If the cap fits, share it

Mark Lynas

Published 31 January 2008

Instead of setting up a new currency in carbon, cap and share utilises the oldest rationing system in the book: the price mechanism

It is strange how little British people know about what goes on in Ireland. The Irish government is just a few months away from introducing a scheme to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions which is revolutionary in its ambition and scope, and could be extraordinarily important as a model for the rest of the world. Yet no one here has heard anything about it. A search I conducted on a news database returned a grand total of zero documents.

Ireland's energy and environment ministers are both Greens, governing in coalition with the more traditional Fianna Fáil party. The Green Party's condition for entering the coalition was a climate-change bill - imported, as is often the custom, from the UK. This bill will be passed soon but, like us, Ireland at present has no coherent programme for actually getting the cuts in carbon emissions that the new legislation will mandate. Except that now the Irish may have invented just the tool for the job. It is called "cap and share". Remember the phrase - you could soon be hearing much more about it.

In previous issues of this magazine, I have argued strongly in favour of carbon rationing, under which every adult citizen would get a share of the country's carbon allowance to "spend" on fossil-fuelled things such as flights, heating and petrol. The idea is radical, and - with its wartime connotations - evokes images of shared sacrifice in the face of a great emergency. However, it would not be easy to implement: because carbon rations would have to be tradable in order to be economically efficient, the government would need to set up and police 48 million carbon accounts. This presents privacy as well as administrative problems. It also establishes carbon as a kind of parallel currency: people who are over their ration limit (or have already sold their share) would have to buy carbon at market prices in order to purchase fuel. We would, in effect, need to become a nation of carbon currency speculators - quite a tall order, when most people can barely even manage their mortgage.

This is where cap and share comes in. The proposal being considered by the Irish government - and likely to be announced in December's budget - takes a very different angle. Carbon permits are created not to regulate individual consumption, but to share among all adult citizens the revenue generated from carbon trading. In order to sell petrol, a company such as Shell would need to have sufficient permits. It would need to buy these from Irish citizens, who would then find themselves receiving £100 or more in the post in order to offset rising prices at the pump.

As Richard Douthwaite, an ecological economist who sits on the council advising the Irish government about the system, explains: "Cap and share is a way of upping the price of fossil fuels and recycling the money to citizens. It is rationing at the top level rather than at the level of individuals."

So, instead of setting up a new currency in carbon, cap and share utilises the oldest rationing system in the book: the price mechanism. You don't need a carbon credit card; petrol will still be bought and sold in plain old money. But the price will go up, because petrol entering the economy will be restricted in line with the legally established need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Instead of going to the companies or the government, however, the extra revenue from these higher prices will be going back to ordinary consumers. The higher price establishes a clear incentive for people to adopt low-carbon lifestyles, while ensuring that the poor are not disadvantaged and that the rich - who tend to have higher emissions - pay more.

Cap and share would not cover the whole economy. The current Irish proposal is for only the road transport sector to be included at the initial stage. Nor need it regulate industrial emissions, which are covered by the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme. Because of the ETS, cap and share need only cover those instances where consumers buy fossil fuels directly, generally for either domestic heating or transport.

If the cap and share scheme is duly implemented, Ireland will have invented an ingenious way of restricting greenhouse-gas emissions with a minimum of pain and fuss. Most people may even find themselves better off. Here in the UK, even though we, too, have a climate bill going through parliament, there is little sign from the government of coherent thinking about how any of it will actually be implemented. I suggest a trip to Dublin - by ferry, of course.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

9 comments from readers

Carl Jones
31 January 2008 at 17:15

Mark, the US "might" adopt such a policy in 20 years time and China in 40 years....I`ll tell you what, lets pop down to Porton Down and lift a few nasty viles and slash the population...now .thats what I call green.LOL

Will Howard
01 February 2008 at 07:13

Knowing something about the cap-and-share approach, I'd like to add a couple of other comments.

First, as mentioned, C&S can be applied parallel to the EUETS to initially cover the 55% of emissions not covered (transport, home heating, etc) so limiting the EUETS to big companies. This is politically expedient, and if C&S is found to be the better method, its scope can be widened later to all emissions.

Second, as it builds up into a global system, C&S provides a way in which those living on very little carbon and a few dollars a day would be provided directly with a dependable second income. It lets us increase carbon prices without crucifying the poor of the world.

This adaptability and fairness of the policy makes it acceptable to enough people to drive the move to zero carbon over the next few decades. More information is available at http://ww.capandshare.org

By the way, a cap-and-share approach is beginning to be discussed in the US under the title of a Sky Trust or cap-and-dividend as a way of rebating the revenue from 100% auctioning of carbon permits by states. In China, cap-and-share may well be seen as both internationally fair and a way of helping to limit the growing gap between rich and poor.

