Resource consumption management via consumption vouchers
Ah, too long of a title, but thinking HARD what, if anything, can be done to face the impending world oil crisis.
Americans don't like taxes, although I expect a good $2/gallon tax hike is completely justifiable to help cover hidden costs of oil production and consumption. BUT I admit the evidence suggests that a $2 gas is still insufficient to seriously curb consumption. PLUS, it is a regressive tax, hurting the poor who are less able to change their lifestyles quickly to reduce their demand, at least in regards to commuting.
The idea of "consumption" vouchers is an interesting one to me, at least to explore. When there's a summer time drought and water is limited, communities will put restrictions on unnecessary consumption, like watering your grass. People largely accept that, for the common good, in a short term crisis.
But what about long term crises? What if a community's water source is ground water, and the water table keeps falling, year after year. Deeper and deeper wells are needed to keep the needed water flowing. It is actually astounding to me, that ground water is so easily wasted, used in quanities that can't be recovered sustainably. Like a draining savings account, wouldn't people "get a clue" and start conserving?
The difficulty of long term crises perhaps is that memories don't go deep enough to remember a previous drought and we've NEVER taken out so much ground water as now, so there's simply no clear sense of the risks of what we do, the diminishment of future availability.
Prices are set by how much the water takes to be extracted, NOT how much it will cost to replace when local sources are drained.
Nature perhaps handles this dilemma by diversity. Although some species gain "monopoly" influence over resources, there's other species that thrive on other resources, so the depletion of one resource means the fall of the species that is dependent upon it and the rise of species who can do without it.
On that ground, if we take the big picture, our loss of vital resources means a diminishment of OUR future, to the degree WE are not flexible enough to do without.
In nature there may be "negative feedback" loops that keep systems in equilibrium, while modern human culture has (so far) been able to push the limits further and further. Our success expands our apetite, so no matter how successful we are at continuing another day, there's no promise tomorrow we will find a NEW way out of the next bottleneck. There's no promise WE are not heading to a brick wall and a crash and a world we won't like as much.
Maybe it is just "unnatural" for a species to set voluntary limits? I mean in some ways humans have done it when we had to. I think of the stories of the eskimos putting their elderly out to die in cold winters when food is scarce. We can make hard choices semi-rationally when we must, but when the sky is bright in the sun and the air warm and breeze cool, in the best of times, can we accept our ways can't last?
Maybe it's just nonsense? Maybe "necessity is the mother of invention" and a species that is too "rational" will stagnate under our own "good sense"? Well, just trying to play devil's advocate against myself!
Still, I have to wonder if reason is possible, if caution can be considered, if guarantee risks can be faced before the last possible moment. Why can't we just admit we're importing nearly 2/3 of our oil and our domestic production will decline whater we do, and world demand will keep increasing to catch up to us, so let's face this sooner than later.
The interesting thing about a consumption voucher, is the idea that "everyone deserves a share", so you might divide a resource equally (or at least with some dividing rule of proportions, by need or status), and scale the consumption to a limiting supply OR a desired limit to consumption.
The interesting thing of dividing a resource IS the inequality. Obviously WE don't want to share the world's oil based on population, since WE consume 5 times the world average per capita. A "equal" system would give the chinese first access to "their per capita share", and if they didn't need that much they could SEEL their vouchers to US - AND probably for a profit as well, above the price we'll all be paying for "our regular shares". (So we don't want anything like that!)
And in terms of capitalism, it works fine at least. If I don't need "my share", I can sell it to someone who can afford more than their share. This means everyone gets what they need at least, and gives a plan to scale down consumption over time BEFORE geological limits hit us first.
The other failing of such a system is that the FUTURE doesn't get a direct say in what THEIR share should be, although the global production control system at least is capable of asking the question and will limit consumption more than if nothing was done.
Another issue of the voucher system is how businesses purchase energy. I suppose businesses have ZERO priority, zero vouchers, and must depend on purchasing vouchers to do anything, AND hope their sale price can cover their costs. Anyway, that makes sense.
