It was released on Monday, a report that gave a detailed look at the idea of moving towards a system of carbon trading between individuals rather than green taxes. I've said in the past how much I like the ideas Tim Yeo puts forward, an MP that despite being a Tory seems to put forward (at least recently) very liberal and socially motivated suggestions...and given this is something that tackles my already documented annoyance with green taxes I just have to write about this particular scheme!

The report itself isn't a policy document, merely a well thought out analysis of the situation we sit within, referring to green taxes as a good method poorly executed and to carbon trading as an approach that could be more successful given it offers a carrot as well as a stick. That is to say that people that are actually conscious of their carbon footprint could end up saving money or even *making* it through living more environmentally friendly.

One unfortunate thing is that no-one else has really picked up on this, except for Darren Grover who argues...

But what about large families on low incomes that run cars, or even drive as part of their job? A large family will inevitably produce more carbon than a single person living in a flat within walking distance of his place of work. How will that work? How will they be traded? I would be very concerned about the government putting in place anything like this, when we have already seen how good it has been at adminstering tax credits.

If he'd have read the report through a bit longer he would have seen the following...

Any personal carbon trading scheme must take account of children; to allocate no further allowance for children risks severely punishing family households, especially low-income and single parent families. On the other hand, childless households could be unfairly disadvantaged if full allocations were given to children. Significant further research is required to determine the likely impact of children on their household's carbon footprint. Until this research has been carried out, it is not possible to determine the best method of accommodating children in the scheme. Personal Carbon Trading - Pg 31

The report makes it pretty clear that the system needs to be as fair as possible. it states that operationally there needs to be a per capita limit for everyone regardless of circumstance, and that is sensible because of the bureaucracy that could entail due to individual allowances tailor made to suit needs. But when it comes to the concern of Darren above, the committee is not stupid. That single person who has bought/rented close enough to their work should not be penalised simply for being able to be environmentally friendly, that's ultimately the point of carbon trading...not penalising those that act responsibly through overarching and generalised green taxation.

Of course it also seems the committee is happy to realise families need to be treated fairly. Far be it that large low income families would be worse off under this scheme, they would arguably be better off if green taxes were abandoned. No more retrospective taxation on people that cannot afford to avoid such taxation, that family will not suffer disproportionately for running their cars around the remote location that they can barely afford miles outside work, as they will have sufficient credits to cover the basic needs they require. At the same time a family that doesn't realise where they can perhaps tighten their carbon belt will suffer the same as anyone else, single men and pensioner couples...because the system is a fair one representing a single persons impact on the carbon emissions we cause.

Of course there is a definite reason this won't see the light of day for at least two years...

In order to be effective, a personal carbon trading scheme will have to impose a degree of inconvenience and additional cost. The urgency with which we need to address climate change means the Government should not be afraid of this.

The stark reality is that the government is concerned and afraid about inconvenience and cost it causes people...or at least it should be. I'd be amazed if they don't scrap the planned increase on fuel tax, and given the 10p fiasco they must certainly be in tune with not rocking the boat economically. And it's a shame, because sometimes you do need to take tough decisions as a government, it's just disappointing that this government has done so on the WRONG decisions so many times that when it comes to a good one they have such little political stock left to attempt it.