Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 284)
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2004
PROFESSOR JIM
SKEA, PROFESSOR
PAUL EKINS,
PROFESSOR GEOFF
HAMMOND and MR
RICHARD STARKEY
Q280 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
When I look at all these pensioners who do not even know that
they can claim their pension credit, how on earth are they going
to be able to know that they have got some surplus on their tradable
quotas?
Mr Starkey: Absolutely. I mean, even with leadership,
awareness raising and education there will definitely be people
who either are not interested in the scheme or do not grasp the
scheme, but there is a way in which they can convert the scheme
into essentially a carbon tax because they just sell all their
carbon units immediately on receipt, they do not need to think
about it, and then whenever they go to the petrol station or they
pay the utility bill the vendor goes into the market, buys carbon
units for them and it is just added on to the bill. So you can
convert from a rationing scheme, if you like, into a tax scheme.
Q281 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
I do think there would be an enormous advantage for us to have
units of conversion. If people knew roughly speaking how much
carbon per day, per year they should be using and converting it—I
mean, what does a gallon of petrol take in terms of carbon? How
much does it mean? Just in the same way as if we are looking at
food, what is the calorie content of this and that, you look at
it and people think in those terms to some extent.
Mr Starkey: Just as Weight Watchers has points,
DTQs have carbon units.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: You have also
got a major problem in primary allocation, have you not? If you
consider an old person, I imagine that they would automatically
merit more in the way of carbon tax than a younger person because
in fact we give them at the moment an extra amount of money to
buy their fuel in the winter. Equally, if you have got somebody
living in the country as opposed to somebody living in the centre
of a city where all facilities are available and within walking
distance, whereas in the country they have got to go miles in
order to get these sorts of facilities. So there would have to
be a very complicated mechanism of allocation to various people
in this particular type of arrangement. If you were ill presumably
you would then become eligible for a further type of—I mean,
I understand your point but—
Q282 Chairman: I think you are suggesting
an absolutely even allocation where everyone gets the same?
Mr Starkey: Absolutely.
Chairman: When I read that I remembered
the Poll Tax, which also was claimed as a principle of equity
but which somehow did not quite sell itself to the British public.
Q283 Lord Paul: What about the extra
work for everybody it will create, to physically handle that much
extra work?
Professor Skea: Could I perhaps make one rather
general point about this and what I would see the role of something
like the UK Energy Research Centre, and indeed Tyndall, with respect
to these kinds of innovative proposals, because I would not see
the role of UK ERC being to act as an advocate for particular
technologies or policies. What I think we need to do is carry
out a careful evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of
different measures and present that coherently to the policy-makers.
What I think we have heard wonderfully around the table now are
issues about administrative simplicity, links with wealth creation,
redistribution, etc, and I think some very helpful tips have come
through as to how we carry out these evaluations.
Q284 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
And sheer bureaucracy if you are not careful.
Professor Skea: Yes.
Chairman: And do remember the Poll Tax!
Sadly, I think we must bring this to a close. Can we thank you
very much for an extremely stimulating session. I think it has
been apparent from our response to your answers how much we have
enjoyed talking to you and how much we have learned as well. I
repeat again, do feel free to write in with any extra thoughts
which occur to you that we did not mention. Thank you very much.
| 
