I have been researching a bit more the idea of a SF Bay Area rideshare currency, and realized it should be expanded to any alternative transportation method.
Here’s how it would work:
- Alt-transportation users would log their shared rides/bicycle rides/walks using a service like RideSpring, which may provide rideshare matching service. From these logs as well as the type of car that would be used otherwise, carbon emission savings would be computed. Certification might involve a mutual process or a device such as the Freiker or the Zap tracking devices for walkers/bicyclists. Users with would be able to withdraw these carbon offset certificates as printed stickers with a barcode.
- Non-alt transportation users buy carbon offsets certificates issued in proportion to the carbon emissions saved by the tracked usage of alternative transportation. This certificates would be valid for a year and issued as bumper stickers that buyers can proudly stick on their car.
- Businesses would accept payment of their products/services in part with the carbon offset certificate stickers.
- In addition, thanks to the recent Commuter Bicycle Benefit bill, bicycling commuters riding at least 3 times a week would be able to get $20 pre-tax income every month from their employers in the form of additional carbon offset dollars (that could only be spent at bicyclist shops).
- The overall system would be operating by a non-profit charity with a specific additional mission of lobbying for additional tax breaks, in particular for ride sharers not using vanpools.
I need to do the maths, but in the meantime, would love to hear what you think.
I think the carbon offsets certificates, especially as currency that could potentially circulate at bike shops and public transit, are a big improvement on the terra pass concept. The user is learning about their carbon emissions and getting direct feedback and rewards rather than sending money to some place far away to an alternative energy project.
The most difficult thing about using alternative transportation is that it is inconvenient (because it is underfunded and therefore sparse and infrequent) and bicycling because it is unsafe (not enough safe bike lanes) and lack of good integration with public transit and walking mostly because it is unsafe (because of the lack of effective public transit service late night and in dangerous areas). This is as big of a challenge as deincentivizing solo car rides and reincentivizing alternative transport. I would like to see some of this currency circulation going into improving the alternative transit infrastructure if possible. Then the incentives would be more motivating. I am not sure how to integrate these pieces, but there must be a way.
In order to avoid printing paper, may be barcode on a mobile phone is a possibility. In the same field : carbon reduction/rewards, there is the carbon manna initiative http://carbonmanna.blogspot.com/
do you mean monetize the benefit of carsharing by turning it into a carbon credit producer? I like this idea. how many tons of carbon do you think could be saved if a project like this doubled the number of people carsharing?
regardless of talking about ccs, i like the idea of tracking good deeds (like ridesharing) and having a controlled system that allowed the printing of money based on those deeds. suggestions on how to retire such a currency?
yes, precisely: monetize the benefit of carsharing by turning it into a carbon credit producer.
re: numbers, I need to work on it.
One way of retiring the system would be for the currency to be marked with a year, say 2010, and expires accordingly. During the year 2009, 2010 currency electronic tokens would be issued. Only those could be withdrawn and printed as 2010. Once 1st of January is passed, the 2010-marked currency would not be accepted anymore, but it could be used to stick on your car. Just a thought, there might be unintended consequences..
I'm jumping into this conversation without much prior browsing, so sorry in advance if I'm out of touch.
1) I don't quite get the rationale behind issuing carbon offsets to those that ride say a bike, *assuming* a pay as you pollute principle is already in action for those that use their car. By using the bike, one's action on the environment (and traffic) is neutral, so he/she should pay/receive nothing.
2) The idea of having to log bike trips seems awfully inconvenient and restricting one's freedom.
3) If the price of the certificate valid for one year bought by a car owner is decoupled from his/her car usage, that is actually in part counterproductive. Any sunk cost encourages more usage to amortize it.
Actually a couple of more thoughts: Let's say one has 3 choices a) commute to work by car b) by bike c) tele-commute. The proposed scheme would actually put the tele-commuter at a disadvantage compared to biking. Why so?
By subsidizing bike trips, it actually makes it a productive activity. If one stretches the reasoning a tad, some people may actually bike ride more (than say stay at home or walk their dog) to finance the carbon offsets for their car!
Regarding 1) if there was a gasoline pollution tax (what I assume you mean “pay as you pollute principle”), you're correct, there is no need to reward those not polluting. But such a tax would require a nationwide democratic process that it very complicated to obtain. If it isn't nationwide, say voted only by a city, people would simply buy their gasoline elsewhere. The tax deduction does not have this drawback.
Regarding 2) yes, but it's a compromise. I keep hearing about people's issues with privacy, but in reality you'd be amazed by how much personal information people are willing to give a way for a single dollar. It's not that privacy does not matter, but in the face of a strong enough value proposition, it disappears. Furthermore, you may only have to report to a trusted auditing authority to get your credits, so only one party would know the details of your trips, not everyone.
Regarding 3), this is the current model of carbon offsetting. It seems to work, which is why I am mentioning it. The tracking costs seem to outweigh the risks of people being encouraged to amortize it.