It would be interesting. Thinking of gasoline, everyone would get say a 20 gallon gas voucher every month. It would "expire" perhaps within 3 months to limit hoarding or saving. Vouchers would be used or sold, maybe on an e-bay system? People could join "selling pools" and give a broker a cut to manage their sales for a best price.
I'm sure it would be messy, some months quotas would be too large for demand, and others people would clean up to sell what they have extra.
THEN on another side, producers have a dilemma. Let's say there's 1000 gallons of supply among 3 companies and only 900 gallons of vouchers. That means prices will drop. And if supply is only 800 gallons, people will buy vouchers which will be USELESS with no gasoline available to purchase it, not at any price. So buying vouchers is a risky decision - first you're paying up to get the voucher, and then you're paying up for the gasoline IF it is available.
Hmmmm... I mean ALL of economics is a matter of games like this - expectations and individuals trying to play for their best interests. A sound game will be played and can make things better.
But what is really fair? I don't have a car. Do I really DESERVE vouchers for gasoline that I'll turn around and sell - JUST for being a deadweight standing around? (Or SHOULD I be rewarded for not consuming and leaving more for someone else?)
Heck, I'd probably "donate" my vouchers to charity groups who could sell them to earn money to run their programs. Easy for me, and good for them.
Okay, last thought. People fear that limiting energy limits economic growth. I think this is GOOD, but I admit good is relative, and joblessness is less good in the short term, even if economic sustainability is good in the long term.
Ideally vouchers should be scaled from current consumption BACKWARDS based on reducing overall consumption. Ideally this will raise prices for gasoline, and make alternatives more competitive, if such alternatives exist. The reduction of consumptoin can be scaled in response to prices and availability of alternatives. That is, as alternatives come around, gasoline consumption can naturally reduce in response. So it's messy to manage well, but this stuff happens already, like the Federal reserve controlling interest rates and borrowing for the money supply. Nothing new, EXCEPT for facing a declining resource, rather than an expanding one, which might make ALL THE DIFFERENCE in the world.
Who knows what happens in a contracting economy?
Okay, last last issue. Let's say you regulate something different, like Natural gas, where some states are HUGE users, and others small. Should citizens of Florida get equal vouchers for NG as citizens of Minnesota, and WE have to buy their unneeded vouchers to heat our homes?
I ask the question from the point of view of a cold winter state. On gasoline, there's also the issue of urban vs rural citizens. Rural citizens perhaps drive 50% more than urban ones. Should they get a larger voucher JUST for where they live?
At one level YES - their higher consumption means their conservation is worth more, but also more difficult. A rural person who COULD drive but doesn't DESERVES more "credit" to not drive than an urban person who choses not to drive (and who has mass transit available.)
And should parents get larger vouchers, needing more driving for their kids? Again, perhaps, given their conservation is more important.
So in principle I accept unequal distribution of vouchers, but in practice, this is a zero sum game, so a system that is "too liberal" will become like our tax laws, becoming ever more complex with special exceptions, credits for varied conditions, and everyone fighting for more share for themselves and those like them. AND groups MOST politically capable (like the elderly perhaps) may find themselves with UNDUE shares simply for their influence, while others with less resources suffer more serious shortages and difficulties making their ends meet.
I mean I think these issues come up any time a valued resource becomes scarce, and ultimately it comes down to those with more money get what they want, and the government must find a way to help those who can't make it under the new conditions.
Overall my mind tires trying to imagine how such systems can work, and I do believe whatever is started, it'll slowly transform into a complicated mess. It might even become an entitlement program where prices sky-rocket the government ends up subsidizing poor consumption, just putting more money into producers smart enough to keep undercutting the national quota with their supplies to keep prices high for them.
Seriously, it's messy, and ugly, and perhaps in the end, if I could live 10 lifetimes I'd give up control, and let "informed citizens" gamble with their choices, and accept the consequences, and make throw away people when they can't prosper under our system. Wait, perhaps we all ready have that?
I just don't know how much I should FIGHT to pay more for my lifestyle!
No I'm convinced evil is occuring now, even if we participate willingly, but there's always a question of whether control or enlightenment lead to freedom. Of course the second, but the first seems easiest. (Or I mean "control" through systems, trusted through enlightenment.)
