World War II-style rationing could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions, according to new research from the University of Leeds.

In a paper published in the journal Ethics, Policy and Environment, academics argue that rationing could help states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rapidly and fairly.

Policymakers have considered other schemes to reduce emissions, including carbon taxes and personal carbon trading schemes, but the researchers say these favour the wealthy, who could buy the right to pollute if trading were allowed.

Carbon rationing would instead allow people to receive an equitable portion of resources based on their needs, therefore sharing out the effort to protect the planet.

The authors were based across the University of Leeds’ Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied Centre, Sustainability Research Institute and School of History when they conducted the research.

Joint lead author Dr Nathan Wood said: “The concept of rationing could help, not only in the mitigation of climate change, but also in reference to a variety of other social and political issues – such as the current energy crisis.”

Records from World War II show that compulsory food rationing was more acceptable to the UK public than voluntary changes to diet when resources became scarce. The policy aimed to share goods and burdens more equally, regardless of wealth, which was an important part of its popularity and success.

Historic rationing policies also introduced price controls on goods to keep key resources affordable for most people. As a result, rates of malnutrition went down during World War II, despite the shortages.

A key difference between World War II rationing and the climate crisis is public perception, the researchers say. The availability of thousands of garments, gadgets and goods at the click of a button can give the illusion that resources are available in abundance, but the reality is starkly different.

The researchers suggest that rationing probably wouldn’t be the first step. Instead, policy changes could start with stricter regulations and an accompanying information campaign to communicate the benefits of rationing. Initially, governments could regulate the biggest polluters, such as oil, gas and petrol, long-haul flights and intensive farming, creating scarcity in products that harm the planet. Rationing could then be introduced gradually, to manage the resulting scarcity with the aim of meeting everyone’s basic needs.

The academics identified two options for rationing policy. Policymakers could introduce an all-encompassing carbon allowance, giving out ‘carbon cards’ like bank cards to track and limit usage. Alternatively, governments could ration specifically selected goods, such as flights, petrol, household energy, or even meat or clothing.

Share Story: