tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.comments2023-10-30T11:00:05.243+00:00Bacon ButtyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger237125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-35677196740484102052008-09-27T22:37:00.000+01:002008-09-27T22:37:00.000+01:00Would you be able to put me in touch with your col...Would you be able to put me in touch with your colleague, Brendan Bromwich? http://churchsermons.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-66341072978877004192008-09-17T00:20:00.000+01:002008-09-17T00:20:00.000+01:00Nice post about Cannabis...Cannabis - an apology a...Nice post about Cannabis...Cannabis - an apology and reversed its 1997 campaign for legalisation of the dope, apologising to its readers for leading them astray........<BR/>=================================<BR/>simmons<BR/><A HREF="http://www.marijuanaaddictiontreatment.com" REL="nofollow">http://www.marijuanaaddictiontreatment.com</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-33835870001917995332008-08-06T22:35:00.000+01:002008-08-06T22:35:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-68420861287283677632008-06-20T17:14:00.000+01:002008-06-20T17:14:00.000+01:00Anon - who said these two objectives are the right...Anon - who said these two objectives are the right objectives?<BR/><BR/>I would name four objectives in transport policy:<BR/><BR/>1. Change of social geography to more compact societies - reducing the travel intensity of life. A long running planning objective.<BR/><BR/>2. Modal shift to less energy intensive transport technologies for journeys that are done - walking, cycling, motorcycles, mass transit<BR/><BR/>3. Various efficiencies with instruments to encourage them: fuel efficiency, driving habits, timing to avoid peaks, occupancy rates/pooling, maintenance, replacement cycle (rate at which old tech vehicles are scrapped and the stock renews), pricing to reflect external costs and reduce journeys that have lower value than their overall costs.<BR/><BR/>4. Fuel changes to less carbon intensive fuels, when the whole fuel lifecycle is considered.<BR/><BR/>... you may add a fifth about oil, but that is an energy security issue... and you might expect that high oil prices will deal with that and also promote 1-4 above - each of which reduces oil dependence.<BR/><BR/>The engine technology to use biofuels for 100% fuel is already widely available - and has a large market share in Sweden, so it isn't just some lab in Japan. This isn't actually the problem - the problem is that biofuels don't do what is claimed for them: they providing only modest reductions carbon emissions and oil dependency. And they come with giant opportunity cost - the misuse of land for what we might term poor 'carbon productivity'. Or perhaps worse, the displacement of high value food crops with low value energy crops because of dirigiste subsidy design for fuels - like the RTFO and the European targets that spawned it. <BR/><BR/>CliveClive Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15614056019814665135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-5499347857682584982008-06-20T11:08:00.000+01:002008-06-20T11:08:00.000+01:00I understand growing trees saves more CO2 than the...I understand growing trees saves more CO2 than the saving in CO2 emissions by using biofuel.<BR/>However, cars dot no drive on trees. Any policy in this field is guided by at least 2 objectives<BR/><BR/>1) Short-term use of old-technology for transport <BR/>2) Encourage technical developments in transport technology not depending on oil<BR/><BR/>How would growing trees help in these 2 objectives?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-79527144409262365122008-06-16T16:19:00.000+01:002008-06-16T16:19:00.000+01:00Hello Clive, It's Lucy from your days at Imperial....Hello Clive, It's Lucy from your days at Imperial. Remember the one who used to do the 'party piece on the CAP' !? Looks like you've had an interesting career since then. Wonder what you think of Sudan/Darfur, the UN etc now that you must have been there 6 mths. I've just spent six years in Afghanistan (off and on)and am writing a book what's been going on there. Pretty sad stuff. It would be great to hear from you. Email me if you get this on Lucyhme@yahoo.com<BR/><BR/>hope all's well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-48835304845868918032008-05-18T05:10:00.000+01:002008-05-18T05:10:00.000+01:00Hello! I am your blog’s new visitor from Eastern A...Hello! I am your blog’s new visitor from Eastern Asia.<BR/><BR/>You’ve got a nice blog here.<BR/><BR/>Wish peace comes soon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02488048713331185692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-84814757973316887232008-05-06T11:24:00.000+01:002008-05-06T11:24:00.000+01:00Not too keen on the bronze obelisk idea as we alre...Not too keen on the bronze obelisk idea as we already have enough phallic symbols around in city centres....