Earlier in the week I had an email which contained the government's response to a petition asking for "the Prime Minister to Adopt Carbon Rationing and Contraction and Convergence."

The response is detailed. It says - they're looking at it.

"The Government is looking into the potential value of personal carbon trading (PCT). This is just one of a number of possible long-term options being explored for making individuals better informed about, and involved in, tackling climate change. An initial scoping study has been produced for Defra by the Centre for Sustainable Energy. This study concluded that a personal carbon allowance and trading system has the potential to achieve emissions savings in a fairer way than carbon taxes. The Government is now developing a work programme which should provide the information to lead to a decision on whether or not a personal carbon allowance is a realistic and workable policy option ."

The Low Carbon Kid believes a form of PCT or cap-and-share is the ONLY way to force down overall national carbon emissions, sine another route (persuasion) will always fail, due to catch-23, and taxing has a backlash.

You have to remove the choice to engage in energy-expensive activities.

On Friday I'll write about the two systems on offer and how they differ.

The CSE's scoping study can be found on Defra's website

Public opinions and market opinions

Some recent statistics on Employment and financial benefits of RE and public opinion on climate change policies

Public opinion

According to a Eurobarometer survey in all European Member States, 87% of Europeans are concerned about the climate change.

About the same number (82%) think that their energy use has an impact on the climate and 83% would support a minimum target for renewable energy sources.

Almost two thirds (62%) of the citizens think EU-agreed measures are the best way to tackle energy-related issues.

There is less agreement on how such measures should be implemented.

One third prefers taxing, one third thinks public funding of research would be the best option and the others think that prohibiting inefficient technologies would stimulate energy innovation best.

Nuclear energy is not generally seen as the best way to reduce CO2 emissions.

About 60% of Europeans want to decrease the share of nuclear energy, and only 30% want to build more nuclear power plants.

Employment and financial benefits of RE

The world is on the brink of an energy revolution that will dominate financial markets for years and provide a huge stimulus to global economic growth, according to the latest issue of Barclays Capital's influential Equity Gilt Study.

Investments in alternative energy sources are expected to grow to between $6.2bn and $8.8bn by 2009 as decades of U.S. and European research and development mature.

In 2005 Britain's environmental industries had a turnover of £25bn, according to the DTI, a figure projected to grow to £46bn by 2015.

With 13% growth last year, Germany’s renewable share in overall energy demand caused a renewed growth of jobs in the renewable energy sector.

In 2006 the number of employees working in the German renewables industry passed the 200,000 threshold.

Scottish Renewables has revealed the results of research into the economic impact of its members, the first study of its kind in Scotland.

The results show that 2,596 people are employed by SRF members in Scotland, and that the members of SRF had a combined turnover of £550m in 2006.

Employment in the 'renewables sector' is expected to grow sixfold by 2010 in the south west of England.

Meanwhile, a report from the investment bank Lehman Brothers, set out the position starkly - companies that adapt to the challenges of climate change will win friends and make money.

Those that do not will struggle to survive.