Don't ditch the Kyoto Protocol

My otherwise peaceful morning slumber was disturbed by a radio interview announcing that social scientists Steve Rayner and Gwin Prins want to 'ditch the Kyoto Protocol'. In a Nature commentary, Time to ditch the Kyoto Protocol, they have a go at the Kyoto Protocol and claim that 'political correctness' is inhibiting proper criticism and unnamed Kyoto supporters insist that Kyoto must remain the only game in town, sternly admonishing any dissenters to this orthodoxy. Luckily for us these fearless academics are ready to speak out. The trouble is, they have nothing much to say!

Yes, it is true that current efforts to control greenhouse gases are inadequate and that emissions are still rising and accelerating when they need to be slowing and falling - see chart [data from CAIT] - see also BBC item. So we do have prima facie evidence of failure. Or more optimistically, it's too early to see success in a multi-decade effort. But any failure so far is a reflection of insufficient political will and its wicked uncle, human short-termism, rather than the design of the Kyoto Protocol.
... continues. Read full post.

Have a referendum... on EU membership, not the treaty

Am I alone in finding the phoney war over the EU treaty unbelievably annoying? I feel as though I'm caught in the midst of an Olympic synchronised lying event, where just about everyone is saying the opposite of what they think for reasons different to those they give. The government doesn't want a referendum because it will probably lose, so it is saying the treaty is very different to the constitution and therefore its earlier promise of a referendum no longer applies. The opponents say the treaty is the same as the constitution so the promise of a referendum must apply. But they want that because they think people will over-react to any vote on Europe and this will help to sink the EU or, amongst the most deranged, lead to our withdrawal. They are hoping to make political capital (or plain mischief) from Britain's deep Euroscepticism - see chart [YouGov polling data]. No side is bothering to make a thoughtful case for the treaty, or against it.

The real situation, at least as I see it, is as follows:

1. Main purpose: the treaty provides some much needed administrative streamlining and better 'machinery of government'. This should improve the quality of EU decision-making and accountability (a bit).It also does a few things that will help Europe in a globalising world. [see text / documentation / BBC guide / Guardian Q&A]

2. Transfer of power to EU; the treaty does pool some sovereignty (or transfer power) in some issues (many trivial, some important)... this happens because we give up some vetoes (unanimous voting) for majority voting. But the sceptics always think of loss of vetoes as a loss of power, and vetoes as 'surrendered'. This is wrong - often a move to majority voting means other countries can't block what we want to achieve through the EU. People think the power goes to 'Brussels', but it largely remains with the Council of Ministers. When we need to express power collectively (eg. in international relations or development) the removal of vetoes can give us more power.

3. It's the same. The amending treaty is little different to the constitution in its effect, though its form is completely different. The amending treaty is tediously defined as a series of textual amendments to the existing treaties (Rome, Maastricht, Nice etc), whereas one of the great benefits of the constitution was a consolidation into a single text, albeit a long and complicated text. In claiming it is different, the government is focussing on its form, not its function, and is being very disingenuous. The main difference is the dropping of a few symbols like the anthem etc. See European scrutiny committee report, especially Annex 1 (p.25) and BBC reporting of this for comparison.

4. Some of it is stupid and unnecessary. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is ridiculous and counter-productive (and UK has an opt-out of dubious resilience). The danger of defining too many rights that are not profound or deeply supported in society, is that the currency of rights becomes devalued. There is something troubling about a document that includes the rights to 'access to free placement services', 'right to social security' and 'family protection' in the same charter than protects the right to life and freedom from torture. It even seems to ban school kids having a Saturday job. We should stick with the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with the rights that really matter, and make sure that really works.

5. There is no case for a referendum on the treaty (and there wasn't on the constitution). We are, rightly, sparing in what we ask people to vote on - we leave scrutiny of difficult legislation to elected representatives, and only bother people when the changes are fundamental - ie. in/out of EU, devolution, regional assemblies etc. The issues at stake here are no more significant than those considered in domestic bills and trusted to parliament. And many domestic bills shift more powers around than this treaty - eg. the recent terrorism legislation. We know people are hugely confused or wilfully ignorant about the EU and this treaty - see for example polling for the Sunday Times, from 2004 - which shows people believe that the EU has more power than it has and would take more than it will, and so it is unclear on what understanding people would base their answers to the simple question about whether you support the treaty. One might argue that a referendum will force politicians to explain the treaty properly. I strongly believe that any referendum should present people with strong clear choices that they can understand. The difference between 'yes' and 'no' for this treaty is very obtuse - to the point where few involved can actually explain it.

6. EU is an elite programme that needs a new mandate. The development of the European Union has long been a programme of the political and business elites - and current treaty is no exception. Ordinary folk have usually misread it from one extreme or another - either as a happy-clappy fellowship of nations with liberal values or as a sinister plot by power-crazed bureaucrats. It is neither. the EU provides cover for politicians to do what they know or believe to be right, but often find hard to sell to their electorates. That cannot continue for two reasons: firstly the EU institutions don't really like or understand the basic principles of 'subsidiarity', 'proportionality' and 'conferral' that supposedly underpin the balance of powers between member states and the EU. As a result it does too much, does it badly and does it with poor democratic accountability. It is right to be Euro-sceptic about this. Secondly, we need the EU to do more outward-looking things - be a global player on behalf of the member states... and that will require more pooling of sovereignty. This is where the EU needs more support and less scepticism. So big changes are needed, and the public will have to understand them and want them. In other words, the EU needs a renewed popular mandate based on what it now is and should become. The mandate secured in 1975 for continued membership of the 'Common Market' has run out.

7. Have a meaningful referendum in the next parliament. I think at some point the EU will have to stop being an elite programme and be respected and accepted by the wider public - a point we are far away from now - or we leave it. To do this, we need a proper vision and debate about the future of the EU, both in the UK and in the EU itself. The real future of the EU is obscured in the treaty and there is virtually no debate about what it will be doing in even 10 years (though the budget review might help with that). But this is what we should be discussing - not the cycle of Commission appointments or voting system for comitology or other arcane details. A referendum would present people with a stark in/out choice and force us all to examine what we want the EU for and where it is going.

