I spoke with two Icelandic executive/engineers at a Hydropower conference in Portland OR.  I strongly urged them to blow the dust off of old plans for a HV DC link from Iceland to Scotland.

I think the UK will be in terrible shape from 2012/14 to perhaps 2020.  Iceland could get VERY good prices for their renewable power, perhaps enough profit to pay for the plants & transmission line.

After ~2020, this power could be devoted to producing aluminum in Iceland with any summer surplus (max production, minimum demand) sold south.

I found this impossible to follow. In America, corporations are by law individuals and have the same "rights". They just happen to be sociopathic, narcissistic, extremely powerful and wantonly destructive individuals providing goods & services that apparently justify their insane behavour -- unless you are vested somehow and therefore profit from their behavour. They are going to participate in this complicated system -- how?

You really are proposing to individually control all of the energy use of 60 million people on a weekly basis.

You really want to stop people buying petrol regardless of need (or can you become overdrawn).

You really want to put individuals in the same system as Governments and Companies with their vastly disproportionate resources compared to individuals.

The whole principle is based on Coases Theorm, by Ronald Coase the Nobel Award winning Economist.

Carbon Trading - For Large organisations if you must, TEQ's for all is insanity.

David Flemming is been taken seriously by Government ?

This idea should have been killed at birth, it is far to fine a degree of control and totally disproportionate and impractical. This is a case of environmental facism. I cannot see how organisations like the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, and the British Government can even give it any credability, nor individuals like Colin Challen, the Labour MP for Morley & Rothwell.

This is enviornmental facism.

Sorry to be so intemperate, but this concept deserves ridicule. The attempted justification is bizzare and value ridden.

I will re-read the leaflet and come up with more detailed comments. But I just wanted to express my initial discust and bewiderment at such draconian, impractical, and frankly dangerious proposals.

p.s.
It will be intresting to see if my comment is removed.

Of course the devil is in the details, and I can imagine the specifics of how the rations were determined, especially concerning corporations vs. individuals, would be subject to political tampering (pronounced "lobbying").  Still, its an interesting idea.

Thanks Msrs Fleming and Vernon, I'm curious if you've had any thoughts on the scales at which TEQ's might be implemented. National governments are timid and beholden to the status quo, it would be nice if system could be trialed at a regional or town scale. But thats not really possible without completely excluding other suppliers and consumers, correct? (forgive me if answer is in DF's book, have barely started it).

Abuses and inequities should be minor compared to the huge Cecil B. de Mille production needed for a carbon card. It's easier to carbon tax at major source points like refineries and power plants. Remember we don't yet know the carbon effects of the looming economic slowdown; even coal use could get dragged down.

Nothing else will amount to much of anything, and everything else causes an unnecessary fragility with the high degree of sophistication required.

If you want to survive it politically as a world leader, you harp for a year beforehand on the very real dangers of peak energy production.  The major market crash resulting from this you blame on energy prices, then institute your taxes, and pour the money into development grants + criteria-based rewards(ex: Accept the first plausible bid on a 1 gigawatt solar plant at 1/10 the current per-watt price) for every alternative energy program under the sun - employing a good deal of the people who just lost their jobs.

People may pool quotas, if desired, and those who do best in reducing their energy demand will gain from trading their excess.

I'm not sure how one deals with individual businesses or if new businesses are allowed, by reducing other quotas.

Quotas for all energy is a different matter. Only publicly retailed energy need have quotas. Provided one could build one's own energy infrastructure with one's own energy quota, then private energy should be exempt.

Tony

I am of the (sometimes thought optimistic) opinion that we can continue at our current rate of consumption - that we can even bring the rest of the world much closer to that standard of living, through batshit crazy amounts of development in all non-hydrocarbon energy sources.

The alternative is waiting for a very rapid dropoff in available energy production.  I don't believe that being 25% into the curve will be the same as 75% in - increased, competition, custom, and an emergency desire to keep things going compound to temporarily postpone, then greatly decrease the after-peak production.

