Capitalist PowerDown - Carbon Shares

[Vortex]

do you mind i'm on p39 now, you have just spoilt the ending!!
I will let you know the conclusion in30 mins

The butler did it!

[stumuz]

Right, now that my head is slightly more round it all the earlier criticisms remain.

1/ It is predicated on equality; equality is flawed (you and I whoever you are, are not equal)
2/ common purpose? Yours or mine? my purpose is to lay on a Thai beach with scantily clad ladies bringing me drinks. Is that your purpose as well?
3/ back to the number of units per country do the Indians and UK get the same amount say 10 units per head , this will substantially raise the Indians standard of living and substantially decrease ours. Or you could give us 10 units and the Indians 2 units because they are used to a lower standard of living. Equality!!!
4/ companies will be at an advantage over small home traders, I sell my advice to companies through a ltd company (which I own) so I automatically get more units. Great
5/ the government has to abide by the scheme, yeh right! We need to invade a country for it?s oil security, we won?t apply the scheme this week!
The UK is an oil driven society, this scheme envisages an independent body having de facto control over energy supply, we are in the ME over energy supply , the government is not going to hand over control to an independent body.

Final criticism, where there is a scheme there is usually a schemer .

[GD]

Before I respond to the other bits, I'd like to ask about this:

3/ back to the number of units per country do the Indians and UK get the same amount say 10 units per head , this will substantially raise the Indians standard of living and substantially decrease ours. Or you could give us 10 units and the Indians 2 units because they are used to a lower standard of living. Equality!!!

What makes you think emissions quotas is a "number of units per country" thing? Where did you see that?

[GD]

do you mind i'm on p39 now, you have just spoilt the ending!!
I will let you know the conclusion in30 mins

The butler did it!

Nope, it was the waiter serving the curry.

[Keepz]

Right, now that my head is slightly more round it all the earlier criticisms remain.

1/ It is predicated on equality; equality is flawed (you and I whoever you are, are not equal)

Actually, we are, in this: one tonne of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere as a result of your activities, does an equal amount of damage to the environment as does one tonne of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere as a result of mine. And that's true whoever we are, even if I'm in the US and you're in India, which is why carbon dioxide emissions saved in one place is just as good as carbon dioxide emissions saved in another and therefore why it's perfectly OK to buy carbon emissions reduction somewhere else rather than do it yourself if it's cheaper. If the same amount of money buys more carbon reduction in place A than in place B, then place A is the best place to spend the money.

Returning to the individual carbon allowance idea, there's a real difficulty in the initial allocation out of allowances:

You can either take the national target and divide it equally among everybody, so everybody gets the same amount and can then buy or sell from each other in order to equalise their allowances with their emissions (those who create lots of emissions, buy; those who reduce them, sell). That's intellectually defensible on the grounds given above, but likely to be extremely difficult politically.

Or you can try to differentiate on various grounds - old people, people who share accommodation, people who have to stay at home because there's no nearby community centre, people with children, people who have easy access to public transport, people who work at home, people who need to drive or fly for their jobs, people from ethnic backgrounds who don't like the cold, etc etc. Before you know it you're into a level of intrusiveness into citizens' personal circumstances which makes the national database look like a civil libertarian's Utopia. And that's before you try to measure each citizen's actual carbon footprint, as opposed to their "expected" one, for enforcement purposes ...

[Shaun Chamberlin]

Right, now that my head is slightly more round it all the earlier criticisms remain..

Hi Stumuz, I?m glad that you took the trouble to read the TEQs booklet before reaching a judgment, as so many people don?t.

Personally when I first heard about TEQs (and read the booklet) I thought it would never work too, and I emailed David Fleming to tell him so. Then I met him at Schumacher College at the end of 2006 and over a number of conversations I was convinced. So much so that I have been working with him for the last few months and have just edited the 2nd edition of that very booklet (now available at the same link where you found the 1st edition before).

Anyway, enough about me, here are my responses to your thoughts:

1) I think points have been well made by others here. TEQs doesn?t assume that we live in an equitable world, but it would make things a little more equitable than they are currently.
2) The common purpose assumed is that the dire consequences of untrammelled climate change are something we all desire to avoid. Similar things could be said about Peak Energy?s potential (probable?) consequences. If you want to laze on a Thai beach with drinks, food etc I think you?re in it with us too!
3) As GD says, there is no ?units per country? in TEQs
4) Companies don?t receive more units than small traders or individuals ? I?m interested in what in the booklet made you think they did?
5) This is a very important point, and one that is complicated to resolve. As detailed in the booklet, the Government has already handed over control of interest rates (not unimportant) to an independent body ? the Monetary Policy Committee. However, the MPC is of course appointed by Government, and the Government does reserve the right to overrule it in times of emergency, so the question of how real its independence is remains. Of course the idea of setting up a group to control something so important that was entirely independent (and thus had no democratic oversight) would be fairly controversial too. Personally, I believe having a similar Energy Policy Committee would be far preferable to putting the responsibility directly onto Government, but I accept it?s a complex issue.

And I now know ?the schemer? behind TEQs (David Fleming) pretty well, and I?m happy that his heart?s in the right place

[Shaun Chamberlin]

This whole TEQs idea is silly.

