Under proposal, in the UK, is a personal carbon allocation. People will be tracked by ID numbers and sent statements describing their liability if they exceed allocations.
NCPA reports;
* It would involve people being issued a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.
* As with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.
* If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.
* Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.
What worries me is that plenty of low income people will 'buy' into it seeing a chance to make a buck. But,
Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tons to only 2 tons.
So wouldn't the allocation be well under what the average current consumption is? Even existing low consumers would struggle to stay within limits.
But that assumes that each individual is given the same allocation. What if allocations were progressive according to income/ ability to pay? Then there would be a grand opportunity for the 'poor' to profit from the 'rich'.
Another glorious state wealth redistribution scheme would be achieved.
(Meanwhile, back home, the Trading Emissions Scheme, set to make individual taxpayers poorer, significantly, hangs on Maori Party support. If Maori can get special concessions, then non-Maori can go whistle. New Zealanders may be about to experience the practical effect of having a parliamentary party based on race.)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Complete madness, Lindsay. Barking.
Q: What happens in 2050 if the carbon emissions *haven't* reached their target? And what happens if AGW is proved fallacious in the interim?
Is anyone in power going to be penalised? Is anyone going to remember who the architects of this absurd Act are? (Rhetorical questions, those two).
Post a Comment