Simple, if everyone gets ?1 someone will end up with ?1k, same principle.
In WW2 people became rich out of rationing, same will happen with carbon rationing.
Capitalist PowerDown - Carbon Shares
Moderator: Peak Moderation
I think you'd best visit this site that Adam linked:
Adam1 wrote:It sounds (after an admittedly brief scan) like it was inspired by David Fleming's Tradable Energy Quotas concept.
David Fleming wrote:A Brief Guide to TEQs
1. Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) are an electronic system for rationing energy.
2. There are two reasons why energy-rationing may be needed. And soon:
* Climate change: to reduce the carbon dioxide released into the air when oil, gas and coal are used
* Energy supply: to maintain a fair distribution of oil, gas and electric power during shortages
3. TEQs (pronounced ?tex?) are measured in units.
4. Every adult is given an equal number of units. Industry and Government bid for their units at a weekly Tender.
5. At the start of the scheme, a full year's supply is placed on the market. Then, every week, the number of units in the market is topped up with a week's supply.
6. Units can be traded. If you use less than your entitlement, you can sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them.
7. When you buy energy, such as petrol for your car or electricity for your household, units equivalent to that amount of energy are deducted from your TEQs account. Most transactions are automatic, using direct-debit technology.
8. The number of units available is set out in the TEQs Budget, which looks 20 years ahead. The size of the Budget goes down week-by-week ? step-by-step, like a staircase.
9. The Budget is set by an independent Energy Policy Committee.
10. The Government is itself bound by the scheme; its role is to work out how to live within it, and to help the rest of us to do so.
Welcome to Powerswitch, Keeper of the Flame!Keeper of the Flame wrote:But why would the Government need to set the price of a carbon permit? Wouldn't it set itself by the normal workings of supply and demand?
(I hope that's biomass!
)Andy Hunt
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
Eternal Sunshine wrote: I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth.
I have had a quick read it is based on the principle of equality,
4. Every adult is given an equal number of units. Industry and Government bid for their units at a weekly Tender.
The whole scheme is predicated on equality, all i'm saying is we are not equal so if you take equality as an axiom you can only equal down ,not up.The DDA is a good case in point
4. Every adult is given an equal number of units. Industry and Government bid for their units at a weekly Tender.
The whole scheme is predicated on equality, all i'm saying is we are not equal so if you take equality as an axiom you can only equal down ,not up.The DDA is a good case in point
[quote="GD"]The point is that the normal workings of supply and demand don't guarantee conservation.
In fact, as fossil fuels become more expensive, people and corporations are likely to lobby government to reduce the tax, making them cheaper.
But the McKibben scheme is like a Tax to make fossil fuels even more expensive. Except everyone's assets increase in value as the "Tax" increases. Thus people are likely to push for the price to be increased - further encouraging conservation / efficiency.
But if the Government sets the price high, then demand will reduce as industrialists reduce carbon production and hence their need for allowances, either (as you'd hope) through greater efficiency/more use of renewables, or (as may be inevitable) by stopping production in Australia altogether and moving elsewhere where it's not so expensive to produce carbon.
That's all very well - except that some individual citizens will then find they are holding a carbon allowance which, whatever the Australian government says it is worth, is not worth that in fact because nobody will pay them that price for it. The individual citizen's interest is then in encouraging industrialists to increase their carbon output and hence their demand for allowances, so that he has somebody to sell/lease his allowance to - which is surely the direct opposite of the intention
.
Wouldn't the Government be better off using the laws of supply and demand to increase the price of the allowances by reducing the supply of them over time? For example, by making a given percentage of the initial gift to industry, time limited.
In fact, as fossil fuels become more expensive, people and corporations are likely to lobby government to reduce the tax, making them cheaper.
But the McKibben scheme is like a Tax to make fossil fuels even more expensive. Except everyone's assets increase in value as the "Tax" increases. Thus people are likely to push for the price to be increased - further encouraging conservation / efficiency.
But if the Government sets the price high, then demand will reduce as industrialists reduce carbon production and hence their need for allowances, either (as you'd hope) through greater efficiency/more use of renewables, or (as may be inevitable) by stopping production in Australia altogether and moving elsewhere where it's not so expensive to produce carbon.
That's all very well - except that some individual citizens will then find they are holding a carbon allowance which, whatever the Australian government says it is worth, is not worth that in fact because nobody will pay them that price for it. The individual citizen's interest is then in encouraging industrialists to increase their carbon output and hence their demand for allowances, so that he has somebody to sell/lease his allowance to - which is surely the direct opposite of the intention
.Wouldn't the Government be better off using the laws of supply and demand to increase the price of the allowances by reducing the supply of them over time? For example, by making a given percentage of the initial gift to industry, time limited.
Hi Stumuzstumuz wrote:I have had a quick read it is based on the principle of equality,
4. Every adult is given an equal number of units. Industry and Government bid for their units at a weekly Tender.
The whole scheme is predicated on equality, all i'm saying is we are not equal so if you take equality as an axiom you can only equal down ,not up.The DDA is a good case in point
The devil is in the detail with this. It's worth reading the full pdf booklet a few times. It takes a while to get the whole thing and how it would work clear in your head. To be honest, I'm still doing that.
The full booklet deals with many (all?) the good points you and others are raising. David Fleming does publish updates to address the arguments people make. His point is that this is work in progress and that the scheme's success will be a matter of getting the detail and implementation right and (importantly) making sure that the public understand why TEQs are needed, which essentially means being straight with them about the reality of peak energy. That's a problem for the politicians though; rather than a problem intrinsic to TEQs.
