A New Carbon Budgeting Tool

A guest post from Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute

In the light of the positive attention to 'Contraction and Convergence' shown by the Gaian Economics blog, please may I introduce you to CBAT, the 'Carbon Budget Analysis Tool'.

CBAT is the latest phase of C&C development: and is intended to be useful now that - following the IPCC's Fifth Progress Report (AR5) - 'carbon-budgeting' seems finally to be on the agenda.

For example, the analysis tool quickly shows the IPCC AR5 Contraction-to-Concentrations results as a result of the UK Climate Act (UKCA). This particular piece of analysis shows the emissions-budget-integral in the UK Climate Act is either: -

[a] twice too much (and that's without the feedbacks) or

[b] just a third too much or

[c] just right

This really gives one something to chew on over regarding IPCC's stated '1,000 Gt C' maximum for two degrees!

Its also interesting to see/play that combined that with contraction-convergence-rates CBAT Domain Two. CBAT Domain Two perhaps explains why the prescribed global convergence date of 2050 in the UKCA was so inflammatory at COP-15. The convergence to equality by 2050 in the UKCA was something of a fig-leaf and using CBAT D2 animation quickly shows that. Its quite an eye-opener i.e. convergence by the time 80% of the budget has been used up makes no real difference at all.

GCI has always modelled that convergence for any rate of global emissions contraction should be at a negotiated in the light of 'historic responsibilities'. Subject to the UNFCCC-compliance rates of Contraction and Concentrations in D1, the animation D2 clearly shows the maths sub-division of this.

The CBAT is open to consultation and amendment so please take some time to look at it and comment on it. So far some others have and said supportive things, which is encouraging which are available on our website.

.

Tweet

Tories Attack Green Levies to Defend their Carbon Interests

For a Green who came into the movement more because of social justice than environmental concerns it is heartening for me to see the opposition to equality and to environmental protection beginning to coalesce into one mass of odious opposition to a just and sustainable future. The specific example of this in recent days has been the active lobbying by Tory squires from the shires against the green levies on energy bills.

Nafeez Ahmed, who writes for the Guardian on matters of energy, has provided some excellent forensic analysis of the real interests that lie behind the faux concern for pensioner fuel poverty of parliamentarians like Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North Somerset. As well as being a prominent controversialist, Mogg is frequently to be heard issuing windy rhetoric about the dangers of environmentalism and the problems with renewables. In his world, coal is still king and the market should be allowed to reign supreme.

We might dismiss this as a lot of hot air were it not for the fact that the hot air is issued for a very specific purpose: to keep inflated the carbon bubble that many argue is more of a risk to our futures than the financial bubble that led to the 2007/8 financial crisis. The concern about the ‘carbon bubble’ is that the world has a vast overhang in terms of the value of fossil-fuel-related assets. As policies to tackle climate change are introduced this value will be suddenly undermined, leading to a collapse in energy commodity prices and the finance that is tied to them.

I have always found this a somewhat naïve argument: since it is the world’s richest and most powerful people who own the assets, fossil and financial, they are hardly likely to see the value of those assets eroded without a fight. Much more likely that they will launch a full-scale assault on the political consensus around pro-climate policies, which appears to be exactly what we are seeing in the antics of Mogg and his ilk. Their insidious attempts to undermine the scientifically evidence about the anthropogenic origin of climate change and the urgent need to address the issue flies in the face of the public interest but is very much in their own private interest.

As Ahmed writes:

‘Rees-Mogg is a founding partner at Somerset Capital Management (SCM), a global asset management fund where he currently works as a macro specialist while also being an MP. Among its many investments, SCM specialises in emerging markets, including in the energy industry. Its largest holdings include oil majors such as the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) - which for instance is spearheading multibillion dollar deals to access the North American shale gas market - and Russia's OJSC Rosneft Oil Company. ’

The wealthy who have unfortunately been elected to run our country hold their wealth in exactly the sort of assets whose value would be undermined if we were to introduce the sorts of policies that tackling climate change urgently demands. Even the small steps along the road to subsidising renewables, not to mention full-scale community ownership of generation on the Danish or German model, would seriously threaten their profitability. So while the Tories who attack green levies may speak of the poor pensioner in a cold house their real interests lie much closer to home.
.

