"Domestic Tradable Quotas" -- DTQs -- can best be thought of as personal carbon credits. Individuals would have an annual carbon quota; those who live more efficiently will have extra credits to sell off to those who are less cautious. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research proposed this concept last year in a briefing paper (PDF, although it's currently offline). It's an interesting idea, albeit one which needs a great deal more thought before implementation. (We touched on DTQs last September and this past June, and have talked about a variety of carbon-offset and carbon-neutrality opt-in programs for individuals.)
Our friends at Grist have taken a look at the DTQ scheme in a bit more detail (although they reference the same Tyndall climate research center paper). It is an interesting idea, and author Mike Wendling explores some of its implications. Check it out.
This is not a new concept as the Global Commons Institute have been flogging this idea of years. Website 'http://www.gci.org.uk/'.
What a top-down, centralized way to accomplish carbon reductions.
The basic process comes down to charging people more for excessive use of carbon (they have to "buy" excess credits on the market), thereby encouraging energy conserving behavior.
Wouldn't it be much simpler to TAX carbon products with a hefty sales tax, then apply those revenues to a per-capita credit to every resident of the country? Those who use more, pay more; those who use less, earn money; it's revenue neutral; and it has ZERO privacy/big-brother problems.
I can't see the advantage of DTQs over a simple "feebate" system.
The fundamental flaw in these ideas is of course anyone who actauly passed such a law would then be shot.
Whether you're talking about DTQs or carbon tax, the common problem is going to be working out what products and services should have a charge attached and how much.
Is anyone doing research work to analyse ways of doing this?