Extracts from Murder in the Climate Assembly
The novel is structured (see structure) with three elements: the main one is Iris Tate’s story i.e. the campus novel segment, there is the whodunnit set in a climate assembly – the story within the story, and there are snippets from philosophy lectures. Extracts 1, 2 and 3 shows how the idea occurs in each of these respectively (see also extracts 1 and 2 under GDP).
In extract 1, Iris debates what ideas to include in her whodunnit set in the climate assembly. In extract 2, the detective watches footage of the members of the climate assembly debating personal carbon allowances.
Extract 1 (campus novel segment)
I headed for the path by the stream and sat on my bench. I gazed at the gurgling water and considered how I could integrate her solutions into the whodunnit. This had become my favourite time and place for creative musings. Lectures are done, staff and students have gone home, and the evening crowd heading for the union bar were yet to appear.
Gradually, the ideas took shape. Her first suggestion was to switch from the Gross Domestic Product as a measure of success to a wellbeing index, which would include environmental aspects. Once GDP, which was basically consumption, was no longer the key metric, then the conversation would change from what’s good for the economy to what’s good for us. Her second idea was personal carbon allowances. I’d initially dismissed them because they seemed too similar to carbon offsets which I’d already covered, but once she explained to me the difference, I was hooked. They’d be transformative.
Extract 2 (from whodunnit set in climate assembly)
SARAH: The idea is that Government sets a personal and equal cap on emissions so everyone would receive the same carbon allowance. Once your allowance runs out, consumption would become more expensive. Those who don’t use up their allowance can sell their remainder on the personal carbon market. This proposal is also referred to as personal carbon trading.
The click-clack of knitting echoes each statement.
SARAH: This encourages people to reduce their carbon footprint. For example, by insulating their homes or using energy-efficient transport. It also benefits less well off or greener people-
BARRY: How?
ANDREW: It’s been calculated that 71% of low-income households would be better off under personal carbon allowances.
JASON: Yay!
Jason goes to high five Barry, but his hand falls back in his lap when Barry ignores him.
BARRY: What about kids?
SARAH: Just like money, you get extra, like you do with child benefit and the disability allowance. If you vote for PCAs, a follow-up citizens’ jury will decide the details.
STEVE: How will it affect high-income households?
SARAH: It’s likely that you’d need to pay more than you usually would, depending on how much you went over your allowance. It acts as a progressive form of taxation on high-carbon consumption.
Steve shakes his head.
JASON: I didn’t get personal carbon trading.
SARAH: It’s another term that’s all. Let’s recap. There are a few different versions of the idea but basically, the Government gives everyone a…
NEEDLES: A ration, like during the war.
SARAH: Yes, just as in wartime, we ration what’s scarce. In this climate emergency, we ration carbon emissions. Everyone gets an equal allowance of how much carbon they’re allowed to produce. If you go under, you can sell your remaining carbon credits on the open market. That’s the trading part.
Jason puts his hand up.
JASON: What do you mean by producing carbon?
SARAH: Your purchases will come with a carbon footprint. So if you consume seasonal vegetables you’ll be responsible for producing fewer carbon emissions than if you eat beef for example.
Jason nods.
BARRY: The thing is my kids, they won’t eat vegetables. Millie just likes beefburgers. The kids are too stressy to get on a bus.
DEVANIKA: Stop moaning about your children! You’re lucky to have them?
BARRY: I don’t ever stop, and it’s still not enough! This is the first break I’ve had since they were born. You lot just swan around saying ‘I’ll pay my carbon offset’ or ‘I might jump on a bus,’ as if it’s not a ton of hassle. And there’s Jason (Barry mimics Jason’s slow drawl) ‘I’ll just take time out from strumming my guitar to have a little tinker and repair something.’ (back in his own voice, shouting) Why the hell should I? Why?
JASON: Stop having a go!
DEVANIKA: Yeah, leave him alone. Doing nothing is better for the planet than actively destroying it!
Devanika looks at Steve pointedly.
STEVE: Don’t bloody start on me again!
Andrew moves to a whiteboard which has columns and figures on it.
ANDREW: The key thing is that none of the other solutions we’ve discussed work on their own. None got anywhere near one percent take-up. All together they struggle to save a million tonnes. But, with personal carbon allowances and the financial incentive on us all to stay below our allowances, take-up on all of these things would shoot up….
…The effectiveness of Libraries of Things, Repair Bill and on-demand buses depend upon their level of take up – the more people use them, the better and cheaper the service. Personal carbon allowances provide the incentive.
Extract 3: from philosophy lecture
…Another alternative is to agree that she’s right. If so, we must accept that an insufficient number of people will voluntarily take on extra costs or accept constraints on their consumption for the benefit of ‘the planet’. The ecologist, Hardin, in the 1960s described this as the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. He used the example of over-grazing to show how people acting in their short-term self-interest will destroy the resource they depend upon. Other examples are over-fishing, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of sufficiently strong social norms against over-consumption, the only alternative is governance.
The implications of this are we’d need to remove the voluntary element. For example, in wartime, we rationed limited resources to conserve them. The government could similarly impose a carbon ration, or personal carbon allowance. A modified version of this would be to incentivise low-carbon products and behaviours via taxes and subsidies.
