Carbon rationing, or carbon trading for all

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by bullet_catcher, Nov 10, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Telegraph reports that Lord Smith of Finsbury, as Chairman of the Environment Agency, has suggested that we should all have our own personal annual carbon allowances. I can see some advantages here.
    (1) we will all need ration cards of some sort, so that means work for civil servants and sub-contractors,
    (2) promotion of the 'black economy' (are we still allowed to say that?) to bypass (1), indirectly boosting the economy (any activity is better than none),
    (3) Courts can deduct carbon points from ration cards as a punishment, perhaps effectively preventing some criminals from travelling abroad
    (4) Individuals can trade their carbon credits in the same iffy way that countries do now. The disadvantage is, I think it will be clumsy to supervise, as the international market does not seem to be formally regulated, so we would have to make up rules from scratch.

    The link is

    And here is the article, to save you the effort
    By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
    Published: 7:00AM GMT 10 Nov 2009

    Lord Smith of Finsbury, the Chairman of the Environment Agency (EA), said introducing a "personal carbon allowances" in the next 20 years was the only way the UK could meet ambitious climate change targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    He said it was the most fair way of rationing carbon than allowing the market to decide in the future when fuels become more expensive.

    Related Articles
    Nuclear plants get go-ahead despite safety fears "Do we simply use a price mechanism so only the rich can take a flight or do we have an allowance mechanisms so that people who do not have much money can take a flight?" he asked.

    The UN Climate Change Conference in December is likely to commit rich countries to cutting their greenhouse gases by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020.

    Speaking at the Environment Agency annual conference, Lord Smith said that the best way to do this is to introduce "carbon taxes" on fossil fuels that will force industry to stop polluting. This will "inevitably" lead to a rise in petrol prices.

    He said the only fiar way forward is to allow everyone a certain amount of carbon so that both rich and poor have the same opportunity to take part in "carbon intensive activities" like flying.

    "We do need to address the issue of equity because what will inevitably come out of Copenhagen is the price of a litre of petrol or taking a flight is likely to go up," he said. "Does that mean you are going to consign people who are on low incomes to not having the ability to do anything that generates more carbon, whereas people who have more money will be able to do what they like? That equity issue is seriously one that we need to think about."
  2. is also raising another another tax according to the Times
    ... and we should reheat cold tea to help save the planet according to Wrap, a government funded quango.
  3. :D Thanks Rockape. I've always been suspicious of quangos since a friend of mine did some research, and found that a lady MP was on three, describing herself as a student on one, a business owner on another, and a housewife on the third. Her day job never actually figured! Still, I'm sure it all helped the aim of joined-up government.
  4. Environmentalists, fook em, I'm not going to play.
    Its a crock of shite and I'm gonna go and buy a V8 Range Rover this week and burn as much fuel as possible.
    If the green lunatics try to limit my usage or tax me to death for it then I'll brew my own petrol.

    Infact if this bollox becomes policy I'm going to start a new hobby of burning used tyres in the park across the road.
    I've just gone and turned my central heating boiler up to full in protest at this green fantasy.
  5. Good idea! I'm about to start hoarding all the carbon I can... I'm going to plant 200 trees this autumn/winter! :D

  6. Fuck them. To implement something so mega complicated, so overbearing, so fcuking nanny state would require a fcuking huge rake of databases, government apparatchiks, even more snooping, and loads of taxpayers cash thrown at companies like Serco or whatever to run it. When you think about it, it really is a mad, mental, fucking lunatic idea even, which has the potential to be a fuck up of epic proportions.

    In fact, it would doubtless require a mahoosive, feck off IT system, and we all know how good the government is at doing that sort of stuff 8O
  7. Let me get this straight...why do we need these complicated bureaucratic systems?

    we know the Yanks are quite skeptical about all the Global Warming business, perhaps this quote from a recent NOAA report explains their attitudes:

    The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
    For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.

    Many, many experts world-wide have been saying that Global Warming is a hoax...I tend to agree.
  8. I know your comment is kind of tongue in cheek but it got me thinking. Why is the UK government persisting with all this crap? Over here, you can pick up a 2001 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer for about £3000, fill the whole thing up from empty for about £35, and "tax" it for 9 months for about £30. It's not even considered a large passenger vehicle around these parts.

    It's all well and good the UK trying to be seen as "taking the lead" on the carbon problem but until they get North America on board the UK carbon footprint is a drop in the carbon ocean. They do need to be brought "on board" and cut down on the size of some of the, frankly ridiculous, vehicles they drive if the issue of carbon footprints etc is to be addressed.

    I smell another revenue producing "green initiative" from Mr Brown and co, with the motorist being targeted again.

    (god, that's a lot of use of the word Carbon)
  9. Please don't fall into the same trap which is to assume that the weather we are experiencing now is the most extreme that we have ever seen or the most representative.

    It isn't. It's another mark on the accurate graph which dates back 150 years, and a mark on a rough and ready graph that dates back several hundred years. The suggestion that we can read accurate weather data from tree rings and ice cores is reasonably true but, in order to draw reasonable conclusions, we will have to wait for another 1-200 years so that we can compare today's data with historical data.

    I bet that I, as a complete amateur, could show you places on Earth that have just had the hottest period in recorded history - and others that have had the coldest period. If you want an example of the latter which fits neatly into your interpretation, look at the Alpine ski resorts - nearly 2m of snow has fallen this autumn....!

    The primary issue is that we are burning (both literally and metaphorically) our way through the Earth's resources at a level that is no longer sustainable. And everyone is ignoring it. Scientists have therefore decided that "carbon" is the way to persuade governments and the population to moderate their behaviour and usage.

    I am not convinced that this will work. IMHO the science is wrong.

  10. well, I don't intend to get into an on-line debate on this topic, but, the fact of the matter is, most climatologists and meteorologists are skeptical of the "science of global warming" as there is not much science involved. Mainly, Al Gore's charts and slides that have been debunked many, many times. Most scientists that support Gore are social scientists, none of whom have any real hard science knowledge.