Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Individual Carbon Rationing
The Sustainable Development Commission in the United Kingdom is set to propose that every Briton be issued a ration card allowing them to emit so much carbon dioxide annually. The idea is that before a Briton could purchase gasoline for her car, or turn on the home heat, or board an airliner, she would have to show that she had enough carbon emission credits to allow her to do so. This is very much along the lines of the Contraction and Convergence idea in which every person on the planet would be issued equal number of carbon credits after the Kyoto Protocol expires.
|6.21.05 @ 12:54PM|#
Weird, that fringe groups or individuals would propose far-out solutions to problems which don't really exist in the first place.
|6.21.05 @ 1:08PM|#
I wonder how many credits are charged when someone craps out an entirely new carbon-based offspring.
gaius marius|6.21.05 @ 1:10PM|#
This is offically "permission to breathe".
lmao -- that's exactly what i thought, mr smacky.
brilliant.
Jeff|6.21.05 @ 1:17PM|#
I expect a law that states that you must inhale 12% more often than you exhale.
|6.21.05 @ 1:20PM|#
I think it's a great idea. People must be held accountable for their emmissions, especially in shared spaces like elevators.
Tim Higgins|6.21.05 @ 1:46PM|#
Will they be transferrable? In other words, could I buy someone else's unused credits on ebay? Or sell mine? Will they regulate that market? I'm not saying that I'm a big fan of this idea, but transferrable quotas can be, relatively speaking, an economically efficient means of controlling emissions. I'm not sure what the cost of distributing cards and scanners would be (astronomical, probably), but I could see having some fun with the markets that would be created to handle this. Carbon arbitrage, anyone?
drf|6.21.05 @ 1:56PM|#
without Tim's credits and tradable permits, this would run
counter to the war on obesiety. Cardiovascular exercise causes more
CO2.
Dr. Thoreau: what studies do you have on this? I know of your
efforts to battle dihydrogenmonoxide.
(the island of the evil Dr. Thoreau?????)
and what if you have the plantinator (cousin to the whizinator, of
course) that you strap on (ooh, he said "strap on") to counter your
own CO2? Or would walking around with a tinfoil hat, gas mask, and
knee pads (a bipartisan compromise) qualify you of having some, um,
"disorder" that could then be covered by socialized medicine or
organized prayer?
my my my. the questions abound.
gaius marius|6.21.05 @ 1:58PM|#
Carbon arbitrage, anyone?
i can see it now -- kentucky couple arrested for the murder of
their nine children; hid bodies in freezer after killing them two
years ago; apparently wished to be able to sell their carbon cards
for whiskey.
drf|6.21.05 @ 2:07PM|#
SPD: only if it's wrapped in the flag for an anti bush statement
or wrapped in styrafoam for an anti kyoto statement. it's clearly
outlined in the memo.
you DID get the memo, didn't you?
|6.21.05 @ 2:07PM|#
"I wonder how many credits are charged when someone craps out an
entirely new carbon-based offspring."
Arguably that would be carbon sequestration rather than
emission.
|6.21.05 @ 2:14PM|#
I look forward to becomming the world's first "Carbon Baron", but I won't hold my breath...
R C Dean|6.21.05 @ 2:16PM|#
Why do suspect that Important People on Official Business would not be burdened with the rationing scheme?
|6.21.05 @ 2:18PM|#
Do you think these people ever stop, and for one brief, shining second perhaps gain a glimmer of insight into just how monumentally fucking stupid stuff like this is?
|6.21.05 @ 2:28PM|#
If this does pass, it would be really cool if the Britons, in a
huge act of mass civil disobedience, burned through their whole
year's carbon ration by Valentine's Day. Or if it's a weekly thing,
by Monday. Then sit back and watch what happens to the
economy.
(By the way, I *DO* think that we need to cut back on carbon
emissions before causing serious damage. But THIS is not the way to
do it.)
|6.21.05 @ 2:44PM|#
I look forward to becomming the world's first "Carbon
Baron", but I won't hold my breath...
Hardy har har
Do you get a discount if you grow plants?
Meh heh.