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-51329661977902780222008-04-17T09:49:00.000+01:002008-04-17T09:49:00.000+01:00Hmm yes PV is one of the least feasible tech's but...Hmm yes PV is one of the least feasible tech's but solar thermal water heating on the other henad IS the 2nd best (viable) renewable technology after biomass! even in the UK!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-26754020977531576852008-03-19T00:38:00.000+00:002008-03-19T00:38:00.000+00:00Subject: The Canadian Conservative Government DOES...Subject: The Canadian Conservative Government DOES NOT EQUAL other countries in human rights policy for Tobacco Farmers.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Hello; I have a legal international question I am hoping that you can research and provide some insight on. If not perhaps you know a anti-smoking tobacco lawyer, articling student or a emeritus that could offer some encouraging advice for me. I am looking for a possible means to launch a class action lawsuit against the Canadian Federal and Provincial governments. Why has the Canadian Conservative Federal government failed to put in place an Implementation Act to enact within Canada the WHO-FCTC Treaty for all Canadians affected.<BR/>The Indian government announced plans to halve tobacco cultivation in 10 years (Feb 19, 2008: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Economy/Tobacco_to_be_cropped_50_in_ten_years/articleshow/2783468.cms). The Indian Tobacco Board is doing the groundwork for reduction of tobacco cultivation while a detailed package is being worked out to provide compensation to farmers in line with steps taken by the USA, EU and Australia. Why is the Canadian Conservative Government two-faced with its own citizens when it comes to tobacco farmers under attack from its own globally patented tobacco control policies. Are a Canadian tobacco farmers civil rights less valuable because Canada Government developed the tobacco control dehumanization process also. <BR/><BR/>The question I would like to get answered is on the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Text (WHO-FCTC) ( www.fctc.org/docs/treaty/fctc_en.pdf ). Part V1: Questions Related To Liability, Article 19:1. This states in part "including compensation where appropriate" would this include redress to the tobacco farming community and by whom? Under 19:2.b would "pertinent jurisprudence" include the civil rights of the tobacco farming community for redress for the affect of high draconian tobacco taxation spawning a tremendously profitable illicit trade which is against Part 1V: Article 15 (3). This also undermines Article 16: Sales to and by minors. Why has the government(s) created a new bankable profit source for the tobacco manufactures. Should the governments not be liable for their actions and inactions for manufacturing the access of a whole new generation of children smoking. A new generation of smokers now have access to historically very low priced cigarettes. Sold for/at their convenience everywhere cannot be to overstated, even delivered to your front door. This is not factored into the Canadian governments youth smoking rate drop statistics data released in the press. An estimated 30 million pounds of raw tobacco can not possibly be supplied out the back door by Canadian tobacco farmers, but by the manufacturers. Also why would an attorney not hold the government(s) responsible when someone gets injured or killed during the thief of tobacco products, are they not culpable by the high tobacco taxes they cherish. <BR/><BR/>Article 19:3. "afford one another assistance in legal proceedings relating to civil and criminal liability". Does this mean that a civilian can ask the WHO-FCTC to help out with legal advice and financial assistance with class action litigation.<BR/><BR/>I have rambled on and made more that one statement and asked more than one question that I need answers for. Again I am hopeful you can help me in some capacity for the time being. <BR/><BR/>Kind Regards,<BR/><BR/>John E. Cowan,<BR/><BR/>1202 HWY. 24 E, R. R. # 1 Vittoria,<BR/><BR/>Ontario, Canada N0E 1W0<BR/><BR/>Ph: 519-426-4803<BR/><BR/>fax: 519-426-4174<BR/><BR/>jjcowan@kwic.com<BR/><BR/>Notice: Any personal information in this e-mail must be handled in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 [Cth]. This email contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the recipient, you must know that any review, disclosure, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by return fax and destroy this message without reading or copying it or any attachments.<BR/><BR/>FYI: www.tobaccofarmersincrisis.org<BR/><BR/>Outdated proposal by PSC not being supported by health groups to make it effective to put in place an Implementation Act to enact within Canada the WHO-FCTC Treaty for all Canadians affected.