Personal carbon trading

Last updated

Carbon rationing, as a means of reducing CO2 emissions to contain climate change, could take any of several forms. [1] One of them, personal carbon trading, is the generic term for a number of proposed carbon emissions trading schemes under which emissions credits would be allocated to adult individuals on a (broadly) equal per capita basis, within national carbon budgets. [2] Individuals then surrender these credits when buying fuel or electricity. Individuals wanting or needing to emit at a level above that permitted by their initial allocation would be able to purchase additional credits in the personal carbon market from those using less, creating a profit for those individuals who emit at a level below that permitted by their initial allocation. [3]

Contents

Some forms of personal carbon trading (carbon rationing) could be an effective component of climate change mitigation, with the economic recovery of COVID-19 and new technical capacity having opened a favorable window of opportunity for initial test runs of such in appropriate regions, while many questions remain largely unaddressed. [4] [5] [6] However, carbon rationing could have a larger effect on poorer households as "people in the low-income groups may have an above-average energy use, because they live in inefficient homes". [7]

Proposals

Proposals include:

Individuals would most likely hold their emissions credits in electronic accounts, and would surrender them when they make carbon-related purchases, such as electricity, heating fuel and petroleum. PCAs could also require individuals to use credits for public transport. Tradable Energy Quotas would bring all other sectors of society (e.g. industry, government) within the scope of a single scheme.

Individuals who exceed their allocation (i.e. those who want to use more emissions credits than they have been given) would be able to purchase additional credits from those who use less, so individuals that are under allocation would profit from their small carbon footprint. There are two types of carbon credits, Certified Emission Reduction credits EUAs and CERs and Verified Carbon Credits. [17]

Survey results from 2022 - 2023 show that Southern Europeans are more favourable to carbon rationing than people in Northern Europe Southern Europeans are more favourable to carbon rationing than people in Northern Europe.png
Survey results from 2022 - 2023 show that Southern Europeans are more favourable to carbon rationing than people in Northern Europe

Proponents of personal carbon trading claim that it is an equitable way of addressing climate change and peak oil, as it could guarantee that a national economy lives within its agreed carbon budget and ensure fair access to fuel and energy. They also believe it would increase ‘carbon literacy’ among the public, while encouraging more localised economies. [19] For example, in the UK, the city of Manchester claims it is "the first city to undertake to empower all its citizens with carbon literacy." [20]

Personal carbon trading has been criticised for its possible complexity and high implementation costs. As yet, there is minimal reliable data on these issues. There is also the fear that personal "rationing" and trading of allowances will be politically unacceptable, [21] especially if those allowances are used to buy from industries who are already passing on costs from their participation in carbon levy or trading schemes such as the EU ETS.[ citation needed ]

Research in this area [22] [23] has shown that personal carbon trading would be a progressive policy instrument – redistributing money from the rich to the poor – as the rich use more energy than the poor, and so would need to buy allowances from them. This is in contrast to a direct carbon tax, under which all lower income people are worse off, prior to revenue redistribution.

Research and development

In 2021, a study published in Nature Sustainability concluded that personal carbon allowances (PCAs) could be a component of climate change mitigation. They find that the economic recovery from COVID-19 and novel digital technology capacities open a window of opportunity for first trial implementations in climate-conscious technologically advanced countries. PCAs would consist of – e.g. monetary – credit-feedbacks and decreasing default levels – aligned with calculated regional maximum emissions for emission-target achievement – of per capita emissions allowances. The researchers find that recent advances in machine learning technology and "smarter home and transport options make it possible to easily track and manage a large share of individuals' emissions" and that feedback effective in engaging individuals to reduce their energy-related emissions and relevant new personalized apps could be designed. [24] [25] [26] Issues may include privacy, [26] the evaluation of emissions from individuals that e.g. co-run multinational companies, the evaluation of offsets by inducing reductions of emissions by others or overall, accuracy of and requirements for the design of mechanisms to assess environmental impacts of product-, service-, labor- and lifestyle-decisions, requirements for the design and maintenance of anonymized accurate data, international enforcement, scope and loopholes of evaluations, adoption by major emitters in a landscape of globalized economic competition, public acceptance [26] [27] and the availability and prices of products and services.[ additional citation(s) needed ]

