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

Finally some research has been done on the effects of bio-fuel crops on the ecosystem. As widely expected the research has shown that bio-fuels can be highly destructive on the environment as well as actually adding carbon into the atmosphere.

So much for being the replacement to fossil fuels.

This a prime example of doing something because it looks like the right or a good thing to be doing. Those people with prescriptive views on how we should live our lives rarely take the trouble to do the sums and that’s where the problem arises.

Until we start to price up environmental externalities and let them flow through the price mechanism we will not get to see the true cost. So we will keep doing things because they feel good to us or they remove some embedded guilt about the way we use the environment.

The market is working in an inefficient manner and the environment continues to suffer because of it. Many environmentalists have a big grudge against the market perceiving it to be a monstrous creation of the capitalist machine. They are sadly mistaken. The market is how we show the real value of the environment to everyone not just those who think humans are a stain upon it.

Now I don’t want to tar all bio-fuels with the same brush. Bio-diesel from algae for example is using a waste stream and an easily grown input. Large swathes of forest don’t need to be cut down for this process.

But until we see the costs flow through the system we just don’t know.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a PM forum in Christchurch. It was a chance to hear Helen Clark and her Ministers talk about the new Emissions Trading Scheme that they had just put out. I’ve tried to wean myself off climate change conferences because in the end they are all pretty boring and generally say the same thing: the world may end in a flood of seawater and we need to get cracking by x% right now.

What always surprises me is that no matter how many calls for action there are very little has been done to really restrain emissions. Why is this? Well quite simply this is a very tricky issue. Economic growth is not going to be sacrificed on the altar of environmentalism or, more to the point, an outcome where there is uncertainty. So it drags on. China continues to expand its economy at a fierce pace and shows little interest in reining in its emissions insisting that it’s full steam ahead.

So in come emissions trading schemes: carry on as normal but buy your way to heaven via a piece of paper saying “1 tonne of carbon”. If it sounds like a papal remission that’s because it’s pretty close.  It’s a piece of paper you get for money which blesses your wins away.

The problem is quantifying and packaging a tonne of carbon or equivalent. How can we be sure that people will get what they pay for. This is where certification comes in. We need an agreed international standard and a single market. After all there’s only one type of carbon just like there is one type of gold. Its not like crude oil where there are different prices for different types.

Another issue is the changing science. For example, if forests are used as credit generators because of their ability to sequestrate carbon, there is a possibility that the amount the sequestrate may change over time either due to ecological reasons or a change in the understanding of how and how much they actually lock up and over what time period.

As a business having to purchase carbon credits on paper I would be crossing my fingers and hoping it all works out otherwise i might be out of business.

There is also a concern about the over issuance of paper credits. As readers will know they fractional reserve money system we have started life in a similar fashion: an underlying quantity of a commodity on which paper bills were issued. We know the outcome of that, a money system with no control.

From what i have seen this issues haven’t been covered in enough detail. I can still envisage a scenario where the carbon credit market takes off but overall emissions are not reduced. The goal of all this is to reduce emissions not create a huge market in carbon. But for now its the easy way out and politically more acceptable. Trees can take the slack for now and maybe technology can takeover at a later date.

Bjorn Lomborg is back with a new book and lots of publicity. Called “Cool It” it looks more closely at the benefits as well as the costs of a warming climate. What separates Lomborg from the climate change sceptics is that he readily agrees on the problem but not the solutions.

His main focus is always to step back from the hysteria and hype and look more pragmatically at the problem. I would say this is a sensible approach though it’s hard to ever get sensible debate when it comes to the environment.

Nothing else quite allows people to represent themselves as good or worthy and label others as bad or dirty.

Lomborg is not into saving the planet. He’s into calm reasoning and tries to stay within the remits of his expertise as a statistician. Interestingly enough Al Gore has been getting a judicial working over in the UK over his alarmist portrayal of the situation.

The moral of this story is that we need to make reasoned policy based on what we know and can observe. That a warmer climate presents severe challenges is not without doubt but let’s keep a clear head whilst working out what, if anything, we can do about it.

Letting issues like this develop into a battle between good and bad just leads to reactive approaches. Lomborg falls somewhere in between and is worth listening too even if just to disagree with.

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.

I wrote this article for a business paper here in NZ about 3 years ago. I don’t think alot has changed really though the issue of Food Miles and Carbon Pricing has reared its head. Pricing the ecosystem is an emotive subject but i believe we must recognise its value in monetary terms in order to enable true economic comparisons to be made.

We know in our hearts that we need to consume less and make better. We don’t do it because we are time constrained as we slave away in our jobs to pay off huge mortgages, large rents and all the bills we have incurred in our consumption binge. If we really knew the true cost of our goods and services we may change our behaviour with increased speed.

