by Shaun Chamberlin | Dec 1, 2009 | All Posts, Climate Change, Politics, TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas)
The Story of Cap & Trade is the second offering from the project that brought us The Story of Stuff. In this ten minute video, host Annie Leonard presents an excellent, clearly explained look at some of the devil in the detail of Cap &...
by Shaun Chamberlin | Aug 14, 2009 | All Posts, Climate Change, Cultural stories, Favourite posts, Peak Oil, Politics, TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas)
As the evidence for the utter inapplicability of free market carbon trading to our climate emergency continues to pile up, interest continues to grow in the less PR-friendly alternative - the rationing of carbon-rated energy.
Yesterday, the UK Government's All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and Gas previewed a draft report commissioned from The Lean Economy Connection. The report, which I co-authored with Dr. David Fleming, emphasises the necessity of considering our pressing energy challenges alongside climate change, and argues that national energy rationing systems on the model of TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas) will be essential to the fair distribution of fuel as shortages unfold, with implementation now an urgent priority for the UK.
John Hemming MP, Chairman of the All Party group, stated that the UK government remains unprepared for peak oil: "The evidence is now strong that peak oil is either upon us or just over the horizon. Even the International Energy Agency accepts that an oil supply crunch seems to be on its way. The UK government should urgently consider the TEQs system, as I believe it's the only comprehensive and fair way to tackle climate change and the coming oil crisis."
"The alternative to rationing by tradable quotas is to hold back consumption through massive price increases. This gives economic instability, unemployment and fuel poverty. We need to plan for a system to give some stability in what will soon be a sellers market for fossil fuels rather than a buyers market."
TEQs were also the subject of a Parliamentary Westminster Hall debate on the 18th June, called by the Chairman of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, after the EAC came out firmly in favour of what they term 'Personal Carbon Trading' (PCT) following DEFRA's pre-feasibility study in May 2008.
Despite their welcome enthusiasm, I do find this 're-branding' of the debate somewhat pernicious. Of course it is to some extent understandable - politicians deal in public consent, and words like "quotas" and "rationing" bring with them the distinctly unwelcome connotations of shortage and war. Indeed, perhaps only truly horrific words like "taxation" would rank lower in a popularity contest.
Yet a moment's thought shows us that this bad name is undeserved - rationing is a response to hard times, not the cause of them, and in times of shortage we cry out for fair shares. We need only imagine wartime Britain without a rationing system.
The difficulty today is perhaps that the electorate do not yet recognise the scale or urgency of the energy/climate problem we face, and so are more than happy to do without the inconvenience a solution might bring.
Still, politics is politics, we might think, and in a democracy ideas must be 'sold' to the electorate (here H.L. Mencken comes to mind: "Democracy is the system where everybody gets what the majority deserve").
Yet despite the names "PCT" and "TEQs" often being used interchangeably, the distinction between the two is not merely a matter of marketing, it is the distinction between two discrete schemes, and between two very different cultural approaches.
It is the distinction between a system that maximises economic growth and hopes to reduce emissions, and one that guarantees emissions reductions and lets the market (and citizens, businesses, communities...) figure out the best solutions within that context. It is the distinction between a 'market-based framework' (a la the ineffectual EU ETS) and a framework within which the market is constrained.
When it comes down to it, there is no getting away from the fact that it is not PCT - an extension of the discredited carbon trading model to the level of the individual - that we need, but TEQs - energy rationing - with the size of our rations determined by energy availability and the latest science on retaining a hospitable climate.
It is true that trading is a necessary part of such a scheme (both since prohibiting the exchange of rations in the past has always led to substantial black market activity, and since certain vocations intrinsically require more energy, meaning that a non-tradable equal entitlement would simply destroy many professions) but it is not the essence of the scheme. The heart of the scheme is a non-negotiable respect for the limits set by physical reality, and a desire to harness the collective genius of the populace in thriving within those limits.
Sadly, the slightly subtle distinction between the necessity of utilising trading in an energy rationing scheme, and the insanity of 'trading as replacement for solution', leaves plenty of ground for the professional spin doctors to confuse those who don't have time to unpick the differences, leading us ever closer to the non-solution of a scheme designed to pander to the popular pretence that we can simply ignore the realities of our time.
