In a 2006 survey by the Dominion Institute, 72% of Canadians said they believe that, by 2020, global warming will have become the greatest crisis facing humankind. While the cause of global warming is still being debated in a few dusty corners, the scientific mainstream believes that global warming is caused by our continued and expanding use of fossil fuels. This crisis seems exacerbated by the apparent lack of political will, in Canada and the US to address the cause of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), the combustion of fossil fuels to produce energy.

The rapid growth of GHGs emanating from the Alberta Tar Sands garners a lot of media attention, but Pollution Watch, which has tabulated Canadian data, ranks eight coal-burning, thermal generating stations among the top ten Canadian GHG emitting facilities. These are the real culprits and most of these facilities are in Alberta or Ontario although there are also coal-burning plants in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.

Although the provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba and Newfoundland do not generate electricity through the combustion of coal, they have flooded significant portions of their landscapes in order to generate electricity. Aboriginal groups in Quebec and environmental groups in BC are saying that enough is enough. At some point, we will run out of rivers or the political will to dam them. Then what?

Public discussions about the generation of electricity almost always focus on supply; things like the merits of coal versus nuclear, how clean coal can provide centuries of pollution-free power or how wind turbines kill birds. We are in danger of missing the boat in terms of GHG reduction and preserving our natural landscape unless we start exploring the demand-side options and conservation. These need to become the key discussion topics related to electricity. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has maintained, for several decades now, that the cost of a unit of energy gained through conservation beats all other contenders and that conservation presents a vast pool of untapped energy.

A demand-side plan for curbing the growth in electricity consumption could use a quota system. Canadians have used quota systems in agriculture to constrain the production of commodities, like milk. Quotas have been used in fishing as a tool to manage the impact of harvests on wild populations. Water licenses are another form of management using the quota system. As long as quotas are well managed and as long as they remain free of political interference, they can attain their desired ends. Quotas applied to electricity consumption could reduce its production and enable the shutdown of harmful power plants. This would reduce damage to the global ecosystem. It’s an idea whose time has come.

In managing electricity consumption, the unit cost for electrical energy would be largely independent of the quota. Utility bills would still have to be paid, just as they now have to be paid. The difference is that, with the quota model, there would be an artificial ceiling on consumption.

The aim of a quota on electricity consumption is to encourage electricity consumers to begin to affect their own programs of conservation and to replace electrical energy with solar and other renewable forms of energy. Through a quota program, industry would also be encouraged to do the R&D necessary to develop household appliances that use less and less energy. Instituting limits on consumption and pointing to a new energy path could begin to foster a conserver culture in which less becomes more.

Inflicting penalties on lower income groups is something that a quota model must strive to avoid. Fortunately, energy consumption goes hand-in-hand with affluence, so maintaining fairness across the income groups shouldn’t be a problem.

In my quota model, there would be a one-time distribution of quota. “Consumption quotas” would be distributed to each adult citizen based on the overall, per capita, average amount of electricity used in the residential sector. The quotas would be geographically transportable. There would be a “quota market” in which unused quota could be bought or sold. Quota could be traded on a bid and ask basis, like an ongoing auction. We could start with a quota of about 400 kilowatt-hours per month per adult person excluding any energy used for the electric heating of homes. This is generous but it would, nevertheless, have an immediate effect our demand for electricity. The quota market would exist for the purpose of distributing unused quota to those without, but not for the expansion of personal consumption.

By linking an initial quota to the average consumption of electricity, we would, already, reduce the overall electricity supply, enabling the shut down of some offensive power plants. Yet, the actual size of the quota would be very fair. Only excessive consumption would be affected at the outset. With time, conserver technologies would enable other widespread reductions in consumption.

Quota systems employ some kind of negative consequence for individuals who exceed their quota. For electrical utilities, this could be the interruption of service, fines or rapidly escalating rates. Our thought experiment assumes that a suitable consequence would be put into place.

This quota system would move society toward more efficient energy use. It could stimulate higher production levels of conserver technology and this could lead to lower prices through increased economies of scale. In the meantime, if my refrigerator bites the dust and I feel that it is time for a super-efficient unit, now available only as a so-called “solar” unit, I could help finance it by selling off some of my quota, probably the number of energy units saved by my new fridge. Similarly, when my hot water heater blows its cool, I may figure that it is time to go solar and to sell off another chunk of quota. The incentive for individuals to adopt conserver technologies would become doubly attractive under the quota model; part of the capital cost could be covered by selling quota, while the user would also benefit from smaller utility bills.

Individuals would be allowed to develop green, emission-free electricity supplies of their own. They could decide to do this for several reasons. First, these supplies could cost less than equal amounts of quota and, they may want more energy than their grid-based quota would allow. Developing this supply through roof-top photovoltaics, solar water heaters, sunrooms or windmills might prove more attractive than paying for the quota and drawing this energy from the grid. The same arguments that we put forward for conserver technology may also be advanced for this development of decentralized supply.

Some people heat their homes with electricity. In the future, there might be pressure to expand the use of electric heat due to the reduction in oil and gas reserves. Many houses were once heated by burning coal. Although coal is a fairly concentrated fuel, it is a GHG source and the small-scale burning of coal was very dirty since the technology used did not provide for optimal combustion. Hence, we find electric heat and coal to be undesirable but natural gas and oil supplies are declining. Still, people need to heat their homes but they should not be penalized for doing so when alternative heating methods are scarce. This problem does not fit neatly into our quota program, but it can still be managed.

The quota model for the limiting of domestic electricity consumption appears to offer some potential for curbing and, ultimately, reducing greenhouse gas emissions due to the generation of electricity. It would also reduce the perceived need to dam ever more rivers. Furthermore, it is a model that is free of regressive penalties. It offers the promise of an immediate reduction in generating capacity and of the atmospheric pollution resulting from the generation of that electricity. It is a tool that directly targets excessive consumption.

The quota model would offer market opportunities for companies willing to invest in the research and development in conserver technologies and it could stimulate the establishment of a conserver culture.

Ideas similar to those presented here could also be applied to the commercial and industrial sectors.

Although consumption is not a basic human right yet, it is one that is guarded implicitly by the corporate establishment because generating power is synonymous with generating a continuing source of profit. However, a stimulus given to conserver technology can also activate the cash registers. More importantly, the switch to conserver technology will also reduce our collective footprint on the planet.

Now, it is time for governments to put politics and trade deals aside and to work hand-in-hand with citizens to move us toward a conserver society.