Cutting our energy use(mostly for transportation) by 50% in 5 or 10 years in the face of rapidly growing economies is a non-negligible problem, one that could very well topple the Western World governments, cause a collapse of the world economic system, and very possibly start WW3 over up-front military control of the remaining fields.

Being controlled by our addiction is where we get into trouble, as a planet(and at every level below that).  If everyone was able to crow, process, and consume their own cocaine, for example, we would just have a few more addicts ODing, rather than a giant criminal underworld with hundreds of killings a day.

I think that if we were to cut the crap and realize that we're in a losing position, and dedicate ourselves to becoming energy independant by the end of the next decade, disaster can be averted.  But it will require an effort approaching what we put into a world war - a major percentage of the budget, technology, and laborers of entire nations - to implement it fully.

note: (Finally RTFA and realized this was put before parliament) My ideas pertain to the US problem, though I suspect they're somewhat apt in the rest of the developed world, the UK included.  The UK doesn't have the quit ehte same level of inherent economic dependancy on oil that we do - they already tax it heavily, and thus they have a major transit infrastructure in place.

The core question is, how do we set an overall limit on carbon/energy  production and how do we live under that limit. Waiting for the market to give us the appropriate signals is a recipe for disaster as we go over the tipping point. Carbon or energy  taxes might eventually work, but we will be flying blind until such point that we reach the appropriate price level. We will be constantly adjusting taxes and credits until such time as demand is reduced sufficiently.  Again, by the time we reach the appropriate taxation level, we may have lost some precious time. In any event, a carbon/energy tax scheme is still a rationing scheme by another name. In this case, we change the rules under which the market operates, but we are still rationing a scarce resource and "forcing" people to make choices they wouldn't otherwise make under an unregulated market system.

Direct rationing sets carbon limits up front.  There is no question that we are mandating behavior, but this doesn't mean that a market system would not be in play. There would still be a market for carbon credits. And within that market, people are free to buy or sell credits as their individual circumstances and ability to pay warrant. Yes, the very rich would end up consuming what they want, but what else is new. At least, in this instance, the poor and/or the frugal would get some direct economic benefit form their behavior over and above what ehy currently get, which is, maybe, a pat on the back, as everyone else consumes their ass off.  Personally, my current "sacrifices" do little or nothing to actually change the situation.  The vast majority of people are  not like me and I don't expect them to be. It would be nice and would encourage others otherwise not so inclined if they could get some direct benefit from a carbon trading system.

Higher taxes with rebates to low and moderate income people might do the job eventually. However, I think a carbon credit system would be better at giving people immediate feedback for their behavior. The lag time between behavior and payback is much slower under a tax and credit system.

As far as peak oil is concerned, by the time prices really shoot up, it will probably be too late for most people to adjust. Many of us here have or are taking steps to live in an oil deficient world. The vast majority will just end up fuming at the pumps.

As far as fascism is concerned, I think we currently live under a system which very aptly meets the classic definition of fascism.  A carbon trading or taxation system won't change that and has nothing to do with fascism.

And just think.  For birthdays and other special occassions, we would no longer need to scratch our heads as to what to give our loved ones or friends.  A couple of energy/carbon coupons would be the gift that keeps on giving.

• Failure of Government (While increasing Government control). Government as both incompetent and lacking in any forsight. Subsituted for by non-government actors.

• Market Solutions (While imposing rationing).
  

• Internal rationing rather than addressing the fundimental problems of supply/demand. (ID Cards, Road Pricing, TEQ's)

• Power dowen by government dictat and the assumptions behind powerdown. (See Nuclear Power in leaflet - Uranium has been discussed on TOD, and the consensus was not a shortage of fisile material).

• Scope: world population on an individual basis (insane huberis).

• While I understand and accept limits to growth, there are other solutions than rationing. Population measures in poorer contries, other than fossel fuel sources of energy (including Nuclear Power).

This is true paradox of insanity, non-government fascism, and corporative.  The problems are not addressed, but the solutions are imposed by non-government actors, with coporative marketing veneer.

Environmental Fascism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

TEQ's  are in conflict with Road Pricing.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2300741,00.html

Fascism is in vogue!

Which suffers from the same problems.

