I think you present some relevant solutions, but I have qualms about two issues. One, you mention a sort of self-imposed rationing, and two, a global CO2 emissions permit per individual. Although these ideas have their merits, I doubt how realistic they are. For the first, many people are well-aware that the global community is facing many serious crises to which, at least individually, little is being done. I have yet to witness much rationing of food or energy that would have any measurable impact. Next, the proposal to ration CO2 emissions is hardly realistic given that the current international system is self-help based, lacking firm international law to ensure that all countries participate. Which international authority has sufficient power over a sovereign nation to ensure that it complies with an international agreement? If the United Nations is unable to what other organization can? Nevertheless, I appreciate your contribution and think that these ideas have their place in the discussion.

Good european perspective

Dear Marie, in my opinion, the ideas you develop are interesting but radically insufficient. Are you aware of the work of the Global Footprint Network? If everybody would consume like an average European, we would need between 3 to 6 planets (against 5 to 10 for an average American). In 2008, according to this institute, we have overshot the planet's carrying capacity by 30%. Moreover, instead of promoting leisure time, I would advocate -- at this stage at least -- political activity to advance much needed reforms!

Thank you very much for your comments.
John - As far as I know, no rationing projects have been tried in the post-war years and the connotations to war can put potentially people off. We haven't witnessed anything of this kind before. Modern society is still based on consumption and even though we are all aware of the very dark impending future if we don't quickly and radically cut down on emissions, we are still being told to take weekendflights, buy fruit from the other side of the world and to buy new petrol engine cars. Rationing goes directly against this and is in that sense radical but definitely not unrealistic. Did anyone 20 years ago imagine that many countries would today have banned smoking? It would have been an unthinkable infringement on peoples free rights. Rationing will not ban anyone from consuming but it will limit them and make them plan their consumption. Compare it to a free bar vs. a small glass of exclusive whiskey. At the free bar you can order what ever you want, doesn't matter if you finish it because there's an endless supply and in the morning you'll deeply regret the whole thing. On the contrary, you can long for the glass of whiskey and when you do have it you savour it and truly enjoy it.
Turning rationing global would be incredibly hard and create rediculous amounts of paperwork. I think it would have to start on a national level.

Benoit - I am well aware of this and I promote a decreese in consumption. I don't see increesed leisure time making people consume more. On the other hand the free hours would give people time to think and engage more. I think a lot of people don't care about the environment beacuse they don't have time. It takes time to recycle, grow your own vegatables and take the train instead of the plane. People work so much that they simply must have their twice yearly charter holiday to cope.

Interesting idea on the rationing Marie. While I appreciate the thought behind it, it seems slightly less viable practically. CO2 rationing and added expenses (if somebody were to monitor it) would be almost impossible for poorer countries. How about if they give these countries a chunk of credit to begin with?

Hello Marie and thanks for the reply! I am not that confident that more leisure time would lead to more thinking and engagement. Anyway, this would be a very slow process which, in my opinion, might be insufficient given the urgency (as perceived by me) of the situation we are facing.

Also, I don't see how you would get the idea of rationing widely accepted or implemented. It is completely against mainstream cultural values. Building on your example, your idea has pervasive (and currently unpopular) implications that, in my opinion, go far beyond the ban of smokers in public spaces. I don't see how a policy-maker could be elected with that on its program, today. In the context of the financial crisis, the priority of the current institutional framework is clearly and understandingly on mitigating economic recession and job losses.

However, I would be happy to read your comments, arguments on or solutions to this. Despite these major feasibility concerns, rationalizing looks like a very big idea. Perhaps there's a way to have it start on a voluntary basis? And use social influence and pressure to augment it? Perhaps this could be considerably enabled with information technology?