<BR/><BR/>http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/April%206%202005%20proposal%20for%20managing%20tobacco%20supply%20reduction%20in%20Ontario.pdfJohn Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873044446609848776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-91301536915393599162008-03-11T15:00:00.000+00:002008-03-11T15:00:00.000+00:00I totally dissagree. Famines come from a shortage ...I totally dissagree. <BR/>Famines come from a shortage of food. <BR/>The cause of people not being able to afford the food is there not much of it left and then price goes up. Supply and demand, is a basic law for everyone. In Ireland the famines happened because of the potato diseaseas, which cut production. This raised the price. It is easy to put the cart before the horse so say people could not afford the food well that was because of supply and demand the supply had decreased. We need food security we need food security. Farms can good looking to. Farmers should just be more grateful for their subsidies. .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-16091036714762781992007-12-31T14:58:00.000+00:002007-12-31T14:58:00.000+00:00Certainly your monetary conclusions make sens...Certainly your monetary conclusions make sense. Surely government is about wasting money! If you want government money they only back projects that will collapse. Like I knew the SDC would recomend go ahead for the Barrage they are probably likely to fund the barage because it won't work.<BR/><BR/>Incidently Carbon Capture is called planting trees. 3.5 tonne per acre per yr. Shift this to land that is undergoing desertification & its all bonus points, that is why our governments is not doing it.<BR/><BR/>Planting trees creates industry & wealth. Desert creates F all.<BR/>JohnUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00591908795076093128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-75999140091136866282007-12-23T07:02:00.000+00:002007-12-23T07:02:00.000+00:00Thanks for the comments folks - Lou - a really int...Thanks for the comments folks - Lou - a really interesting contribution I raised the question about tree planting instead more to illustrate that there is a discussion to be had focussed on optimum use of land in the service of policy aims, rather than to advocate a tree planting strategy. In sharp contrast, we have had arbitrary policy-making that appears indifferent to land-use optimisation.<BR/><BR/>Heatwatch - I agree that security and diversity of supply are also important objectives. But again, one shouldn't be indifferent to cost or other options for achieving the same ends. The most obvious strategy for the US would be to focus on fuel efficiency, transportation intensity, and spatial planning... like many 'climate security' approaches there are climate and energy security co-benefits and synergies with these approaches. <BR/><BR/>In Europe, we have a large energy security challenge with gas, and in particular dependency on Russian gas, so the heat-producing applications of biomass has marked co-benefits in energy security. I'm not sure where US gas dependency sits or how much oil is used for heating applications as well as transportation. <BR/><BR/>One might add in the US and EU context that finding new ways to subsidise the farmers and buy-off the farm lobby are also important, if worthless, objectives. <BR/><BR/>I think it is wrong to be against biofuels in principle, at it is possible there are situations where the use of land for biofuel production hits all the rights notes in terms of overall costs and the full range of benefits - cellulosic biofuels on marginal land may be one. <BR/><BR/>But I submit that because we are looking at this issue from the wrong starting point "what to do about transport" rather than how to use land in service of the multiple objectives we have for "land-use services", we never actually make that assessment and so we will rarely do the right thing..Clive Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15614056019814665135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-91463334073692469812007-12-22T20:08:00.000+00:002007-12-22T20:08:00.000+00:00I think there are some other issues involved too.R...I think there are some other issues involved too.<BR/><BR/>Reducing dependence on foreign oil means less funneling of dollars into regimes that use that money in ways our governments don't approve of.<BR/><BR/>Also, in some sections of the world, when cellulose based biofuels are considered, there is a lot of available land which isn't forested and which isn't necessarily being used for food production.<BR/><BR/>However, yes, of course, when we get mandates we get strange distortions to proper economic behavior, there is no arguing with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-70908434645827794052007-12-22T17:30:00.000+00:002007-12-22T17:30:00.000+00:00The British Consumer is also being overcharged.Eve...The British Consumer is also being overcharged.<BR/><BR/>Even companies such as Microsoft are charging 36% more for their products in the UK when compared to their US prices.<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://ambercat.