To think the government should allocate individual carbon passports?

[julieca]

I think the government should issue everyone in the country with a carbon passport giving a set amount of carbon you can generate every year. Every time you do something where carbon outputs can be measured e.g. flights, pay your heating bill, buy petrol, buy a new car - a carbon allowance is deducted from your passport.
But you can also sell and buy your carbon allowance. So people who never fly or use a car can make a bit of money by selling their carbon allowance.
The government could have pledged to reduce individual carbon allowances every year.
This will reduce flights, cars, etc but through a more capitalist approach, than a central state approach.
So YANBU - yes this should happen
YABU - no a stupid idea

I’ve got one child and have flown only once (well, twice - a round trip!) in my 33 years of life. BUT, I commute by car 150 miles a week. My place of work is not reachable by public transport, so I feel like I’d be penalised for working!

yeah, coz we don't have enough bureaucracy in our lives. yabu, sorry!!

How about making low-carbon lifestyles easier to maintain?

Great cycle & walking routes, all new build properties to be C efficient etc.

That’s just ridiculous and thankfully would never happen.

I think this would widen the disparity between rich and poor, with the rich doing whatever they please and the poor forced to sell all their ‘points’.

If you want to do it, I don’t mind the idea but it should be the same for everyone. Companies should also have to apply for points based on the nature of their business (so rich can’t use them as a work around).

@VavavoomHenry I don't think companies should have any allowance. They would have to buy carbon allowance from individuals.

How will this work for families living more rurally with little access to public transport, no nearby schools, and where a small car may not be up to the hills? Or the disabled who are dependent on their own car in order to get to work?

No - I think the governments around the world should focus on the 100 companies that between them account for over 70% of carbon emissions, and stop trying the put the issue on to individuals when the problem is systemic.

I don’t go abroad or drive so on paper I look great. But I’m disabled so use taxi and nearly everything delivered by someone else vehicle Amazon etc.

Like PP said it be like congestion charge not a deterrent if you have the money, it’s only least well off that forced makes changes because of cost.

You utter l**n.

Regardless or not of whether you think it's a pointless fool's errand/utterly essential for the survival of humanity

Imagine trying to admin it.😂

Just another opportunity for very rich people to get richer.

Sign me up I've not quite made the S.Times list yet...

This would be a nightmare to control! Who gets more e.g rural communities / people who need to travel / do children get the same as adults? If you buy some fruit flown from Portugal do you have to stamp your passport at the till because you didn't choose the English fruit? It just doesn't make sense.

I don't need any more government control in my life thanks!

Sounds like the plot of an interesting film.

In other words, not gonna happen.

do I get a lifetime of extra credit for not having children, or do we just ignore that impact on carbon emissions

How about instead each company has to pay a tax based on carbon emissions, or companies over a certain size, or maybe the top companies that produce carbon emissions are tackled.

Or before the government start penalising people for not using public transport they actually make sure there is some in place? Under your scheme I would be penalised because there is now only a bus twice a week and the next one is far too far to walk to because I am disabled. How is that my fault?

How do you decide what thinks get taken into account? We grow 70-90% of our own food (depending on the time of year) and we don't need a food waste collection, would that be credited? who works that out, how is it calculated, how is it stored.

Not to mention the fact that data storage is actually a growing area of resource consumption and associated carbon emissions. Data storage centres needs electricity to run 24 hours a day, in temperature controlled environments. Most places have their data backed up to a secondary location so the carbon emission is doubled. Have you actually worked out whether the collection, storage and processing of all the data would actually produce more carbon than it would encourage people to save.

there are just so many issues with this

Nobody gets more, everyone gets a flat amount. How you use it is up to you.
Its too complex to apply it to everything like the food you buy.

What happens if you run out of credits to pay your heating bill in the middle of winter?

right so I get the same credits as someone whop has 12 children and eats only avocados shipped in from abroad and this is supposed to encourage me to be more carbon efficient? okay then....

I notice you totally ignore the fact that increasing data storage increases carbon emissions in itself....

@Munkustrap you have to buy more carbon.
@catsandhens yeah the carbon costs of data storage is a snag!

How about adressing carbon with the companies that are most responsible, rather than throwing it back to the little person who can literally make shit all difference?

YABU

71% of the world's total carbon gas emissions are produced by only 10 companies.

But yes, less tax and penalise the every little man of 1 tiny little country. That'll make a difference.

I love how you are totally sidestepping the impact of having children on carbon emissions. Want to do your part to secure the future of the planet and lower carbon emissions - do not have children.

Doesn't mean I think everyone should have to make that choice, in my case it isn't my choice at all and I would prefer to have children. But I cannot see the point of anyone wafting around ideas about reducing carbon emissions at an individual level who isn't at least willing to acknowledge and discuss the fact that having less or no children is the single most carbon reducing factor.

So no, if your idea came in I would be pretty flipping annoyed at having the same 'allowance' as the woman down the road with 5 children, in fact I'm assuming she would get more as the children would also get an allowance.

But if only adults got a carbon allowance, then people who have kids are disadvantaged.

Just out of interest what are the 10 companies?

What about people with medical conditions that require the use of lots of hot water, plastic disposable things for sanitary reasons, need driving around a lot for treatment.

Already being very ill or disabled is a lot of extra expense but you want them to have to buy extra carbon too.

Fuck the sick and disabled eh?

Okay so on that basis the woman who lives down the road with 5 kids suddenly cant put the heating on or drive to work because the law has changed? And there are no buses because we live in a rural area. And theres no way she can get the kids to school and get herself to work without driving. So what - women are forced back into a situation where they cant work because its impossible in so many cases to get the kids to school and get to work on time. And lets face it, covid has shows its women that will be impacted every time.

Never mind the whole every time you buy a car it gets deducted. So I have a yearly allowance, but I buy a car once every 10 years. So once every 10 years I cant put the heating on or drive anywhere because I had to buy a new car?

This just wont work. It will penalise women, low income families and disabled people, again, like they aren't shit on enough already.

Jeff Benzos will be able to buy all the credits he wants (in a hypothetical senario where hes in the uk) probably off all his poorly paid workers, great news!!

I want parity for my cats.
They can't buy an allowance...their pawket money is spent on their Dreamie habit.