To summarise: the treaty has virtually the same effect as the constitution and is a useful improvement to the EU. But it is not of such consequence that it justifies a referendum (and it never did). However, the popular mandate for EU programme from the British people has expired and needs to be regained. Legitimate scepticism and a bold outward-looking vision need to face down Euro-phobia and the globalisation-denial of the Little Englanders. I think the best strategy for the government would be for parliament to decide on the treaty in 2008, but for the government to promise a referendum on EU membership for the next parliament - and then present a vision and make the case.

Other political parties could declare for a referendum or even for leaving the EU in their election manifesto. Europe would be a central issue at the next election. It's about time it was taken seriously - the last time it was an election issue, it was William Hague pledging to 'save the pound'.

And that was quite enough of that sort of thing.
... continues. Read full post.

Is this the worst policy announcement ever?

There seems to be a plan to give pregnant women £200 and training in nutrition - it will be a 'Health in Pregnancy Grant' [Pregnant women to get healthy food grant - Telegraph] [BBC]. Despite the recently announced end of spin, this was spun in the media several days before its real announcement, in a speech by the Health Secretary. By the time of the speech, the payment was less precise - it would be "substantial" and "sufficient to help every mother eat healthily during her pregnancy". Perhaps some sums have been done...

I don't doubt that it would be good to improve diet and nutrition - and we should be worried about the rise of the tubby tots see chart [data from Dept Health]. There are also marked social class differences in child nutrition and prevalence of low-birthweight babies - see ONS The Health of Children and Young People Survey - chapter 3 on nutrition.

But it is one thing to recognise a problem but quite another to find a policy that will actually address it. And I think this announcement is just about the worst policy I can think of.

Let's set out some of the doubts one might have...

1. Untargeted - there is a huge 'dead-weight loss' as payments are made to all women, including many that don't need the advice or don't need the money. Who are the target group? Why aren't they targeted? If there is less than 100% uptake, will those not taking it be disproportionately part of the target group?

2. Wasteful - a high likelihood the £200 will be spent on anything but the intended outcome thus wasting money - there is no evidence that apples, broccoli and oat bran are the marginal purchase for poor families. Frankly, if I was a pregnant women I'd be taking a well-earned lunch at Quirinale. Why do they think the money will have the desired effect?

3. Expensive - I'll guess about £130m assuming England and Wales (based on about 640,000 births per year) for the payments and provision of 'nutritional advice'. God knows how much for administrating it, preventing fraud etc. Even for the NHS, that's a substantial sum. About half the additional funding the government is making available for new flood protection by 2010-11 (£200m).

4. No evidence - I couldn't see anything links the intervention with the hoped-for outcome ... and to be honest it seems unlikely and hangs on the value of the nutritional advice. What's the evidence that nutritional advice interventions change diets? How intensive does the intervention need to be? Does it make a difference if the person opts in voluntarily or attends under semi-coercive conditions to receive a payment?

5. Untried - there's no sign that a pilot has been run - if there had it would have been part of the announcement. I've the evidence of my own eyes in seeing 'Healthy Start' vouchers exchanged for sweets and Coke in my local shop. Welcome to the graveyard of good intentions. Why can't they just try it and learn some lesson before they waste taxpayers' money?

6. Uncontested - There's no obvious consideration of opportunity costs or alternatives - what about strengthening supply side by improving the services available? Is pregnancy the best time for the intervention? Would a community-based intervention work better - eg. running an aerobics class with a wider focus on healthy living etc etc...

7. Unfocussed - What about bigger interventions aimed at fewer people? There's no recognition of the benefits of concentration - if, say, one-third are in the target group(the chav mums?), wouldn't a targeted £600 intervention work better that a £200 general intervention?

8. Implausible - I've yet to see what the training would amount to, but I'll be surprised if a lecture works - I suspect the problem is a skills deficit and confidence in cooking fresh food - linked with time poverty. Also, assuming one person can run 300 training session per year and there is a single training session per woman, that would require a workforce of about 2,000. Where are they?

9. Prudence - the old girl has had a quite torrid experience with this one. Where is the control and checks an balances on such poor policy-making? What is this government in a 'tight fiscal situation' doing? I hope the NAO and select committees are all over this.

Apart from that, it's a great idea. Nominations please, for a worse policy? Poll tax excepted.
... continues. Read full post.

Achieving culture change

An excellent new publication from the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, Achieving culture change: a policy framework. It's open for discussion until 31 August and will be finalised once they have had views in. It's an important area because many policy objectives depend on influencing, or are thwarted by, deep-seated attitudes and entrenched behaviours... environment, skills and employability, anti-social behaviour, and public health to name a few.

This develops work on 'behaviour change' (see my posting on soft paternalism for a discussion) to reflect the idea that behaviour is embedded in culture: a stock of attitudes and beliefs - and that behaviour is conditioned by culture, but that changed behavioural norms are eventually consolidated into culture (see graphic from report). If that sounds either obscure or so obvious it isn't worth stating, I think it is worth having a read of the report - it's an excellent synthesis of the knowledge and experience in this area with some good analytical tools...

I attended the launch of this report and was asked to give some remarks in response. My six main points were as follows:

1. Death of 'rational man' economics. As soon as real world behaviour and culture are examined, it is obvious that the key assumption of utility maximising behaviour (where utility is usually erroneously conflated with income) fails. One quite (I suspect inadvertently) amusing part of the report is on page 58, where a list of behavioural 'biases' are noted in which human behaviour departs from the rational model. In most of science, when the model is different from reality, we usually conclude the weaknesses and biases are in the model, not the real world! Only economics can suspend humility I recently read The Origin of Wealth, by Eric Beinhocker a fascinating challenge to the highly deterministic and reductionist assumptions of classical economics, in favour of 'complexity economics' comprising system dynamics and emergent behaviour, agent interactions, networks, and evolutionary models for innovation and markets. But much policymaking rests on the simplistic and wrong assumptions of neo-classical economics - in fact it is elevated to the status of religion in some quarters. If not time to bin it, then it's time to recognise its limitations - I'm arguing its approach is sometimes necessary (eg. getting prices right), but rarely sufficient to deliver desired outcomes.

