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

@pussycatlickinglollyices my cat thinks she earns a wage by cuddling me and purring, unfortunately she works the night shift... She does get paid well in dreamies though

I think something like that should be applied to flights, that maybe people are only allowed a maximum of two return flights for leisure purposes per year, with exceptions for things like essential work, visiting family, voluntary work etc. Itll still be a system that's abused based of how many influencers during lock down deemed their pool selfies as essential work, but overall it should reduce air travel. I follow a millionaire business coach on instagram and she goes on holiday every month. Everyone should have the option for a foreign holiday and to see the world but it should be seen as something special and infrequent, and not done willy nilly.

I think tracking everyone's bill's and energy use would just be too messy and would be a logistical nightmare to carry out fairly. I think a starting point with making changes is to raise awareness. Climate change is spoke about on here often, but in my day to day life I get the impression its not even on people's radar. I think some really hard hitting ad campaigns are needed, similar to the ones about smoking, driving safely etc. To paint a picture of what life could be like in the future if we arent more cautious. I know obviously that's not the solution, but I think it's a starting point and something that needs to be done to get people thinking.

@Mreggsworth two return flights a year is more than a lot of people already have. And loads of well off people would just fly for "work" but have a holiday.

@Mreggsworth the flights idea is a good one. We are committed to only travelling in europe by train with very occasional travel by plane for long haul

@Hiphopopotamus

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.

Agreed.

I would also ban companies from unnecessary use of resources - silly things, like having a new type of bottle designed for a product. Nope, does not add value to the world, not worth the carbon cost, and no, you're not allowed to buy your way to doing it.

I would like the idea also of carbon justification for creating new items. So something like a lamp (which could also be made more energy efficient) is allowed because we definitely need heat, but there could be a sliding scale of charges for how necessary something is.

(I understand that this might also penalise the poor though, however, and I have a hard time thinking that someone would get the list right. The intention is to target the sheer level of tat/unnecessary consumption as opposed to limiting choice on necessary things.)

First they ration carbon, then they'll ration water, then they'll ration oxygen!

Good idea to ban the creation of new bottles. i would also ban Amazon and similar from posting out small items in large boxes.

YABU
Whatever next? A social credit system?

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and guess that OP hasn’t ever actually worked or studied anything associated with sustainability..?

Most of these ideas sound like something a sixth form debate club would come up with to answer the question ‘how to save the world’

Ridiculously unworkable and unrealistic, most with myriads of unintended consequences

It's a carbon budget ... countries have to do it, why not individuals?

@Tulipomania because the country has control over things an individual doesnt like public transport provision and building social housing with things like solar panels etc

Ref CatsandHens comment about data storage

Not all electricity is produced to be green

When the electricity fails, the back up systems utilised to protect the data/customers is not green

The army of technical support people are not green

The food, housing etc they eat is not green

The list is endless

Pointless

But individuals would then put pressure on commercial firms and the government to organise things in a way that helps people reduce their carbon spend.

Do you have children? How many do you have? Overpopulation is the biggest threat to this planet not to mention the U.K. isn’t even in the top 10 net polluters. I think you’re preaching to the converted really.

Currently on holiday, supporting the economy
I've sacrificed other things to be able to travel

Who should be rationing how many holidays that I have per year ?

In return, people would impose different rations on other people

It is a definite NO from me

@mygenericusername the op is studiously ignoring child related questions

But you haven't said what happens with disabled people who need the heating on more or rely on a car. Should they be penalised for an illness?

Penalising people for having kids just ends up penalising the kids and there's no way to protect the women in abusive relationships either under your suggested system.

I walked passed a shop today
It was selling a jacket that was promoted as being made of 140 plastic bottles

Plenty of second hand shops on the other side of the road

Too many people
Everyone has a different carbon footprint

Yabu.

Soylent Green

It sounds like the plot to a dystopian novel.

@CheshireChat

But you haven't said what happens with disabled people who need the heating on more or rely on a car. Should they be penalised for an illness?

Penalising people for having kids just ends up penalising the kids and there's no way to protect the women in abusive relationships either under your suggested system.

I would guess that they would be allowed a bigger allocation of carbon.. but like any benefits they might be on, will have to constantly prove they are eligible for it and get penalised when it is discontinued.

The simplest way of doing this is to have an internationally agreed carbon tax, set quite high, and rising. It would be applied right at the very start, and would be universal. A tonne of carbon, whether in the form of crude oil, or gas, or coal - all would have the same tariff applied.

What this would do would incentivise all companies, everywhere, to reduce their carbon intensity (this is why the price would need to be high). If I were a farmer, and I adopted (maybe more time consuming) practices that made my product less carbon intense, either I could win more market share by selling more cheaply than others could manage, or I could make more profit. (At the moment why would a farmer really bother to produce a lower carbon pint of milk - the carbon costs are not significant).
Every single part of the economy, everywhere, would adapt to be lower carbon. Tax regimes would need to be transformed too, to reduce many existing taxes (no VAT, less fuel duty, prob reductions in other taxes too).

An internationally agreed carbon tax sounds like a good idea. We need a price nudge to help us make greener choices. Catching a bus should be cheaper than driving, turkey mince should be cheaper than beef mince and ideally a ground or air source heating system should be cheaper than a gas boiler.

XenoBitch just pulling the OP on her comment from 19:09. I agree with what you're saying BTW, not to mention how long it takes for anyone to get a diagnosis.