Tweet

Street School Economics

A guest post from Dr Gail Bradbrook, an activist based in Stroud who is active in the Transition and Tax Justice movements and sees economic literacy work as a way to pull these concerns together

A few years ago I began my own journey towards economic literacy. I’ve long been concerned about enabling a more equal, sustainable world and yet how that related to changing the economy was a mystery. I had a pile of vague words and notions in my head, sound bites and ideas, half of them myths. They didn’t connect.

With that comes a sense of disempowerment. Perhaps my longings for justice were just silly in the face of basic economic theory. Perhaps the economy emerged from our human nature and wanting it to be different is an exercise in naivety. It’s certainly convenient if lots of us feel like that and if we remain so cloudy in our understanding. Perhaps it’s no accident that many of us do?

Street School Economics was borne of a personal desire to understand more. Dozens of books, hours of videos and courses later, I have pulled together information and sources on: the Street School website.

As well as looking at some of the basics in economics, such as markets, wealth and money, it also covers some key ideas such as debt, the limits to growth and inequality. A whole raft of solutions are offered, from the actions individuals and communities can take, to the policy solutions that are waiting to be actioned. I hope it’s a resource that people will find useful.

So the idea is to take economics on the streets, to listen to people’s thoughts and give information. So far we have begun to create some kind of ‘art presence’ that will catch the eye. We’ve just decorated a marketing stand we had, but you could use other structures. The presence has contained words which might reflect the kinds of ideas, queries and blockages that a person may have in their mind already, for example: ‘Why not let the banks go bankrupt?’ or ‘I’d rather keep my head in the sand’ or ‘We can deal with debt by giving everyone some money’.

We let people browse and if they want a conversation you can ask what they know about economics. Consider what is the one thing you’d like them to take away? For me it is that this economy has been chosen and there are different types available . . .   we might chose an economy that has the goal of maximising happiness and minimising harm. You can have a table with 'mini lessons' on – we laminated the pages from the Prezi on the site. We had leaflets to hand out and also include leaflets from relevant campaigns or local initiatives.

Obviously the idea of this work is to give people enough knowledge to demand something better. There are other ways to promote economic literacy and we are just starting to pull a network together of those interested in spreading this thinking- be in touch if you want more information (gail.bradbrook AT btinternet.com). We could demonstrate outside economics departments, others have run cafe economiques and lecture series. What else should we try, how do we build a movement?

.

Tweet

Does the Hinkley Deal Involve Subsidy?

There has been some confusion since Ed Davey’s announcement of the details of the plan for building a reactor at Hinkley C in Somerset, and some of this confusion may not be accidental.

First, we have the issue of whether the government is in a position to make this decision. In fact, it is not. Any arrangement that involves explicit or implicit subsidies needs to be investigated under the EU’s state aid rules which are ‘forms of assistance from a public body, or publicly-funded body, given to selected undertakings (any entity which puts goods or services on the given market), which has the potential to distort competition and affect trade between member states of the European Union’ (definition from the BIS website).

During parliamentary questions on 15 May to Michael Fallon, Minister of State for Business and Enterprise, Martin Horwood, MP for Cheltenham, asked the minister ‘how he proposes to comply with the standstill obligation in EU state aid law if he enters into an investment contract or sets a strike price before the European Commission has decided whether to approve such measures’. Fallon replied that ‘Any investment contract, if offered, will contain a condition dependent on a state aid decision from the European Commission’ (Hansard, 15 May 2013).

The minister’s clear view is that the setting of a strike price for energy will require a consideration by the EU Commission in terms of its compliance with competition law, law that relates specifically to the granting of state subsidies that may distort competition. Hence we can infer that the minister himself believed that this arrangement amounted to a public subsidy.