The PDF booklet is at http://www.teqs.net/book/teqs.pdf ... all 49 pages of it!
I struggled with this paradox too. Theoretically, if the McKibbin scheme had the effect of creating a zero-carbon emissions economy, everybody would be left with "valuable assets" that are of no use to anyone. But that's not so likely to happen (except maybe with calamitous post peak depletion / die off / mad max type scenarios!)Keeper of the Flame wrote:But if the Government sets the price high, then demand will reduce as industrialists reduce carbon production and hence their need for allowances, either (as you'd hope) through greater efficiency/more use of renewables, or (as may be inevitable) by stopping production in Australia altogether and moving elsewhere where it's not so expensive to produce carbon.
That's all very well - except that some individual citizens will then find they are holding a carbon allowance which, whatever the Australian government says it is worth, is not worth that in fact because nobody will pay them that price for it. The individual citizen's interest is then in encouraging industrialists to increase their carbon output and hence their demand for allowances, so that he has somebody to sell/lease his allowance to - which is surely the direct opposite of the intention
Wouldn't the Government be better off using the laws of supply and demand to increase the price of the allowances by reducing the supply of them over time? For example, by making a given percentage of the initial gift to industry, time limited.
The scheme would start off with permits for an emissions level much less than that of today: McKibbin cites 1990 levels as an example. It's also feasible to "retire" permits, should environmental groups and those otherwise ecologically minded choose to do so.
But it's feasible for fossil fuels to last for decades - the caveat is that we need to get serious about conservation - and pretty quick!
It's funny that you mention a time limit also. That's exacty what McKibbin suggests in his paper - various permits: 1yr / 5yrs / 10yrs / 20yrs.
This is also why Simpol is a necessary political "tool" as well, because multinational corporations undermine the ability of any nation state to introduce schemes like this.Keeper of the Flame wrote:(as may be inevitable) by stopping production in Australia altogether and moving elsewhere where it's not so expensive to produce carbon.
This whole TEQ idea is silly.
1. It is complicated - despite what the PDF says!
2. It will require a detailed Big Brother ID card for everyone.
3. Governments will simply "exempt" certain activities such as defence, MPs pensions etc.
4. Governments will be tempted to print extra TEQs for their own use.
5. Governments will devalue the public TEQs because of the "illicit" consumption the Government has made.
6. The rich will buy all the TEQs they need ... their SUVs will still be rolling around whilst the poor shiver in their unheated houses.
7. It will never be global - so their will be scope for corporations & the rich to travel or trade abroad to sidestep the rules.
8. It will encourage criminality as TEQs become harder to obtain.
9. It will enough people to burn non-TEQ fuels such as turps or waste oil or desks or park benches or car tyres.
10. I suppose that financial schemes will pop up where TEQs rather than money are invested.
11. Hoarding of TEQs could occur ... with them being dumped on the market say 15 years later. They would be valuable ... but there might be insufficient fuel available to honour them.
12. TEQs are NOT energy ... so if say war breaks out then no amount of TEQs will buy you oil which has failed to reach our shores. Such an event could wreck the whole scheme.
I feel that TEQs and similar schemes are simply ideas put forward by intelligent people with too much time on their hands ... but with little "feel" for the real world out there.
The slob with the jet ski, or the company director with a Lexus SUV, or your local MP will simply spit on this sort of scheme. One way or another they will side step it.
This sort of approach will simply give EDS another billion or two to build a crappy computer system, whilst life on the street will roughly be the same with or without TEQs.
The "pecking order" in the world is essentially defined ... the rich & powerful get all they want, the poor get stuffed and the middle classes get conned into doing all the work and into paying for everyone else.
No amount of Green Shield Stamp type schemes will change that.
1. It is complicated - despite what the PDF says!
2. It will require a detailed Big Brother ID card for everyone.
3. Governments will simply "exempt" certain activities such as defence, MPs pensions etc.
4. Governments will be tempted to print extra TEQs for their own use.
5. Governments will devalue the public TEQs because of the "illicit" consumption the Government has made.
6. The rich will buy all the TEQs they need ... their SUVs will still be rolling around whilst the poor shiver in their unheated houses.
7. It will never be global - so their will be scope for corporations & the rich to travel or trade abroad to sidestep the rules.
8. It will encourage criminality as TEQs become harder to obtain.
9. It will enough people to burn non-TEQ fuels such as turps or waste oil or desks or park benches or car tyres.
10. I suppose that financial schemes will pop up where TEQs rather than money are invested.
11. Hoarding of TEQs could occur ... with them being dumped on the market say 15 years later. They would be valuable ... but there might be insufficient fuel available to honour them.
12. TEQs are NOT energy ... so if say war breaks out then no amount of TEQs will buy you oil which has failed to reach our shores. Such an event could wreck the whole scheme.
I feel that TEQs and similar schemes are simply ideas put forward by intelligent people with too much time on their hands ... but with little "feel" for the real world out there.
The slob with the jet ski, or the company director with a Lexus SUV, or your local MP will simply spit on this sort of scheme. One way or another they will side step it.
This sort of approach will simply give EDS another billion or two to build a crappy computer system, whilst life on the street will roughly be the same with or without TEQs.
The "pecking order" in the world is essentially defined ... the rich & powerful get all they want, the poor get stuffed and the middle classes get conned into doing all the work and into paying for everyone else.
No amount of Green Shield Stamp type schemes will change that.