New Statesman has a very interesting article by Mark Lynas. Lynas is a writer who, amongst other things, is currently advocating personal carbon rationing.

His argument for carbon rationing is that we can only stop global warming by limiting the amount of carbon we produce. The only way to limit the emissions of carbon in a free market is to associate costs and limits with its production. As such, he suggests an allotment of carbon be allocated to each person, and that we be limited in the carbon that we consume to the amount available in our ration. To make things fair, he suggests that the ration be tradable, allowing those who produce very few carbon emissions to “subsidize” those who produce more (for a cost).

I’m not sure how this idea compares to that of a steadily rising carbon tax. It offers economic opportunities to those who can sell their unused carbon allotment, while achieving the same goal. In a sense it provides a carrot for those who already produce very little, and a stick for those who produce a lot.