The True Cost of Energy

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.

Monetary Policy 101: time for a rewrite?

Local government rates go up followed by interest rates.

Energy prices go up followed by interest rates.

So people are made worse off by increases in prices for goods and services that they cannot easily deflect or cut back on. That’s hard.

But wait there’s more, like a boxer climbing off the floor after a big punch they are hit again even harder by interest rate rises.

And to cap it off it’s all their fault.

I must be missing something here.

The only result of this type of policy is a regular cycle of boom and bust with more and more people forced into bankruptcy for no good reason.

It could be argued that interest rates should be cut in this scenario so that people are not forced to seek higher wages to compensate.

The main concern in the inflation issue is asset and commodity prices. But really its asset prices that are the culprit. They have been driving the global economy for many years now, most notably since financial deregulation in the 80s.

Talk has surfaced recently of the Treasurer invoking a clause in the Reserve Bank Act to move the inflation target aside in order to focus on the exchange rate. Whilst this is a bit far fetched it is another symptom of the policy malaise NZ is facing.

The Reserve Bank Governor has made the same mistake many others have before him: not understand the role and process of bank credit.

It’s as simple as that.

Using an inflation target to manage an economy is like riding a bike with one eye closed. Eventually you have a write off.

Economists have feelings too!

I have just spent the last 3 days at the NZ Association of Economists annual jamboree in Christchurch. It was well worth the time as it was a good opportunity to meet economists working in a wide range of areas and sub disciplines.

There were plenty of interesting papers on monetary policy, forecasting, environmental economics, migration, work and of course the housing market. There was a good mix of age and gender which added to the energy.

The keynote speakers were interesting with talks as diverse as climate change and the economics of sexual harassment.

The paper on Climate Change from Warwick McKibben is worth a look and the paper from Motu on Nutrient Trading provides a micro view of how trading in externalities might work at the local level. The work on allocating and trading pollution permits dovetails nicely with the work from Peter Barnes on reclaiming the commons and allocating rights to pollute which can be traded.

The general feeling on the housing market is that the boom is coming to an end but that it has been justified by low interest rates and the ability to ringfence losses from geared rental properties. I should add to this that migration and willingness to pay higher prices than locals has also contributed to the excessive rise in house prices. The banks have played their part in happily lending the required amounts and no doubt will be the first ones to notice any pullback from investors. This seems to have already started.

I would like to have seen some papers on behavioural economics as i think that is starting to build as an interesting field alongside new wave areas like neuroeconomics.

Economist is a dirty word in NZ due to the long hangover from the economic revolution of the 80s but i can report they are a good bunch….really

RBNZ: Have They Lost the Plot?

There has been a lot of hand wringing over the recent Reserve Bank’s intervention in the currency market. So what’s the story here?

Well the RB has a clear mandate to keep inflation, as measured by the CPI, between 1-3% on an annual basis. According to them they also say that,

“The Bank is required to ensure that, throughout the economy, money works as well as possible as a mechanism for making transactions, storing value, and keeping account.”

So let’s say they are also responsible for price stability in a general sense i.e. no serious asset bubbles or major deflationary shocks.

So how are they doing?

Since 1998 the CPI has risen 20.7% to December 2006. So an average of 2.5% per annum which is within the prescribed band.

But the key worry, or so they keep repeating, has been the housing market which in the same period has risen 143%.

So what have they done about it?

From Mar 04 to Dec 06 they raised interest rates by 2%, from 5.25% to 7.25%. That doesn’t sound like a great deal by historical standards and clearly has not had any impact.

From Mar 04 to Mar 05 rates went up 1.5% as inflation took off towards 3%. However, they stopped when they should have kept going. When CPI hit 3.4% and stayed above, the bank should have got really serious and jacked rates up very quickly.

They didn’t. CPI was above 3% from Sep 2005 to Sep 2006 and they moved only 50bp. This was their big mistake. With house prices on the march as well they should have had rates up to 8% by June 06. They are a year behind the curve and that could cause some major problems.

Alan Bollard has been soft in his approach and this may well stem from the false comfort that low global rates has brought. The great inflation crush of the late 1990s has seen global rates fall into ranges not seen for many a year. Central bankers have been playing in a very small range and have been lulled into a false sense of security.

All around us we witness the asset price bubble caused by cheap global credit. The Japanese are still at it pumping out cheap yen that no one really wants. This is a major disaster waiting to happen. We’ve seen it before when USD/JPY fell to 79.65 back in 1995 on the back of US trade concerns and Asian Central banks dumping their US$. For now the flow out of the yen and into the kiwi continues with a rise of over 15% in the last 6 months.

Yesterday Winston Peters called for an amendment to the Reserve Bank Act asking that the Reserve Bank take a more rounded approach to managing monetary policy. I have to agree with him that a major review is needed and that simply using the OCR to control the economy is not working.

Submissions for the inquiry into a future monetary policy framework close on 19th July. I will post my submission up here in due course. It’s a great opportunity to throw open the arcane nature of our monetary system and make proposals that may lead to a more productive and stable economic system.

Sustainable Business - Costing the Earth

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.

Incoherent System

Professor Peter Brown from McGill University in Canada is here in New Zealand speaking about our dysfunctional economic system.

He’s not wrong there. He was speaking on Radio NZ but the interview never really got going. He had enough time to talk about the incoherent nature of our economic system, how GDP measures income and consumption but not well being and how triple bottom line accounting was a waste of time. Agreed!

What we need is a better connection between our biophysical system and our economic frameworks like Trucost for example.

We also need to ask ourselves some basic questions such as

- what is our economy for? speculation or sustenance.

- what size should it be? as big as possible or big enough.

Simple questions but rarely asked. The mantra of economic growth at all costs is intellectually flimsy. Its lazy thinking……..the assumption that GDP growth is all that matters is quite clearly false.

What about crime, illness, pollution? What about the increasing gap between rich and poor.

As individuals we search for coherence but as a global economy we struggle to find that because there are no tools to do so. So perhaps by becoming more coherent ourselves we will aid and enable a global coherence.

As the Mahatma said “Be the change you wish to see”.

Let’s keep asking questions of our system.