2. The importance of time. The report is a manifesto for 'slow wins' - substantial changes achieved over a long period, in which interventions to change behaviour become self-sustaining and consolidated into culture. Time is much underrated in policymaking but it is critical in reducing transition costs and allowing everyone to adapt. So for example if there was a desire to apply a high carbon tax (say £50/tCO2) it could be introduced over 10-15 years. There has been a steady culture change effect around domestic violence - once the police deciding to ignore 'domestics', implicit societal permission to thwack the wife was withdrawn, and domestic violence has fallen very substantially over time. Most of the great changes in society have been realised over many years: slavery abolition, universal suffrage, the Enlightenment rejection of religious dogma, human rights, etc.

3. The moving policy frontier. Attitudes and culture change over time, and what is impossible at one point, may become acceptable as time passes and attitudes change. The 40-year effort to restrict smoking in public places is a good example (see post on lessons) and there is a good discussion of this in the report. With recycling there has been a steady change in attitudes, and ideas that were ahead of their time just five years ago, are under discussion now. See PM Strategy Unit 2002 report Waste not, want not, which recommended charging households for the amount of rubbish produced and caused a storm at the time, but see 2007 Defra announcement and BBC.

4. Credibility and consistency. If long term culture change is the objective, then everything done needs to show the direction is consistent and the intention credible - otherwise the signal is mixed. Perhaps this problem afflicts us most in responding to climate change... the language on climate change is strong, but in other policy areas the signals about climate change are are mixed - eg. housing, transport and even energy. I think was done well with drink driving, where detection, penalties, advertising etc all lined up with a single clear message. Culture eventually changed and no-one jokes any more about driving home because they are too drunk to walk. One argument I made for consistency reasons was to build on, not replace, the behaviour change model of the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy: Securing the future, chapter 2.

5. Where does the mandate come from? Intervention in behaviour and culture change can be paternalistic or appear paternalistic. How does the government secure a mandate from the public to do this? The report p30-32 gives a characterisation based on liberal principles governing the case for government intervention (though the 2-dimensional space drawn on p32, doesn't reflect the case where people cannot exert full 'agency'). However, I think this is only part of the story. It gets to the heart of the relationship between a government and its electorate. I recently attended the Green Alliance summer garden party and debate: Is it up to politicians to save us?, which was excellent - but the question begs a careful answer. I don't see politicians as simply aggregating public opinion - we usually elect them to lead us, and lead us beyond where we currently think we are or want to go. That is, we place some trust in them. We give them a metaphorical tow-rope and ask them to tow us along in what looks like the right direction. Sometimes they can go too fast or be excessively libertarian, authoritarian or paternalistic, and the tow-rope reaches its elastic limit and then snaps - in a 'crisis' (like the fuel protests, too much immigration etc.). If we trust the politicians less, we reel in the tow-rope and give them much less scope. the important thing is that the public ultimately controls the 'permission' it gives to politicians, but politicians can act in such a way that they enjoy greater just and more slack... consistency, credibility, taking times, avoiding excessive intervention, listening etc.

6. Where is the space for this sort of policy work? Chapter 4 (p66) sets out a seven part policy framework for operationalising the ideas in the report (see diagram below - click to enlarge). My observation is that this sort of work is a very substantial undertaking, and it's far from obvious to me that the civil service is geared up to do this. I think it needs: ministerial buy-in and patience, multidisciplinary teams, time and resources, developing a programme of policy-focussed research, clear agreement on problems and scope.



The fat tax - my confession... I also offered the meeting a confession - it was me that penned the infamous 'fat tax' concept into the PM Strategy Unit's earlier work in this area [Report: Personal responsibility and behaviour change] causing the report to be changed following another media storm (see The Times, BBC). I thought I was being clever by saying that it would be a tax on food not bodyweight!

Needless to say, this idea is eventually percolating into the mainstream - exactly as you would expect as concern mounts over obesity [see recent articles: Doctors call for Fat Tax, Institute of Fiscal Studies report, Fat tax could save thousands of lives, Fat tax would be a throw back to the nanny state: so what?, Shouldn't we tax fatties? ]. I suppose the lesson from this is that the government should allows others to make the running (even if it is egging them on), so that an idea seems to be a natural progression of policy. This was an example of stretching the policy frontier too far, too quickly... but given this frontier is moving, it's time will surely come.

... continues. Read full post.

Urban flooding - 15 things to do

We've had some horrible urban flooding impacts recently. But the outlook is pretty bleak too - the chart is from the 2004 Foresight Report Future Flooding, showing both potentially high future costs (rising from £270m to up to £15 billion) and large uncertainties involved. Now we have been reminded how bad it can be, what's to be done? Let me set out some views on the problem, which is far from straightforward and little to do with flood defences, and then 15 ideas for how to respond...
... continues. Read full post.

England goes smoke-free - wider lessons

Long awaited 1st of July arrives, and most enclosed workplaces (including pubs and restaurants) in England will go smoke-free today [BBC]. It's a triumph for all involved - both campaigners and government insiders - following a sustained struggle. It's also a vital next step in dragging down smoking rates - see chart based on ONS and Tobacco Advisory Council data care of Cancer Research UK, [XLS]. Still at about 25%, that's a huge number of people using an addictive product that kills one in two long term users - and does a lot of damage before death.

The ban on smoking in public places has always been justified around protecting non-smoking workers, for which there is the strongest civil liberties and legal basis, but its biggest public health benefit will come from 'denormalising' smoking - removing the societal support for smoking as a normal activity and role-modelling effects - and raising the cost of smoking in terms of time and hassle. The effect should be an acceleration in quitting and fewer starting.
... continues. Read full post.

Energy white paper - nuclear muddle continues

On May 23rd we had a new Energy White Paper and a new Planning White Paper. Both part of the government's efforts to bring forward new nuclear power stations. The new energy policy makes a case for nuclear on energy security and climate change grounds. In fact nuclear dominates the energy white paper and is the unannounced presence in the planning white paper. But this obsession is out of proportion to the importance of nuclear power in the energy mix - see chart [data]. The government's economic appraisal released with the white paper suggests that not much will happen for the next 20 years anyway:

It is likely that the first new nuclear plant could be added by around 2021 [...] A programme to add 6 GW of nuclear new build by 2025 would not increase the total stock of nuclear capacity relative to the current level.

At the heart of UK energy policy there lies confusion and contradiction... let me make some observations:
... continues. Read full post.

