Carbon rationing: the only realistic strategy

Popular Articles

The considerable reduction of carbon emissions needed to prevent climate catastrophe cannot be achieved on a voluntary basis. Instead, the urgent transition to very low energy lifestyles requires government to set mandatory targets based on per capita carbon rationing. Such a strategy will lead to a far greater and faster take-up of energy saving practices and energy efficient measures than would otherwise occur and an essential process that industry will be increasingly motivated to facilitate.

INTRODUCTION

The time is over for denial that catastrophe is inevitable without drastic reduction in the world’s use of fossil
fuels and in deforestation. The problem largely stems from burning the reserves of the sun’s energy accumulated over millions of years to raise material standards during the past 200 years, dramatically so in affluent countries.

Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are dangerously close to exceeding a safe ‘ceiling’. The consequences are already apparent in the recent acceleration in the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves, growing desertification in Africa and China, flooding in Bangladesh and heat waves in Australia. There is the distinct prospect of sea level rises resulting in a shrinking habitable land mass on which a burgeoning world population will have to live. The latest IPCC report includes the dire calculation that a drastic curtailment to zero carbon emissions must be achieved: not the widely accepted 60 per cent reduction on 1990 levels by 2050. The fact that the calculation did not take account of the implications of more alarming recent data on feedback mechanisms, such as the effects of methane release in tundra regions of the Northern hemisphere due to increasing temperatures, should add to our concern.

SLEEPWALKING

The focus of efforts at all levels of society, including government, to limit damage from climate change appears to be very narrow. It is aimed at the actions individuals and industry can take in switching to lower carbon lifestyles and the barriers that are seen to be in the way of adoption. Against a background of considerable opportunities for reducing carbon emissions, most attention is in promoting energy efficiency, exploiting energy renewable sources of supply for generating electricity, and identifying the most effective policies that government can adopt to encourage these actions. Implicit in this approach is the view that, in time, they will lead to sufficient emissions reduction and that the public, industry and commerce can be motivated to deliver this voluntarily, encouraged by better information, offers of grants and the setting by government of higher standards.

The public has been led to believe that it has a right to ever rising improvements in its fossil fuel-dependent material standards and life choices. Statements of all main political parties give a strong impression that such a future is possible without the need for major behavioural changes. There is a failure to alert the public to the awesome prospects for life on Earth later this century and beyond if businesses dependent on high use of fossil fuels continue on a path of growth.

FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTIONS

Behind this lack of recognition of the need for drastic action lies a judgement that the primary way of improving the public’s welfare and quality of life is through the medium of economic growth; its slow down cannot under any circumstances be contemplated. Indeed, it is asserted that growth can be reconciled with protection of the global environment from the ravages of climate change and implied that it can be maintained in perpetuity.

Allied to this judgement are many beliefs which have wide support such as:

‘Green’ taxation, combined with market forces and regulation to limit any adverse effects, can allow the economy to grow without leading to accelerating diseconomies
People have an inalienable right to engage in environmentally damaging activities if there are no acceptable alternative means of doing so
Science and technology can be relied on to make a major contribution in reversing the process of climate change and major behavioural changes will be unnecessary
Offsetting carbon emissions by paying for their reduction in developing countries, thereby enabling people in affluent parts of the world to maintain their energy intensive lifestyles, should be interpreted both as a welcome contribution to their overall reduction and as morally defensible
Modest reductions in GHG emissions are indicative of a process that should be supported as it will eventually lead to sufficient reductions
There is sufficient time left for this process to prove effective and the costs will be found to achieve the transfer to a sufficiently low carbon economy.

QUIS CUSTODIET?

Government is rightly seen as having both the prime responsibility and the authority to reach decisions to protect the public interest in light of how grave it sees any situation to be. Given the public’s increasing addiction to energy intensive lifestyles, and given little indication of its preparedness to give them up, it is evident that government must be far more effective than it has demonstrated to date. It is unrealistic to expect many individuals or communities to act unilaterally when others are not doing so. Nor is it realistic to expect sufficient success to come in the wake of businesses ‘going it alone’ in adopting green practices, even though more and more of them are doing so.

At the heart of the problem is the need, yet to be fulfilled, to educate the public about the gravity of the situation. Only in this way can there be the realistic prospect of the draconian measures that must be taken not being dismissed as unacceptable diktat in a democracy.

THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY

Climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution with no country immune from its depredations. Any effective strategy must be based on reaching an internationally binding agreement. Only in this way can the world community be adequately engaged in sharing the atmospheric sink for the safe absorption of GHG emissions. The framework for such an agreement, Contraction & Convergence (C&C), first put forward by the Global Commons Institute 12 years ago, is explained in an article by Aubrey Meyer, p122. It is founded on the fundamental principles of justice and equity. It is obvious that the issue of the fair distribution of a basic component of everyday life to which everyone has an equal claim cannot be side-stepped.

