Great idea lets do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This type of "resource allocation" has been available to industry for years allowing high polluters to purchase emission credits from lower polluters. It has also been used as a means to manage wetlands inventories. This is the same concept behind "congestion pricing" on toll roads; highways are typically overbuilt to accomodate anticipated peak conditions, therefore, the theory goes, those who desire to use the road during rush hour should pay more (in order to pay for the extra capacity) than someone who limits their use to a less congested time. How this would work with personal carbon emissions seems tricky, but more (green) power to them.

I'm curious if this charges just individuals, or businesses, too. If both, then really it starts to double and triple tax, right, e.g. electric company pays when it burns coal to produce electricity, then the consumer of electricity pays by not choosing wind-generated electricity, etc.? Couldn't we just as well give tax credits for behavior that we think is good, e.g. buying a Prius or installing solar panels? And wouldn't that be a whole lot less complicated?

interesting.

i like the market based approach, it allows real financial incentives for conservation and consumer choice. the fact that someone could actually earn money by living a very low carbon lifestyle is the highest selling point. scratch that, the best part of this plan is that it is a self-contained market, with the money transfered between individuals, rather than to some central agency. (though i imagine the bank must recoup some of its costs?)

however, i think the finer details are going to be very important. for instance, what if you forgot your card and only have cash? will you then have to buy carbon from the central computer? what about vendors that do not have a connection to the computer? the card requirment itself seems a little too "big brother" for me. putting the price signal directly in the hands of the individual is really powerful, but is it worth the trade off of lost privacy?

perhaps if it were handled as a trust instead, with an equal divided to each citizen and the carbon pricing added at the production side, you could have the benefits of the card plan, without the massive administrative details.

the problem tax credits are that they are so subject to politics, and industry lobbying. a self-contained market would be much more stable.

Looks like the big winner is the Gov't. Another source of revenue to them. Are they required to take the carbon tax and spend it on the environment? If not, they just use it as one more budget filler.

It also appears like a fairly regressive tax. The family of four earning $45,000/yr is taxed on their SUV, traveling to see the relatives, etc.

The single attorney banking $190K could hardly care if he pays out $2K per year in carbon tax.

Higher income people get to live their life however they wish. The carbon tax is felt by those just meeting their living expenses.

Fuel (carbon) taxes are regressive. The person who suggested incentives is closer to the right approach.

With respect to the equity issue, the article had this to say - "The technical work that has been done so far suggests that poorer people would actually do well out of it," the minister told Channel 4 News at Noon.

"It is not the poor who are the biggest emitters of carbon. It is not the poor who have the biggest cars or the biggest holidays or the most aeroplane flights or the most energy inefficient usage."

The article also said - "It extends the principle of carbon trading - already in place between heavy polluters such as power companies and steelmakers - to consumers, with heavy carbon users forced to buy unused allowances from people with greener lifestyles."

The UK already has greenhouse gas emissions trading for some industry. This experiment in extending emissions trading to consumers sounds interesting. In order for it to work, there would need to be some sort of mandatory requirement that airlines, auto manufacturers and other affected industries provide accurate information on the greenhouse gas emitted per customer-mile, per automobile, etc. It would be complicated to do this for the entire economy all at once, so it would probably make sense to take it in phases by going after those instances where they could get the biggest bang for the buck (e.g. autos).

Dan J, read the article, it is not a carbon tax, it is a carbon trading market for individual use. also, it looks like the only revenue to the government would be from penalties paid by those who go over their quota, and do not purchase further emission permits from people who stay under. i would imagine if the system were going to work as advertised, a penalty would have to cost quite a bit more than the market rate, else it would not work as a penalty. perhaps the penalty payments will fund the administration of the program.

well need to wait to see more details, though. i still think it would work better as a trust.

The UK is participating in the EU's cap & trade system for carbon emissions. The EU came up quotas for those emissions, then the nations issued the carbon credits to the regulated industries...mostly the heavy smokestack type, but also those with large generators and boilers (bringing in schools, hospitals, military bases, etc.).

The initial results comparing actual pollution to carbon credits issued were published a couple months ago (for '05). Most EU nations produced less carbon emissions than they'd issued credits for (which isn't great for motivating reductions). The UK was a notable exception, producing far more carbon emissions than it had issued credits for.

By the end of last month, each EU nation was supposed to produce a plan that showed how it would significant reduce its carbon emissions from 2008-2012, focusing on the Kyoto goals. Only Estonia made the deadline. Many of the nations are having significant internal battles between industry and their environmental departments, as reducing pollution costs money and thus can hurt their ability to compete with others not working towards those goals (at all or as aggressively). Many nations, including the UK, are staffing their plans, and none are currently aiming to meet the goals. The EU could reject weak plans, but will it? The UK has proposed more aggressive action than most, because it's further from the Kyoto goals and so far above its EU quota.

It's roughly estimated that the currently regulated carbon sources account for just under half of a nation's emissions...though that list of regulated industries is set to grow some. But in several nations, the categories that create the most total carbon emissions aren't regulated under the cap & trade system: individuals, small farms, etc. It's certainly understandable that governments would eventually start targeting such emissions. Maybe the UK will volunteer to be the guinea pig.

A little off topic but:

1. Oregon is already looking into a mileage/GPS tax. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account low weight vehicles like my plastic Saturn wagon (not that I like GM) which weighs all of 2500lbs. Compare that to a 4300 Subaru legacy wagon or a 6000+ lb hummer.

2. Poor people, it seems to me, have a tendency to drive older, inefficient cars. Gas guzzlers. Plus they tend to live farther away from their work because they can't afford to live in areas that are expensive. There are many that live in rural areas that commute to their workplace.

Umm, doesn't it already work that way? If you consume more gasolene or more electricity then you have to pay more. Seems pretty simple already. If I turn the AC on this weekend then my bill will be larger than if I leave it off. So we already have a system that charges for energy consumption.

andyf: If you consume more gasolene or more electricity then you have to pay more. Seems pretty simple already. If I turn the AC on this weekend then my bill will be larger than if I leave it off. So we already have a system that charges for energy consumption. JK: Close, but just a little off. The idea is to raise the price of non-politically correct energy. This will cause poor people to use less, saving it for the rich. It will also clear the roads for the rich, by forcing poor people out of their cars onto trimet which will lengthen their commute time, taking time away from their family or leaving less time for work. It will just further lower their standard of living.

Do any of these politicians rally care about low income people?

Thanks JK

<hr/>