Comments on: All Party Parliamentary TEQs report – rationing, not carbon trading

By: Wm Loli

Wm Loli — Sat, 29 May 2010 02:33:26 +0000

There’s a glitch with your footer.. figured you’d prolly wanna know

By: Shaun Chamberlin

Shaun Chamberlin — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:50:15 +0000

Thanks Robert. As with all my posts, if you click the green links that are embedded in the text you will find more info on the points I raise.

By: Robert Lujan

Robert Lujan — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:49:26 +0000

Good post, thank you. Could you explain the first paragraph more?

By: Shaun Chamberlin

Shaun Chamberlin — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:00:13 +0000

Hi think, To address this, I think we have to unpick the rather misleading 'branding' widely given to the debate. Certainly TEQs is a way of implementing a cap, and certainly it involves trading, but it is a very different beast from schemes like the EU ETS, which are what the term cap and trade is generally used to refer to (although in fact TEQs does also involve the auction of permits to industry - see David Fleming's booklet on his scheme) As I said in the post above, all of these schemes utilise trading, but in the existing cap and trade schemes, the trading takes precedence over the cap (take a look at the video by the Story of Stuff team that I posted a few days ago for more details). What we need is a scheme in which the cap is primary and robust and, I would argue, one that recognises the energy scarcity side to our climate emergency. As I understand them, your last two sentences are a reference to the debate between 'downstream' schemes like TEQs and 'upstream' schemes like Cap and Dividend as the most appropriate way of doing this - you may be interested in my post on this.

By: think

think — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:38:31 +0000

TEQ is still cap-and-trade, it’s just that the permits are given to individuals rather than auctioned to industry with the auction revenue distributed to individuals. It’s quite obviously still a market-based system. It’s also one that burdens individuals with the task of buying and selling their personal credits rather than industry doing so according to the signals their customers send them. I don’t see what is to be gained by doing so.

By: Shaun Chamberlin

Shaun Chamberlin — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:25:41 +0000

Thanks Chris,

I have signed it, although my personal feeling is that it is a bit of a non-statement for UKERC to say that conventional oil supply “may be constrained by physical depletion by 2030″. If I was putting my money on it I’d go for a peak last year! Certainly there is no doubt that physical depletion is already constraining supply – just look at America (and the implications for their foreign policy).

Still, I suppose it might move ‘political reality’ one step closer to physical reality.

By: Chris Jones

Chris Jones — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:47:11 +0000

Shaun,

I have had another go at a petition following the UKERC Oil Depletion Report.

The last one got 560 signatures. Perhaps more this time. I have anchored the new one on George Monbiot’s excellent argument about the contrast in contingency planning, although the characters were limited.

I was very surprised by just how quickly Number 10 approved this (a matter of 3 hours) despite an overlap with something similar.

You can see the new petition at:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UKERCoilreport/

Regards