And resent the hell out of the folks maintaining their mobility and geographical freedom and have a ready mechanism to blame it on. The TEQ.

johnny wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 22:38

Shaun Chamberlin wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 14:53 But yes, I share your sadness that the general public currently fail to perceive such benefits. Indeed, it seems to me unlikely that we will see such thoughtful policy implemented in the near future. Despite this assessment though, it also seems to me a possibility worth shooting for.

The only question I have, after reading the summary (and noting that it just had to be hooked to one of the early peak oils of this century to discredit the idea) is that it seems to depend on a majority of the citizens involved (enough to get the right nunmber of elected officials on its side anyway) deciding that operating under a rationing system is alright, for the collective good. And unfortunately, they would also see that rich folks could just buy up as much of their energy share as they wanted, at the expense of those who in light of the winnowing down public support for quite some time now, will sell something just to stay even. And resent the hell out of the folks maintaining their mobility and geographical freedom and have a ready mechanism to blame it on. The TEQ.

Hi johnny, yes, it would need to be implemented democratically, hence the sadness that Adam and I share at the widespread lack of understanding of how preferable it would be to the alternatives.

That said, as the late creator of the TEQs system wrote, implementation via some kind of 'green authoritarianism' would be worse:

Environmental hazards are just the kind of threat—the enemy—which authoritarian regimes need. A main purpose of Lean Logic is to argue that there is another option: lean thinking, which does not tell people what to do, but sets up a clear frame of reference which stimulates—pulls along—the ingenuity and intelligence of people to develop their own responses.

Green authoritarianism starts innocently with sensible-sounding regulation, and then grows without limit: it has the advantage that it never has to be argued through because it short-circuits straight to the begged question: “You have to do [whatever the government happens to want you to do today] in order to tackle climate change—and if you make trouble, you are clearly an enemy of the planet.”

Green authoritarianism fails to activate citizens’ intelligence and motivation; it refuses to recognise the decisive significance of local detail; it discards the potential of trust and imagination; it does not understand incentives; it presents environmental action in terms of adversarial politics, instruction and surveillance; it is committed to the impossible task of protecting the status quo, rather than going along with the creative evolution of the Wheel of Life; it guarantees failure.

Re: rich folks buying as much fuel/energy as they wanted, a big part of the appeal of TEQs is precisely that the system would make this far harder than it currently is - as well as greatly assisting those with less - as explained in the below-linked FAQ on the TEQs website:
https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/faqs/#52

Far from being resented by the poor, TEQs would be their lifeline, which is why fuel poverty campaigners here in the UK were among its first advocates.

Shaun Chamberlin wrote: ↑17 Mar 2023, 13:21 Re: rich folks buying as much fuel/energy as they wanted, a big part of the appeal of TEQs is precisely that the system would make this far harder than it currently is - as well as greatly assisting those with less - as explained in the below-linked FAQ on the TEQs website:
https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/faqs/#52

Faq52 was well written to address my original worry, and then I noticed this:

"studies of TEQs’ impacts". "Government modelling of the distributional impacts of TEQs has"

Having some experience with studies and modeling...it does beg the question if this has been attempted at scale yet? Because there are crazy actors involved, called people, and their macro and micro economic behavior can become quite...unpredictable....under stress of something required of them that even hints at new and exciting, let alone might exist to induce a behaviorial change against their will?

Shaun Chamberlin wrote: Far from being resented by the poor, TEQs would be their lifeline, which is why fuel poverty campaigners here in the UK were among its first advocates.

Well...while fuel poverty campaigners are undoubtedly the first you would expect to line up for any idea that claims to relieve fuel poverty, they aren't the ones with the power who, upon discovering that the new system will clip their wings, decide it might be easier to just throw some more dole money at poor people because damned if anyone is going to cost them a doubling in the cost of their helicopter ride to and from work.

This idea looks to have been around for awhile. Has it reached any level of support during this time, other than the folks who think they will benefit without any obvious side effects? You can always count on that group to go for a new idea.

johnny wrote: ↑20 Mar 2023, 00:10

Shaun Chamberlin wrote: Far from being resented by the poor, TEQs would be their lifeline, which is why fuel poverty campaigners here in the UK were among its first advocates.

Well...while fuel poverty campaigners are undoubtedly the first you would expect to line up for any idea that claims to relieve fuel poverty, they aren't the ones with the power who, upon discovering that the new system will clip their wings, decide it might be easier to just throw some more dole money at poor people because damned if anyone is going to cost them a doubling in the cost of their helicopter ride to and from work.

This idea looks to have been around for awhile. Has it reached any level of support during this time, other than the folks who think they will benefit without any obvious side effects? You can always count on that group to go for a new idea.

Yes, here's the FAQ on that. There's a list at the top of the page, and reading through them all is an excellent way to get a grip on the system, its supporters and the reasons it hasn't yet been implemented, which you touch on.