Offering an Effective Route to a Low Carbon Economy (Cap & Trade for consumers)
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/offering-an-effective-route-to-a-low-carbon-economy[font size=4]A study involving a Plymouth University academic suggests politicians should implement a quantity-based energy quota system to meet emissions targets[/font]
Mr Alan Williams
Media & Communications Officer
16 July 2015
[font size=3]To achieve public support for a transformation to a low carbon society, politicians would be advised to implement a quantity-based energy quota system, with a fixed and decreasing cap on total use, rather than relying on carbon pricing and taxation mechanisms, according to a new study.
…
Uniquely among climate policy solutions, TEQs addresses the bind that arises because 'realists about climatology rightly argue that physical reality bats last and does not negotiate', while 'realists within politics argue with equal validity that any approach that tries to radically transform society against society’s wishes will be resented and, soon enough, rejected'.
…
In contrast, TEQs would increase equality of access to energy, meaning everyone would get a guaranteed entitlement (in the form of allocated TEQs units) to purchase energy. Above that standard entitlement, the more you use, the more you would pay, since you would have to purchase additional TEQs units.
Because the units are tradable, and so can be sold as well as bought, intensive fossil fuel users would effectively have to pay lower energy users for the privilege of using more than their fair share.
…[/font][/font]
= new reply since forum marked as read
> one of the key reasons for the unpopularity of policies such as carbon taxes
> is that they fail to positively engage all people and organisations.
> Instead, by making energy more expensive, they tend to be regressive and
> even divisive, by imposing a greater financial strain on the poorest in society,
> who can end up priced out of the energy market and suffering fuel poverty.
An effective policy could address the natural tendency to inequality but, as
always, is a risk due to the usual political corruption resulting in a policy that
doesn't.
> In contrast, TEQs would increase equality of access to energy, meaning
> everyone would get a guaranteed entitlement (in the form of allocated TEQs
> units) to purchase energy. Above that standard entitlement, the more you use,
> the more you would pay, since you would have to purchase additional TEQs units.
Again, the theory of this proposal is sound and pro-equality but then they
undermine themselves in the next breath ...
> Because the units are tradable, and so can be sold as well as bought,
> intensive fossil fuel users would effectively have to pay lower energy users
> for the privilege of using more than their fair share.
... thus not restricting the FF users (who are the same retards who have held
us back for decades) whilst leading to the exploitation of the lower energy poor.
So, I feel it is a good idea but one that is not likely to make the necessary
impact as it will be watered down & distorted by the same parties as always.
