Scientists claim discovery of a potential key to addressing climate change! Scientists claim discovery of a potential key to addressing climate change!

Scientists claim discovery of a potential key to addressing climate change!

Scientists claim discovery of a potential key to addressing climate change!  British scientists say climate change can be tackled with the help of a world war-style rationing of petrol, meat and the energy people use in their homes.  They claim that this would help countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions "quickly".  Researchers from the University of Leeds also said governments could limit the number of long-distance trips people take in a year or "limit the amount of petrol a person can buy in a month".  They argued that previous schemes mooted as a way to combat global warming - such as carbon taxes or carbon trading schemes - would not work because they favored the wealthy, who would actually be able to buy the right to pollute, over others.  Experts also made a comparison with the need to reduce some commodities due to their scarcity in the 1940s, adding that an attempt to achieve this through tax increases was rejected at the time because "the impact of tax increases would be slow and unfair".  They said, "As long as there was scarcity, rationing was acceptable or even welcome or wanted." The rationing period did not end in the United Kingdom until nine years after the end of the war. In much the same way as it was during World War II, researchers argue that carbon rationing would allow people to have equal shares of resources based on their needs, thus sharing efforts to protect the planet.  Lead author Dr Nathan Wood, now a postdoctoral fellow at the Fair Energy Consortium at Utrecht University, said: “The concept of rationing can help not only mitigate climate change, but also signal a variety of other social and political issues such as the energy crisis. current".  The researchers add: “Regulation is often seen as unattractive and therefore not a viable option for policy makers. It is important to highlight the fact that this has not been the case for many of those who have experimented with legalization. It is important to emphasize the difference between "Self-rationing and the scarcity that rationing was a response to. Of course, people welcomed the end of rationing, but they were really celebrating the end of scarcity, and celebrating the fact that rationing was no longer necessary."  The problem with rationing energy, meat and petrol, the researchers point out, is that people may not be willing to accept it as if resources were scarce, because they know there is an "abundance of resources available".  To address this, the researchers said, governments could regulate the use of the biggest pollutants such as oil, gas and gasoline, long journeys, and intensive farming, which in turn will lead to a scarcity of products that harm the planet.  They added that rationing could then be gradually introduced to manage the resulting scarcity.  Lead researcher Dr Rob Lawlor, from the University of Leeds, said: 'There is a limit to how much we can emit if we want to reduce the catastrophic effects of climate change. In that sense, scarcity is very real. It seems feasible to reduce emissions in general for even the lowest emissions, Which is often the worst, they may be able to increase their emissions - not in spite of rationing, but because of rationing and price control."  Dr Wood added: “The cost of living crisis has shown what happens when scarcity drives up prices, with energy prices skyrocketing and vulnerable groups left unable to pay their bills.”  One way to roll out the rationing scheme, experts said, would be to use "carbon cards," which would act like bank cards to track an individual's carbon allowance, rather than using ration cards.  “Many people have proposed carbon credits and carbon cards before,” Lawlor said. “What's new (or old, WWII-inspired) is the idea that allowances shouldn't be tradable. Another advantage of WWII-style rationing is that price controls are Regulated goods will prevent prices from rising as demand increases, benefiting those with less money.  Experts believe legalization will also encourage people to move to more sustainable lifestyles, rather than relying on fossil fuels.  The study has been published in the journal Ethics Policy & Environment.  Source: Daily Mail


British scientists say climate change can be tackled with the help of a world war-style rationing of petrol, meat and the energy people use in their homes.

They claim that this would help countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions "quickly".

Researchers from the University of Leeds also said governments could limit the number of long-distance trips people take in a year or "limit the amount of petrol a person can buy in a month".

They argued that previous schemes mooted as a way to combat global warming - such as carbon taxes or carbon trading schemes - would not work because they favored the wealthy, who would actually be able to buy the right to pollute, over others.

Experts also made a comparison with the need to reduce some commodities due to their scarcity in the 1940s, adding that an attempt to achieve this through tax increases was rejected at the time because "the impact of tax increases would be slow and unfair".

They said, "As long as there was scarcity, rationing was acceptable or even welcome or wanted." The rationing period did not end in the United Kingdom until nine years after the end of the war. In much the same way as it was during World War II, researchers argue that carbon rationing would allow people to have equal shares of resources based on their needs, thus sharing efforts to protect the planet.

Lead author Dr Nathan Wood, now a postdoctoral fellow at the Fair Energy Consortium at Utrecht University, said: “The concept of rationing can help not only mitigate climate change, but also signal a variety of other social and political issues such as the energy crisis. current".

The researchers add: “Regulation is often seen as unattractive and therefore not a viable option for policy makers. It is important to highlight the fact that this has not been the case for many of those who have experimented with legalization. It is important to emphasize the difference between "Self-rationing and the scarcity that rationing was a response to. Of course, people welcomed the end of rationing, but they were really celebrating the end of scarcity, and celebrating the fact that rationing was no longer necessary."

The problem with rationing energy, meat and petrol, the researchers point out, is that people may not be willing to accept it as if resources were scarce, because they know there is an "abundance of resources available".

To address this, the researchers said, governments could regulate the use of the biggest pollutants such as oil, gas and gasoline, long journeys, and intensive farming, which in turn will lead to a scarcity of products that harm the planet.

They added that rationing could then be gradually introduced to manage the resulting scarcity.

Lead researcher Dr Rob Lawlor, from the University of Leeds, said: 'There is a limit to how much we can emit if we want to reduce the catastrophic effects of climate change. In that sense, scarcity is very real. It seems feasible to reduce emissions in general for even the lowest emissions, Which is often the worst, they may be able to increase their emissions - not in spite of rationing, but because of rationing and price control."

Dr Wood added: “The cost of living crisis has shown what happens when scarcity drives up prices, with energy prices skyrocketing and vulnerable groups left unable to pay their bills.”

One way to roll out the rationing scheme, experts said, would be to use "carbon cards," which would act like bank cards to track an individual's carbon allowance, rather than using ration cards.

“Many people have proposed carbon credits and carbon cards before,” Lawlor said. “What's new (or old, WWII-inspired) is the idea that allowances shouldn't be tradable. Another advantage of WWII-style rationing is that price controls are Regulated goods will prevent prices from rising as demand increases, benefiting those with less money.

Experts believe legalization will also encourage people to move to more sustainable lifestyles, rather than relying on fossil fuels.

The study has been published in the journal Ethics Policy & Environment.

Source: Daily Mail

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post

Everything Search Here πŸ‘‡πŸ‘‡πŸ‘‡