Some folks in the United Kingdom and Ireland are floating the idea of individual carbon allowances as the best way to combat global warming. This would mean that a limit would be set how much carbon dioxide an individual can emit from his or her household and transportation, and those who exceed their limits would have to buy extra shares -- much like an industry-based system, except putting the burden directly on people. Those who emit too much carbon have to buy more credits, while those who emit less get to sell their excess credits to others. UK environment secretary David Miliband endorsed the idea back in 2006, and the British government is exploring the feasibility of this sort of policy, which would most likely be put in place in addition to an industry-based cap-and-trade system.
But the Boston Globe piece on this idea misses an important part of the picture: how hard this would hit lower-income people. In fact, they seem to think it would be good for them:
One of the main attractions of this idea is its equity. The outsized carbon footprints of the wealthy - those who fly by private jet and live in McMansions -- would come with an extra price tag, so the penalty would fall on the people most able to afford it. The poor, who generate much lower emissions, could actually turn a profit by selling their surplus.
It's true that, in general, lower-income folks generate lower emissions than wealthy jet-setters. But that's not universally true -- think of all the folks who drive tractor trailers for a living, or those who are forced to drive a lot because they work multiple jobs, live in rural areas, or live in the parts of cities where there isn't access to reliable public transportation. Or people who are forced to heat their homes as cheaply as possible, and those who live in older homes that aren't as efficient as new models. Right now, energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, hybrid cars, solar panels, organic foods, and other means of reducing your personal emissions have front-end costs that prevent them from being accessible to lower income individuals. They're only accessible to those who can afford them, who will be able to buy their way to lower emissions. It's also the privileged few who can choose to do things like bike or walk to work to reduce their emissions – the people who have the time to do so, and who live in places where it's possible and safe to do so.
There would need to be a lot done to change those realities before an individual carbon allowance would be feasible. We'd have to invest in bringing down the costs of emissions-reducing technologies on the front-end. We'd have to invest heavily in grant and subsidy programs to help those who can't afford to take these steps on their own. We'd have to heavily invest in improving and expanding our public transit systems. Without all these investments, the individual carbon allowance system would only further the chasm between the haves and have-nots, widening the "eco-divide." (Poor people already bear the greatest burdens of our pollution and energy woes.)
There's also the problem of making it seem like confronting climate change is simply about individual actions. Changing a few light bulbs and driving less is great. But those little things mean nothing without sweeping, solid national and international plans for capping emissions and changing to a new energy economy.
--Kate Sheppard