And yet see the seething anger when petrol prices go up……we may be in position to control and destroy the planet but it may well do that to us first. Anyway this may or may not resonate. See what you think:

March 2004.

‘Greens take us back to the Dark Ages’ screams the Business Round Table. ‘Business doesn’t care about anything apart from money’ whines the Green Party. Sound familiar? This is generally what passes for debate between the official representatives of the economy and the environment. It is reminiscent of a long running stand off between a teenager and parent. Will the environment and business ever resolve their disagreements live together in sustainable harmony?
To answer this question we need to explore how the economy and the environment interact. The word economics is derived from the Greek ‘Oikonomos’ meaning household steward or home economist in modern diction. In ancient times, the household was the central functioning unit of any economy and most economic activity took place within that framework. Now the household is a place where we live and sleep but rarely do we produce anything that is identified as part of the economy, reflected by GDP. Business is now the place where most economic activity takes place and it is now the steward of the environment.
Our technological capabilities have also moved on giving us DVD recorders, microwaves, mobile phones and other similar gadgets but they are still all built from materials taken from the same source as thousands of years ago. As, John Muir, the founder of the modern ecology movement, said “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything in the universe”. In simple terms, the economy is simply a subset of the environment, and economics a framework for understanding our transactions with the environment. They are one and the same, not distinct and separate entities as often portrayed in the media.
We have become expert in transforming natures’ goods into new products to satisfy our ever increasing desire for material consumption. At the same time, the waste products from manufacturing, some 90% of actual inputs, are becoming harder to absorb and process. Whilst nature provides obvious goods in the form of wood, minerals and fossil fuels, little attention is paid to the crucial services it provides in acting as a both a source and a sink for economic activity. These services include waste processing, climate regulation, water supply and regulation, soil formation, nutrient cycling, food production, erosion control, pollination and even recreation and cultural values.
The value of these services has been largely ignored by the mainstream economics profession rather like the value of unpaid labour in the economy. A mother who goes out to work and hires a nanny to look after her children suddenly finds out the monetary value of her work in the household. Previously no value was attributed to looking after children but as soon as someone is employed formally then the value is recognized. Of course anyone who has children knows too well the value of unpaid labour in the home.

Whist ecosystem services have always had value they have never been recognized in monetary terms and therefore incorporated into the economic framework. In 1997, a study, led by Robert Costanza at the University of Maryland, attempted to value global ecosystem services. The findings estimated very conservatively the value of ecosystem services to be in the region of 2-3 times global GNP. In 2000, a study into the external costs of UK agriculture by Jules Pretty at the University of Essex, showed a value of ₤2.3bln, based on actual financial costs incurred. This equated to ₤208 per hectare of arable and permanent pasture. Again this was a conservative estimate of all agriculture related externalities.
What these and other studies have shown is that there is a real and attributable value to these services previously taken for granted. If any business has any doubt about the relevance of these costs, they should have another look at their insurance bill. Munich Re, one of the world’s largest re-insurance companies, puts the annual global costs of climate change at US$300bln by 2050. Even the Pentagon, a normally conservative institution, is recognizing the potential security issues of serious environmental changes. One thing Greens need to recognize from their side is that without security, law and order, the issue of environmental damage is likely to be an irrelevance.
Actually incorporating external costs at the company level has proved difficult. However Trucost Plc, a London based but Christchurch born company has designed an external cost calculator and an environmental rating system, which incorporates the externalized costs of any organization into their actual accounts. Initially there was strong resistance from some in the environmental movement, concerned about placing a value on nature. However, now there is an understanding that if you don’t value something then it will be treated as if it has no value. It is an unashamedly anthropocentric view to place a monetary value on nature but one which in the long run will lead to a more sustainable economy. Mainstream economics needs to acknowledge the importance of externalities and not spend so much time pouring over inflation statistics. Economics is fundamental to how society organizes itself and surprisingly can be fun and understood by anyone, as demonstrated by Diane Coyle in her recent book, “Sex, Drugs and Economics”, which succinctly analyses everyday activities in simple language.

Whilst the economics profession needs to wake up, the environmentalists must also acknowledge that expecting society to make a wholesale change of consumption habits without strong financial incentives is naïve. The only way to make them change their current ‘unsustainable’ consumption patterns is for goods and services to properly reflect the externalized costs that make them unsustainable in the first place. The true sustainable business is one which internalizes all its costs, instead of passing them to the taxpayer to pick up at some future date. Therefore, in order to create a sustainable economy, we must recognize the value of the environment in real terms. Then maybe business and the greens can redirect their energies to work out smarter and cheaper ways of living well and enjoying life.