This appears to contradict the statement made on Monday by Ed Davey that ‘For the first time, a nuclear power station in this country will be built without money from the British taxpayer’. This is a carefully phrased statement, since the strike price is an implicit guarantee while the insurance against increasing costs are a risk on the public, which is to say nothing of the responsibility for disposing of the waste the plant generates.

While Davey is nervous about breaking his previous pledge that there would be no subsidies for nuclear, South-West Liberal Democrat MEP Graham Watson is not. As reported back in April he told the somewhat 'Business Green' that he supports subsidies for nuclear power in the South-West. Watson'defended the UK government's right to offer hefty state aid support for new nuclear reactors'.

Specifically in relation to Hinkley C, back in May the minister was asked by Paul Flynn at what stage the negotiations with EDF had reached. The minister replied that ‘in the case of Hinkley Point C, the Government have committed to provide summaries of reports from external advisers and analysis on the value for money of any contract agreed’. These reports were not forthcoming on Monday and I would be interested to see them if anybody knows where to track them down.

.

Tweet

Deconstructing Austerity II. Jobs

Aside from fallacious claims about reducing the national debt, the Conservatives' second claim to economic success--the creation of millions of private sector jobs--is also requires exploration. The well-rehearsed argument goes that massive cuts to public spending are not problematic since the private sector will take up the slack and create jobs to replace those lost in the public sector. There are several sleights of hand say that require unpicking in this part of the austerity narrative.

First it is important to note that the statistics tell us something about the quantity of jobs but nothing about the quality of those jobs, an argument made cogently by the TUC. A job as a nurse or an administrator in a public-sector setting is likely to be a unionised job with a nationally negotiated rate of pay and decent terms and conditions. The sort of job being generated in the private sector is much more likely to be an unskilled, poor-quality job with low pay. These jobs will do nothing to help with the standard-of-living crisis and will also not contribute to rebuilding a flourishing economy even in conventional terms.

The political narrative behind these arguments about the substitution of private for public jobs is the inability of the public sector to create wealth: an important part of the Conservative attack on the public sector (and devastatingly critiqued in an earlier blog!). So it is important to realise that many of the 'new' private sector jobs are actually simply redefined public-sector jobs. My job is a good example. Two years ago I worked in the public sector but now I work in the private sector. Because universities were privatised and are no longer funded from taxation, my job is now one that creates value whereas previously I was a parasite on the taxpayer. The same also applies to those who work in privatised sections of the health service or in services that are increasingly being outsourced from public sector employers such as schools and hospitals. (The Guardian has carried out some preliminary work unpicking this tissue of statistical manipulation.)

Finally, we need to ask what is a job? The data are most often used by Tories in claiming credit for this economic miracle are aggregated data based on everything that counts as a job. Incredibly even people working on zero-hours contracts are included in these figures as are those who are on any type of work scheme. So you don't actually have to be working to be counted in the government's jobs figures. Any government spokesman who presents data on increases in jobs without relating these two full-time equivalent jobs is, if not a liar, at least being very economical with the truth.

.

Tweet

Deconstructing Austerity I. Money

The narrative of austerity as proposed by Osborne and his cronies is that our huge national debt is the responsibility of feckless Labour politicians and their uncontrolled spending. An examination of the data from the Debt Management Office shows clearly that this is nonsense (this is shown in the graphic and discussed in more detail in my paper 'Who Owes Whom?'). The many billions that were spent as an emergency to prop up failing banks and prevent the financial system from crashing are the real explanation for the huge increase in the public debt. Osborne is a liar by omission because he will not discuss whether he would seriously have refused to invest this money and allow cashpoints to seize up.

 

The reality is that under Osborne far more money has been poured into preventing the cardiac arrest of the economy that results from a lack of circulating money. This is the money created through quantitative easing and the difference between it and what was spent by Darling during the crisis is that the QE money was direct credit creation whereas the money spent by Darling was generated through the sale of bonds and hence features in our national debt.

