I’ve been traveling a lot in the last 3 months: China, Pacific Islands, Singapore, USA and the Caribbean. It’s been an interesting time to just observe and not spend too much time thinking and writing. It’s been an amazing decade, the noughties, a time of profound shifts and shocks.

The nineties seemed so easy in comparison…yes some financial disasters but they are part of the regular boom/busy cycle..but in general times were good and there was an air of stability. Y2K came and went and in all the excitement we had ourselves caught up in a huge stock market bubble…..the tech wreck….horribly followed by 9/11 and the start of a new era in US expansionary policy.

The last decade saw the financial system gutted from the inside out. That it is still standing is a testimony the the magic that one can weave with numbers. The spread of social media and the growth of the internet was nothing if astonishing. The ability to communicate 24/7 took many by surprise and for some completely took over their lives. The rise of Apple….and the iPod generation transformed music, computing and basically created a whole new industry in itself…mind you was it much different to the Walkman and its introduction? Yes Google, Apple, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter brought the world of media, in all its forms, to a completely new level. But that’s what technology does…we’re just moving at an exponential rate.

China and the rest of the BRIC gang really came to the party. The US ended the decade on its knees…wrapped up in wars it cannot win, with a financial system in disarray and an economy on its knees. With Japan the first industrialized economy to fail and the US not far behind, the global shape of international relations has changed. Multi-polarity is an uncomfortable idea for many and how that works out will be a real test.

On that subject climate change continues to take center stage notwithstanding the inevitable failure of the Copenhagen talks. The records all show the noughties being the warmest on record but the small matter of fiddling numbers won’t have helped bolster the case of extreme action. When arguments hinge on tiny fractions any question on their veracity can have serious consequences. As a researcher in this area for sometime i must admit even i have become somewhat sanguine over the whole thing.

When I look back over the last decade and forward to the next, it seems as if the same themes will recur:

- Financialisation of Economies: Can we remove the yoke of derivative financial instruments from the real economy?

- Technology: Will social media enable the development of a networked based economy?

- Global Politics: Can we move to a multi-polar world without the necessity of the United Nations as a de facto world government?

- Climate change: How do we manage the change in our climate and the resulting shifts in population and its attendant baggage?

There’s plenty of hope in those questions for moving to a more sustainable world. But any one of those we get wrong could easily send us into a period of darkness. Let’s hope we don’t end up taking this road.

I will explore each topic in more detail over the next few weeks.

Another case of yes, no, maybe, no. The recent G8 summit started with a resounding yes but soon slipped back into a rather tentative not on your nelly.

Simply put the developing or poorer nations have got pressing issues of poverty to deal with and they simply don’t see why they should have to pay for the ecological sins of the developed and richer nations, never mind the fact that they got rich on the back of an imperialist framework!

It just seems that no deal can ever be done without some form of equity payback. There has been some suggestion that revenue raised from either carbon taxes or auctioning of permits could be rebated on a per capita basis. This is simply redistributing the costs in a progressive manner and makes sense on the face of it.

However, can’t see the wealthy punters in the West going for that. What to do?

Maybe it’s time to look for the simplest solution and just get a carbon tax on the books. It’s quick and simple as you only need to tax, at source, basic fossil fuels: oil, gas and coal.

This is something i posted about in 2007 but it’s time to take another look.

Let’s say we have established a price for “carbon”,this being a proxy for externalities caused in the combustion of fossil fuels. The most efficient way to alert the market to this cost is to price it in at source ie where the fossil fuel is sold wholesale. This would be the global oil, gas or coal exchanges.

In my paper, Climate Control, i argued for the establishment of a World Energy Agency, where all fossil fuels were sold through. Simply add on the price of carbon and leave it at that. As a one point global process it would be very simple and then that price information would flow out across the world. End of story.

But there are two issues here:

One is that we are trying to stop carbon quantities breaching certain levels. The price elasticity of fossil fuel consumption may hinder this somewhat as consumers of oil products are slow to change demand in response to price. But there is no doubt that the price rises over the last few years certainly caused some pain in the wallet and made people think about ways of cutting back on petrol usage.

The second issue is interesting. What happens to that money? Who does it belong to? As a charge being levied by the WEA it has no soveriegn recipient. So i propose this “charge” goes into a Global Environmental Contingency Fund (GECF). I want to make clear this is not a tax, it is a cost. It is therefore directly related to an expense which is in this case the use or environmental services.

