Academics Argue for World War II-Style Rationing of Food and Fuel to Fight ‘Climate Change’

An egg display case is seen nearly empty at a Giant Food grocery store in Washington on Jan. 9, 2022. Sarah Silbiger/Reuters

Academics are arguing that World War II-style rationing could help fight climate change by slashing greenhouse gas emissions more rapidly and fairly.

In a paper (pdf) published on Feb. 20 in the journal “Ethics, Policy & Environment,” researchers from the University of Leeds in England argue that carbon rationing has been “neglected as a policy option for mitigating climate change.”

“There is a broad scientific consensus that avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change requires a rapid reduction in global emissions. We argue that rationing could help states reduce emissions rapidly and fairly,” the academics wrote. “Our arguments in this paper draw on economic analysis and historical research into rationing in the UK during (and after) the two world wars, highlighting success stories and correcting misconceptions.”

The study notes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in a 2018 report (pdf) that greenhouse gas emissions would have to be cut by 45 percent by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target.

However, according to the authors, various attempts to reduce such emissions, such as carbon taxes and personal carbon trading schemes have led to “regressive outcomes, disproportionately impacting low-income and vulnerable groups.”

Thus, they instead propose that rationing would provide a fair method of sharing resources and reducing emissions, pointing to its “success” during the Second World War, when resources became scarce.

An environmental activist with the group Extinction Rebellion DC scales the Wilson Building next to a sign that reads "No New Fossil Fuels," as part of an Earth Day rally against fossil fuels in Washington on April 22, 2022. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

How Rationing Would Work

The policy would be implemented as part of what the authors call a “broader pluralistic response to climate change” and could be used alongside ad campaigns to inform the general public about the current climate change situation.

Many experts have argued that climate change is being misrepresented by activists to give the impression the current situation is worse than it actually is.

In their paper, the authors first suggest that governments could regulate fossil fuels through limitations on oil exploration, carbon-intensive farming methods, and long-haul flights while closing down coal mines, to create scarcity at a time when the global economy is currently suffering from an energy crisis.

After that, rationing could be introduced gradually to manage the subsequent scarcity to make it fair and equal to meet everyone’s basic needs.

The academics proposed two different options for the rationing policy.

First, policymakers could introduce an “overall carbon allowance,” handing out “carbon cards” similar to bank cards that would keep track of carbon allowances.

Alternatively, governments could ration several specifically selected goods, such as limiting the number of long-haul flights an individual could make in a year or the amount of petrol they can purchase in a month.

Household energy, meat, or clothing could also be rationed, the authors say, noting that other goods could be rationed if deemed appropriate.

“Indeed, many of the things that were rationed in wartime are—coincidentally—things that one might want to ration in response to climate change,” the authors note.

They added that records from World War II show that appeals to people to voluntarily reduce their consumption had “invariably failed” but that compulsory rationing led to the distribution of goods more equally, regardless of wealth, and also saw malnutrition rates go down, despite rife shortages.

A person takes a pump at a petrol station. Joe Giddens/PA Media

‘Scarcity Drives Up Prices’

However, in regard to public perception, the authors note a key difference between World War II rationing and the current climate crisis is that members of the public might not be so welcoming to rationing in the current climate, given there is an “abundance of resources available.”

This, they argue, is an illusion, pointing to a “scarcity of carbon sinks,” which are things like forests that can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and “the planet’s limited ability to absorb GHG emission.”

The latest paper comes as some British supermarkets, including Tesco, Asda, and Morrisons, have already begun rationing staple items such as eggs, fruits, and vegetables amid shortages.

“The suppliers are proactively working with supermarkets, that’s what we are being told,” Thérèse Coffey, the UK environment and food minister, told parliament Thursday. “We are being told there’s an issue for … up to four weeks.”

One of the paper’s lead authors, Nathan Wood, a postdoctoral fellow at Utrecht University’s Fair Energy Consortium, said: “The cost of living crisis has shown what happens when scarcity drives up prices, with energy prices rising steeply and leaving vulnerable groups unable to pay their bills. Currently, those living in energy poverty cannot use anywhere near their fair share of energy supply, whereas the richest in society are free to use as much energy as they can afford.

“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,” Wood added.

Despite the currently limited rationing that has already been imposed in various countries, not everyone welcomed the latest paper from Leeds University academics.

On Twitter, former leader of the UK Independence, Nigel Farage, wrote: “Academics propose the rationing to combat climate change! Flights, meat, petrol, and even clothing should have a nontransferable token, tracked by a ‘carbon card’ instead of bank card. Worst part is these crackpot ideas will soon be mainstream.”