The CO2 budget as a solution to global warming?
The CO2 budget is increasingly being mentioned as a solution to global warming. It places the responsibility at a lower level, namely with households. The CO2 budget is based on the CO2 system that already exists for companies in Europe. The existing trading system in CO2 allowances is also adopted. TNO, among others, recently investigated how such a CO2 budget could work in the Netherlands and whether there is public support for it. Under a number of conditions, the latter is the case.
01Meaning of the CO2 budget
A CO2 budget, also sometimes called an emissions budget or a carbon budget, is an upper limit on the total emissions that a person or a group of persons is allocated during a fixed period. The allocation of a CO2 budget takes place at national and/or supranational level.
Such a CO2 budget can be allocated per country, after which the country decides what it spends this CO2 budget on. In the allocation key, for example, part of the budget can go to industry and part of the budget to households. Households can then freely spend their allocated CO2 budget on, for example, energy consumption, transport, travel and consumption. When the CO2 budget runs out, extra allowances can be bought. Surpluses can in turn be sold. In this way sustainable choices are also rewarded financially.
02Different forms of the CO2 budget
A CO2 budget is actually not entirely new. At European level such a CO2 budget already exists for large companies. There is also already trading in CO2 emission allowances. What is new is that households are also allocated a CO2 budget. How this should look in practice is, however, not yet agreed. Nevertheless, quite a lot of research has already been carried out on it. The idea is always the same, but the details are often slightly different.
In some models, for example, only countries can purchase extra CO2 budget and the country must then distribute it. In other models industry or even a household can purchase CO2 budget. Furthermore, some researchers advise allocating a CO2 budget per person, while others prefer an allocation per household. In the second case having children is discouraged, because there are then more people to divide the CO2 budget among. Large families would then, for example, be able to travel less far than small families. This should help to slow down global population growth.
CO2 budget proposal from TNO
TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, has also drawn up a proposal for such a CO2 budget. It is a proposal at Dutch level. Under it every Dutch person receives the same amount of CO2 allowances to spend themselves. The TNO proposal stipulates that the CO2 budget decreases year after year, so that the agreements of the Paris Climate Agreement are gradually met.
In the TNO proposal an average household will initially be allowed to spend 5,5 tonnes of CO2 per year. With such a budget two people can just not fly to the south of France, a household can consume 41 kilograms of steak per year and it can heat the home in a normal way. If, for example, you eat chicken or vegetarian more often, you have more CO2 budget to spend and you can, for example, make a long-distance trip. If you really want to fly to China, then you will have to buy extra CO2 budget in any case.
The TNO proposal works with a CO2 payment system comparable to the monetary system. This means that products and services get a CO2 price in addition to a monetary price. So you pay not only with euros, but also with CO2 allowances. No extensive monitoring system would be needed and you should simply be able to see in your banking app how many CO2 allowances you have left.
CO2 budget and energy
Energy consumption is responsible for a large part of our ecological footprint. The authors therefore agree that energy must have a CO2 price tag. Account should be taken not only of actual consumption, but also of the sustainable nature of the energy. In any case even green energy will have a CO2 price tag, partly because maintenance of the grid infrastructure remains necessary, but it will be considerably lower than for grey energy.
03Criticism of the introduction of a CO2 budget
One of the points of criticism is that the burden on the shoulders of the less well-off is greater. Those who have less money will also be able to spend less money on insulation and will therefore have to spend more CO2 budget on heating. At the same time the well-off can very easily purchase extra CO2 budget. A CO2 budget would only increase the inequality between rich and poor.
Secondly, people have questions about the administration and enforcement of such a CO2 budget. It would be necessary to calculate the size of the CO2 emissions per product or service. Ultimately it will also have to be checked whether local butchers, bakers and restaurants are handling the CO2 budget correctly. This means that accounts must be kept and that someone (the Belastingdienst, then) will have to carry out checks. While TNO indicates that no megalomaniac monitoring system is needed, according to critics this does in fact turn out to be the case.