---
The Dutch edition of David Fleming's seminal description of TEQs - Energy and the Common Purpose - has also recently been published.
by Shaun Chamberlin | Jun 4, 2009 | All Posts, Climate Change, Cultural stories, Favourite posts, Peak Oil, Politics, Reviews and recommendations, TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas), The Transition Timeline, Transition Movement
It has been another crazy whirlwind of a month, with this weekend set to be the first in five which I get to spend in Transition Town Home, having spoken recently in Bungay, Glastonbury, Belsize Park and the Forest of Dean, as well at the Transition Conference (I hate that name, can't we call it a 'Gathering' or something?) in Battersea, and at the Sunrise Celebration Festival.
One highlight for me was watching the world première of the movie "In Transition" and being surprised and delighted to find that I was in it (having completely forgotten the quick interview they grabbed with me at my book launch!). Another was meeting an A-Level teacher who is already using my book as a teaching aid for his Environmental Design students.
But perhaps of wider interest was the fact that Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, turned up at the Transition Conference as a 'keynote listener', but still managed to drop a few bombshells.
When we buttonholed him for a bit of a chat (audio here, courtesy of Traydio.com), I was pleased to hear that he understood the need for Government to remain a step removed from the Transition movement in order to avoid "strangling" it. However, I must confess I had to refrain from gasping as he declared that:
"If you think about the history of the debate on peak oil as I understand it, climate change makes debate about peak oil a bit of a second-order debate, because we have to start making the transition to low carbon forms of energy in any case. Whether you think that peak oil's in 2020, 2030 or 2040... I don't need to have the debate about peak oil... to know that we have to start making the transition as quickly as possible."
Where to begin? Clearly Ed's understanding of the history of the peak oil debate differs a little from mine. Let's start with the obvious - with many experts agreeing that we likely saw peak oil last year, for our Minister for Energy to be pondering how many decades in the future it might lie is, frankly, terrifying.
But what I personally find even more worrying is that he (and thus presumably his department) has not yet grasped that climate change and peak oil often pull in opposite directions. Perhaps Ed should cast his eyes across the Atlantic to the US Congress, where the advocates of Climate Change Bills (to implement strict carbon budgets) are doing battle with the champions of Energy Independence Bills (to subsidise carbon-intensive tar sands and coal-to-liquids projects).
As I wrote here last year, and more recently in The Transition Timeline, there is a very real tension between addressing climate change and addressing peak oil, and policy based purely on one side of this equation could be very destructive indeed. Unfortunately, our government is still caught on the horns of this 'supply side dilemma', and is desperately casting around for more rapidly-deployable low-carbon energy supplies.
It is only slowly dawning on them that renewable supply cannot increase as fast as oil and gas are declining, that nuclear only makes the problem worse, and that coal is not an option if we want a habitable planet. The inescapable conclusion is that if we are to treat climate change with the seriousness which it undoubtedly deserves, then we may well have already entered our years of energy descent. The only reasonable response is to find ways to thrive in this context - to reduce energy demand in line with the reducing supply - but as yet Ed still believes that only Denial sells to the voting public:
"In a way I'm less optimistic than you are... you're optimistic that you can persuade people to adopt a sort of "no growth" model of society - I'm pretty convinced that you couldn't persuade people of that... Even if you were right about your model of society, I just don't believe that you're going to convince people of that"
Actually, I do agree with Ed that we need to think long and hard about what "economic growth" actually means before we debate whether we want it, though I'm not sure we'll see eye-to-eye when that debate reaches its head.
Of course it doesn't come as an overwhelming surprise to see my perspective deemed darker yet more optimistic than the Government view, but since the Transition Vision of the future seems about the only desirable outcome out there to shoot for, I think I'll just keep right on shooting, whether Ed rates our chances or not.
Having said that, with Rob's recent post on 'burn out' in mind, it's definitely time for a day off for me. Tomorrow is my birthday, and I will be taking a hard-earned breather at Kew Gardens with my beautiful and inspirational girlfriend. Back soon!
by Shaun Chamberlin | May 12, 2009 | All Posts, Climate Change, Peak Oil, Politics, TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas)
I was delighted to read this week that my recent article in Resurgence magazine has helped inspire Bill Wilson MSP to champion TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas) in the ongoing debate on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. Speaking in the Scottish Parliament, Dr. Wilson...
by Shaun Chamberlin | Sep 27, 2008 | All Posts, Cultural stories, Favourite posts, Peak Oil, Politics, Reviews and recommendations, TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas)
[audio mp3="http://www.darkoptimism.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Radio4.mp3"][/audio]
The "You and Yours" programme on BBC Radio 4 this week held a studio discussion on Peak Oil, with energy investment banker Matt Simmons, peak oil educator Richard Heinberg and the Chair of the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, John Hemming MP. The 12 minute discussion can be heard above or here and includes discussion of the options open to the UK government, including Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).
Recent Comments