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-british-consumer-is-being-screwed.html" REL="nofollow">How the British Comsumer is being screwed</A>AmberCathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099651395872047859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-2089280274863415832007-12-21T11:01:00.000+00:002007-12-21T11:01:00.000+00:00Yes indeed. Good luck. I will be reading with grea...Yes indeed. Good luck. I will be reading with great interest.Caspar Hendersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667141284390082748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-58298010885313499092007-12-21T10:53:00.000+00:002007-12-21T10:53:00.000+00:00Have fun Clive. Stay well and remember Jan Pronk.Have fun Clive. Stay well and <A HREF="http://www.aidworkers.net/?q=node/571" REL="nofollow">remember Jan Pronk</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-87659597615550219212007-12-09T11:56:00.000+00:002007-12-09T11:56:00.000+00:00I like ideas one/two and three/four. Seeing sector...I like ideas one/two and three/four. Seeing sectoral change means that environmental innovations will diffuse much quicker - there is just the difficulty of coming to an agreement without policy imposing a standard.<BR/><BR/>The north-south transfer is key in terms of picking low-fruit and having an equitable outcome.<BR/><BR/>The 6 question of tax is difficult. I don't know if it is possible to aim for a tax level where emissions levels will peak at a 'safe' amount or at least limited. I am more of the opinion that if one is to regulate carbon then the practicalities dictate that regulation will have to be a supply-driven policy not demand-driven via price. This essentially means that we are addicted to carbon and demand-side policies are likely to be too little too late. Also carbon taxes tend to be regressive as they take a relatively larger burden of low-income budgets vs. high-income.<BR/><BR/>Supply-driven policy will probably demand a cap and trade system - carbon allocations, quotas,permits. The design of the framework will determine its success - what level of carbon it is limited to, what timeframe is agreed, who uses the permits, who owns (and gets revenue) from the permits.<BR/><BR/>Kyoto seems to have suffered from an excessive dishing out of free carbon permits to carbon-hungry sectors. An inflationary spiral as too many were issued in the firstplace and the EMS transfer system just meant more carbon capacity was being fed into the system. but i dont think the idea of ditchting it should be jumped on too quickly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-80850543054550763622007-12-09T11:37:00.000+00:002007-12-09T11:37:00.000+00:00You mention only briefly the code for sustainable ...You mention only briefly the code for sustainable homes as being a more rounded approach to energy efficient buildings.<BR/>I would promote a level 3 code for sustainable homes over a 10% renewables rule. A level 3 requires a significant reduction of carbon emissions for the building. This also factors in energy efficiency measures as well as on-site renewable energy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-85204896763407265202007-12-08T06:38:00.000+00:002007-12-08T06:38:00.000+00:00Tim - thanks for the substantive reply. It's a gr...Tim - thanks for the substantive reply. <BR/><BR/>It's a great pity that more of this argument is not reflected in the SDC report itself, as it as <I><B>central</B></I>, not incidental, to the case for or against the barrage. However, I don't find your argument at all persuasive... <BR/><BR/>First, as far as I can see, the only circumstances in which SDC would reject the barrage would be if it could not be made compatible with the Habitats and Birds directive. That I guess is why I’m uncomfortable with your approach – I really can’t see any point at which you would regard it as too expensive or the carbon savings better sourced in some other way. It’s not obvious that the barrage has passed any economic appraisal at all. All your argument about 'investment along the curve' basically is an open door for every technology advocate. At what level of cost would you say 'no' to the barrage? £20bn, £30bn, £100bn... and when you decide that level, how do you decide it? <BR/><BR/>Secondly, I find the idea of 'public ownership; as being synonymous with good governance absolutely amazing. Governance in the utilities has improved hugely since privatisation and much great clarity in the principal-agent relations among the various actors. A cynic, and I am becoming one about this, would say that SDC wants public ownership because the only place that very low returns on capital are accepted, and without this the numbers are obscene.