Chris, thanks for the "plug".

I've thought about rationing for a number of years, but not in a serious fashion. I still have a lot to learn on the subject, even though, as an engineer, I've been concerned about energy issues for more than 35 years. For example, I was unaware that the U.S. had a Standby Gasoline Rationing Plan in place since 1980. Here's a link:

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/12000/12200/12291/12291.pdf

Or, one can go back to King Hubbert's early works with the Technocrats:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/hubecon.htm
http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/man-hours-distribution.html

Here's another article on "Energy Certificates" from the Technocratic Society--dated 1938: Note that this was a time before Socialism and other utopian economic systems had taken on the negative connotations found in today's neocon world:

http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm

One obvious sticking point is the distribution to various industries, where some energy intensive industries, such as primary metals, might find it difficult to produce their products if their consumption was directly rationed according to some formula. Distributing the rations to the final consumer, i.e., the people, makes it possible to link the consumption of all of industry's energy directly to the final demand.

Every day, people make many billions of decisions about consuming energy, but they may not be aware that they are doing so. Everything we do, from the time the alarm clock rings until we turn out the lights at bed time involves decisions involving the use of energy. Even during our sleep, our machines provide electricity or heat to keep us comfortable. The energy tax approach buries the tax in the overall price. A tax based "ration by price" system would continue to hide the real energy consumption impact of these activities from the individual, as the resulting increase in taxes would be added to all other costs to calculate a price at the final point of sales. If folks really understood what these choices meant in terms of energy consumption, I can only hope that they would act to reduce their individual use of fossil fuels (or carbon) and change their way of living for a healthier Earth.

E. Swanson

"tradeable rations" = oil futures

Hi mdsolar, it is indeed taking off. I am on the UK government's (DEFRA) advisory panel on "Personal Carbon Allowances" and there is tentative talk of 2011-2012 as a potential target date for implementation.

I also work with David Fleming's Lean Economy Connection, and he first published his model of TEQs in 1996, so it's not a new model, although it has been worked up and refined somewhat in that time (in small part by myself over the past year).

In terms of your request for direct comparisons, earlier this year I engaged in an online discussion on Cap and Share's website on the differences between the two schemes, which is available here: http://www.climatecooperation.org/index.php?title=Talk:TEQs

Since Monbiot recommends TEQs (although he didn't necessarily understand it fully when he wrote Heat), his perspective is effectively covered there too. If you want to understand the detail of TEQs all the information is available at www.teqs.net , and there is a newly launched forum there if you have any further inputs/questions. Chris Vernon over at Oil Drum Europe also did an article on it a year or so ago:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/4/163554/8625

To clear up a couple of points I will quickly mention though that there is nothing in TEQs that gives industry or government free shares - only individuals get an Entitlement, while industry and Government must purchase quotas at auction (the Tender) to cover their energy needs. Also it should perhaps be made clear that FEASTA's Cap and Share proposal does not ration individuals' energy use at all, but is rather an upstream limit on the total amount of energy (measured in potential carbon emissions) allowed into the economy.