Progress towards implementation

Norfolk Island is trialling the world's first personal carbon trading programme, starting in 2011. [28] [29]

The Climate Change Act 2008 also grants powers allowing the UK Government to introduce a personal carbon trading scheme without further primary legislation. [30]

In May 2008 DEFRA completed a feasibility study into TEQs, with the headline finding that "personal carbon trading has potential to engage individuals in taking action to combat climate change, but is essentially ahead of its time and expected costs for implementation are high". Based on this DEFRA announced that "the (UK) Government remains interested in the concept of personal carbon trading and, although it will not be continuing its research programme at this stage, it will monitor the wealth of research focusing on this area and may introduce personal carbon trading if the value of carbon savings and cost implications change". [31]

Later that same month the UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee produced their report on the subject, which concluded that ”personal carbon trading could be essential in helping to reduce our national carbon footprint" and rebuked the Government for delaying a full feasibility study, stating that "although we commend the Government for its intention to maintain engagement in academic work on the topic, we urge it to undertake a stronger role, leading and shaping debate and coordinating research". [32]

Analysts have noted that to implement any effective carbon rationing system, "the government must convince the public that rationing levels are fair, that the system is administered transparently and fairly, and that evaders are few in number, likely to be detected and liable to stiff penalties if found guilty." [33]

A 2010 paper into attitudes towards personal carbon trading suggests a general ambivalence, however the researchers noted that "In fact, moderate support was the commonest view". [34] A four-week consumer trial on Personal Carbon Allowances carried out in London in June 2011 reported that "Participants engaged with the personal carbon allowance concept with enthusiasm". [35]

In January 2011, the UK's All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil published a report into TEQs, garnering significant media coverage. [36] This report highlights the significant research from a number of research centres produced since the Government's feasibility study, and argues that these studies demonstrate the benefits of to be far greater than was acknowledged in the Government's research. Accordingly, it urged them to move quickly to fund moves towards potential implementation in the near future. [37] A 2018 European Commission debate on TEQs also concluded positively, but failed to create significant momentum towards implementation. [13]

Media

Carbon rationing is considered in the feature film The Age of Stupid , [40] released in February 2009. [41]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kyoto Protocol</span> 1997 international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

The Kyoto Protocol (Japanese: 京都議定書, Hepburn: Kyōto Giteisho) was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human-made CO2 emissions are driving it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There were 192 parties (Canada withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012) to the Protocol in 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emissions trading</span> Market-based approach used to control pollution

Emissions trading is a market-based approach to controlling pollution by providing economic incentives for reducing the emissions of pollutants. The concept is also known as cap and trade (CAT) or emissions trading scheme (ETS). One prominent example is carbon emission trading for CO2 and other greenhouse gases which is a tool for climate change mitigation. Other schemes include sulfur dioxide and other pollutants.

Environmental finance is a field within finance that employs market-based environmental policy instruments to improve the ecological impact of investment strategies. The primary objective of environmental finance is to regress the negative impacts of climate change through pricing and trading schemes. The field of environmental finance was established in response to the poor management of economic crises by government bodies globally. Environmental finance aims to reallocate a businesses resources to improve the sustainability of investments whilst also retaining profit margins.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon tax</span> Tax on carbon emissions

A carbon tax is a tax levied on the carbon emissions required to produce goods and services. Carbon taxes are intended to make visible the "hidden" social costs of carbon emissions, which are otherwise felt only in indirect ways like more severe weather events. In this way, they are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing prices of the fossil fuels that emit them when burned. This both decreases demand for goods and services that produce high emissions and incentivizes making them less carbon-intensive. When a hydrocarbon fuel such as coal, petroleum, or natural gas is burned, most or all of its carbon is converted to CO2. Greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, which damages the environment and human health. This negative externality can be reduced by taxing carbon content at any point in the product cycle. Carbon taxes are thus a type of Pigovian tax.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon offsets and credits</span> Carbon dioxide reduction scheme

