Motivate energy conscious behaviour
A key element for transforming the housing stock is the development of a society that is more community-minded and environmentally-aware, therefore providing the necessary framework and support for successful implementation of the required policies. Feedback and information on energy consumption are an essential part of raising awareness. The design of utility bills, electricity disclosure labels, the tariff structure and the existence of the standing charge all need to be considered in terms of discouraging energy consumption and improving energy literacy.
A new concept for motivating energy conscious behaviour is the idea of personal carbon allowances. There are a number of benefits from adopting this type of scheme nationally. Firstly, it is equitable because everyone has an equal allowance. Secondly, it will rapidly lead to an informed society, as people understand the carbon impact of their direct fuel purchases. Thirdly, it ensures that carbon reductions can be guaranteed, which is determined by the amount of allowances issued. Finally, it gives individuals the choice of where to make their carbon cuts, for instance offsetting emissions from travel with carbon reductions in the home. A personal carbon allowance scheme or similar has the potential if implemented to create the demand from consumers for low carbon products and lifestyle.
on February 23rd, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Carbon rationing sounds very equitable and fair in practice with everybody having an equal right to emit the same amount of polluting gases. However once people understand the implications and the potential extra costs this will make it very difficult for political parties to sell this as a policy. In particular the differences in efficiency of various houses are likely to make people resent having to purchase extra carbon units and this will be even more unpopular if it starts to have an affect on the value of properties because it could effectively prevent people moving to more efficient houses. As an example look at a house with cavity walls and a pre 1930’s house with solid walls, when considering improving the heat transmission properties of the walls. With the more modern house you can very cheaply improve the efficiency by cavity wall insulation. With the solid wall house this is much more difficult, either internally which will reduce the living space or externally, which is very expensive when compared with cavity wall insulation.
With respect to house improvement you can see fairly readily that people who are better off and better informed will find it much easier to reduce their carbon emissions and that people who are lower down the income scale are going to struggle. You surely can’t expect the goverment to publicly fund all the relevant house improvement, it would just be too expensive.
I realise that generally carbon emissions are roughly proportional to peoples income. Whist this maybe true at the start of a carbon rationing programme it won’t be as the carbon rationing really starts to bite because the better off will be able to reduce their emissions more easily by their greater purchasing power. In a bizzare way it could actually be come to be seen as tax on the worse off!
I’d be interested in how you think these equity issues could be addressed to make this interesting policy idea more palatable?
Regards
Andy Railton
on June 28th, 2006 at 8:22 am
This idea (or equivalent) has a LOT of merit. However, it needs to be extended like the commercial carbon trading scheme.
The main benefit is that it should create public pressure for the changes you seek and we all need in some measure. We could then have a “carbon budget” very much as we have a financial one today.
on August 1st, 2006 at 10:31 am
Andy Railton’s point about equitable upgrading is a valid one. Various other EU countries, however, have already begun to address this. When Sandy Halliday and I examined building regulations in different countries as a Scottish Executive research project, we discovered that both Germany and Holland had successful “ratchet” schemes, which used different methods for ratcheting up energy reduction. In the case of Holland, it was through increasing building regulations, but in the case of Germany, more interestingly, it was through regulations that demand that owners bring up their newly purchased residences to present day building regulation standards in terms of energy, within 2 years. Various grants and incentives to those less able got around the problem Andy mentions of inequity, in the same way as other means tested grants for HECA etc.
We have to get on with regulating the upgrade of the existing stock -this is THE imperative. Without regulation, little changes, despite good intentions.
on October 2nd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Carbon rationing action groups, or CRAGs for short, are currently being set up around the country by people who are keen to cooperate with others in reducing their individual and collective carbon footprints and also explore how the concept of carbon rations might work in practice.
Each group sets itself (1) a carbon budget (i.e. so many kg CO2 per person) and (2) a carbon penalty (i.e. so many pence per kg CO2 for overemitting) payable at the end of the year into a jointly held carbon fund. (No CRAG has as yet decided what to do with their carbon fund, if one indeed materialises!)
Each year we intend to reduce our carbon budgets and presumably adjust the carbon penalty to keep us on track. It may sound clunky and no doubt you will be able to pick all sorts of holes in the idea but it beats feeling frustrated at the government’s lack of action on this issue.
More details on the website:
http://carbonrationing.org.uk – beware, it’s very much a work in progress!
If you feel inspired to join us or even start your own CRAG, please get in touch.
best wishes
Andy Ross