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.

The NZ government has announced a delay in implementing the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. The 5 year pushback for the transport sector comes at a time when fuel prices are going through the roof and the government is concerned about the impact of further price rises on consumers.

Forgive me for wondering if that isn’t the whole point. First up it was the carbon charge which was dumped back in December 2005 and now the brand spanking new ETS which looked full of holes and now is barely recognisable as a piece of effective policy.

The main concern cited by “critics” is that higher costs may be passed onto consumers. Well the goal of the carbon charge and the ETS is to raise prices in order to lower demand. However, fuel prices are generally regarded as inelastic i.e. demand does not fall as prices rise, which consigns a price approach to the bin. Of course, there is some level of price at which demand will certainly fall. According the research it is when the price increase exceeds income rises i.e. the is the affordability as opposed to higher prices.

Or to put it more succinctly as long as money is available fuel will be purchased regardless fo the absolute price. So the supply of money is a major player in this equation. Now with the credit crunch bedding down money has become less available and so the impact of higher fuel prices is starting to kick in.

So given fuel prices have nearly doubled in the last 3 years, one would expect to have seen a huge fall off in fuel consumption. This has not been the case.

One can conclude that price measures will not reduce emissions and therefore any policy based on this approach is doomed to fail.

Why, you may ask, is no one clamouring for quotas to be implemented? The answer to that is very simple. It’s too hard.

So let’s keep pouring millions of $ into schemes that won’t do the job and keep the veneer of pretending to do something about climate change. They’d be better off spending the money on something important like child poverty and education.

Global leaders are shaping up for talks on a binding reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The EU Environment Commissioner is the in US for talks on this very subject. The US say they are ready to move forward on this thorny issue but want all countries to make similar reductions. This is not music to the ears of the Chinese who will continue to trumpet the issue of per capita emissions as opposed to total emissions.

No doubt they will all keep knocking this ball around until someone caves in. But why bother? It’s simply the wrong approach. At the moment we have a free energy market (actually its dysfunctional but that’s another story) where people can choose to buy what is offered. If we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we simply need to reduce the amount of fossil fuels available to create them.

Then just leave the market to operate as normal. Simple.

I know I’m restating my position on this but the longer this goes on the more clear it becomes

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.