Compulsory blogging for civil servants?

I've had a bad case of blog block - now over - the whole month of May without posting to Bacon Butty... not least due to a hideous computer crash. It's amazing just how much embodied time is stored in a computer! Anyway, it's been a busy period and there is much to be said, so stand by for further posts...

But first a comment on blogging itself: what a pity Owen Barder's excellent blog [now removed] mostly on development issues has been forced into a 'members only' space by a ridiculous article in the Mail on Sunday. Owen is a senior civil servant at the Department for International Development and is well known for his challenging and incisive insights into development thinking. It's a great pity that his colleagues and the wider world are to be denied his insights and informed commentary because a muckraking comb through his blog by a reactionary newspaper.
... continues. Read full post.

Rising emissions - words, deeds and the struggle to come

As one seasoned observer, who must remain anonymous, described Britain's approach to climate change, "we have the best words in the world". And, as an example, the Prime Minister's speeches on climate change really are quite brilliant [example]

So, what is the UK Government doing? We have led the world in setting a bold plan and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week saw the release of provisional data for 2006. It shows a rise in UK carbon dioxide emissions [announcement] and ministers calling for more action on climate change [release]. What to make of this...?
... continues. Read full post.

Democracy or wisdom?

Our elected chamber, the House of Commons, has just turned in an 'indicative' (ie. non-binding) vote in favour of a 100% elected second chamber - currently the House of Lords, which is currently formed by appointments, hereditary rights and bishops (see chart / full data). MPs were asked to vote for various combinations of elected and appointed membership - from fully appointed to fully elected. And they voted for voting (BBC report / Guardian).

To my own surprise, I have serious misgivings about this outbreak of democratic sentiment. The problem is that it will increase political monoculture and weaken the system for decision-making that is parliament. Let's look in more detail...
... continues. Read full post.

Road pricing politics - the art of listening and counting

The politics of the now-closed road pricing petition have been terrible for the environment and quality of life, with 1.8 million people given a space to vent mob rage and duck difficult choices. Progress will slow, unjustified concessions will be made, and hesitation and equivocation will be the order of the day - at least that is the impression left by the PM's e-mail response to the petition.

I've already gone through the arguments about this sorry saga in No 10 road pricing petition, beware what you wish for... so I wont repeat that here... But I did wonder how the counter petitions were doing. There are probably two that are worth looking at: at 8.30pm 26 Feb, this was the position...

1. We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Introduce road pricing nationwide and channel the money into improving public transport and conditions for walking and cycling. Submitted by Greg King – Deadline to sign up by: 07 November 2007 – Signatures: 2,250


2. We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Don't Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy. Submitted by Tim Lewis – Deadline to sign up by: 11 March 2007 – Signatures: 4,384

Er, not that well then. I wonder why the environment groups haven't mobilised their supporters-base? You wouldn't think it would be that hard to get enough signatures aligned with a soundly-worded petition to get a self-sustaining reaction underway. What signal does the relative silence and tiny response send to ministers, who are always being asked to take difficult decisions for the environment?

As Tom Burke says, the two skills needed for political influencing are listening and counting. Anyone listening and counting on road pricing would not be rushing in to road pricing. ... continues. Read full post.

Renewable energy targets - why is the European Union involved?

The European Union has been busy setting out ambitious ideas for energy and climate policy - see Energy for a Changing World, and the climate change and energy announcements made in January. But is it trying to do too much of the wrong thing in trying to determine member states' approach to renewables? I think so...

There are three main problems... first, the EU is leaping ahead to set ambitious (perhaps reckless) targets for 2020 when it is far from likely that it will make its 2010 targets; second, it's not obvious if these targets would produce desirable outcomes even if they were achieved; and third, why should targets be set at EU level at all? The EU should let member states decide how to meet their Kyoto objectives - the approach fails on subsidiarity grounds. Let's look at the targets in more detail...

EU Council proposes 'tough' new targets for renewables
The EU's Council of Energy Ministers met on 15th February to finalise a package of energy policy reforms [see communiqué], including policy and targets for renewables to 2020. This will be taken for final agreement to the spring European Council on 8-9 March 2007. The relevant wording on renewables [on p.9 and here] covers two main objectives...

1. Overall target - renewables as a proportion of EU energy consumption
The Council endorsed overall EU target for renewables to reach 20% of the EU's overall energy consumption by 2020, with a process to divide this between the member states but with member state discretion to determine which renewable technologies to use to meet its target. This builds on the existing directive 2001/77/EC which sets an 'indicative' target of 12% primary energy and 22% of electricity from renewables by 2010 (for the EU-27 this has become 21%).

It should be noted that EU renewables share of energy consumption increased from 5% to 6% in between 1993 and 2004 - so the targets represent dramatic sustained increases [Eurostat data for upper chart]. Increasing the share of renewables, means increasing renewable energy faster than the growth in consumption - so those steep slopes on the chart .

It should also be understood that EU's renewable energy is dominated by hydro power - 75% of EU renewable electricity in 2004 - based on long-standing schemes in the Alps, Pyrenees and other mountainous areas that are now highly prized and protected. Meeting the 2010 target to have 21% electricity requires a massive increase in the 25% that is not the installed hydro base [Eurostat data for lower chart]. The Commission's communication [COM (2006) 849] tries to put a happy face on it (literally), but it is clear we are well off track for meeting the 2010 target.

As the EurObserv'Er Barometer puts it in its 2006 assessment: the important European objectives, the 22% of the Directive on renewable source electricity and the 12% of primary energy of the White Paper, shall be far from being reached in 2010. [report PDF]

2. Biofuels target - a leap into the dark...
The Council's 15 Feb communication endorses a binding target for biofuels to reach 10% of transportation fuels for each member state by 2020 - subject to some sustainability considerations and availability of "second generation biofuels". This builds on the existing directive 2003/30/EC, which requires each member state to have 5.75% of its petrol and diesel by energy content from biofuels by the end of 2010 (actually each member state is to have an 'indicative target' and this is a 'reference value' for it - typical EU fudge for saying this is kind of voluntary.) This requires lift off from an even lower base than renewables as a whole [Eurostat data]. There is the added complexity with biofuels of the variable and uncertain carbon reduction, which depends on how and where it is produced, the land take and competition with food, and impacts on water, soil, and biodiversity - and high inputs of fertilizer and pesticides. I hope to return to that shortly... I'm not even convinced that a big move into biofuels is a good idea - though we mustn't lightly rule out options for tackling climate change.

