Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4
Is this something of an answer or diversion
I don't pretend to understand how it works but it looks very complex and costly as with most of the ideas from the goverment. Has even been held back because of cost. Personal carbon credits = huge computer files to keep track of you?
Posted as a new thread from 'Fuel prices across the pond'
...and this is from the Government that allows a new airport terminal to be built as well as increased capacity (more planes) for other airports. Oh the irony!
it's an interesting idea, although it's at a very early stage of its development, and there are many technical and practical problems to be overcome before there's any sign of a workable system
The principle of it is that each of us would be given an annual carbon limit for our fuel and energy consumption. This would be in the form of carbon credits, and everyone would get the same number to start with. Then, if say, a rich person wanted to use more fuel and/or energy he or she could buy credits from someone who perhaps needs less - an older person living alone, for instance.
All of us would be able to trade our carbon credits freely - we would effectively be able to buy and sell them from and to each other.
The thinking is that in this way richer people who want to consume more resources will pay for the priviledge, and they'll pay poorer, or more abstemious people to get the necessary credits.
'from' the government - the initial idea came from the private sector, and the intention was that it would be operated by the private sector. Once the government of the day had issued everyone with their credits for the year it would be up to us all to take it from there - the trading would be regulated, but private companies would handle the transactions - it would be a brokerage exercise.
Many major nations are looking at similar schemes because it's pretty obvious that asking populations to make voluntary reductions in energy consumption doesn't work. Energy costs are going to rise inexorably as fossil fuel supplies become depleted, and increasingly expensive to extract. People will try to pay more, rather than reduce consumption and - in the working populations at least - they'll do it by demanding higher pay. This will fuel inflation, and all that goes with it.
The answer is going to be some form of government action to control consumption, and the Carbon credit schemes are one possible solution.
Well they tax us on everything else so why not the air we breathe.It makes sense money for nothing.
Purely a money raising exercise. The "science" behind man made climate change is flaky at best and the case is certainly not proved. There is evidence to indicate that carbon is not the issue that the government make out. As was said earlier, why expand the airports if they are really serious about "the environment".
You seem to have failed to grasp the point - this isn't a proposal for any additional taxation at all. The idea is that you're given a set number of credits each year, and you can sell the ones you don't need or want to those who do want them. In that way you would end up paying less for your fuel and energy, because you would get some money back.
A rich person who can afford to pay more would pay more, because he/she would have to buy extra credits from you. It's fairer than a system whereby everyone pays the same, regardless.
Do not forget the cost of setting up this! Who pays for that? £2 bn setup and £2 bn per year
Also according to the report:-
There would also be difficulties in deciding how to set the rations, taking into account a person's age, location and health.
"Purely a money raising exercise."
How do you work that out? The only people who would 'raise' money would be those who - like you, maybe - sell their surplus credits (which they got for nothing in the first place) to someone else.
As for "why expand the airports if they are really serious about "the environment"."
Well, first of all because so many people want to travel from, to, and through London - Heathrow airport handles more international passenger traffic than any other airport in the world, and it is Europe's busiest airport by far. All those 68 million people are going to fly, whether you like it or not, and if they are going to transit our airport they, and the airlines who carry them need facilities, and lots of them.
No government would be silly enough to say 'sorry, we care about the environment, and we're going to demonstrate it by refusing all those lucrative take-offs and landings, and by carrying out no development to cope with increased traffic.'
Of course we have to care about the environment, but the way to do it is by investing in it, and by increasing air fares so that fewer people can afford to fly, not by turning away what business there is. The environment isn't suddenly going to get better because Heathrow airport stops allowing traffic.
Yes, there are those, and lots of other difficulties, and nobody has claimed that a workable scheme is anywhere near to being formulated. Lots of independent studies are taking place - funded by the private sector - and no doubt there will be several proposals at the end of it.
Whether or not one is eventually adopted is a matter for the government of the day - it certainly isn't something that would be introduced in the life of this government.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.