![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Green Economics
Dec. 14th, 2009 09:32 amOne thing which has come out of the climate conference in Stockholm is that Chinese are asking for an international fund of $100bn to be raised by the west in order to help them and other nations make the shift to a green economy.
The thing about this is that most western economies are royally shafted at the moment and so the only place that $100bn is going to come from is if we borrow it, and the only people with $100bn to lend at the moment are the Chinese. In effect, what China is asking for is us to borrow a hundred billion off them, give it back, and then pay interest on it.
I may not like Ju Hintau very much, but by golly I don't half respect his chutzpah.
One thing that entertains me, in a bleak sort of way, is the amount of time which is spent online by people shouting about reducing their energy consumption. You see, back in 2007 New Scientist pointed out that The root of the power consumption hike is a seismic shift in how we use computers, with online activity at the heart of it. It's from internet use that much of the sharp growth in electricity consumption over the last decade has come, and so when someone describes themself as an online green activist, I just want to laugh at them.
Generating enough electricity to prevent shortages is going to be one of the major infrastructure problems in the next decade and with fossil fuels and nuclear being politically unpopular (although both will happen anyway), renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are being pushed as hard as possible. The problem with renewables is that they're quite pricey and really not very efficient. Earlier this year the German federal government commissioned a report into the 74 billion euros they've spent in the last decade on solar and wind power schemes which concluded that the promotion of renewables was "a tale of a massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits".
So what's to do? None of the obvious methods of reducing energy consumption are politically viable as they involve things like lowering the population or getting people to play less World of Warcraft, which means that any solution is likely to sound good but not actually do anything worthwhile - and that brings me on to emissions trading.
This fine-sounding but utterly hopeless idea basically allocates individuals a personal allowance of CO2; if you drive less and use less electricity then you have a CO2 surplus to your name which you can sell on to others at a profit. If you consume more, then you have to buy more credits.
If the flaws in this plan aren't immediately obvious to you, stop and think about it. A similar scheme already in place in industry has resulted in massive international fraud (Europe-wide 'missing trader' frauds in carbon credits are estimated to be worth in excess of 5bn Euros this year). More interestingly, the international financial institutions are getting in on the act. You might not have noticed, but Morgan Stanley announced last week that they've opened a division dealing in complex derivatives based on the international carbon trading markets - and if you don't remember those then you really weren't paying attention during the banking crash.
So, welcome to the carbon bubble. We've barely begun to ride out the shockwaves of the last collapsing economic boom, and we're busily hurling cash at creating the next one. Carbon is currently trading at $5.50 on the international markets, and this will rise - with the only people getting rich out of it being the traders as heavy industry shifts to countries with little or no enforcement of carbon tariffs. An ill-regulated market in a product which is ultimately impossible to measure? You thought the housing bubble going pop was spectacular. This one is going to be a doozy.
The thing about this is that most western economies are royally shafted at the moment and so the only place that $100bn is going to come from is if we borrow it, and the only people with $100bn to lend at the moment are the Chinese. In effect, what China is asking for is us to borrow a hundred billion off them, give it back, and then pay interest on it.
I may not like Ju Hintau very much, but by golly I don't half respect his chutzpah.
One thing that entertains me, in a bleak sort of way, is the amount of time which is spent online by people shouting about reducing their energy consumption. You see, back in 2007 New Scientist pointed out that The root of the power consumption hike is a seismic shift in how we use computers, with online activity at the heart of it. It's from internet use that much of the sharp growth in electricity consumption over the last decade has come, and so when someone describes themself as an online green activist, I just want to laugh at them.
Generating enough electricity to prevent shortages is going to be one of the major infrastructure problems in the next decade and with fossil fuels and nuclear being politically unpopular (although both will happen anyway), renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are being pushed as hard as possible. The problem with renewables is that they're quite pricey and really not very efficient. Earlier this year the German federal government commissioned a report into the 74 billion euros they've spent in the last decade on solar and wind power schemes which concluded that the promotion of renewables was "a tale of a massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits".
So what's to do? None of the obvious methods of reducing energy consumption are politically viable as they involve things like lowering the population or getting people to play less World of Warcraft, which means that any solution is likely to sound good but not actually do anything worthwhile - and that brings me on to emissions trading.
This fine-sounding but utterly hopeless idea basically allocates individuals a personal allowance of CO2; if you drive less and use less electricity then you have a CO2 surplus to your name which you can sell on to others at a profit. If you consume more, then you have to buy more credits.
If the flaws in this plan aren't immediately obvious to you, stop and think about it. A similar scheme already in place in industry has resulted in massive international fraud (Europe-wide 'missing trader' frauds in carbon credits are estimated to be worth in excess of 5bn Euros this year). More interestingly, the international financial institutions are getting in on the act. You might not have noticed, but Morgan Stanley announced last week that they've opened a division dealing in complex derivatives based on the international carbon trading markets - and if you don't remember those then you really weren't paying attention during the banking crash.
So, welcome to the carbon bubble. We've barely begun to ride out the shockwaves of the last collapsing economic boom, and we're busily hurling cash at creating the next one. Carbon is currently trading at $5.50 on the international markets, and this will rise - with the only people getting rich out of it being the traders as heavy industry shifts to countries with little or no enforcement of carbon tariffs. An ill-regulated market in a product which is ultimately impossible to measure? You thought the housing bubble going pop was spectacular. This one is going to be a doozy.