Carbon offsetting is a trading mechanism that allows entities such as governments, individuals, or businesses to compensate for (i.e. “offset”) their greenhouse gas emissions by supporting projects that reduce, avoid, or remove emissions elsewhere. A carbon credit or offset credit is a transferable financial instrument, that is a derivative of an underlying commodity. It can be bought or sold after certification by a government or independent certification body. When an entity invests in a carbon offsetting program, it receives carbon credits, i.e "tokens" used to account for net climate benefits from one entity to another. One carbon offset or credit represents a reduction, avoidance or removal of one tonne of carbon dioxide or its carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). Offset projects that take place in the future can be considered to be a type of promissory note: The purchaser of the offset credit pays carbon market rates for the credits and in turn receives a promise that the purchaser's greenhouse emissions generated in the present (e.g. a roundtrip flight to London) will be offset by elimination of an equal amount at some point in the future (e.g. 10 to 20 years for planting 110 seedlings). Offsets that were generated in the past are credible only if they were in addition to reductions that would have happened anyway.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Union Emissions Trading System</span> First large greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world

The European Union Emissions Trading System is a carbon emission trading scheme which began in 2005 and is intended to lower greenhouse gas emissions by the European Union countries. Cap and trade schemes limit emissions of specified pollutants over an area and allow companies to trade emissions rights within that area. The EU ETS covers around 45% of the EUs greenhouse gas emissions.

Flexible mechanisms, also sometimes known as Flexibility Mechanisms or Kyoto Mechanisms, refers to emissions trading, the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation. These are mechanisms defined under the Kyoto Protocol intended to lower the overall costs of achieving its emissions targets. These mechanisms enable Parties to achieve emission reductions or to remove carbon from the atmosphere cost-effectively in other countries. While the cost of limiting emissions varies considerably from region to region, the benefit for the atmosphere is in principle the same, wherever the action is taken.

The Climate Stewardship Acts are a series of three acts introduced to the United States Senate by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), with a number of other co-sponsors. Their aim was to introduce a mandatory cap and trade system for greenhouse gases, as a response to the threat of anthropogenic climate change. All three acts failed to gain enough votes to pass through the senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental effects of aviation</span> Effect of emissions from aircraft engines

Aircraft engines produce gases, noise, and particulates from fossil fuel combustion, raising environmental concerns over their global effects and their effects on local air quality. Jet airliners contribute to climate change by emitting carbon dioxide, the best understood greenhouse gas, and, with less scientific understanding, nitrogen oxides, contrails and particulates. Their radiative forcing is estimated at 1.3–1.4 that of CO2 alone, excluding induced cirrus cloud with a very low level of scientific understanding. In 2018, global commercial operations generated 2.4% of all CO2 emissions.

TEQs is a proposal for a national emissions and energy trading scheme that includes personal carbon trading as a central element. It is the subject of significant interest from the UK Government, and is explicitly designed to address both climate change and peak oil.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon price</span> CO2 Emission Market

Carbon pricing is a method for nations to address climate change. The cost is applied to greenhouse gas emissions in order to encourage polluters to reduce the combustion of coal, oil and gas – the main driver of climate change. The method is widely agreed and considered to be efficient. Carbon pricing seeks to address the economic problem that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) are a negative externality – a detrimental product that is not charged for by any market.

The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme was a mandatory carbon emissions reduction scheme in the United Kingdom which applied to large energy-intensive organisations in the public and private sectors. It was estimated that the scheme would reduce carbon emissions by 1.2 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020. In an effort to avoid dangerous climate change, the British Government first committed to cutting UK carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, and in October 2008 increased this commitment to 80%. The scheme has also been credited with driving up demand for energy-efficient goods and services.

The UK Emissions Trading Scheme is the carbon emission trading scheme of the United Kingdom. It is cap and trade and came into operation on 1 January 2021 following the UK's departure from the European Union. The cap is reduced in line with the UK's 2050 net zero commitment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon emission trading</span> An approach to limit climate change by creating a market with limited allowances for CO2 emissions

Carbon emission trading (also called carbon market, emission trading scheme (ETS) or cap and trade) is a type of emission trading scheme designed for carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG). It is a form of carbon pricing. Its purpose is to limit climate change by creating a market with limited allowances for emissions. This can lower competitiveness of fossil fuels and accelerate investments into low carbon sources of energy such as wind power and photovoltaics. Fossil fuels are the main driver for climate change. They account for 89% of all CO2 emissions and 68% of all GHG emissions.