Since 2009 £375 billion has been created directly by the Bank of England and poured into financial institutions. They have greedily hoovered up this money and paid it to shareholders as well as improving their balance sheet position. They have barely loaned any of it to businesses or invested it in the economy, although the government could have used it for such direct investment, as I argued at the time. This explains why the wealthy and those with interests in finance are flourishing while the rest of us are suffering austerity. The £80 billion created for Funding for Lending has similarly not resulted in an increase in debt and has also been kidnapped by the banks rather than being fed into the real economy.

The Treasury bonds that were bought during the quantitative easing programme are still sitting inside the Bank of England presumably with a big label saying 'do not touch'. If they were to be cancelled, which they could be since they are IOUs issued on our behalf, nearly a third of our national debt would be wiped out in an instant. What a marvellous way of reducing the burden of austerity - or not depending on your political objectives.

These are political choices and hence the narrative of austerity politics that there is no alternative is simply a lie. Darling could have created money directly to save the banks; Osborne could create money directly now for investment in a renewable energy transition. Darling's unwillingness to resort to direct credit creation in the early days is hard to fathom and perhaps resulted from a failure of understanding. Osborne's refusal now to engage in any type of monetary policy that would assist the real economy is a consequence of his desire to use the financial crisis to achieve his long-term policy goal of destroying the public sector.

Almost without challenge Osborne portrays himself as the saviour of the economy while Cameron claims deceitfully to have reduced the debt. The national debt is of course still increasing (see the Spectator graphic) and while the deficit is slightly decreasing we're way off Osborne's original projections. However, this is all smoke and mirrors since the Conservatives have no intention and no desire of reducing the national debt: it's far too useful to them politically.

.

Tweet

Owen Paterson: The Badger Bites Back

Since I was given the opportunity to respond to his inane remarks about fracking back in the summer I have taken an increasing interest in the escapades of Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, whose suggestion that his failed badger cull was the fault of the badgers has brought him greater public attention recently. When asked for that comment I had just eaten a particularly dreadful railway burger and so was feeling irritated before I even read his remarks, hence my suggestion that he was only a so-called environment secretary.

With the benefit of some reflection I actually feel my comment was well aimed, since the problem I have with Paterson is about what he thinks the environment means and therefore what it means to be the minister for it. Paterson is clearly taking a definition of ‘environment’ that is diametrically opposed to my own and one that exposes him out as a classic representative of the man-in-dominion approach to the natural world. This comes easily to those who have grown up owning large stretches of countryside and seeing it as a playground for them to cavort in and a place to shoot any creatures that might make their home there. A Green environment secretary would take the perspective of humans as part of that environment not an external, colonising force. Shifting from the view of land belonging to humans to the view of people belonging to the land was an important step in my ecological evolution.

Paterson’s increasingly strident attacks on the opponents of fracking, those who attempt to defend badgers, and to protect our environment against genetically modified crops have made it clear that Patterson has been Crosbied. Lynton Crosby's main influence on the government has been to persuade them to abandon any pretence of basing policy on scientific evidence or even to debate with their opponents at all. Instead the strategy is to go for full frontal assault on people who do not share their view, calling them wicked and shameful and suggesting that they revel in childhood blindness or the slow death of soft fluffy animals.

Paterson was clearly chosen for this role because of his fondness for seeing the environment as something to be exploited and a ‘wholly owned subsidiary’ of UK plc, rather than understanding that the economy is entirely dependent on the environment, as Herman Dally suggested an ecological approach to economics requires. Hence the NPPF (the coalition government's planning policy), with its presumption in favour of growth and an undebated and unrestrained support for fracking no matter what the environmental and social cost.

Paterson's suggestion that the badgers moved the goalposts was greeted with hilarity but is in fact one of his more sensible suggestions. If he could only begin to see parts of non-human nature as having agency and deserving respect we might see some improvement in his hitherto dire performance in protecting the environment.

.

Tweet