Well quite a lot really. Gulf of Mexico ring any bells? Like Chernobyl and Bhopal before, major industrial accidents can have long-term, catastrophic consequences, as well as immediate costs measured in human and economic cost. Offshore drilling carries huge risk and major negative downstream effects if it goes wrong. Onshore mining, on the other hand, is supposed to be plain vanilla these days. Apparently it’s a little like rolling up a cricket wicket and re-laying it when you’ve dug out a bit of sub-soil.

It’s safe, clean and you end up with an environment, which is as good as, if not better, than before. I was told that by the Assistant Head of Global HSE at Rio Tinto back in 2000. Actually it made sense to me…if you contain all the possible polluting effects, run a safe operation and remediate to very high standards…that could work. Perhaps that culture hasn’t quite made to to NZ. Judging by the poor practices at Pike River, one would have to ask serious questions about the management of mining in NZ. This has been reinforced by the recent shutdown of the Solid Energy mine at Spring Creek.

So I’m waiting to be convinced about this new world of clean coal and safe extractive practices. However, whilst I’m waiting, I’d like to suggest another way forward. Given that we do need certain commodities to be extracted, we need to create a risk structure that allows for exploration but with a precautionary approach. In other words, extractors must pay their way and do so in a manner that reflects the worst case scenario, such as the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster. So far BP have set aside a $20b fund for settling claims, of which $7.8b has been currently allocated. It’s an extreme event but an example of how badly things can go wrong when operating in sub-optimal conditions.

It’s time to explore environmental contingency bonds, as a way of mitigating risk and ensuring that insurance is in place before the extracting activity takes place. Just as someone renting a house has to pay a bond up front, to ensure any potential damage is covered, so do extractors have to pay an upfront amount before they start work. This upfront risk adjusted payment would be used to purchase government bonds (supposedly risk free!) or similar risk free asset, for the duration of the extractive activity. If, at the end of the activity period, there are no adverse effects, over and above what may have already been applied for, then the money is returned (plus any interest) to the extractor.

There are several consequences to this approach:

- This may increase the cost of extraction (though, in reality, this is simply a financing cost, assuming no damage occurs).

- This may spur companies towards better risk management and remediation processes. If they get it wrong, they pay. The onus of responsibility falls on the extractor and not the taxpayer and/or local community.

- In some cases, the sum demanded by the rental agent (usually the government) will be too high for the extractor to bear and this may result in the proposed project not proceeding. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as the priced risk is considered to be too high. An example of this may be drilling for oil in the Arctic or the new trade of the day, fracking.

How will the bond be priced? Each industry will have a different risk factor, which will be based on previous data….for example, offshore oil drilling and onshore coal mining have very different risk profiles. It’s important to note that this is not an insurance payment but a full cash upfront payment. The extractor may, of course, wish to insure their own risk on having to forfeit the bond but the important point here is that the government holds the cash and can move into remediation action as soon as any damage occurs. As we have seen with numerous disasters, insurers and re-insurers are difficult to deal with and can lock up claims for many years.

Remediating and risk management plans are great but for business, paying cash up front against possible mishaps will certainly concentrate their focus on doing the job properly and without harm. The public will be happier knowing that extractors are having to pay upfront and that they will, therefore, do their utmost to ensure their activities are not polluting, harmful or dangerous. Governments will be happy knowing that they have the cash in the bank, just in case anything does happen. The extractors? Well they probably won’t be happy at the extra cost but according to them they will leave the place in a better condition than they found it. So really they have nothing to worry about at all.

We are all conditioned to think and live within a certain paradigm or system. For many of us (especially readers of this blog), it’s considered to be democratic, liberal capitalism. More realistically it’s a neo-liberal system where free markets dominate at the expense of any concept of the public good. Markets will solve any problem. Actually that’s a truism. It’s the outcome that is often of dubious merit.

When I look at the Occupy Movement, I see a protest against this system, a system where people are secondary to profit, and the public is considered to be a wasteful and unnecessary construct. As John Key noted of the Christchurch post-EQNZ insurance problem, eventually the markets will sort it out. Again they will but there may not be any insurance for anyone for a while. This mirrors the government’s approach to managing our prisons: simply contract it out to private operators, who will manage it more “efficiently”. The belief in the idea of the “public” is slowly being eaten away by this neo-liberal fantasy that for profit organisations will always achieve the best outcome.

It will be interesting to see how this protest develops but it feels like it has legs. The outrage is fair and justified: the corruption at the heart of the political-financial system; the gaping inequalities; the disenfranchisement and the feeling that the whole system is built on sand. Over time the picture will be clearer and the protests may coalesce around a series of concrete demand but the consultative and participatory process is a fascinating starting point. Participatory, as opposed to representative, democracy is messy, frustrating, turgid, slow, tedious and annoying but that’s the whole point. It is built on allowing all people a voice and on allowing a process to develop. It is a far cry from the many bills rammed through under “urgency” in the NZ Parliament, with little debate or scrutiny for even our partially elected representatives.

I wish them well in their endeavour. In the meantime, I have three simple proposals to offer, as a starting point:

1) Monetary Dialysis - No more public debt; new public money; raise limits on bank credit.

2) Trucost pricing - Start pricing ecosystem goods and services.

3) Participatory Universal Income - Basic Income for all those participating in society; rebalanced tax system; provision of key public goods.

I focused on the first 2 ideas in my presentation, the outline of which is below. By repricing our economic system, both in the cost of goods and services, as well as the creation and volume of money, we will immediately realign it towards a path of lower volume but higher quality consumption. We will reduce the burden of compound interest, this alleviating the constant pressure to produce and consume. The UPI will restore the public good in reflecting all contributions to society and laying the foundations for a more stable, harmonious and prosperous world. Far fetched? Not really, when you think about it for a bit. My turn is over for now. Who is next in the stack?