Regarding telecommuting: I think it would make perfect sense to fit under this alt.transportation currency. Bicycling does have health benefits that an employer might be interested to promote instead of promoting employees to work from home.
“1) if there was a gasoline pollution tax.[…] But such a tax would require a nationwide democratic process that it very complicated to obtain.”
Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't necessarily alluding to a gas tax, but instead whichever system is in place to tax pollution and/or congestion, which I thought was already implied by your proposed carbon offsets scheme for car users (albeit with the caveats I mentioned). As for shopping elsewhere (how far?) for cheaper gas, I'm unconvinced.
“people are willing to give a way for a single dollar” Sure, (feeble) people would do a lot differently for earning their $. So I take it, under your scheme, not accepting money for riding the bike is going to be the new privilege of the rich then… It seems to me that subsidizing publicly available bikes such as in Paris would achieve the same goal, without us having to bear that big brother impingement on our daily routine.
“this is the current model of carbon offsetting”. Not so sure about that. If we're talking at the level of a industrial nations, the carbon tax is coupled to emissions, not under your scheme. In any case, current does not necessarily equate best possible.
“Bicycling does have health benefits that an employer might be interested to promote instead of promoting employees to work from home.”. Well, that's a different issue from pollution. Even then, working from home also has health benefits, not just from the employer's standpoint, whose concern, personally, comes second to my own. But let's get back to pollution: discouraging tele-commuting would actually requires more building space (office space) which comes with a significant carbon footprint.
I'm jumping into this conversation without much prior browsing, so sorry in advance if I'm out of touch.
1) I don't quite get the rationale behind issuing carbon offsets to those that ride say a bike, *assuming* a pay as you pollute principle is already in action for those that use their car. By using the bike, one's action on the environment (and traffic) is neutral, so he/she should pay/receive nothing.
2) The idea of having to log bike trips seems awfully inconvenient and restricting one's freedom.
3) If the price of the certificate valid for one year bought by a car owner is decoupled from his/her car usage, that is actually in part counterproductive. Any sunk cost encourages more usage to amortize it.
Actually a couple of more thoughts: Let's say one has 3 choices a) commute to work by car b) by bike c) tele-commute. The proposed scheme would actually put the tele-commuter at a disadvantage compared to biking. Why so?
By subsidizing bike trips, it actually makes it a productive activity. If one stretches the reasoning a tad, some people may actually bike ride more (than say stay at home or walk their dog) to finance the carbon offsets for their car!
Regarding 1) if there was a gasoline pollution tax (what I assume you mean “pay as you pollute principle”), you're correct, there is no need to reward those not polluting. But such a tax would require a nationwide democratic process that it very complicated to obtain. If it isn't nationwide, say voted only by a city, people would simply buy their gasoline elsewhere. The tax deduction does not have this drawback.
Regarding 2) yes, but it's a compromise. I keep hearing about people's issues with privacy, but in reality you'd be amazed by how much personal information people are willing to give a way for a single dollar. It's not that privacy does not matter, but in the face of a strong enough value proposition, it disappears. Furthermore, you may only have to report to a trusted auditing authority to get your credits, so only one party would know the details of your trips, not everyone.
Regarding 3), this is the current model of carbon offsetting. It seems to work, which is why I am mentioning it. The tracking costs seem to outweigh the risks of people being encouraged to amortize it.
Regarding telecommuting: I think it would make perfect sense to fit under this alt.transportation currency. Bicycling does have health benefits that an employer might be interested to promote instead of promoting employees to work from home.
“1) if there was a gasoline pollution tax.[…] But such a tax would require a nationwide democratic process that it very complicated to obtain.”
Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't necessarily alluding to a gas tax, but instead whichever system is in place to tax pollution and/or congestion, which I thought was already implied by your proposed carbon offsets scheme for car users (albeit with the caveats I mentioned). As for shopping elsewhere (how far?) for cheaper gas, I'm unconvinced.
“people are willing to give a way for a single dollar” Sure, (feeble) people would do a lot differently for earning their $. So I take it, under your scheme, not accepting money for riding the bike is going to be the new privilege of the rich then… It seems to me that subsidizing publicly available bikes such as in Paris would achieve the same goal, without us having to bear that big brother impingement on our daily routine.
“this is the current model of carbon offsetting”. Not so sure about that. If we're talking at the level of a industrial nations, the carbon tax is coupled to emissions, not under your scheme. In any case, current does not necessarily equate best possible.
“Bicycling does have health benefits that an employer might be interested to promote instead of promoting employees to work from home.”. Well, that's a different issue from pollution. Even then, working from home also has health benefits, not just from the employer's standpoint, whose concern, personally, comes second to my own. But let's get back to pollution: discouraging tele-commuting would actually requires more building space (office space) which comes with a significant carbon footprint.