This invites counter-culture humor. I'm sure there would inevitably
have to be regulations on the types of plants grown.
|6.21.05 @ 3:04PM|#
Look, all we need to do is create some sort of "garden muffler" whereby by all emissions are passed through plants, which convert the waste into oxygen and then pump it back into the intake, thus creating super-fast ulev cars.
|6.21.05 @ 3:17PM|#
This is an easily mocked idea but at some point gasoline will be rationed in America, dontyathink?
|6.21.05 @ 3:24PM|#
This is offically "permission to breathe".
That's beautiful.
Thankfully, methane emissions are still unchecked.
They'll get around to that. "When you break wind, you break the
law."
Re credits for growing plants: Remember that if you should, oh,
burn them for any reason, you'll release carbon back into the air,
canceling your credits.
|6.21.05 @ 3:26PM|#
This is an easily mocked idea but at some point gasoline
will be rationed in America, dontyathink?
It already was, and it might be again at some point in the future.
But as already mentioned, people don't normally exhale
gasoline.
David Woycechowsky|6.21.05 @ 3:31PM|#
A classic tragedy of the commons, if you believe that reducing
emissions really can help.
Propertizing the air sounds like a libertarian solution to me, even
though some people would probably fight to keep this public good
public.
A better solution is to have the US Department of defense redeploy
its defense budget toward figuring out how to get people around
without burning fossil fuels. This is a less direct way to prevent
war, but probably also the most (only?) effective way.
|6.21.05 @ 4:18PM|#
I think this at root some kind of puritanical attack against
people who have sex more than others. More heavy breathing, more
CO2 output.
I'm wondering if the new Pope won't jump on this bandwagon.
|6.21.05 @ 4:51PM|#
Douglas, or perhaps it's a devious plan by Alan Mills to stop all that female grunting at Wimbledon.
R C Dean|6.21.05 @ 4:59PM|#
Propertizing the air sounds like a libertarian solution to
me.
I don't see any basis for property rights in air. The key elements
of property are the ability to identify and the right to exclude,
and I don't see any way to either (a) identify "my" air or (b)
exclude anyone else from "using" it.
|6.21.05 @ 5:12PM|#
Breathing: the ultimate externality, requiring rationing and regulation. Classic. You can almost hear the case for liberty crumbling. Dick van Patten will now assist you with self-termination.
David Woycechowsky|6.21.05 @ 5:15PM|#
Answers for RCD (and more):
ANS 1: your air doesn't need to be identified specifically for it
to be propertized anymore than the bank needs to keep your
greenbacks in a pile in its safe (or anywhere else for that
matter). You are confusing an attribute that most property has to
have with a neccessary attribute needed for something to qualify as
property.
ANS 2. The British government has explained how they plan to
exclude others. that is what their plan is all about.
ANS TO YOUR IMPLICIT QUESTION. I think what you are really driving
at is that the British government isn't yet threatening to
completely propertize air in gross. rather, they are just
propertizing one's prerogative to dump certain kinds of pollution
in one's portion of the air in certain ways. "propertize air" is
used in my earlier post as a category including all proposals to
propertize any aspect of the air. Its just a matter of
degree.
4. FURTHER POINT. If propertization of air is a relative thing,
does it matter what the degree is? theoretically, we could
over-propertize in quantity of propertization, quality of
propertization or both. Where to draw the line is hard. For an
analogous debate, make sure to re-read "the Future of Ideas" by
Prof. Lawrence Lessig, where he discusses at length varius kinds of
overpropertization problems with works of authorship.
5. FINISHING WITH A SLOGAN. Property -- its what separates us from
the anarchists!
|6.21.05 @ 5:30PM|#
D.W.,
Re: Item #5 - I think property is what separates us from the
,b>statists. Anarcho-capitalism would allow every individual to
own his or her property with little or no governmental interference
or restrictions, insofar as they do not affect the properties of
neighboring owners. Statists, OTHO, want to own ALL property as a
collective, ironically in the name of "the people."
If your post was meant to be sarcastic in this regard, please
forgive my idiocy. Thank you.
David Woycechowsky|6.21.05 @ 5:44PM|#
Actually helpful SPD. I thought (perhaps incorrectly) anarchy
meant no government. I then reasoned (perhaps incorrectly) that no
government would mean no property, there would be just possession
instead.
Although I am probably wrong on this, I don't yet see where my
error is.
|6.21.05 @ 6:04PM|#
thoreau, smacky, Stevo:
I meant no such counter-culture implications with regards to my
growing plants at all. None, whatsoever. However, while Stevo's
burning plant matter point is well taken. There's a whole lot of
volume in the unburnt stems and seeds. Plus I could make a killing
in hippie t-shirts and bracelets. Just saying, is all.
