TEQ's "too difficult to implement"

GD · Post by GD » 05 Jun 2006, 17:01

I was at a public event on Friday evening with a Friends of the Earth spokesman and my local

MP. TEQ's were raised during the Q/A, I was surprised to hear that, briefly:

TEQ's nice idea, but not practical because:

1) Large government schemes tend to be troublesome.
2) Offer an incentive to well off to "buy the right to pollute"

(Also PO was mentioned by the FoE spokesman, who is a geologist).

I thought this would be a good time to write my 1st PO letter to my new MP. So I'm thinking of a response along the lines of:

1) While this may be the case, we all have National Insurance numbers / itemised billing / direct debit's etc... why we can't have an energy account simultaneously should not be that much of a problem.

(1b The incumbents don't seem to be put off with the ID card scheme).

2) Big advantage of TEQ's is the ability to plan that they offer. TEQ's would not be simply a "right to buy pollution" and be an incentive for the well off to carry on polluting behaviour; but on the contrary, offer an ability to see into the future and predict how their current behaviour will erode either their capital or income (or both) and make changes to protect it.

Plus a brief PO primer, and:

2b) Planned energy descent is much more desirable than allowing PO to hit us unprepared.

Any other ideas / critique / suggestions?

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 05 Jun 2006, 18:24

TEQ's would solve the whole riddle, and it would give us a robust monetary system, successively replacing debt-based national currencies. The quota would be a stable thing which the currencies would be valued against. That handily explains why TEQ's will never be implemented.

The monetary system is THE primary information system which keep our interconnected economies running, and the people who run the monetary system get so unimaginable advantages from running it that they will NEVER give it up voluntarily. And when it crash, they will do everything they can think of to restart it.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 06 Jun 2006, 11:44

Maybe TPTB have full confidence in the market to allocate energy resources.

What they know that Joe Public doesn't is that those energy resources aren't going to be available in the first place - hence no need for TEQs. The market will provide rationing by price.

GD · Post by GD » 06 Jun 2006, 13:31

lets forget about TPTB for the minute... we have simpol to deal with them (or revolution if you prefer/can organise such a thing).

I'm thinking of empirical evidence to suggest that the notion that "TEQ's are unworkable" is a load of horsedung.

Anyone disagree with my above post? Any other viewpoints?

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 06 Jun 2006, 14:20

I suppose what we are really talking about is a shift from a fiduciary currency (backed by confidence) to a currency backed by renewable energy.

Buckminster Fuller suggested that the future global currency would be the "world kilowatt dollar" - an energy-backed currency.

With TEQs, the real price of something would be basically what it costs in energy terms to produce it.

Ironically, the $US is already an energy-backed currency (oil), but that system seems to be failing. A renewable-energy backed currency, which is what TEQs are basically leading to, could certainly be workable.

Ultimately TEQs would actually replace currency and become the currency themselves, and I think this is what MacG is saying about the threat to the status quo. That being said - good ideas to tend to win out in the end, despite resistance by the status quo. Witness Bush's climate change denial system collapsing around his ears. Maybe the petrodollar is next, which is what is behind the resistance to TEQs.

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 06 Jun 2006, 15:56

I'm against the descriptions of TEQ systems I've heard so far (eg David Fleming's definition) on account of the many flaws I saw in the plan (not dissimilar to the flaws in the EU emissions trading scheme which has been rather a farce in the first phase and simply ended up with power producers making a fortune at the expense of higher prices for consumers with little impact on emissions. I'm also concerned that the poor and/or ignorant will lose out in any TEQ scheme, depending on how the trading actually functions.

Good idea in principle. In practice, the devil is in the detail and I have no faith in the govt to get it right - at least not until they figure out how to make the EU Emissions trading scheme work.

GD · Post by GD » 06 Jun 2006, 17:40

Why would it not reduce emissions?

I thought the whole idea was to reduce the emissions credits available over time. If it can't plausibly do that then it must be self-defeating.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 07 Jun 2006, 08:34

Tess wrote:Good idea in principle. In practice, the devil is in the detail and I have no faith in the govt to get it right - at least not until they figure out how to make the EU Emissions trading scheme work.

Yes Tess, David Fleming has given us a Good Idea in principle, and as it's about the only show in town with a cat in hell's chance of saving the planet it behoves all of us who are aware that we have a problem, to sort out the devils in the detail and make sure the government do get TEQs right.

Pippa · Post by **Pippa** » 07 Jun 2006, 09:40

What's a TEQ

Post by **mikepepler** » 07 Jun 2006, 09:48

Pippa wrote:What's a TEQ

http://www.teqs.net/

GD · Post by GD » 07 Jun 2006, 12:46

Apologies for just posting assuming anybody would know.

Here's a good document explaining TEQ's and the mess that EU emissions trading is in from the Irish Eco Economics site Feasta.
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/ ... ns2006.pdf

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 07 Jun 2006, 13:10

biffvernon wrote: Yes Tess, David Fleming has given us a Good Idea in principle, and as it's about the only show in town with a cat in hell's chance of saving the planet it behoves all of us who are aware that we have a problem, to sort out the devils in the detail and make sure the government do get TEQs right.

Well, I hope they figure it out. I certainly don't know how to make it work, except to change it from a trading system to one in which people get rebates from the government for any carbon allowances they dont use after x months. In other words you increase the tax on emitting carbon massively and give the cash to those who emit very little. This avoids the terrible suggestion of allowing/tempting people to sell their emission allowances in advance (free loan!) and then finding themselves forced to buy it back later at a premium - something which I think will disproportionately affect poorer families.

But what government is going to give money to people in reward for consuming less? That's no way to run an economy!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 08 Jun 2006, 12:22

Tess wrote: But what government is going to give money to people in reward for consuming less? That's no way to run an economy!

Sounds like a good way to run a finite planet.

GD · Post by GD » 08 Jun 2006, 12:25

Isn't it the polluter and not the govt who pays?

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 08 Jun 2006, 12:31

GD wrote:Isn't it the polluter and not the govt who pays?

Yes. What I meant was it's governments that would set up the scheme, so they would be in effect choosing to reward people (with polluter's cash) for consuming less. And I can't see any neoliberal government taking such an action outside of a war-footing, and even then frankly we'd just have rationing and be done with it. God forbid we should slow the economy!