Let’s stop using the word tax. It’s incorrect and draws attention from the fact that we are simply paying for a service we are using.

So how could the GECF work? I have to give that some more thought but the rough idea is that it would hold those funds in bonds (sovereign) or could lend them out at low interest to fund projects that have a positive environmental benefit. This is the tricky bit. But let’s sit with the first piece. The money comes in and sits in bonds. That’s it. So it’s not being spent on projects of a dubious outcome. As the title implies its a Contingency Fund. We don’t know for sure what will happen in the future. The money can be repaid if required by discounting the price of fossil fuels if it turns out that the cost has turned out to be lower.

What could New Zealand do right now?

Implement a tax and use that revenue to reforest the whole country. This can link into a global emissions trading scheme at some point but the important point is to make sure that the tax collected does not go into the general pot.

People need to see the flow of money from them into pure offsetting activities. If we don’t restrict supply (the only accurate and long lasting solution) then we have to slowly change behaviour and do it in the most straightforward way. A ring fenced and targeted tax is probably the best option we have right now given the likelihood of any global agreement at Copenhagen.

In his new book Lovelock, the father of Gaia theory, paints a somewhat hopeless picture for plant earth and all who travel on her broad back. Actually it’s not all doom and gloom but more and more it seems like our ability to prevent global heating is lessened day by day.

He sees an unstable system accentuating positive feedbacks. This amplification of feedbacks can send out misleading signals i.e. periods of cooling can be just as intense as the system ratchets up the power of an accelerating loop. This is similar to tipping points observed in fisheries when the catch hits all time highs one year with collapse the next….no fish left…look there’s loads…..crash. In this interview he leans towards a population collapse, a general die-off as the likely result of our earthly transgressions.

I think I’m with him on this. Having followed and tried to get involved in the climate debate for the last 10 years I have seen how hard it is to effect change and also that change needs to come at a global level AND from the supply side. All the tinkering in the world will not make a difference and perhaps we should just focus on adaptation instead.

At the same time he’s heading off into space, courtesy of Richard Branson who offered him a ride on spaceship Gaia. Hopefully he’ll be listening to Bowie as he takes off. For all you fans here’s the original video….sit back and take off

Another high level global conference and another list of innocuous plans and goals.

Fiddling whilst the plant burns seems to be infectious. With the global economy collapsing around their ears policymakers have never had a better opportunity to declare a move to a quota based system of fossil fuel extraction.

With oil prices at 5 year lows, down $115 from the highs earlier in the year, I am sure that producers would be willing to sit down and listen.

Whilst global demand is down there is an opportunity to slow emissions at source by setting a target as per the Sustento Framework and making it stick. All the talk of the last few years has been about increasing demand for fossil fuels and the impossibility of reigning that in.

Well right now any demand would be welcome. There has never been a better time to lay it on the line. It’s time to stop pissing around with talk fests and policies which will never actually reduce emissions in any meaningful way.

Set a target for global annual fossil fuel extraction and then stick to it.

It’s taken a bit of time but someone decided to publish my climate change proposal. After being rejected by the Journal Of Climate Change for being too grand, the Environmentalist, the publication of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment in the UK, published an amended version last month.

You can read it here if you haven’t read the old version.

The key theme is that we must control what we take out of the earth rather trying to control emissions after use. It also stresses the need for a global carbon budget.

Nothing has happened in recent years to change my thoughts on it. It is a large canvas with many themes to explore. If anyone wants to take on some of those themes in a new piece of research just let me know.

With the Financial Tsunami bearing down on us it’s easy to turn a blind eye to ecological concerns (or even human right for that matter). But really it’s all the same stuff: a loss of our centre, of who we are.

It’s just reflected in different ways.

Peak Oil is still a major problem and that is bearing down on us more quickly than we would probably care to know.

The monetisation of ecological damage has been estimated at around $3trln, plenty more than current losses in financial markets (though maybe not when the final bill comes in). It would come as no surprise that the two are interconnected. Consumption drives production and production requires ecological resources. When many ecological costs are externalised then we have a problem.

Who pays the bill in the end? Just as we are seeing who pays the bill for excess consumption of financial resources.

The answer: We all pay.