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.

Not wanting to bve left out of the party, China announced a huge stimulus package over the weekend. $600bln or thereabouts is not be to sneezed at. The Chinese are taking no chances with collapsing global trade and economic activity. They have an large domestic economy and plenty of headroom to generate homegrown action.

They also have the money to do it.

As Yves notes the sums involved are getting to the point where a trillion doesn’t raise eyebrows. The Fed’s balance sheet is expanding quicker than a fast food muncher’s waistline. $2trln or will it be 3? Who knows? Who cares anymore? It’s like the end of a Monopoly game where the deals come thick and fast and the rent for landing on Mayfair (or Park Avenue) breaks your bank.

At the same time one continues to hear, in the background, that ecosystem stress is alive and well. As I noted last week there are some major concerns about the level of ecological debt. In a report by the WWF, called The Living Planet, they estimate some $4-5trln worth of ecological damage is occuring on an annual basis.

Deflation, stagflation, hyperinflation, ecological breakdown and over population.

Your cash losing its value every day as the printing presses run wild.

Time for a pause and a lie down.

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.

I’ve mentioned Agflation previously and we’re starting to see more concern expressed at the official level. The UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor John Beddington, has weighed into the debate calling food shortages a problem that was as immediate as climate change. The driver of agflation is two fold: increased demand driven by population growth and increasing development and supply shortages caused by deforestation to grow biofuels.

These two drivers are causing major price rises in all food groups. This creates what might be called “real” inflation, a price rise in the cost of real goods as opposed to asset inflation which is more of a monetary phenomenon.

This is a real problem because it can’t be solved by the hammer of monetary policy though the myopists in their central bank ivory towers seem to think so.

I can imagine their conversation: “let’s raise interest rates so people eat less”.

In many countries people are exhorted to have more children especially in developed economies where birth rates among the middle classes have fallen. So how can we stop the population expanding and how are we going to feed all these people and do it in a manner than the ecosystem can cope with.

It’s a tricky question. One could argue that food shortages, famine, disease and natural disasters regulate populations. That may still be the case. But can we rely on that and should we given we are more enlightened, well supposedly.

Population growth was for a long time a favourite topic for policymakers but has only recently come back onto the mainstream agenda. There is no doubt that the growth in biofuels has played a major part in this and that governments who have set targets for biofuel supply may well need to go back and think more carefully about how the unintended consequences of this feel good policy will play out.

It’s good that the water debate is starting to take more shape. In the main we have struggled with the idea that we should pay for it and how to construct proper markets around it. Some places meter water and some don’t but as we know it’s hard to manage a resource if you can’t measure it use.

So it’s refreshing to see a piece in The Press  on the need for a water market to be constructed to provide an efficient allocation of this precious resource. As I’ve discussed many times, a resource with no price will be treated as if it is free. For many people water is free and always has been but now there are competing claims on water. In New Zealand this is primarily from agriculture with huge demands for irrigation from the dairy industry, which converts water into milk on an enormous scale.

Initial objections are alway around the issue that water is a necessity for life and should therefore be free.  Well so is food and shelter and they aren’t. We have lived with the false notion that water will always be plentiful and is a constant renewable resource. Tell that to Australian farmers who have suffered a 5 year drought in many areas. Water availability is subject to climatic variation and to overuse. Just look at the state of NZ rivers and lakes which are well known to have experienced a serious decline in quality over the last 20 years of intensive farming.

It’s fairly simple to make sure people are allocated a fair supply of free water to assuage those who believe they shouldn’t pay for it but anything above a basic amount should be paid for just like our energy.

It’s only through the pain of payment that we really focus our efforts on conservation, efficiency and alternatives.

It’s time we got on with this whilst we still have water to charge for.