Vortex (in response to your numbered points):

1) By comparison to many other suggested schemes I?m still convinced TEQs is very simple. If I show someone the ?TEQs in brief? summary from the inside cover they basically get it. Of course going into the details raises further issues, but it?s hard to imagine a satisfactory scheme for dealing with these complicated issues where that wouldn?t be the case.
2) Personally I campaign against ID cards, and I don?t believe TEQs needs them. The monetary value transferred in TEQs transactions won?t be huge so that it suddenly becomes the most desirable target for fraudsters, and the only argument I?ve seen for linking the two is to combat fraud. It no more needs ID cards than do supermarket loyalty cards.
3) If government did do this it would go against the scheme as published, but I agree that it could happen. As with anything that governments might do with which we disagree, we need to protest if they try this.
4) See 3), although this would clearly not be allowed. The Government must be bound under the TEQs budget, or we are talking about a completely different scheme (and an unworkable one at that).
5) See 4)
6) If the rich buy all the TEQs units they desire, then they buy them from the poor. So wealth is redistributed (increased equity over current situation). And the poor cannot be forced to sell their energy Entitlement ? they will only sell what they don?t themselves use. The only problem would be if the poor individual used all of his equal Entitlement and needed more energy but couldn?t afford it because the rich had pushed the price up. This would be a tough situation to be in but would encourage him to reduce his energy usage and boost his income by selling some units at the very high prices available. Again, crucially, the current situation is worse. At present if oil, say, was in short supply the rich could buy all of it ? there would be no protected Entitlement for the poor (here again TEQs represents increased equity over the current situation).
7) TEQs is not designed to be a single international scheme, but I can see it becoming a national scheme used in many countries worldwide. I agree that without an international framework it loses much of its power, but I have little doubt we will see an international framework in place as we go forward ? hopefully one far better than the (in my view) failed Kyoto Protocol.
8) I was worried about this myself, but again, having thought it through, I see no reason for this to be worse under TEQs than it would be were our current frameworks subjected to the coming crises.
9) Then those fuels will simply need to be included if this becomes problematic (eg they are greenhouse gas emitters). Such small details will clearly need to be worked out as the scheme develops. Encouraging people to find new ways of generating the energy they need doesn?t seem in itself a bad thing.
10) Yes, I imagine so too. There are studies being done as we speak into what impacts these might have.
11) Again, a reasonable concern, but I think a flawed one. Surely delaying emissions by 15 years would actually be a benefit to the world? And if the fuel isn?t used in 2010, why would it be unavailable in 2025?
12) TEQs is specifically designed for times like this. What normally happens when problems like this occur? Rationing. Which is what TEQS is. Money won?t buy you oil that isn?t there either, but TEQs will enable whatever is available to be equitably distributed. If, say, gas were the commodity in short supply, there is no reason Tradable Gas Quotas (TGQs) couldn?t be brought in alongside TEQs for emissions. The already existing infrastructure would make this a doddle. Oil or gas failing to reach our shores could very conceivably wreck our whole society, but again, if we had TEQs in place we would be better placed to deal with this than we currently are.

As you say, life on the street as is will be roughly the same under TEQs as it is now, but our society would be more resilient, and we would be better able to react sensibly to the great global oversights of our time. I agree that there will doubtless be some corruption, but of course there always is. The way that TEQs units are ?pulled? through the system and the sense of Common Purpose it helps to engender should minimise this as far as possible.

It?s good to discuss these matters with interested and engaged people, so I hope you will respond if you still are not in agreement.

Best wishes

[Ballard]

I don't think we really need TEQ's

We could do this (sorry to quote myself)...

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... highlight=

So how do we deal with the power-down? The idea of TEQ?s seems sensible enough however the implementation is fraught with the risk of corruption and exploitation, the problem is likely to be human nature not the TEQ concept.

So how about a simple pricing mechanism?

Currently gas and electricity prices are generally charged on a basis of two price bands, usually the first percentage of your gas/electricity bill is charged at a high rate, and the subsequent portion is charged at a lower rate. This is a historic mechanism based on the idea of encouraging the consumer to use more E/G and thus create greater profit for the Energy Company, this is a mechanism designed for a supply outstripping demand situation.

Now that we face a new reality of declining supplies and increasing costs I propose that a new pricing mechanism is adopted by the supply companies (by government mandate if necessary).

This system (for domestic customers) would create four new price bands: -

1. BAND A

The lower band would be free, basic minimum electricity and gas required to cook one warm meal a day and heat and light two rooms would be supplied without charge. This would ensure that the most venerable in our society (pensioners etc) would be effectively removed from ?fuel poverty? (a government pledge) and be able to survive despite future price rises.

2. BAND B

The second price band would run from the lower band up to the apparent UK average consumption, this would be charged at a variable rate. But lower than the current average price.

3. BAND C

The third band would be the standard high rate, this would be considerably higher than the current electricity / gas costs. This is where the discouragement of profligate consumption kicks in and this would be the band where we start to see demand destruction.

4. BAND D

The Final Band would be the high rate, this would be prohibitively expensive, this band would be used to fund band A, and it would discourage profligate energy consumption and ensure that those with the means to pay, fund those without.

These bands and the associate pricing can be adjusted to meet the depletion rates and help the UK to meet its Carbon reduction commitments. They will remove the threat of fuel poverty and promote energy conscious behaviour.

Combined with the existing tax on fuel via the ?Fuel price escalator?, and a tax on aviation fuel this should do the trick?

No need for complicated TEQ?s, all these systems are already in place and well understood by the majority of the population.

[Shaun Chamberlin]

I don't think we really need TEQ's

We could do this (sorry to quote myself)...

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... highlight=

Thanks Ballard, an interesting and appealingly simple idea.

My first thoughts are that it lacks two key things as compared with TEQs though - it doesn't guarantee that we meet our targets in the same way that the cap set by the TEQs budget does, and it doesn't give markets the clear long-term signal needed to stimulate the required long-lead-time energy projects (as provided by the 20 year reducing TEQs budget).