How to be a carbon vigilante

Chris Adams writes on carbon trading schemes and buying one's way back into heaven.

Most of us are aware of carbon offsets now - to some they’re a godsend, to others they’re little more than a the 21st century equivalent to indulgences from the Catholic Church of the middle ages - if you had enough money, you could make up for your sins by giving money to the church, effectively buying your way back into heaven.

Less of us are aware of their big brothers, the industrial scale carbon trading schemes. Carbon trading schemes work by setting an absolute level of Carbon Dioxide that can be released in a time period, and issuing tradable permits to companies that allow them to legally emit green house gases. Companies that go over their legal limit must buy permits from cleaner companies to keep their plants running within the framework of the law. This creates an incentive for companies to invest in clean, low carbon technology, by putting a monetary value on carbon emissions - if you can sell your unneeded permits to the laggards in their field, then you’re basically being paid to clean up your act.

How much should carbon cost?

It’s an ingenious idea, but you really have to set the ceiling for emissions to be low enough for emitters to notice and feel some financial pressure, otherwise there’s just no real incentive for them to change. This is the main criticism levelled at the EU carbon trading scheme - the price of carbon permits at launch was just too low to make a difference, so it's largely been ignored. So what you do to fix this sorry state of affairs? You hack the price of carbon, that’s what.

Sandbag.org.uk is a site set that lets ordinary people gleefully distort the carbon markets by grouping together to buy up carbon trading permits, and then take them out of the trading scheme. This increases the scarcity of the remaining permits, and by extension makes them more valuable. When carbon trading permits are more valuable, investing in clean technology becomes more attractive than the increasingly expensive option doing nothing and of pumping out CO2 into the atmosphere.

Right now Sandbag.org are putting the price of taking a tonne of carbon emissions out of the system at around the £24 mark. With most powerplants allocated an allowance of between 500,000 and 2,500,000 tonnes a year, hoovering up permits like this isn’t a cheap process; in fact it’s almost ludicrously expensive to wipe out the emissions allowance for even a single power station.

The idea of using industry loopholes as levers to force companies to take action has a charming air of righteous anger about it, but for this to work, you really need mass participation to make a visible impact. If ever there was a site that’s crying out for a pledgebank pledge to kick off a funding drive, this would be it.

Anyone care to join me?

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496