The Chinese national carbon trading scheme is an intensity-based trading system for carbon dioxide emissions by China, which started operating in 2021. This emission trading scheme (ETS) creates a carbon market where emitters can buy and sell emission credits. The scheme will allow carbon emitters to reduce emissions or purchase emission allowances from other emitters. Through this scheme, China will limit emissions while allowing economic freedom for emitters. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) and many major Chinese cities have severe air pollution. The scheme is run by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, which eventually plans to limit emissions from six of China's top carbon dioxide emitting industries. In 2021 it started with its power plants, and covers 40% of China's emissions, which is 15% of world emissions. China was able to gain experience in drafting and implementation of an ETS plan from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where China was part of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). China's national ETS is the largest of its kind, and will help China achieve its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement. In July 2021, permits were being handed out for free rather than auctioned, and the market price per tonne of CO2e was around RMB 50, far less than the EU ETS and the UK ETS.

Emissions Reduction Currency Systems (ERCS) are schemes that provide a positive economic and or social reward for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, either through distribution or redistribution of national currency or through the publishing of coupons, reward points, local currency, or complementary currency.

Although it is a worldwide treaty, the Kyoto Protocol has received criticism.

The reduction of carbon emissions, along with other greenhouse gases (GHGs), has become a vitally important task of international, national and local actors. If we understand governance as the creation of “conditions for ordered rule and collective action” then, given the fact that the reduction of carbon emissions will require concerted collective action, it follows that the governance of carbon will be of paramount concern. We have seen numerous international conferences over the past 20 years tasked with finding a way of facilitating this, and while international agreements have been infamously difficult to reach, action at the national level has been much more effective. In the UK, the Climate Change Act 2008 committed the government to meeting significant carbon reduction targets. In England, these carbon emissions are governed using numerous different instruments, which involve a variety of actors. While it has been argued by authors like Rhodes that there has been a “hollowing out” of the nation state, and that governments have lost their capabilities to govern to a variety of non-state actors and the European Union, the case of carbon governance in England actually runs counter to this. The government body responsible for the task, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), is the “main external dynamic” behind governing actions in this area, and “rather than hollowing out central co-ordination”. The department may rely on other bodies to deliver its desired outcomes, but it is still ultimately responsible for the imposition of the rules and regulations that “steer (carbon) governmental action at the national level”. It is therefore evident that carbon governance in England is hierarchical in nature, in that “legislative decisions and executive decisions” are the main dynamic behind carbon governance action. This does not deny the existence of a network of bodies around DECC who are part of the process, but they are supplementary actors who are steered by central decisions. This article focuses on carbon governance in England as the other countries of the UK all have devolved assemblies who are responsible for the governance of carbon emissions in their respective countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shaun Chamberlin</span> English author and activist

Shaun Chamberlin is an author and activist, based in London, England. He is the author of The Transition Timeline, co-author of several other books including What We Are Fighting For, chair of the Ecological Land Co-operative, and was one of the earliest Extinction Rebellion arrestees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Air travel demand reduction</span> Climate change mitigation method

Air travel demand mitigation or aviation demand reduction or air travel demand reduction is a part of transportation demand management and climate change mitigation.