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thirdly, it's more than a sematic point – but cheap capital is a form of subsidy, just like soft loans etc It may be semantics, but in saying the govt can borrow at 1.75% I felt there was a strongly implied suggestion that this could be its required return for lending or investment, whereas the risk profile of a large capital project is completely different to bonds. If you are pursuing that argument I would have thought the Bank of England’s base rate would be a more realistic starting point.<BR/><BR/>Fourthly, on abatement cost curves… these are interesting and important. However, I don’t think that having defined the concept one can just say that we need a “pragmatic approach to investment all the way along the supply curve” without saying what the pragmatism would be trying to achieve at the more expensive ends of the curve. The danger with that is opening up the cheque book to every technology advocate. In fact I think the MAC curve is best visualised as a surface with the additional axis being for ‘time’. That way, one might see which technologies will benefit from scale and investment – the barrage wont, but others will. .. so if you were going for expensive options, you'd be looking for replicability and future proofing - eg. offshore wind. <BR/><BR/>Fifthly, I wouldn’t hold up the Green Book and other guidance as inviolable and do not think it should be applied uncritically – but they aren’t just 'accounting procedures'. They are an attempt to apply some microeconomic principles to policy appraisal and show how to apply them in practice. As you say, I think there is a rich discussion to be had about the role of government as a ‘social arbitrageur’ between the low discount rates of the Green Book and the relatively high rates applicable in the private sector. But for an organisation making policy recommendations in the UK I would take it as a starting point and argue a case for exceptions or an alternative framework. The report devotes next to nothing to this argument, yet it is absolutely central to the case for the barrage.<BR/><BR/>Finally, my suggestion is that SDC writes a follow up paper on all this so that the economic arguments you are making are more transparent and open to public examination. In my view, the case is far from made, and SDC needs to do more work to make its case. <BR/><BR/>Cliven1Clive Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15614056019814665135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-3783011099488623512007-12-03T01:22:00.000+00:002007-12-03T01:22:00.000+00:00Hi Clive, great blogging, can you contact me, tony...Hi Clive, great blogging, can you contact me, tony at tgtips dot com, or Skype tgtips, I want to talk to you about Green, and maybe interview you for a Green/Sustainable podcast show.<BR/><BR/>Tony GoodsonUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10923882247731089970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-49295813666311786732007-11-30T17:28:00.000+00:002007-11-30T17:28:00.000+00:00Readers may be interested to read Prof Tim Jackson...Readers may be interested to read <A HREF="http://baconbutty.blogspot.com/2007/10/severn-barrage-economic-failure.html" REL="nofollow">Prof Tim Jackson's response</A> to Clive's second posting on this subject. Tim is the Econonomics Commissioner at the <A HREF="http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/" REL="nofollow">Sustainable Development Commission</A> (SDC).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-29873612609119807712007-11-30T16:16:00.000+00:002007-11-30T16:16:00.000+00:00Apologies for what is going to be quite a long com...Apologies for what is going to be quite a long comment, but as <A HREF="http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/jackson.html" REL="nofollow">Economics Commissioner for the Sustainable Development Commission</A>, I guess it falls at least partly to me to respond to charges of ‘flawed economics’ in our <A HREF="http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/jackson.html" REL="nofollow">SDC tidal position</A>! <BR/><BR/>So, here goes.. <BR/><BR/>First, I think I would accept Clive’s criticism that the report itself didn't make quite as clear a case for the 'why' of public ownership as it might have done. Or at least, that there was so much other stuff in there that it was quite easy to miss the case we were making. <BR/> <BR/>A significant part of that case rests on 'conditionality'. We set ourselves the task of asking, what conditions might have to be in place before it was possible to say yes to a barrage (given a <I>prima facie</I> argument in favour of renewables as a source of low carbon energy but huge concerns about habitats and the impacts of development). Public ownership and leadership was one of several conditions we identified along with: no derogation from the directives, development of a wider low carbon policy and the sustainability of ancillary investments. <BR/> <BR/>It's true that public ownership doesn't in itself guarantee the sustainability of ancillary investments or the replacement of habitats, which is why we made those separate conditions in their own right. But the logic of our position was that these other conditions would be severely