Furthermore, there are fears that a CO2 budget would put a brake on sustainable investments. For example, the production of solar panels also causes CO2 emissions that could be earned back afterwards because CO2-free energy is then used. When little CO2 budget is available, this could mean that households no longer invest in generating green energy. According to supporters this could be solved by means of a depreciation mechanism, as already exists in accounting.
In addition, according to critics, it has not been sufficiently investigated how the economy would evolve under such a CO2 budget. Changing spending patterns could cause bankruptcies and unemployment. It is indeed the case that there are only a few studies that have also examined the economic and socio-demographic consequences of a CO2 budget.
Finally, critics point out that there are also simpler solutions to achieve this target, such as introducing a CO2 tax. Supporters of a CO2 budget counter this by pointing out that such a CO2 tax never offers certainty that a target will be achieved, whereas this is the case with a capped CO2 budget.
What is the CO2 budget and how does it work? - EnergieAanbieding.nl
One of the proposals to achieve the Paris climate targets is a CO2 budget. How does this work and what is still possible then? Read it here.
04Frequently asked questions about the CO2 budget
Do you still have a question about the CO2 budget? Below we have collected some frequently asked questions with answers. Is the answer not among them? Then visit the page with more information about CO2 storage.
With the TNO CO2 budget, each household is allocated about 5,5 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. This is fairly little. Just a week in New York alone produces CO2 emissions of 1,84 tonnes per person. As a result the CO2 budget is used up extremely quickly. However, those who stay closer to home and choose the train instead of the plane can still travel easily. If you travel to Milan by train, for example, you only use 0,1 tonnes of CO2 per person. In other words, travelling remains possible with a CO2 budget too. At TNO they consider a travel budget of 0,7 tonnes of CO2 emissions per household realistic.
How much can I travel with the TNO CO2 budget?
There is no agreement on this. Many authors start from the principle that countries that have historically contributed more to global warming should now be penalised. They must therefore achieve greater savings to halt global warming. These countries have gained the most financially from global warming and must now use their acquired wealth to limit CO2 emissions. Developing countries, on the other hand, would receive larger emission budgets. Yet there are also other allocation keys, for example based on population numbers.
According to which allocation key would CO2 budget be allocated to countries?
An average person on earth has annual CO2 emissions of about 4,4 tonnes according to NU.nl. An average Dutch person emits about 9 tonnes of CO2 per year. That means the Dutch do a lot worse than, for example, the Norwegians, who emit some 6,6 tonnes of CO2 per year. Much of this has to do with the fact that the energy supply in Norway is mainly based on hydropower. The Qataris top the list with over 30 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. Yet these figures should be put into perspective, because the national CO2 emissions are actually converted per head. In practice, the national CO2 emissions of the oil and gas industry are not really the individual emissions of a local household. Finally, Ethiopians are responsible for only 0,16 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, or about one percent of that of an Australian. In other words, there are big differences between countries.
How much CO2 do people emit on average now?
No, according to Milieu Centraal transport is only responsible for 19% of a Dutch person's CO2 footprint. This involves not only flying, but also driving and other forms of transport. Buying things (29%), food and drink (20%) and energy (19%) also make for a larger CO2 footprint. That is why we must also limit our CO2 emissions in other areas. This means consuming more sustainably and saving energy.
Do I reduce my CO2 footprint enough if I stop flying?
To find sufficient support among Dutch citizens, according to Radar AVROTROS, there are four conditions that must be met: Companies must pay more for their CO2 emissions. The large companies must be tackled first before CO2 savings are sought from households. People do not want the rich to be given the opportunity to buy unlimited extra CO2 budget. Limits must therefore be set on the possibility of purchasing CO2 budget. People with a lower income must receive more CO2 budget, so that they are not penalised because they cannot afford good insulation or an electric car. Privacy is very important to many people.�?It must not be possible to trace through the administration what individuals spend their CO2 budget on.
Under which conditions does a CO2 budget find support among the Dutch?
Work out the monthly amount with your usage and feed-in.