Americans don't like taxes, although I expect a good $2/gallon tax hike is completely justifiable to help cover hidden costs of oil production and consumption. BUT I admit the evidence suggests that a $2 gas is still insufficient to seriously curb consumption. PLUS, it is a regressive tax, hurting the poor who are less able to change their lifestyles quickly to reduce their demand, at least in regards to commuting.
The idea of "consumption" vouchers is an interesting one to me, at least to explore. When there's a summer time drought and water is limited, communities will put restrictions on unnecessary consumption, like watering your grass. People largely accept that, for the common good, in a short term crisis.
But what about long term crises? What if a community's water source is ground water, and the water table keeps falling, year after year. Deeper and deeper wells are needed to keep the needed water flowing. It is actually astounding to me, that ground water is so easily wasted, used in quanities that can't be recovered sustainably. Like a draining savings account, wouldn't people "get a clue" and start conserving?
The difficulty of long term crises perhaps is that memories don't go deep enough to remember a previous drought and we've NEVER taken out so much ground water as now, so there's simply no clear sense of the risks of what we do, the diminishment of future availability.
Prices are set by how much the water takes to be extracted, NOT how much it will cost to replace when local sources are drained.
Nature perhaps handles this dilemma by diversity. Although some species gain "monopoly" influence over resources, there's other species that thrive on other resources, so the depletion of one resource means the fall of the species that is dependent upon it and the rise of species who can do without it.
On that ground, if we take the big picture, our loss of vital resources means a diminishment of OUR future, to the degree WE are not flexible enough to do without.
In nature there may be "negative feedback" loops that keep systems in equilibrium, while modern human culture has (so far) been able to push the limits further and further. Our success expands our apetite, so no matter how successful we are at continuing another day, there's no promise tomorrow we will find a NEW way out of the next bottleneck. There's no promise WE are not heading to a brick wall and a crash and a world we won't like as much.
Maybe it is just "unnatural" for a species to set voluntary limits? I mean in some ways humans have done it when we had to. I think of the stories of the eskimos putting their elderly out to die in cold winters when food is scarce. We can make hard choices semi-rationally when we must, but when the sky is bright in the sun and the air warm and breeze cool, in the best of times, can we accept our ways can't last?
Maybe it's just nonsense? Maybe "necessity is the mother of invention" and a species that is too "rational" will stagnate under our own "good sense"? Well, just trying to play devil's advocate against myself!
Still, I have to wonder if reason is possible, if caution can be considered, if guarantee risks can be faced before the last possible moment. Why can't we just admit we're importing nearly 2/3 of our oil and our domestic production will decline whater we do, and world demand will keep increasing to catch up to us, so let's face this sooner than later.
The interesting thing about a consumption voucher, is the idea that "everyone deserves a share", so you might divide a resource equally (or at least with some dividing rule of proportions, by need or status), and scale the consumption to a limiting supply OR a desired limit to consumption.
The interesting thing of dividing a resource IS the inequality. Obviously WE don't want to share the world's oil based on population, since WE consume 5 times the world average per capita. A "equal" system would give the chinese first access to "their per capita share", and if they didn't need that much they could SEEL their vouchers to US - AND probably for a profit as well, above the price we'll all be paying for "our regular shares". (So we don't want anything like that!)
And in terms of capitalism, it works fine at least. If I don't need "my share", I can sell it to someone who can afford more than their share. This means everyone gets what they need at least, and gives a plan to scale down consumption over time BEFORE geological limits hit us first.
The other failing of such a system is that the FUTURE doesn't get a direct say in what THEIR share should be, although the global production control system at least is capable of asking the question and will limit consumption more than if nothing was done.
Another issue of the voucher system is how businesses purchase energy. I suppose businesses have ZERO priority, zero vouchers, and must depend on purchasing vouchers to do anything, AND hope their sale price can cover their costs. Anyway, that makes sense.
It would be interesting. Thinking of gasoline, everyone would get say a 20 gallon gas voucher every month. It would "expire" perhaps within 3 months to limit hoarding or saving. Vouchers would be used or sold, maybe on an e-bay system? People could join "selling pools" and give a broker a cut to manage their sales for a best price.