compromised under private ownership, which would in any event require huge public subsidy. By contrast, and this is something that I will come back to in relation to one of the points in your blog, our position is not about asking for public subsidy, it is asking for public investment: an outlay of public money which leads to both direct (monetary) and indirect (carbon, habitats, infrastructure) public benefits. <BR/> <BR/>This need for infrastructure investment is key to our arguments. It is clear that much of our existing long-term, large-scale infrastructure was built under conditions of public investment at low (implicit) rates of return. It is difficult to see where such large-scale infrastructure investment is going to come from in the future. What we tend to have seen under market conditions is the systematic sweating of previously public assets for private benefit - tantamount to an institutionalised running down of infrastructure (Dieter Helm has made this argument convincingly in relation to the energy utilities). And attempts at private finance for large infrastructure investments have been hounded by confusion - Channel Tunnel finance now lies floundering in European hedging funds; ill-defined Public-Private Partnerships, as the Financial Times has remarked, fail to solve the problem of public-private subsidy and make for <A HREF="http://www.johnkay.com/in_action/407" REL="nofollow">'poor management and blurred accountability'</A>. (By contrast, there is some very recent precedent for public investment at this scale in <A HREF="http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/aboutus48.html" REL="nofollow">Crossrail</A> which is publically owned joint venture between Transport for London and the Department for Transport.) <BR/> <BR/>From these understandings it is quite a short step to suggest that here, at least, in the case of a large scale infrastructure investment with very long term carbon and energy supply benefits, there is a case to consider the public sector as project developer and asset owner. Assignation of the public sector as asset owner is necessary precisely because it places the long-term financial benefits (electricity sales) of this investment in public hands. <BR/> <BR/>We still have to ask of course: under what conditions might the public sector accept such an investment as favourable? Answering this question has several different dimensions to it. First of all let me just correct a misconception in your blog, where you suggest that we are talking about government 'lending capital' at low interest rate. We're not at all suggesting that. On the contrary, we are asking at what rate is government borrowing possible. As a trusted borrower, as you yourself point out, Government can attract capital at quite low rates of return. Treasury bonds are one example of that. <BR/><BR/>So in other words, it is within the bounds of currently accepted raising of public sector funds to consider a low interest rate. And at such an interest rate, the project does in fact become feasible - noone disagrees on that. But to be clear, there is no suggestion of Government lending money at a reduced rate, or indeed of subsidising private interests in any way at all. On the contrary, our strategy is designed explicitly to avoid that. <BR/> <BR/>It remains an interesting and important question whether a low discount rate has a theoretical justification in this case. My personal view is that we do not yet have a convincing economics of the long-term, yet alone a convincing economics of climate change. There are certainly strong theoretical arguments in favour of re-appraising the impact of discounting practices on infrastructure projects. Discounting works where project lifetimes are congruent with commercial lending terms. In other words, where funds have to be matched quite precisely against the flow of benefits that technologies provide. It is deeply problematic where large upfront costs are to be matched against either very long-term benefits or indeed against very long-term costs. Both tend simply to disappear under anything approaching commerical interest rates, and leave us very little way of meaningful project appraisal over the long-term. This is well explored in both academic literature (lovely paper by David Collard that was formative in my thinking about this some twenty years ago) and the policy literature (to wit lots of complex discussion in the Stern report). <BR/> <BR/>In pragmatic terms, the recognition of the problem has led to some slightly unsatisfactory but nonetheless interesting suggestions, amongst which the idea (in <A HREF="http://greenbook.treasury.gov.uk/annex06.htm" REL="nofollow">Treasury guidance</A> and indeed in CEGB guidance predating privatisation) that it is appropriate to assess very long term cost-benefit streams at low discount rates. <BR/><BR/>So at the very least, our position has some precedence. The heart of the matter is that discounted cash flow analysis is too recent and too limited