What's to be done?
Let me suggest three things:

a. Actions not words. Focus on meeting (or adjusting) targets for 2010 before dramatically extending them for 2020. And don't set hard targets (ie. for biofuels) for 2020 until lessons have been learnt from the experience to 2010. It's as though ministers want to forget the things they are actually accountable for delivering and focus discussion and political capital on things comfortably far off.

b. Back out of renewables policy. Don't try to run all of energy policy at the EU level - especially not renewables, which are usually highly local in implementation and their impacts on the environment. It is not good policy to have set objectives (like the Kyoto targets) and then to be prescriptive about how to meet them - what if a member state could meet its targets more cost-effectively (renewables are generally and expensive way of reducing carbon at present)? What if a member state doesn't agree with the industrial policy idea of subsidising renewables to build up the business - or thinks it will just suck in exports? Should the EU be requiring member states to act together in this, eve though it isn't necessary. I can see a case for the EU insisting on particular 'policies and measures' when it looks like particular countries are going to miss their CO2 targets as some sort of 'remedial treatment', but not unless.

c. Do things that the only the EU can do or does best. I think it would be better if the EU stuck to policymaking on environmental energy policy issues where it involvement is critical - and that is a lot:

• Achieving an ambitious post-2012 Kyoto agreement in which EU leadership is catalytic
  
• Engaging with the US, Russia and major developing countries on behalf of the 27 member states
  
• Realising a fair burden-sharing regime between members states of an ambitious Kyoto commitment
• Making the emissions trading system work better
  
• Tackling 'stateless' aviation and maritime emissions
• Setting high emissions standards for traded products in the single market - vehicles, appliances, industrial equipment
• Ensuring high quality consistent consumer information is available across the EU
• Regulatory requirements for carbon capture and storage on new power plant
• Converting the European Investment Bank into an investor in limiting and adapting to climate change and strengthening energy security
• A bunch of things about competition, liberalisation and markets that underpin energy security
  

... continues. Read full post.

Court ruling good for both friends and foes of nuclear power

Greenpeace scored a stunning court victory on the government's consultation on nuclear power [see BBC / Greenpeace]. This should be widely welcomed - even by nuclear proponents and especially by ministers. It does mean that the government will have to spend more time winning hearts and minds and give a more thoroughly argued and specific case. And, if alternatives are available, it would allow these to surface. I must confess to having been sceptical that this case would win - on the basis that there were many steps still to go before the nuclear policy framework was fully in place and much consulting still to be done - but Greenpeace has outed the extent to which due process appears to have been following decisions already made. So what has gone wrong...?

In its 2003 white paper [here] the government said:

Before any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations, there will need to be the fullest public consultation and the publication of a further white paper setting out our proposals.

The original consultation "Our Energy Challenge" was really a compendium of statistics designed to establish a context in which a nuclear programme was seen as the most credible response to meeting the challenges of climate change and security of supply. The question posed for consultation were so general (see below) that it did little to surface the pros and cons of a nuclear response or the alternatives - nor did it really take account of the 8 percent contribution that nuclear makes to primary energy and therefore that energy security and climate change rest on what happens with the other 92 percent (see chart / data from BP Energy Statistics]

It asked only the most general open-ended questions. These were:

Q.1. What more could the government do on the demand or supply side for energy to ensure that the UK’s long-term goal of reducing carbon emissions is met?

Q.2. With the UK becoming a net energy importer and with big investments to be made over the next twenty years in generating capacity and networks, what further steps, if any, should the government take to develop our market framework for delivering reliable energy supplies? In particular, we invite views on the implications of increased dependence on gas imports.

Q.3. The Energy White Paper left open the option of nuclear new build. Are there particular considerations that should apply to nuclear as the government reexamines the issues bearing on new build, including long-term liabilities and waste management? If so, what are these, and how should the government address them?

Q.4. Are there particular considerations that should apply to carbon abatement and other low-carbon technologies?

Q.5 What further steps should be taken towards meeting the government’s goals for ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated?

Which could have been shortened to "we're thinking of going nuclear, whaddya reckon?" On the basis of responses to this, the government was able to conclude in "The Energy Challenge":

Nuclear power is a source of low carbon generation which contributes to the diversity of our energy supplies. Under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices, new nuclear power stations would yield economic benefits in terms of carbon reduction and security of supply. Government considers that nuclear has a role to play in the future UK generating mix alongside other low carbon generating options. Evidence gathered during the Energy Review and consultation supports this view.

But the consultation was undertaken before the completion of the CoRWM assessment of radioactive waste management, surely a crucial aspect of the future of nuclear, and with virtually no surfacing of options in detail or consideration of questions of proliferation and the dual use of civilian and military technologies and expertise.

The avoidance of a thorough consultation is all the more troubling given that the planning reforms proposed in the July 2006 green paper "The Energy Challenge" and the Nuclear Policy Framework to take nuclear power (and other major infrastructure) development decisions out of the local planning system. There are good reasons to do that, but all the more reason to have had a thorough and searching consultation to lend some legitimacy to the proposed reforms.

That the whole thing has had the feeling of a decision already taken from the outset was reinforced by statements made by the Prime Minister [see my May post and June post on the approach of the PM - it can' have helped to have been this committed in public in advance of the completion of the consultation].

That's a shame, because in my opinion the only people who are wrong about nuclear power in a climate changing world are those that are certain it is the right option, the wrong option or the only option. I think it's a really difficult call and deserves a really heavy duty discussion.
... continues. Read full post.

No 10 road pricing petition - beware what you wish for...

A new system for citizens' petitions on the Prime Minister's web site has attracted well over 1 million signatures for a motion to: "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy". Extensive news coverage [BBC] and ministerial response [BBC] have followed. Despite a recent speech on Winning the debate on road pricing, Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander looks as though he may in danger of losing it.