P.S. Do you think the CO2 that comes about from the electricity of
a grow light would count against me?
Doug,
Less heavy breathing mean less exercise, which means more fatties.
What do we do now? (That's the sound of the nanny statist's head
exploding)
|6.21.05 @ 6:37PM|#
What!?! Ya mean you guys been breathin' without permission all this time?!! Y'all oughta be roasted on the barbequ pit!
|6.21.05 @ 7:45PM|#
That such a proposal should emanate from the UK should come as
no surprise to H2G2 fans:
"After a while the style settles down a bit and it begins to tell
you things you really need to know, like the fact that the
fabulously beautiful planet Bethselamin is now so worried about the
cumulative erosion by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any
net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete
whilst on the planet is surgically removed from your bodyweight
when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory it is vitally
important to get a receipt."
First time as farce, the second as tragedy (pace Karl).
|6.21.05 @ 9:17PM|#
David W.: figuring out how to get people around without
burning fossil fuels. This is a less direct way to prevent war, but
probably also the most (only?) effective way.
Well, yes. That's why there were no wars before the invention of
the steam engine.
|6.21.05 @ 9:36PM|#
Shelby, you are right. Backinthem days, the between -countries
kind of wars were fought over different natural resources. Mostly
arable land and slaves. For the foreseeable future oil is the
thing. What will be next? Water? Air? Sunlight? Wind? Magma? The
times they are a-changin'.
Anyway, as far as military budget goes, oil is and ought be it for
the right-now. We jus happen to be in that parti'clar part of
history's grand procession.
|6.21.05 @ 9:52PM|#
When we last left the secret designers, they were over in the
other thread working on mind control.
Ya know, if I was the one ever succeeded at mind control, the first
thing I would do is control all the minds so that they all shouted
"troll" in unison when anybody mentioned secret designers or secret
designs. But then, I like my privacy.
|6.21.05 @ 11:16PM|#
Yup, this will work. The alchemists have won and this brings a whole new meaning to the term 'black market'. The price of diamonds will go and people will be grinding down their #2 pencils to use the graphite as heating fool. On the upside we can burn all the sulfur we want.
Jadagul|6.22.05 @ 3:16AM|#
I thought (perhaps incorrectly) anarchy meant no government. I then reasoned (perhaps incorrectly) that no government would mean no property, there would be just possession instead.
David Woycechowsky: the usual anarcho-capitalist take on this is that humans naturally gravitate towards schemes of property; thus they advocate eliminating the state and replacing it with a privately enforced and regulated system of private property. They contend that any state by its nature violates property rights, and thus we should abolish the state to preserve property.
|6.22.05 @ 7:24AM|#
That doesn't sound like "property" to me. That sounds more like tha appraoch squirrels take in respect of their nuts.
|6.22.05 @ 1:14PM|#
David -- I don't think your last sentence is so far off. The
relationship between squirrels and nuts is a natural one, not
requiring the blessings of any government.
We anarcho-capitalists believe the ownership of property is a
natural human right.
It's anarcho-communists who believe "property" can only exist if
it's protected by a government, and therefore the concept of
propety has to go when government is abolished.
Anarcho-capitalists recognize that often property needs to be
protected, but government is neither a necessary nor the most
effective means of doing so. You can do it yourself, or hire
someone else to do it for you, or enter into some other kind of
protective agreement with other people. Your hiring arrangements
and agreements need to be enforced, but that doesn't require a
government either.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com offers a lot of info about
anarcho-capitalism, although the best intro is probably Friedman's
book, The Machinery of Freedom.
David Woycechowsky|6.22.05 @ 1:39PM|#
Stevo,
I am no more than average-level skeptical about the concept. Sobran
(get well soon!) is always telling me to go read Spooner and maybe
someday I will.
I just don't like the use of phrases like "property" or "private
ordering" to be used because these, and other similar, words and
terms have established meanings that do neccessarily presuppose the
existence of a government.
Also, when I hear about how orderly and determinative the
hypothetical private arrangements would be, I can't help thinking
that we would just have a rose by another name.
Anyway, thanks for responding. Your comments were sensible and
helpful to me.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245