to tackle the challenge of long-term infrastucture investment in the context of issues like climate change. <BR/><BR/>And in case this all sounds too much like special pleading, let me just reiterate two points. Firstly, existing procedures have clearly militated against long term investment decisions. Secondly, from a purely pragmatic point of view, a low interest rate on borrowed public sector capital clearly does have a precedent. <BR/> <BR/>In the context of this complexity, I am much less inclined to be swayed by your arguments about accounting procedures and practices. I'd like to emphasise at the very least that we have to distinguish clearly between a) what is understood as common practice b) what is laid down in formal guidelines and c) what is properly reflective of the complexity of economic priorities. I have a number of issues in relation to your particular citations of Green Book and Treasury guidance. But in the broadest terms, I would want to question the context of these guidelines. They reflect a broadly market-based ideology, attempting to construe government as simply another private sector player and more importantly they suffer, as the conventional methodologies suffer, from being designed for much narrower circumstances. When we have a truly green Green Book (one of our SDC objectives), then perhaps the guidance will be worth following by rote. Until then, it's our job to think beyond it. <BR/> <BR/>Next, let me come to your point about marginal abatement curves. Since I was one of the original architects of this concept (back in 1988 I produced what was then an unprecedented report based on this idea for Friends of the Earth’s case to the Hinkley Point Inquiry) I could scarcely fail to understand your point here, that tidal is not the most cost-effective thing to do in when assessed from a simple and commensurate set of economic conditions. The trouble is - and this was something I explored in detail in a subsequent FoE report in 1992 - this set of conditions just doesn't exist in practice, and has existed less and less in an increasingly privatised market. The lovely concept of integrated resource planning - tested in 1989 in a couple of places in the UK - in which it makes sense to invest even-handedly on both demand and supply, no longer pertains. Marginal rates of capital availability in energy efficiency can be as high as 25% or higher. What you should do from a 'pure' social discounting perspective just doesn't play out in practice. After a number of years thinking through this, I favour a pragmatic approach to this problem. Understanding how options stack up under similar financial considitions is useful for government. And there is clearly a strong argument in favour of stimulating appropriate conditions for comparability. Hence for example the arguments in favour of ESCOs, which again have a long pedigree but have proved difficult to implement in the liberalised energy markets of the UK. <BR/> <BR/>But its also essential - in the absence of those conditions - to take a pragmatic approach to investment all the way along the supply curve. For instance, government can learn from a marginal carbon abatement cost curve that there is little need to stimulate investment in Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. The market will do that for them. There is a massive need to facilitate the flow of capital into demand side measures, because these are cost-effective (from a social point of view) and the market clearly won’t do that for them. And within the package of interventions appropriate for government is the potential to take on what appear (on private financing conditions) to be costly interventions, but which under conditions of public sector finance could be justifiable, indeed profitable interventions for government. Tidal is one of those cases. <BR/> <BR/>To return, to where I started, none of this is to suggest that any individual technology should override core social or environmental concerns. We have been very clear about this from the start. We attempted to define conditions under which it might be acceptable to build a barrage. None of them is sufficient on their own. But in our view all of them are necessary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-60746033586374729602007-11-27T00:35:00.000+00:002007-11-27T00:35:00.000+00:00here's a comedic viewhttp://www.goldmau.com/conten...here's a comedic view<BR/><BR/>http://www.goldmau.com/content/articles/2007-11-23/comic.phpPeter Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459070252797881222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-45140976946234528742007-11-25T10:26:00.000+00:002007-11-25T10:26:00.000+00:00Thank you Clive for putting the spotlight back on ...Thank you Clive for putting the spotlight back on landuse. I agree with the general critique of biofuels -- that the focus on alternative ways of producing energy is myopic and misses the target. The fundamental question that we now face is are we going to focus on energy or earth, on fuel or fruitfulness.