The idea of the petition is great in some ways, but flawed in others - it allows propositions that are incomplete or misleading, or leading questions in a way that polling companies would never permit. For example, the proposition doesn't encapsulate the problem or choice of how to deal with rising traffic - see chart above [data from DfT]. In this case, the effort for a petitioner to find a counter-proposition is much greater because the home-page for the petitions lists the most popular, whereas a search is required to find counter proposals - creating an amplifying advantage for popular petitions. There are in fact several counter petitions to anti road pricing one, but with tiny numbers of signatories:

• We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Don't Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy (sic) - 345 signatures at the time of writing
  
• We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Introduce road pricing nationwide and channel the money into improving public transport and conditions for walking and cycling - 137 signatures

...and there are others, if you look hard enough for them. Perhaps the system could be improved by linking counter-petitions from the main petition (at least those that have the home page advantage - so a that a minority can more easily find its voice. There are well over 1,000 live petitions now - a search on 'road' reveals a really nasty set of angry motorist petitions.
But what is the right thing to do?

1. Recognise the powerful underlying drivers of demand
The government's policy on road pricing and the recent Eddington Review [Exec summary - 64 pages! / index / BBC coverage] favour road pricing - and are grounded in some difficult realities. As the chart shows, real incomes have risen rapidly, the cost of motoring has been relatively flat, costs of alternatives have risen - so motoring has become far more affordable see chart [data from DfT]....

Economic growth, falling motoring costs and the convenience of the private car mean that motoring will continue to be Britain's transport of choice for many of the trips we need to make. But if road traffic levels continue to rise in our urban areas and on our national road network, traffic congestion will become an increasing problem. [Road pricing background]

2. Understand the consequences for infrastructure - and accept that road capacity is limited by other things we want land for
At the same time, the road network has not and cannot expand to keep pace with this growth. The statistics are quite hard to follow as definitions have been repeatedly changed, and road length is not the same as road capacity, but it seems unlikely that the development of roads could ever keep pace - see chart [data]. It would itself generate more traffic by effectively reducing the time cost of travel (this being a prime objective of roads policy) - an 'induced demand'. Even where there is space to expand road capacity, it funnels traffic into places where there isn't - shifting congestion to 'pinch points'. The last time we had a road building programme that was attempting to do build out of congestion, it ended in huge protests [see history of Reclaim the Streets] as people concluded they also didn't like to have everything concreted over.

3. Recognise that some sort of instrument is needed to control demand and congestion
The map of congestion (left - click for larger version)) cannot easily be redrawn by physical extensions, but it can be managed with prices asn other interventions that manage demand at the poinst of greatest stress. Road space is a scarce and valuable asset, its suboptimal (ie. excessive) use imposes costs on its users - and time penalties do not discriminate between high value and low value uses iof the same road. Placing a price on its use at the margin where it is used excessively has to be the right way to allocate the scarce resource. The best outcome will only be achieved if the prices faced by motorists reflect external costs - including congestion. This does means pricing some people off the roads, promoting cost saving measures like car-sharing, and redistributing demand by time of day and year. This is necessary but not sufficient for dealing with the pressure on the road system. A proper transport pricing strategy is needed...

4. Introduce a new transport pricing strategy
Introduce a package of pricing measures that more accurately reflect costs for different aspect of motoring:

1. Road tolling to pay for infrastructure and maintenance
2. Congestion charging to ration scarce road space
3. Fuel duty and regulatory standards to address pollution (not justCO2, but NOx, particulates, noise etc)
4. Higher rates of Insurance Premium Tax on motor insurance to reflect accident costs and burden on the NHS
5. As a revenue base that is less distorting and damaging to the economy than taxing income or investment

These measures should be seen as a package, and not traded off amongst each other – for example, fuel duty should not be reduced to accommodate a congestion charge as these are pricing different aspects of the impacts of transport.

5. Embed it in a wider behaviour change strategy
However, this cannot be enough - as the No 10 petition shows. In line with the Sustainable Development Strategy approach to behaviour change [see chapter 2], as well as 'encourage' through pricing incentives, ministers need to also 'enable' people to make better choices, and (above all) 'engage' the public in a big discussion about how these problems will be faced and solved. See posting on Soft paternalism: changing behaviour for the greater good without giving orders. Ken Livingstone pulled it of with the congestion charge because he did a deal with Londoners: control the traffic for those that need to use the roads, provide better buses and make the city a better place to live in.

Whilst an attractive idea in theory, I'm not sure the provision of a petition facility by No 10 helps that much - creating a sort national bar room for incubating mass opinions into mob opposition. Perhaps it's useful to remind ministers that they have a lot of work to do to take people with their rhetoric on climate change and the environment without getting booted out of office.
... continues. Read full post.

Vote for Scottish independence and accountability

Scottish independence is in the air. It's the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union and people both sides of the border are restless with the settlement. In Scotland, partial devolution has intensified the hunger rather than quench the thirst for complete autonomy and the governing Liberal-Labour coalition is losing out to the opposition separatist Scottish National Party. Proud Scotland with its traditions and distinct identity would be more than at home as a distinct state in the European Union. Eight members of the current EU have smaller populations than Scotland's 5.1 million, which lies between Finland and Ireland - two of the EU's success stories.

So what are the costs and consequences of independence...?

In England, perhaps we are irritated by the West Lothian question - why do Scots MPs get to vote on English matters for those subjects that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, such as health, education, environment and most social policy [see devolved and reserved matters]? We also suspect that English taxes are propping up a bloated unreformed Scottish public sector, which is quick to brag about the perks that it offers to Scots - like abolishing tuition fees for Scottish universities [see Scottish Labour spending brags] - without bothering to use its tax-raising powers to pay for them. Perhaps we English gripe that public spending in Scotland is £7,597 per head compared to £6,361 - 20% higher (See Table 3.1 in the accounts) through the Barnett Formula. And we are probably tiring of embittered Scots blaming us for their woes and refusing to support our football team at events like the World Cup, which they didn't qualify for [see The Scotsman theme on World Cup allegiance].

And opinion really is moving... polling for the Telegraph (here) now shows majority support for Scottish independence in both England and Scotland - and slightly more in England. I have to say, I'm for it. In fact, I'm so for it that I think England should declare its own independence from the United Kingdom, and force the issue, though I doubt that will ever happen. Scottish independence would give Scots an unambiguous identity and control over their own affairs. Most importantly, it would introduce accountability and a better democratic relationship between taxation and representation.