Richard Douthwaite
01 February 2008 at 11:55

There are a number of bridges to be crossed before anyone can be completely confident that the Irish Government will announce in this December's budge that it will use Cap and Share to control road transport emissions. The first will be reached later this month when a British consultancy, AEA Energy and Environment, submits a policy analysis to its client, Comhar, the Irish equivalent of the British Sustainable Development Commission. This will compare C&S with the use of a carbon tax, the other main option for controlling these emissions.

If that report is favourable, Comhar will contract Cambridge Econometrics to carry out an econometric study of the two approaches. This should be delivered in July, in time for the results to be debated publicly and for a decision to be taken on which of the two, or what combination of them, should go into the Budget.

The big factor in favour of C&S is that a carbon tax would have to be very high to reduce Irish CO2 emissions by 3% each year and, even though the government has promised that any such tax will be revenue neutral, it might still be politically unacceptable. With C&S, however, no matter how much had to be added to the price of vehicle fuel to reduce the amount being used, and hence the CO2 put out, the public could be sure that every cent would come back to them. Indeed, because vehicle use is skewed in favour of the better-off, the majority of the population would gain rather than lose.

BritishAirman
01 February 2008 at 12:42

George Monbiot (visiting professor to many UK universities) explains 'carbon rationing' very effectively in his book 'Heat'. That book considers a whole pluthero of issues in reducing the emission rate by up to 90%.

George relates carbon-rationing to what he describes as 'ice-caps'. It is a system that could be sustained given political involvement because rationing is directly related to individual carbon footprints.

Many thanks,

http://markatscotland.blogspot.com

Shaun Chamberlin
01 February 2008 at 13:16

I agree with BritishAirman that carbon rationing is the better bet, and would argue against Mark's contention that such a rationing scheme - or rather Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) as described in Monbiot's book - would constitute a second currency.

In contrast to a currency (with which one can purchase many dfferent things) a ration on its own can only be exchanged for money, in the same way that any goods (boots, apples...) can only be exchanged for money. Tradable rations are thus just one more commodity that can be bought with money, rather than a parallel currency, in much the same way that EU ETS permits are a commodity, rather than a parallel currency threatening the Euro.

Mark also describes "the oldest rationing system in the book: the price mechanism", but isn't this the taxation system rather than a rationing system? 'Rationing by price' (i.e. the richest get whatever's in short supply) has never been a pretty process.

Cap and Share holds the significant advantage over carbon taxation that it incorporates a solid cap, but in other respects it seems to represent a complicated way of raising fuel prices.

Richard Douthwaite above argues that "no matter how much had to be added to the price of vehicle fuel...the public could be sure that every cent would come back to them" but this seems unlikely. We have seen companies pass on the (supposed) cost of purchasing EU ETS permits to consumers through higher prices, why would they not do the same with Cap and Share?

Effectively you would end up with a Government-mandated higher fuel price, followed by a rebate to individuals, followed by a company-mandated higher fuel price. In a world of ever-increasing energy prices and a global oil supply that has not grown since 2005 a scheme that will exacerbate fuel price increases seems the last thing we need.

TEQs it is.

RichieRich
01 February 2008 at 14:24

Richard comments that a tax would have to be very high to bring down fuel consumption. He also comments that C&S would be progressive as the poor drive less than average but would receive an average quantity of the auction revenue. Surely, then, a tax would be more progressive still as the poor would receive an average quantity of a (very) high tax revenue - a revnue that, presumably, would be higher than the auction revenue under C&S!

Pat T
18 February 2008 at 22:03

Hey, we must be doing at least one of these things already because the temperatures stopped warming and since late Spring '07 have actually started cooling. January 2008 was the second coldest January worldwide in 15 years.

Pat T
18 February 2008 at 22:04

What? We haven't done any of these things? The climate goes through such cycles on its own regardless of its use as a pretext for limiting other people's activities? You mean America was right and the rest of the world wrong - again?

Brian Davey
07 April 2008 at 18:41

It's a bit late to add to this discussion which seems to have been dormant for a while. However, I cannot let Shaun Chamberlain's comments pass as he clearly does not understand the mechanism of cap and share. Of course it is true that the primary energy suppliers would pass the price of permits back to consumers. It is also true that citizens would receive a price for the sale of the production authorisation permits to the suppliers of coal, gas and oil. Both happen.

The NET outcome for any individual then depends on whether they lose out more in paying more for more expensive energy than they gain in the sale of their permits. Of whether they gain more from the sale of their permits than they pay extra in rising energy prices. That, in turn, depends on how carbon intensive their lifestyle is. But isn't that what one wants to change? If people have a carbon intensive lifestyle than the average person then, naturally, they end up paying out more than they would gain - and vice versa. By and large people on a low income have a less carbon intensive life style - that is not entirely true and some additional policies might be needed to help some vulnerable people adjust - e.g. elderly people in old houses - but that would be true for TEQs too.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Mark Lynas is a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, and blogs on www.marklynas.org