<BR/><BR/>The basic problem with biofuel approaches is that they give overwhelming attention to supplying energy, albeit in more "sustainable" and “cleaner” forms. And, as you suggest, it is spin -- spin to hide or rationalize enormous (and wasteful) agricultural subsidies that continue to damage the earth.<BR/><BR/>But I'm not so sure about the counter proposal of tree-planting. I'm a tree hugger with years of experience trying to save ancient forests. Let me say, unequivocally, I have never seen large-scale tree-planting without the intention of some future "harvest". The whole tree-planating commericial forestry schema is about agricultural and monocultural "cropping." As we speak, the labs are genetically manipulating trees for better ethanol production and fast growing ecalyptus is being planted massively in Brazil for "green charcoal" to fire the steel mills. And -- get this! -- even if the planted forests are left forever, the resultant system is an equibilbrium between GHG release through decay and GHG retrieval through growth.<BR/><BR/>Yes, tree-planting holds the promise of being more "carbon neutral" than coal and petrol but it's neither "carbon negative" in the atmosphere nor healing on earth. It's just, as you suggest, a greener way to continue some really bad habits. So what can be done? I believe that the answer lies now in Bali where the Kyoto protocols will soon be revised. The definitions of carbon sequestration are critical.<BR/><BR/>First and foremost, there needs to be carbon credit given for reduced or avoided deforestation of EXISTING natural forests. Today, due to burning and deforestation, Brazil is the number 4 greenhouse gas polluter in the world. It gets NO reward or payment for massive government efforts to protect its forests and these efforts usually fail because of illegal logging that responds to market demands -- all the economic incentives push deforestation. Carbon credits can change this by channeling billions of bucks into rainforest presevation and by generating local economies invested in conservation. Forests are local, and so are the people who protect or destroy them. But the incentives are global!<BR/><BR/>Second, even more critical but far less understood, is the need to offer credits for carbon sequestration in the earth -- NOT as CO2 pumped into deep underground caverns but as charcoal amendments to the soil. YES, charcoal put into the soil increases it's fertility, stores more nutrients (think less fertilizer), holds water and filters what is released, pulls more CO2 out of the atmosphere due to faster plant growth providing greater production of both fuel AND food, and the charcoal can be made out of agricultural waste. How's that for a win/win/win/etc?<BR/><BR/>But there's a hitch -- the energy market is demanding charcoal as fuel not as a soil amendment. What will cause farmers to make the longer-term investment in soil restoration rather than reap immediate profits from selling the charcoal?<BR/><BR/>THE CARBON EXCHANGE CAN PRODUCE THE NEEDED ECONOMIC TIPPING POINT.<BR/><BR/>Those who have no immediate choice about polluting ways -- airline companies for example -- can fund those who have a choice but incur lost opportunities for short-term profits if they do the right thing. We can leave the blame-game and help each other. What a concept!<BR/><BR/>It's all based on recent discoveries of an ancient Amazon indian technique called Terra Preta and current research aimed at creating a modern version called Agrichar. We need to fund a crash program of the needed R & D. Again, this will be likely if the carbon market provides serious incentives for carbon sequestration in soils.<BR/><BR/>Please check out the following links to discover more about this exciting possibility.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The ABC 11 minute video about "Agrichar". http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm<BR/><BR/><BR/>Kelpie Wilson's lay person's introduction to terra preta. http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Joyful_Liiving_Terra_Preta_Sept-Oct_0207.pdf<BR/><BR/><BR/>Research confirms that char added to soil boosts crop productivity. http://biopact.com/2007/06/research-confirms-biochar-in-soils.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>The BBC documentary, "The Secret of El Dorado" tells the story of rediscovering terra preta soils. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldorado.shtml<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ken Salazar has introduced a bill in the US Senate that would fund research on agrichar. http://biopact.com/2007/10/towards-carbon-negative-bioenergy-us.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>I report stories unfolding from Brazil here. http://lougold.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/><BR/>Lou Gold<BR/>An American in BrazilLou Goldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08225133924452033458noreply@blogger.com