As FT columnist Martin Wolf puts it, "Scotland spends like Finland, but taxes like Canada" [view column]. And this is right: Scottish Executive accounts show that expenditure is about 51% of GDP whilst income is about 39% of GDP - making a huge 12% budget deficit. Ah, but what about North Sea Oil? Well revenue was 5.2 billion in 2004-5 (see chart & data) - so even if all the government revenue and all the contribution of N. Sea oil to GDP were added to Scotland's accounts, the deficit would still be a hefty 4.8% of GDP (see Scottish Executive discussion of oil revenues). Note that this would exceed the constraints of the EU's fiscal rules which limit member state budget deficits to 3% of GDP (the excessive deficit procedure - Art 104 of the Treaty) and independent Scotland may not be allowed to join without first being an 'accession state'. The fiscal position should improve, at least briefly, because N. Sea oil revenue is rising. But the point is this - the independent Scotland has extremely weak public finances. Independence would mean fixing that as well as incurring very large 'setup' costs as British institutions are separated into national components like a divorcing couple dividing up the home and possessions (who will get the Inland Revenue computer?).

The effect on Scotland of having to correct a long-term structural deficit would be profound - there would be an imperative to raise taxes and tackle public spending - the exact opposite of the comfortable Scottish political consensus. A cushion of some N. Sea money would help, but long term, it would have to take on greater austerity and reform - and live within its means within the European Union. I'd love to see Alex Salmond of the SNP taking that particular medicine to his people!

An interesting and mischievous alliance is developing between Scottish Nationalists and English Conservatives. The latter would like to see the Westminster Parliament constituted as an English parliament for devolved issues, with Scots and (sometimes) Welsh not voting - which would deprive Labour of its majority and possibly give them an English majority after a further election. It also keeps the heat on the very Scottish Gordon Brown. The Nationalists have been awakened to the cause of the under-represented Englishman. From opposite ends of the political spectrum, both are edging the centre of political gravity towards independence. I'll be looking forward to the Scottish elections on 3rd May 2007 - they could be very pleasingly disruptive.
... continues. Read full post.

What are you optimistic about?

Edge, the quite-pleased-with-itself forum for "some the world's most interesting minds", has posed its 2007 World Question: what are you optimistic about and why? [World Question Center] And it's worth dipping into.

I particularly liked the contribution from Daniel Dennett, the American Philosopher, that combined urgency about real-world concerns like climate change and development, with inspiration from society's capacity to change attitudes and behaviours (drawing on experience with smoking), to justify a robust optimism about what he calls The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion as knowledge technologies and communication blast away at the enclaves that can still shelter the strange systems of belief that constitute the main world religions. As he puts it, "eventually the truth will set us free".

It left me wondering what I am optimistic about...

Actually, I take a lot for granted that for most of human history (or even the last 100 years) would be regarded as optimistic. I don't expect to be sent off to fight a war, be bombed with nuclear weapons or die of an infectious disease - not even avian flu. I expect to be richer, and if not that will be by choice to achieve better well-being. I'm not expecting unemployment or worried about downsizing, even if its me that's downsized! Despite the slow-motion catastrophe of climate change, many environmental trends are heading the right way [UK sustainable development indicators indicators], though the big picture is quite gloomy [WRI Earth Trends]. More progress expected on the Millennium Development Goals, though with depressing exceptions in Africa. I'm looking forward to a decline in American and British adventurism in favour of a more multilateral approach to the new UN concept of the 'responsibility to protect'. I expect to enjoy a lengthy season of political theatre - with a new PM following a contest, bustle for Cabinet positions, overhaul of Whitehall, and an SNP victory that will spoil the fun for the incoming PM and create an excellent debate about the West Lothian question. I love the Internet and think that will just get better - who imagined Wikipedia, Google, Blogger, Skype and iTunes - to name a few - even just 10 years ago?

Like Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris I'm optimistic that religion will begin a precipitous decline in the face on a new knowledge-driven enlightenment, and I think it will start (or rather continue) with Christianity in Britain - see chart for the trend in church-going.

Above all, I'm optimistic that England's cricket performances will improve, though probably not until we depart from Australia.

What are you optimistic about?
... continues. Read full post.

The Eurovision vision contest

Terrific pamphlet by Tom Burke and Nick Mabey of E3G. Their Europe in the World publication is a vision for Europe painted on the broadest possible canvas - an inspiring call for Europe to cast off its paralysing anxieties and face the globalising world with confidence and purpose. This is about defining a European mission that is outward-looking, and aimed at playing the most fundamental role we expect from any state institution: providing security. But they have a broad definition of security, making the case for Europe as a key actor providing in energy security, climate security, water security and food security. They define success not in raw GDP terms (which remains the obsession of the EU's Lisbon Agenda and most leaders), but in terms of quality of life, health, security and well-being.

China and Europe to buddy up
The idea that the rising prosperity of China per se is somehow a threat to our prosperity is rightly dismissed as nonsense, with the real threat identified as the unsustainability of China's (and Europe's) style of growth. They advocate a grand strategic alliance between Europe and China to shift to a model of growth consistent with their wider definition of security and the use of soft-power and co-operation as the basis for international relations - drawing on the lessons of Europe's outstanding great success - the conversion of states at war to a peaceful single market and political co-operation in securing high standards of living and environmental protection.

Contract with the future
They also draw attention to the vast inter-generational plunder that is presently underway (through pensions, healthcare costs, climate change, demographics and so on) and call for a new social contract drawn between current generations and the future. This is an important observation and deserves much greater attention.

A pamphlet for the progressive sceptic?
I sometimes (pretentiously) describe myself as a 'progressive Eurosceptic' - believing that the EU tries to do too much of the wrong things (subsidising farmers, over-regulating the wrong things, fraud, juste retour politics) and not enough of what we really need it for (as an outward-looking world-wide champion of European values). So, it's great to have this vision - and good vision is in short supply in Europe, and certainly not embodied in the failed EU Constitution or the efforts of Europe's leaders to sell it. But finishing this pamphlet and then thinking how the EU really behaves was like enjoying a pleasant dream set in Tuscany only to wake up in a damp bedsit in Peckham. See, for example, the outcome of Europe's highest political summit, the European Council [Economist report /BBC / official conclusions]. The highest Google rank for a search on European + Commission + Vision for official documents returns a page on the future of e-government from 2001.