It’s one thing to have fantastic futuristic designs but are they practicable? maybe, maybe not. They are certainly buildable. We should not forget that we are moving into a resource challenged time. By 2050 we could have 9 billion people living on this planet. So we do need to build smart, we do need to think about the nature of the built environment as well as the type of city people want Christchurch to be. We have a wonderful brand being well known as the Garden City, as well as being a city with a strong record in technology, manufacturing and the arts. It has a strong farming hinterland and wonderful natural assets reaching from the sea to the snow.

It can easily build on all of those strengths. Here’s a recent example of a city flattened by an earthquake.

On January 17th 1995, Kobe, a city slightly larger in population to Auckland, was hit by a massive 6.8 earthquake, which shattered the city and killed nearly 6,500 people. The total cost was $102 billion. The rebuild process was difficult but according to this 2005 report, the economy eventually recovered to about 75-90% but with the loss of much of its port business. The government was the major funder of the rebuild and tried to focus on specific industries such as biotechnology. Whilst it’s not particularly known as an eco-city or rebuilt along sustainable principles, Kobe was ranked no 9 in the list of world eco cities in a 2010 Mercer report (Wellington was no 5). The lesson Kobe offers are that rebuilding takes time, the economic impact is major and recovery is a long term process.

But Christchurch is very different to Kobe. It is really a very low rise city and should no doubt remain that way. We don’t need some gargantuan high rise marquee building though there is certainly room for some interesting design structures. The human-building interface is very important to the people of Christchurch and that is probably were the focus should be. I agree to some extent with Gerry Brownlee, the Earthquake Minister, that we should only keep the very best of our heritage buildings (The Cathedral, the Arts Centre, the Provincial Buildings and other key sites) and build around them. How we define the best of them and which ones to invest in will no doubt be a heated topic. It’s important to keep the fabric of the city in place whilst recognising that a new layer will emerge.

How we execute this is the tricky bit. There needs to be representation and there needs to be leadership. We will need input from outside especially from people with expertise in sustainable design, both buildings and urban planning. The demolition bit is easy. As Gerry says

“As I’ve said repeatedly, heritage is both forward and back and from this point on, we decide what the heritage of this city will be“.

That’s a good start as long as we know who the “we” will be. Perhaps a good place to start is to set out a wish list and work from that. So here’s some of my wishes for how we approach this:

- People first: This must be a people centered process both in design, form and function. We want a living, breathing, vibrant and safe place to live and work with buildings and green spaces that sing to us.

- The Garden City: This is a wonderful brand but needs updating. We can incorporate ideas related to the Garden: permaculture, hydroponics, leisure, tranquility, beauty, shelter.

- Zero waste: We can make Christchurch the greenest city in the world. Recycling is great but true efficiency is in designing wasteless products and systems.

- Ecological clustering: We can create business clusters where organisations can leverage off each other. We can focus on our core strengths and build around that expertise as well as minimising waste streams

- Hagley Park: This could become our Central Park. Surrounded East, North, West and South by business and residential areas. This could help the CBD spread but keep itself anchored at the same time.

- Trains: This is a bit of a long shot. But we have train tracks going through key areas in the city and a train station in a potentially key area. With the current rebuilding we could look at a city loop to connect into the north south line from the central station. If there was ever a time to look at light passenger rail then this is it. We could also fit cycling into this work as well.

- Energy: All new buildings to be fully fitted for solar and small scale wind and then be connected to an integrated grid for feed in tariffs.

As people start to put their wish list together, we will start to see common themes appearing. That may be the best way to get a bottom up blueprint for rebuilding and redevelopment. So I invite readers to list their 5 top wishes below.

Then we can bring in the experts to make it all happen

But it’s useful to sit back and consider the element of contract here. When we borrow we commit to a contract that is so ancient so as to be part of our very soul. From Faustus to Scrooge, the spiritual nature of this bargain is ever present. I must mention here the fabulous work by Margaret Attwood titled “Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth“. It reminds me somewhat of Arundhati Roy’s venture into non-fiction in “The Cost of Living“. I like brilliant writers who veer off into interesting worldly issues and Attwood’s book has certainly inspired this post and much thought on the nature of debt itself.

It’s not the type of book I would expect from an author of fiction but it’s really a masterpiece on the understanding of debt and our long relationship with it. When we look at debt and debt slavery we realise it has been around since the beginning of time. The ability to hock one’s wife and child into servitude is not a recent phenomenon. The Faustian bargain is long known even if these days it’s for a consumer good (take your pick) on a 5 year no interest deal: no interest? do people actually believe that? Yes they do.

The focus is always on the weekly amount…..’oh that’s $15 a week. yes i can fit that into my budget”….shame it’s $15 a week forever!! and that television or sofa has cost you double, treble of even more than the advertised price…..oh and it’s worth sod all to sell.

Anyone remember Polonius? The father of Ophelia and general rambling windbag in the Kingdom of Denmark (That’s Hamlet for you who didn’t have the joys of Shakespeare at school).

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be”.

Famous words reprised many years later by Keynes at Bretton Woods when he proposed that countries should keep their trade accounts balanced as much as possible…..that applied to those in credit as well a debit.

And look where we are now……we’re at Payback time. But where is Mephistopheles? Who is going to do the collecting? To pay or not to pay? That is the question said Hamlet…perhaps.

The imbalances in the system are so great that there is no amount of money available to repay the debts. Perhaps they should all be written off as a bad idea and we should start again from scratch….but hark I hear Shylock coming…is there a pound of flesh available? Land…not transportable…but commodities from the land…maybe.

At some point the contract must be addressed; At some point a bargain must be made; At some point there will be the mother of all restructuring. Who will pay…now that really is the question.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.