I'm sure it would be messy, some months quotas would be too large for demand, and others people would clean up to sell what they have extra.
THEN on another side, producers have a dilemma. Let's say there's 1000 gallons of supply among 3 companies and only 900 gallons of vouchers. That means prices will drop. And if supply is only 800 gallons, people will buy vouchers which will be USELESS with no gasoline available to purchase it, not at any price. So buying vouchers is a risky decision - first you're paying up to get the voucher, and then you're paying up for the gasoline IF it is available.
Hmmmm... I mean ALL of economics is a matter of games like this - expectations and individuals trying to play for their best interests. A sound game will be played and can make things better.
But what is really fair? I don't have a car. Do I really DESERVE vouchers for gasoline that I'll turn around and sell - JUST for being a deadweight standing around? (Or SHOULD I be rewarded for not consuming and leaving more for someone else?)
Heck, I'd probably "donate" my vouchers to charity groups who could sell them to earn money to run their programs. Easy for me, and good for them.
Okay, last thought. People fear that limiting energy limits economic growth. I think this is GOOD, but I admit good is relative, and joblessness is less good in the short term, even if economic sustainability is good in the long term.
Ideally vouchers should be scaled from current consumption BACKWARDS based on reducing overall consumption. Ideally this will raise prices for gasoline, and make alternatives more competitive, if such alternatives exist. The reduction of consumptoin can be scaled in response to prices and availability of alternatives. That is, as alternatives come around, gasoline consumption can naturally reduce in response. So it's messy to manage well, but this stuff happens already, like the Federal reserve controlling interest rates and borrowing for the money supply. Nothing new, EXCEPT for facing a declining resource, rather than an expanding one, which might make ALL THE DIFFERENCE in the world.
Who knows what happens in a contracting economy?
Okay, last last issue. Let's say you regulate something different, like Natural gas, where some states are HUGE users, and others small. Should citizens of Florida get equal vouchers for NG as citizens of Minnesota, and WE have to buy their unneeded vouchers to heat our homes?
I ask the question from the point of view of a cold winter state. On gasoline, there's also the issue of urban vs rural citizens. Rural citizens perhaps drive 50% more than urban ones. Should they get a larger voucher JUST for where they live?
At one level YES - their higher consumption means their conservation is worth more, but also more difficult. A rural person who COULD drive but doesn't DESERVES more "credit" to not drive than an urban person who choses not to drive (and who has mass transit available.)
And should parents get larger vouchers, needing more driving for their kids? Again, perhaps, given their conservation is more important.
So in principle I accept unequal distribution of vouchers, but in practice, this is a zero sum game, so a system that is "too liberal" will become like our tax laws, becoming ever more complex with special exceptions, credits for varied conditions, and everyone fighting for more share for themselves and those like them. AND groups MOST politically capable (like the elderly perhaps) may find themselves with UNDUE shares simply for their influence, while others with less resources suffer more serious shortages and difficulties making their ends meet.
I mean I think these issues come up any time a valued resource becomes scarce, and ultimately it comes down to those with more money get what they want, and the government must find a way to help those who can't make it under the new conditions.
Overall my mind tires trying to imagine how such systems can work, and I do believe whatever is started, it'll slowly transform into a complicated mess. It might even become an entitlement program where prices sky-rocket the government ends up subsidizing poor consumption, just putting more money into producers smart enough to keep undercutting the national quota with their supplies to keep prices high for them.
Seriously, it's messy, and ugly, and perhaps in the end, if I could live 10 lifetimes I'd give up control, and let "informed citizens" gamble with their choices, and accept the consequences, and make throw away people when they can't prosper under our system. Wait, perhaps we all ready have that?
I just don't know how much I should FIGHT to pay more for my lifestyle!
No I'm convinced evil is occuring now, even if we participate willingly, but there's always a question of whether control or enlightenment lead to freedom. Of course the second, but the first seems easiest. (Or I mean "control" through systems, trusted through enlightenment.)
posted by Ares Olympus at 4:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home