[Peakoil] Carbon rationing

[Alex P]

A proposal for "carbon rationing" as a fair way to reduce Greenhouse 
emissions.

Alex
O4O4873828

ACT Peak Oil discussion list
http://www.act-peakoil.org

------------- Forwarded message follows -------------
It's Time to Go on a Low-Carbon Diet

 By Mayer Hillman         The Independent UK       Friday 08 July 2005 
The G8 summit is due to release its final communiqué on climate change
today, but unless it recommends rationing carbon emissions, argues Mayer
Hillman, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
    Last summer, substantial extracts from the newly published book How
We Can Save the Planet (Penguin Books), which I wrote with Tina Fawcett,
were featured in The Independent Review. All that has happened since
then reinforces its emphatic conclusions. 
    Current fossil fuel-based lifestyles must be drastically changed to
limit the harsher impacts of climate change. A blind eye is being
collectively turned to the gross insufficiency of action being taken.
The only policy that can prevent the relatively "safe" concentration of
carbon emissions accumulating into the atmosphere from being exceeded is
the Contraction & Convergence programme proposed by the Global Commons
Institute, which aims to lessen emissions at the same time as working
towards an equal per capita ration for the world's population. Rationing
will have to be mandatory - reduction of CO2 emissions on this scale
cannot realistically be achieved on a voluntary basis. 
    Yet the public is in denial. We delude ourselves that our current
energy profligacy - let alone its spread, as reflected in the continuing
rise in road, rail and air travel - does not have to stop. Ask anyone
what they intend to do in retirement, and the great majority will say
"see the world". Ask anyone whether they think government will be
prepared to curtail choice to that end, and they will say "no", glibly
and outrageously implying that we are too selfish to save the planet. 
    Most of the green lobby plays along, with campaigns clearly designed
to avoid alarming the public too much. The current Friends of the Earth
campaign, "The Big Ask", calls for an annual 3 per cent reduction in CO2
emissions without indicating that, for it to be in any way meaningful,
the reduction has to be set within a global context. Moreover, at that
rate, the target of emissions reduction that it agrees to be essential
would be reached far too late to avoid catastrophe. 
    The media, while featuring alarming evidence of climate change,
brazenly promotes fuel-intensive attractions, such as second homes
overseas, the Olympics (in any city), international tourism and
gas-guzzling cars. Industry continues to act as if investment in
energy-efficiency programmes, the development of a hydrogen-based
economy, carbon sequestration and a renaissance in nuclear power will
deliver sufficiently reduced emissions. 
    Meanwhile, the Government willfully continues to hold to the view
that economic growth and protection of the environment are reconcilable
objectives when it is clear that this growth is too closely coupled to
greenhouse gas emissions for this to be possible. It has yet to
acknowledge the seriously disturbing inadequacy of its target of a 60
per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, which falls far short of
what the consensus of climate scientists, including its own expert
advisers, has established to be essential. 
    Against this highly disturbing backcloth, only one solution appears
to be viable: Contraction & Convergence. Support for it is growing
rapidly - all the main political parties, with the exception of Labour,
are behind it (as are the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,
the General Synod of the Church of England and the House of Commons'
Environmental Audit Committee). 
    It cannot be very long, therefore, before the Government admits to
the inadequacy of its hope-for-the-best dependence on developments in
technology. It must surely recognise that the only realistic policy
direction for it to take is C&C, and the early introduction of carbon
rationing. The most important benefit is that this will provide a
framework for delivering the essential reduction needed - and in an
equitable way. There is, too, the issue of social justice with regard to
the Third World, and Africa in particular, as transfer payments are made
to their carbon emission-thrifty populations. 
    Moreover, carbon rationing will allow individuals to choose the way
that suits them best to reduce their emissions, whether that's through
buying into energy-saving measures or through lifestyle changes such as
holidaying closer to home. Trading on the carbon "market" will encourage
this, as people opting for lower-carbon lifestyles will be rewarded by
being able to sell their spare rations, the value of which will rise
steadily as the yearly ration is reduced. The process will create an
ecologically virtuous circle. 
    A conference has just been held, jointly sponsored by the UK Energy
Research Centre and the Policy Studies Institute, focusing on the policy
implications of a low-carbon world for key sectors of the economy. A
report on its proceedings will be published later this month. 
    Since the Second World War, fuel has been readily available at a low
cost, primarily because most of the social and environmental
consequences of its use have been ignored. The outcome - in the form of
a massive increase in mileage by road, rail and, most damagingly, by air
- has been geographical spread, lower residential densities, public and
commercial facilities being sited where they can only conveniently be
reached by car, and ever more far-flung destinations around the world
now accessible by flying. 
    The influence of rationing is difficult to predict, but it will
certainly lead to a considerable reduction in the need for new transport
infrastructure as the demand for travel lessens. Many of the changes
that could be expected as carbon rationing bites, such as more walking
and cycling and a greater dependence on organic and locally produced
food, are likely to impact positively on our quality of life and public
health generally, and thereby lead to a lessening of demand for the NHS.
Carbon rationing will also accelerate the process of a much wider
reliance on energy-conscious design in new and refurbished buildings. 
    There can be no denying that high-carbon businesses such as those
entailing flying - international conferences and sports, cultural
events, overseas holiday-making - will face problems, but, conversely,
carbon rationing will create many new opportunities in, for example,
domestic tourism, organic and low-energy-input farming, the
manufacturing of energy-efficient equipment, the refurbishment of
buildings, renewable energy generators, public transport services and so
on. 
    We are at a political watershed. Both government and opposition
claim that the policies they admit in private to be essential cannot be
adopted in a democratic society without support from the public and the
international community. That implies that we have no choice but to go
down the road to ecological Armageddon with our eyes wide open unless
the public can be won over - all the more reason for the Government to
embark on a crash education programme on the horrendous consequences of
continuing with our energy-profligate lifestyles. Without resolute
action, we will be handing over a dying planet to the next generation.