We need to address the fundimental problems we face, with a view to resolving them, not just accept rationing. Then in the case of extremis, we may need to impose rationing, but not by huge investment in new elaborate rationing and control systems, and pre-emptive rationing.

Government is incompetent relevent to energy.
Markets fail unless in excess supply.

Let just accept the above and impose rationing.

I want action to address the problems, even if the rest of the lemmings are wish to follow David Flemming off the energy cliff to power down utopia.

Acceptable rationing (Growth in low cost Air travel - From PeakOil.com).
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1838313,00.html

We need  to strive for perpetual motion, not accept good intentions in the contest of the scenarios given by Foresight.
http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Intelligent_Infrastructure_Systems/Reports_and_Publications/Intelligent_ Infrastructure_Futures/the_scenarios_2055.pdf

"Perpetual Motion describes a society driven by constant information, consumption and competition. In this world, instant communication and continuing globalisation have fuelled growth: demand for travel remains strong.

"Good Intentions describes a world in which the need to reduce carbon emissions constrains personal mobility. A tough national surveillance system ensures that people travel only if they have sufficient carbon `points'.
Intelligent cars monitor and report on the environmental cost of journeys. In-car systems adjust speed to minimise emissions. Traffic volumes have fallen and mass transportation is used more widely."

But we are not even considering investing in the mass transportation systems (High Speed Rail - National, Light Rail Local), of good intentions but the total faiure that is rationing.

A justification for road pricing?
http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Intelligent_Infrastructure_Systems/Reports_and_Publications/Intelligent_ Infrastructure_Futures/Smart_ProtocolsIntelligentCharging.pdf

We need to provide attractive alternatives, not just price people off the public road infrastruture, when few viable alternatives are available (e.g. Rail already oversubscribed and expensive).

Rationing is a failure of both Government and Markets.
We should not accept rationing as the first or default solution.

But this price spike is exactly what we need:
i) To wake people (and governments) up, that there is a problem
ii) To get the oil companies, especially the slow thinking NOC's to get investing in drills and get more oil out of the ground.

An additional form of rationing (in addition to price) obscures market signals, and ceteris paribas means a lower peak prices, and therefore less investment going forward by oil co's and therefore a steeper (and more disasterous) down slope on the peak. Any form of rationing will reduce the equilibirium price level and reduce the incentives to drill marginal projects.

A price spike, combined with the realisation that this is a longer term problem will push the longer dated oil futures curve up nicely. This is exactly what the IOC's/NOC's need to sell into, to hedge their more marginal projects and insure breakeven.

We need to offset the peak with more drilling!

There's more oil out there and we need to get at it ASAP to offset a steep decline. Like in TheLastSasquatch's energy parable, we need to divert more resources (GDP etc.) to the energy sector to sustain our lifestyle as long as possible (nuclear power stations require 5yrs to build, coal probably about 3yrs..) and I cannot see how acting to reduce the demand artificially preemptively is going to help.

Prices will do the rationing and send the correct signals if peak oil becomes accepted as fact. Getting peak oil accepted is the hurdle that needs to be cleared - markets need to connect high energy prices with peak oil, not the current middle east side-show.

Published on 19 Jul 2006 by Guardian Unlimited. Archived on 20 Jul 2006.
UK: Minister unveils carbon swipe-card plan
by David Adam and David Batty

The environment minister, David Miliband, today unveiled a radical plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by charging individuals for the amount of carbon they use.

Under the proposals, consumers would carry bank cards that record their personal carbon usage. Those who use more energy - with big cars and foreign holidays - would have to buy more carbon points, while those who consume less - those without cars, or people with solar power - would be able to sell their carbon points.

Under the scheme, all UK citizens from the Queen down would be allocated an identical annual carbon allowance, stored as points on an electronic card similar to Air Miles or supermarket loyalty cards.

Points would be deducted at point of sale for every purchase of non-renewable energy. People who did not use their full allocation, such as families who do not own a car, would be able to sell their surplus carbon points into a central bank.
http://www.energybulletin.net/18414.html

- adam at energy bulletin