david |
 |
Should we be Carbon “Reduction” or “Rationing” Action Groups?
Several other threads were veering into this topic (see Observer article and Front page: what are CRAGs ), so I’ve started a new thread here …
Rationing vs. Reduction |
I've included some points
written on 11/2/2007 00:47
Guy S |
 |
I’ve included some points relevant to this discussion in a ‘history of rationing’ set of photos / comments, posted under the Islington group. (Technical question for David: I thought I’d grouped them together in a folder called ‘History of Rationing’, but they seem to display separately. Could you advise please? Ta! :)) The comments try to justify the idea of rationing, whilst acknowledging negative associations.
CAAG doesn’t work well – and I recall the early name of Carbon Rationing Action Projects was rejected, for some reason. ;)
» login to post comments
Is it too late to change the
written on 11/2/2007 01:16
robinsmith3 |
 |
Is it too late to change the name? Plus ration/reduction is already used interchangably anyway.
True, pure rationing is really permits with the trading element removed, if taken technicaly as the rationing history explains. And quite important when social and fiscal progression are being discussed.
Also should we be understanding how CRAG works within the Contraction & Convergence framework. C&C overlaps both rations and reductions so maybe this split personality works well as it is?
» login to post comments
rationing or reduction...
written on 12/1/2008 20:20
John Cossham |
 |
copied from the big green challenge thread . david
Just to comment on the new Cotswolds CRAG and the comment about ‘Rationing ‘ putting people off, well here in York we have decided to be a Carbon Reduction Action Group, as this is the aim of CRAGs, whether through rationing or other methods. We think that Leeds CRAG has made the same decision, and we don’t want to put people off from joining with complicated concepts like rationing.
Personally, I like the ideas of rationing and trading… but it was a decision based on access, open-ness and attracting more people in…
John Cossham
» login to post comments
I don't think that
david
I don’t think that “reduction” really gets across the idea of an equitable allowance, which is one of the key ideas of CRAGs. “Rationing”, however, does this in a negative sense (i.e. we are limiting emissions), in contrast to “allowance” which emphasises entitlements being given away (for free!). CAAG isn’t such a good acronym (how do you even say that!?).
Another point is that we are not really rationing individuals (they are free to go over their allowance – so long as they pay the carbon price!). But we are rationing groups because their aim is to keep within their overall target (unless they trade off excesses with other groups).
So, I don’t know!