TRADABLE PERSONAL CARBON ALLOWANCE

As people cannot be relied upon to meet their ecological responsibilities, governments must require them to do so and therefore the national manifestation of C&C has to be personal carbon rationing. Based on the equity principle, everyone would be given the same annual Personal Carbon Allowance (PCA). They would then be strongly motivated to reduce activity dependent on fossil fuel use, improve energy efficiency and use renewable energy in order to live more easily within their carbon allowance. The allowance will have to decrease steadily year on year in line with the negotiated international reductions agreed on the basis of the most up to date scientific knowledge of the safe level of concentrations of GHGs. By giving due warning of the annual reduction in the future allowance, people will be able to alter their homes, transport arrangements and general lifestyles at the least cost to themselves and in the way they prefer.

PROMOTING CARBON THRIFTY BEHAVIOUR

The PCA will act as a parallel currency to real money with a key feature being the buying and selling of its units. In this way, it will create an ecologically-virtuous circle. Those who lead less energy intensive lives and who invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy are unlikely to use all their allowance. Thus the energy thrifty will not only be spending less on fuel but will add to their income by being able to sell their surplus units. Those who maintain high energy activity patterns will have to buy these units. But the cost of doing so will not be determined by economists attempting the near impossible task of attaching a monetary value to the effects of adding to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for over 100 years, such as resettling ecological refugees fleeing their homes owing to climate change. Instead the value will simply be a function of the availability of the surplus set against the demand for it on the open market, inevitably rising in line with the annual reduction in the allowance. In effect, this ‘conserver gains principle’ will complement the conventional ‘polluter pays principle’ and act as a driver towards minimising the awesome impact of climate change far more effectively than by attempting to encourage individuals to follow green practices.

THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

What are the implications for the business community of the adoption of the international framework of C&C and the application of PCAs? In the light of the previous comments, that is easy to answer. Business will logically react to the changes in public demand for the goods and services it provides. The more it is able to anticipate what these changes will be, the more successful it will be.
As the annual allowance is reduced year on year down to the level that must be reached urgently, so will the demand fall away for such energy intensive practices and activities as using energy inefficient appliances, living and working in poorly insulated buildings, taking up jobs and shopping in locations which entail much motorised travel. By marked contrast, a sharply rising demand for heavily insulated homes and the most efficient equipment available, for local patterns of activity and holidays that can be reached without surrendering an unrealistic number of units of the annual PCA for transport, will be the logical outcome. The business community will be able to foresee and cater for these changes following the take up of this inevitable political strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

We all have a crucial role in tackling climate change. But it is wishful thinking to believe that this will happen at the level necessary unless everyone is subject to a mandatory requirement to do so. In the UK, for example, this necessary level translates to a reduction in CO2 from the current annual average of about 10 tonnes to just one tonne. No one must be allowed to continue to pass the buck between individuals, industry and government in an attempt to evade responsibility for contributing their fair share of a radical shift to a drastic reduction of carbon emissions. Government is the only body that can achieve this, by taking the immediate steps to reach an international agreement on the massive switch to very low carbon lifestyles and to introduce carbon rationing.

Responding to climate change is ultimately a moral choice. Given the urgency of the situation, the implications of failure to limit our emissions to a safe level are dire. We can no longer proceed as if we have a right to turn a blind eye to the damage we are causing. The distinct likelihood if we do, is to bequeath a dying planet to the generations succeeding us on the planet.

Author

Dr Mayer Hillman, a social scientist, is Senior Fellow Emeritus of Policy Studies Institute in London. His studies since 1970 have been concerned with transport, urban planning, energy conservation, health promotion, road safety and environment policies, notably those relating to climate change. He is the author or co-author of more than 40 books on these subjects. Many of the themes in this article are drawn, for example, from the contents of his books: How we can save the planet, published by Penguin and The suicidal planet: how to prevent global climate catastrophe, published by Thomas Dunne Books.

Organisation

Policy Studies Institute is run on a not-for-profit basis and carries out studies on environmental, employment and social issues. It uses the most advanced methods and professional expertise to aid the formulation of policy. It was formed in 1978 through the merger of Political and Economic Planning (established in 1931) and the Centre for Studies in Social Policy (established in 1972) and in 1998 became an independent subsidiary of the University of Westminster.

Enquiries

Dr Mayer Hillman
Policy Studies Institute
50 Hanson Street
London, W1W 6UP
Tel: 020 7911 7500 | Fax: 020 7911 7501
E-mail:

Website: http://www.psi.org.uk

Climate Action - Assisting business towards carbon neutrality