Democratic renewal so that leaders actually lead
The EU is a long way from realising the Burke-Mabey vision. Though they suggest welcome democratic reforms based on participative and deliberative techniques, I'm not sure that is the only or main problem. The problem is leadership. And why is there insufficient leadership? Because the leaders we have don't have to sell a vision for Europe or even have a vision. The electorates and politicians can join together to kick the EU and use it to blame for difficult but important measures or to duck responsibility for tough choices which can be positioned as 'made in Brussels'. When the EU does something we don't like (but might be good for us) who do we blame or force to justify it - when the 27-person Council of Ministers is responsible, no-one is. To his credit, Tony Blair did a good job on the vision thing in his speech to the European Parliament in 2005, but has struggled to translate words into deeds and presided over an unseemly haggle over the budget and enlargement - and through his Iraq adventure, has degraded his capacity to lead in Europe.

So I think the key is to arrange the affairs of Europe so that our leaders - the Blairs and Chiracs of the future - have to own the European project and take it to their people. One way would be to link the weighting each member state gets in qualified majority voting not to population, but to number of people voting in the European elections - thus incentivising domestic politicians to increase turnout.

Make real politics from real choices about Europe's future
Another would be a referendum on the future of Europe - but not couched as a 'yes' / 'no' vote on the rules of procedure needed for smooth running of the institutions (ie. the 'constitution') - who really cares about that? But on rival propositions for Europe's future (each of which could contain identical rules of procedure). If it has to be a binary choice, the real choice is an outward-looking/insular response to globalisation, not a yes/no to 6-month rotating presidencies. The government of each member state would be required to act consistently with the vision that its people voted for. If necessary, a two tier system could be more widely established so that member states could choose Europe-fort or Europe-leger - that's not such a big deal as it is sometimes held up to be... we have it for border security and monetary union, and it might facilitate enlargement by allowing accession to be a process of graduation.

Walk before you run, but in the right direction
Finally, I think Europe's leaders have to win confidence one battle at a time: stop the absurd double location of the parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg (if they can't do that, how can they shape a global pact with China?); complete the single market in services; bring Turkey in and make the case for enlargement; replace the CAP by shifting the funds into sustainable development; set up a real peace-keeping force to aid the UN and promote the 'responsibility to protect' principle; pool member-state development budgets into European budgets; rethink the European Investment Bank as an institution promoting stability and accession for countries outside the EU; have a long-standing president; find a new settlement with Russia... and so on.

E3G's pamphlet is a great contribution on Lewis Carroll's principle: "If you don't know where you are going, then any road will get you there".

But the other principle that comes to mind is from Lao-Tzu: "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step". ... continues. Read full post.

Second oldest profession in the world - arms dealing

I fear it was a terrible move to axe the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into the Al Yamamah ("the dove") arms deal between UK and Saudi Arabia.

All parties have been stressing (implausibly) that the decision was not economic - supposedly 50,000 arms-related jobs at stake. For example, see SFO's terse statement. The trouble is that OECD's Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions goes further in article 5:

Investigation and prosecution of the bribery of a foreign public official shall be subject to the applicable rules and principles of each Party. They shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved. (emphasis added)

Oh dear: the Prime Minister defended the decision as follows: [No 10 statement]

"Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel-Palestine, and that strategic interest comes first, particularly in circumstances where if this prosecution had gone forward all that would have happened is that we would have had months, potentially years, of ill feeling between us and a key partner and ally and probably to no purpose"

That contradiction with the convention, and others in the government statements, could form the basis for legal challenge to the decision [FT - Decision to halt case may be illegal].

Sorry it just doesn't add up...
Corruption allegations were extensive and serious [wikipedia summary of the allegations / Corporate watch]. The Telegraph reported that the Saudis were threatening to take the business to France [Halt inquiry or we cancel Eurofighters], and as if by coincidence a few days later the argument that national security was at risk was produced as the basis for closing the investigation. But why would the Saudis refuse to cooperate on security matters? They have a problem with Al Qaeda too.

Unprincipled
A novel argument was floated by the Attorney General [statement]: It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest.

Might be worth reading that again...!! The Financial Times dismissed it as a 'specious assertion' and called the move A Damaging Cave-in. Wrong signals have been sent in virtually every direction: allegedly corrupt Saudis and arms executives have flexed muscle and won; BAE's shares are well up; Jonathan Aitkin is back on the telly; the day of reckoning for the UK arms industry has been postponed (but not cancelled) delaying diversification again; honest firms have been let down; the rule of law has come second to vague secretive assertions of national interest.

Bad news for international development
Much damage will flow from this, but hit hardest will be the modernisers in Britain's international development agency DFID and the intended beneficiaries of their work. Modernisers stress the role of good governance in securing development outcomes rather than just piling in aid. The most recent DFID white paper Eliminating world poverty: making governance work for the poor majored on this [see section 2]. As recently as June 2006, Hilary Benn was appointed 'Ministerial champion for addressing international corruption' as part of a package of anti-corruption measures. With hapless timing (suggesting they may not have been entirely in the loop) on 9 December and just 5 days before the plug was pulled on the investigation, DFID announced that: UK calls for more action to tackle corruption and Secretary of State for Development, Hilary Benn declared:

“Tackling corruption wherever we find it – whether here or abroad – is essential. We will not tolerate those who extort, corrupt and deceive. Together we can make progress and by strengthening the institutions of government, promoting better transparency and accountability and giving a voice to those who are hit hardest by corruption – the world’s poorest – we can make a difference.”

Ooops! Of course, it looks ridiculous now - the timing especially so. But the damage is profound: it's hard enough to exercise leverage on corrupt kleptocrats, but how can you do it unless you are acting in a principled way against corruption where you find it at home? And this does rather cut the ground from under the feet of those appointed to tackle corruption abroad.

What about the jobs?
The conventions and principles are clear. Turn a blind eye and you may win a battle or two, but you and everyone else will lose the war. I'm not convinced that this is a long term business anyway - the jobs are alreday heading offshore. Better think about finding something else to make or do.
... continues. Read full post.