I came across this humdinger of a letter to Hillary Clinton at the Celsias site. Whilst it could be regarded as some kind of political stunt it does raise serious issues about the nature of our globalised food chain.

I have never been a fan of Monsanto and there despicable deeds have been well recorded. But as we have seen with the impact of biofuels, the whole food production process is changing and judging from the price increases not for the betterment of consumers. A new term has been coined: Agflation

In New Zealand we are seeing the benefits and costs of food price rises. Our diary farmers are raking it in but consumers are suffering. But consumers are taking action; they are eating less meat and dairy; they are reinstating the veggie patch and being more circumspect about their shopping habits.

This brings several benefits: healthwise less meat and dairy is generally good for you; growing your own veggies creates a sense of self-sufficiency, gets you in touch with nature and you get to eat really fresh food; there is a greater focus on food and what you eat with many people finding it cheaper to avoid processed food and make your own from scratch.

Isn’t that what many activists have been calling for for a long time? And the reason that this is happening? The price mechanism.

People respond to price signals. And when the respond they can be very smart about it. There’s a lesson in here for the bureaucrats and activists.

Let’s hope they find it

The energy debate continues to go in circles. Usually its starts with the renewable sector heavyweights: wind and solar. The free and usually reliable inputs of wind and sun are very attractive. The technology is improving and, in the case of solar energy, the transmission mechanism is close at hand.

One company in the US has actually started a rental program for solar heating. I like this idea because capital cost is a problem for many people. Energy as a service is a good business model.

Solar is a great option because you can localise it. Hopefully the technology will continue t to improve.

Wind has its drawbacks due to the requirements of location and serious land mass. But again it suits some places better than others. But how about small wind turbines on every roof?

Little and often i say. Every little bit counts.

Biomass is the latest technology on the block, a small step up from chucking wood in the burner which is very popular and cheap in New Zealand. We can grow a lot of wood down here. The biomass and biofuel solution reveal a problem in our approach.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It can be both/and. It’s clear now there is no one solution that is way better than another. Let the market continue to work it out. And this brings me to the main point which is that we must have a properly priced energy market.

This is going to require a major change. I have long banged on about pricing in environmental costs at source and whilst Trucost is doing great work in that area there is a long way to go.

So how could this work? Well here are a few examples:

Carbon

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.

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.

It’s a hard one to get right on  a global level but worth a look.

Agriculture

In New Zealand we have trouble with dairy farming, a highly profitable business which has seen huge swathes of land converted from other activities to supporting cows. The externalities of this business are numerous but center around water pollution through fertilizer run off into streams and down into the water table as well as cows crapping all over the place..oh yes and the methane burps.

Here it would be simpler. A charge would be applied per head of cattle and immediately be applied to cleaning up that pollution at source. Why should the taxpayer pick up this tab. Its a cost for the consumer to bear and if the consumer doesn’t like the slightly higher price then the producer will quickly alter his habits.

The moral of this  story is simple: We need to know the true cost of our global economic activity. Then as consumers we can respond appropriately.

Trying to say which energy source is better than another is simply guesswork.

What a wonderful word efficiency is. As an economist (we all are by the way) one almost salivates over the word, knowing deep down that it exists in 2 dimensions usually in a textbook where one line meets another.

Alongside “ceteris paribus” it ranks as one of those words or phrases which we extol, use a lot but know to be shrouded in a cloak of misinformation.

One approach to dealing with climate change has been the technological one….increasing efficiency (output per input etc). One problem with this is that sometimes efficiency, in money terms, can actually encourage an increase in demand.

Witness air travel, i pods, computers, LCD tvs and the like. Craig at Celsias has an interesting post on this conundrum quoting the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate which investigates whether energy efficiency actually saves energy.

The premise being that when we perceive an improvement in something we have been told not to use we all rush to use more of it. That makes sense. We’ve seen that with almost all new technological developments, air travel being the most obvious. See how the airlines that have cut fares have prospered by creating greater demand than expected.

The point of all this is that improving efficiency may not be the answer if demand is simply going to absorb it all. It reminds me of the Red Queen effect where we keep running just to keep up.

This has been noted in the area of organ donation and other medical advances. So once we can fly from Christchurch to London in a few hours for the same energy output we use now you can be sure a few million people will be commuting daily