' It’ s not too great a stretch to imagine personal carbon trading beginning life in a small number of geographically discrete communities '
I’ m not sure where it came from, but someone floated the idea of piloting personal carbon trading on the Isle of Wight. The fact that this was such a fanciful idea goes to show just how hard it is to contemplate introducing it. However the idea of isolating a group of people willing to demonstrate it does make some sense. The objective should be to introduce elements of the scheme for which a community could see some real benefit and learn and expand it from there. This would return it to a focus on household energy saving, decarbonised energy services, and decarbonised lifestyles – including food, water and public services. There are many communities right now in need of fair and progressive solutions to natural resource shortages, spiralling energy costs and constraints on the public purse. It’ s not too great a stretch to imagine personal carbon trading beginning life in a small number of geographically discrete communities, using TEQs to incentivise reductions in energy use and trading them to raise funds to support community-owned energy efficiency projects. Their value would soon start to speak for itself.
The future
Is this a policy instrument waiting to be plucked again from the too-difficult shelf when energy scarcity really starts to hit a declining Western economy? Maybe. After all, the main argument against is on the grounds of economic inefficiency, so perhaps the idea just has to wait for the economics to change, or the principles governing the incumbent economic norm.
The original concept is still seen by many as a radical, but attractive, policy instrument for addressing climate change. It’ s crucial, say its proponents, because emissions caused directly by individuals comprise around half of all emissions, and the remainder is caused by them indirectly consuming goods and services. If we fail to engage individuals, then it won’ t be possible to curb emissions.
' If we fail to engage individuals, then it won ' t be possible to curb emissions '
Its detractors don’ t think it’ s feasible because it would be unaffordable and other, neater interventions at the level of big industry are more politically viable and will more efficiently and cheaply decarbonise our economies. Both sides can see the point of view of the other. No-one is comfortable with the status quo and all would like to identify a viable way forward.
In 2013, you could be forgiven for wondering whether the future of the planet should be placed in the hands of an artificial economic device, but its recasting as a policy instrument of local community resilience may yet prove to be right. revolutionise. it 60