References

  1. Cox, Stan (2013). "Any way you slice it: The past, present and future of rationing". New Press Books.
  2. ""An introduction to personal carbon trading", Climate Policy journal, Volume 10, Number 4, Sept 2010, pp. 329-338". Archived from the original on 13 July 2011. Retrieved 23 January 2011.
  3. How would TEQs work?, on www.teqs.net
  4. "Analysis | We Need Cap-and-Trade For Individuals As Well As Companies". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 September 2021.
  5. "Pandemic and digitalization set stage for revival of a cast-off idea: Personal carbon allowances". phys.org.
  6. Fuso Nerini, Francesco; Fawcett, Tina; Parag, Yael; Ekins, Paul (16 August 2021). "Personal carbon allowances revisited". Nature Sustainability. 4 (12): 1025–1031. doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00756-w . ISSN   2398-9629.
  7. Swain, Frank. "Can rationing carbon help fight climate change?". BBC. Retrieved 2 December 2021.
  8. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
  9. "RSA CarbonLimited Partners and Supporters". Archived from the original on 19 March 2008. Retrieved 1 April 2008.
  10. UK Government feasibility study into TEQs
  11. The reports from the UK government feasibility study can be downloaded in full here
  12. All Party Parliamentary report into TEQs
  13. 1 2 Molly Scott Cato MEP chairs European Commission debate on TEQs, 19 September 2018
  14. Environmental Change Institute (ECI) – Oxford University
  15. Personal Pollution Allowance Proposal:
  16. End-user Emissions Trading
  17. Types of Carbon Credits
  18. Bank, European Investment (5 June 2023). The EIB Climate Survey: Government action, personal choices and the green transition. European Investment Bank. ISBN   978-92-861-5535-2.
  19. David Fleming (2007), Energy and the Common Purpose, 3rd edition
  20. "Home Page". Carbon Literacy Project. Carbon Literacy Project. Retrieved 14 February 2017.
  21. Parag, Yael; Eyre, Nick (2010). "Barriers for Personal Carbon Trading in the UK policy arena". Climate Policy. 10 (4): 353–368. doi:10.3763/cpol.2009.0009. S2CID   62882992.
  22. The Distributional Impacts of Economic Instruments to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transport, Simon Dresner and Paul Ekins, Policy Studies Institute
  23. Joshua Thumim and Vicki White, Centre for Sustainable Energy (2008). Distributional Impacts of Personal Carbon Trading: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra, London Archived 26 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine
  24. "Analysis | We Need Cap-and-Trade For Individuals As Well As Companies". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 September 2021.
  25. "Pandemic and digitalization set stage for revival of a cast-off idea: Personal carbon allowances". phys.org.
  26. 1 2 3 Fuso Nerini, Francesco; Fawcett, Tina; Parag, Yael; Ekins, Paul (16 August 2021). "Personal carbon allowances revisited". Nature Sustainability. 4 (12): 1025–1031. doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00756-w . ISSN   2398-9629.
  27. Fawcett, Tina (1 November 2010). "Personal carbon trading: A policy ahead of its time?". Energy Policy. 38 (11): 6868–6876. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.001. ISSN   0301-4215.
  28. Media release: Norfolk Island to trial world first Personal Carbon Trading program - 27/10/2010
  29. "Norfolk Island Carbon/Health Evaluation (NICHE) website". Archived from the original on 28 December 2012. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  30. "What is the progress towards seeing TEQs implemented in the UK?", from TEQs website - accessed 23 Jan 2011
  31. DEFRA press release - 8 May 2008 Archived 18 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine
  32. Environmental Audit Committee - Personal Carbon Trading: Fifth Report of Session 2007–08
  33. Roodhouse, Mark (March 2007). "Rationing returns: a solution to global warming?". History & Policy. United Kingdom: History & Policy. Retrieved 9 December 2010.
  34. Public attitudes to personal carbon allowances: findings from a mixed-method study
  35. "Personal Carbon Allowances White Paper". United Kingdom: Carbon Trust Advisory and The Coca-Cola Company. April 2012. Retrieved 14 August 2012.
  36. Media coverage of All Party Parliamentary report into TEQs, from www.teqs.net, accessed 23 Jan 2011
  37. All Party Parliamentary report into TEQs
  38. Home | CRAGs Archived 30 November 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  39. Howell, Rachel A. (2012). "Living with a carbon allowance: The experiences of Carbon Rationing Action Groups and implications for policy" (PDF). Energy Policy. 41: 250–258. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.044.
  40. Brendan Barrett, "Better than Star Wars: The Age of Stupid", 25 September 2009
  41. Release dates for The Age of Stupid - IMDb

General

TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas) – formerly known as Domestic Tradable Quotas