Tradable Energy Quotas: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
Despite the names “PCT” and “TEQs” often being used interchangeably, the distinction between the two is not merely a matter of marketing, it is the distinction between two discrete schemes, and between two very different cultural approaches. | Despite the names “PCT” and “TEQs” often being used interchangeably, the distinction between the two is not merely a matter of marketing, it is the distinction between two discrete schemes, and between two very different cultural approaches. | ||
It is the distinction between a system that maximises economic growth and hopes to reduce emissions, and one that guarantees emissions reductions and lets the market (and citizens, businesses, communities…) figure out the best solutions within that context. It is the distinction between a ‘market-based framework’ (a la the ineffectual EU ETS) and a framework within which the market is constrained. | '''It is the distinction between a system that maximises economic growth and hopes to reduce emissions, and one that guarantees emissions reductions and lets the market (and citizens, businesses, communities…) figure out the best solutions within that context. It is the distinction between a ‘market-based framework’ (a la the ineffectual EU ETS) and a framework within which the market is constrained.''' | ||
When it comes down to it, there is no getting away from the fact that it is not PCT – an extension of the discredited carbon trading model to the level of the individual – that we need, but TEQs – energy rationing – with the size of our rations determined by energy availability and the latest science on retaining a hospitable climate. | When it comes down to it, there is no getting away from the fact that it is not PCT – an extension of the discredited carbon trading model to the level of the individual – that we need, but TEQs – energy rationing – with the size of our rations determined by energy availability and the latest science on retaining a hospitable climate. | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
Sadly, the slightly subtle distinction between the necessity of utilising trading in an energy rationing scheme, and the insanity of ‘trading as replacement for solution’, leaves plenty of ground for the professional spin doctors to confuse those who don’t have time to unpick the differences, leading us ever closer to the non-solution of a scheme designed to pander to the popular pretence that we can simply ignore the realities of our time." | Sadly, the slightly subtle distinction between the necessity of utilising trading in an energy rationing scheme, and the insanity of ‘trading as replacement for solution’, leaves plenty of ground for the professional spin doctors to confuse those who don’t have time to unpick the differences, leading us ever closer to the non-solution of a scheme designed to pander to the popular pretence that we can simply ignore the realities of our time." | ||
=More Information= | =More Information= | ||
Revision as of 04:16, 10 August 2017
= "an electronic system for fairly reducing consumption of carbon-intensive energy, at the national scale".
URL = http://www.teqs.net/
Other names for Tradable Energy Quotas include: Domestic Tradable Quotas (DTQs), Personal Carbon Allowances (PCAs), Personal Carbon Trading, Carbon Quotas, Personal Carbon Rationing and Tradable Permits.
Description
* Important: TEQ is not a carbon-trading system, but a rationing system to insure equitable use of the available energy
Shaun Chamberlin:
"As the evidence for the utter inapplicability of free market carbon trading to our climate emergency continues to pile up, interest continues to grow in the less PR-friendly alternative – the rationing of carbon-rated energy ... National energy rationing systems on the model of TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas) will be essential to the fair distribution of fuel as shortages unfold, with implementation now an urgent priority for the UK."
Characteristics
"1. Tradable Energy Quotas" (TEQs) is a system to enable nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases along with their use of oil, gas and coal, and to ensure fair access to energy for all.
2. There are two reasons why energy-rationing may be needed:
- a) Climate change: to reduce the greenhouse gases released into the air when oil, gas and coal are used.
- b) 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 free Entitlement of TEQs units. Industry and Government bid for their units at a weekly Tender.
5. At the start of the scheme, a full year's supply of units is placed on the market. Then, every week, the number of units in the market is topped up with a week's supply.
6. If you use less than your Entitlement of units, you can sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them.
7. All fuels (and electricity) carry a "rating" in units; one unit represents one kilogram of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent in other greenhouse gases, released when the fuel is used.
8. When you buy energy, such as petrol for your car or electricity for your household, units corresponding to the amount of energy you have bought are deducted from your TEQs account, in addition to your money payment. TEQs transactions are automatic, using credit-card or (more usually) direct-debit technology.
9. The number of units available on the market is set out in the TEQs Budget, which looks 20 years ahead. The size of the Budget goes down year-by-year - step-by-step, like a staircase.
10. The Budget is set by the Energy Policy Committee, which is independent of the Government.
11. The Government is itself bound by the scheme; its role is to find ways of living within it, and to help the rest of us to do so.
12. TEQs are a national scheme, enabling nations to keep their promises, guaranteeing their carbon reduction commitments within whatever international framework applies at the time."
(http://www.teqs.net/summary.html)
Discussion
How TEQs differ from Personal Carbon Trading
Shaun Chamberlin:
"The EAC came out firmly in favour of what they term ‘Personal Carbon Trading’ (PCT) following DEFRA’s pre-feasibility study in May 2008.
Despite their welcome enthusiasm, I do find this ‘re-branding’ of the debate somewhat pernicious. Of course it is to some extent understandable – politicians deal in public consent, and words like “quotas” and “rationing” bring with them the distinctly unwelcome connotations of shortage and war. Indeed, perhaps only truly horrific words like “taxation” would rank lower in a popularity contest.
Yet a moment’s thought shows us that this bad name is undeserved – rationing is a response to hard times, not the cause of them, and in times of shortage we cry out for fair shares. We need only imagine wartime Britain without a rationing system.
The difficulty today is perhaps that the electorate do not yet recognise the scale or urgency of the energy/climate problem we face, and so are more than happy to do without the inconvenience a solution might bring.
...
Despite the names “PCT” and “TEQs” often being used interchangeably, the distinction between the two is not merely a matter of marketing, it is the distinction between two discrete schemes, and between two very different cultural approaches.
It is the distinction between a system that maximises economic growth and hopes to reduce emissions, and one that guarantees emissions reductions and lets the market (and citizens, businesses, communities…) figure out the best solutions within that context. It is the distinction between a ‘market-based framework’ (a la the ineffectual EU ETS) and a framework within which the market is constrained.
When it comes down to it, there is no getting away from the fact that it is not PCT – an extension of the discredited carbon trading model to the level of the individual – that we need, but TEQs – energy rationing – with the size of our rations determined by energy availability and the latest science on retaining a hospitable climate.
It is true that trading is a necessary part of such a scheme (both since prohibiting the exchange of rations in the past has always led to substantial black market activity, and since certain vocations intrinsically require more energy, meaning that a non-tradable equal entitlement would simply destroy many professions) but it is not the essence of the scheme. The heart of the scheme is a non-negotiable respect for the limits set by physical reality, and a desire to harness the collective genius of the populace in thriving within those limits.
Sadly, the slightly subtle distinction between the necessity of utilising trading in an energy rationing scheme, and the insanity of ‘trading as replacement for solution’, leaves plenty of ground for the professional spin doctors to confuse those who don’t have time to unpick the differences, leading us ever closer to the non-solution of a scheme designed to pander to the popular pretence that we can simply ignore the realities of our time."
More Information
TEQS in depth at http://www.teqs.net/indepth.html