Incoherent System

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

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

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

We also need to ask ourselves some basic questions such as

- what is our economy for? speculation or sustenance.

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s keep asking questions of our system.

Money doesn’t grow on trees or so they say

They also say that money makes the world go round…well metaphorically it does. It oils the wheels of commerce and enables us to transact with each other and exchange our goods and services.

But how does money actually grow? There always seems to be more of it around. Who creates it?

You probably assume your local central bank does because only they can print notes and coins. That much is true but that’s only a bit of the story. Currently only 2-3% of the total money supply is created in the form of notes and coins that we keep in our wallets and purses.

The rest? Well as JK Galbriath noted the way in which most money is created is “so simple that the mind is repelled”. The private banking system simply create the balance of new money by issuing new loans.

That’s it. For those of you who thought banks lent out money you have deposited with them i’m sorry to inform you that this is not the case.

If you deposit $1000 in the bank, they now have the ability to lend out (and in the process create new money) up to $10000. Of course they charge interest on that loan which is where they make their huge profits from.

I’ll give you an example:

In New Zealand the money supply has increased 101% in the last 8 years. So the total money stock has more than doubled in 8 years!! In that time house prices have risen 143%.

But the official measure of inflation has only risen 20%. Hello…..what is going on here? Yes it is a complete mess.

It is not the central bank or government printing money and causing huge (but unmeasured inflation). It’s the private banks who are doing it! The ones who scream and shout if governments ever think about reclaiming their right to issue money interest free on behalf of their citizens.

It is one of the greatest swindles of in history.

It requires that people sit up, take notice and look hard at what is happening around them. In the US especially the system is starting to creak…..look at the housing market and the lenders that operate in it.

Please see the following sites for more information. Once you learn about this life will never be the same

US: www.monetary.org

UK: www.monetaryreformparty.org.uk

Can: www.comer.org

Aus: www.peoplesbankparty.org

As my old history teacher said read, learn and inwardly digest.

Climate Change 3.0 – Time to Move On

We’ve had Web 3.0 so why not Climate Change 3.0? I believe it’s time to move forward on this issue and start thinking smarter.

Let’s start with the basic problem. Governments are controlling the issue and yet governments do not create greenhouse gases. Who does? People and organisations do (ok and so do some animals) and they need to deal with it. Then we need to ask who provides the polluting items? Fossil fuel companies in the main (ok farmers and cement manufacturers as well) are the providers of the feedstock.

Added to that we have the other side of the equation which is the sequestration system, our rainforests, soils, other vegetation, oceans and whatever else sucks up greenhouse gases.

So we have a certain volume of fossil fuel feedstock coming into the system to be combusted in various forms to provide energy in the main (as well as a multitude of petrochemical based products) and we know where the major changes in land use occur so we know the net volume of greenhouse gases added in any given period.

What we don’t know is the tolerable limit of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It could be 400ppm, 500 or 600 (using carbon dioxide equivalents). No one knows and quite frankly the models we have are really best guesses. We do know that there is likely to be a tipping point over which we will have some severe and irreversible impacts. Hopefully our science will get better and allow us to forecast accurately but we are still learning about our systems and as yet cannot be certain as to where this level is.

So at some point we have to pick a number. Let’s say 500ppm. We are now at 380ppm so we can plot out a course for getting there. We must have a global cap on emissions or we are wasting our time. Forget about national limits..they are a complete red herring and unworkable unless governments want to control the sale and use of all fossil fuels within their own region. Given global trade that is simply not possible.

Once we have a global cap we can work out an annual quota for fossil fuel production. Then the fossil fuel companies can compete for the right to produce. One suggestion is that rights are grandfathered in but a better one is that the rights are auctioned off annually and the receipts put into a global environmental contingency fund. This has been suggested by Oliver Tickell through his proposal Kyoto2. You can read about that here www.kyoto2.org.

Once annual quotas are put into place the market will adjust prices to meet demand at the appropriate supply level. I have proposed a complete reorganisation of the global energy market to increase efficiencies and therefore lower prices.

Then we can forget about all the attempts to somehow finesse this problem. We just have to work out how much we can use and then carry on as normal. If prices go up then renewable and alternative energy will be sought out. Either way we need to adjust our behaviour.

This is the most likely way of achieving that. Governments can help negotiate the process like they did with Montreal but ultimately this problem can be solved easily by the fossil fuel companies taking charge like the CFC producers did before them.

Give people the freedom and the incentive to change and they will.

The Last King of Africa – Robert Mugabe?

I finally got round to seeing the Last King of Scotland yesterday. I thought it was a great film not just because of its portrayal of Idi Amin but also the feckless young Scottish doctor who arrived in Uganda hoping to help out, make a difference and have a bit of adventure (preferably sexual).

 As Amin prepares him to meet his maker he makes some interesting points to the young man. He tells him in no uncertain terms that Africa is not a game or a place to come a play the altruist…it’s real….and reality is often brutal and bloody. His death was the first real thing the young doctor would experience in his life. As it happens he got away and we are left feeling that the message got through.

 Of course the film is fictional though based on the book of the same name which drew on various people and factual events to create the character of Dr Carrigan. Complete with stereotypical English diplomatic spooks, menacing local enforcers and locals with big hearts but no hope, the film almost falls over but for the fact that it’s a fair representation of life in Uganda at that time.

It’s interesting for me also becuase in recent weeks i have met 2 people from Uganda in different contexts both who struck me as being very hopeful about life, passionate about making a difference but also aware that potentially similar problems may be lurking around the corner.

So that brings me to the point of this blog…….is Robert Mugabe the last King of Africa? Watching Zimbabwe implode is not very pleasant even for the dispassionate observer. The similarities with Uganda are there though not as obvious as one might think. Certainly the paranoia is setting in, the violence is on the increase and the general population is now suffering from food and medical shortages, inflation, unemployment.

Mugabe has already used up his fall guy card – the British – with white landowners having been given short shrift over the past decade. So the only people left to get stuck into are his own…..surely he doesn’t have much time left?

 The nature of the dictator as a sociopath is well documented. Intransigence and unwillingless to listen are other unwelcome attributes. But is this just an African problem? I don’t think so. Look at Iraq, Serbia even Northern Ireland. Ian Paisley finally agreed with Sinn Fein yesterday as they sat down next to each other…..apparently “never, never, never, never” doesn’t always mean never.

 And who is running Russia right now? Surely Putin is only a few steps away from a fully paid up authoritarian….he’s just doing well economically so can afford to be beneficient at the moment.

That could change.

 Many old timers weep tears for their beloved Rhodesia but how can a country be prosperous based on the subjugation of others and the expropriation of resources? All around the world we are seeing a slow unwinding of the colonial and imperialist adventures of the last 500 years. Freedom, self determination and removal of the yolk of centralised and external authority is the story of the day. For Africa, stuck in the whirlpool of historical tribal and ethnic conflict, post colonialisation changes, grinding debt and the arms/resource trade, times are difficult.

The best thing the international community could do is to eliminate historical debts and aid at the same time under a guarantee that funds would go towards schools, hospitals and basic infrastructure.

Other than that people have to sort out their own problems in their own backyard. Human nature will no doubt continue to interfere with any positive outcomes but everywhere there are people with hope and the will to make things work.

As they say in New Zealand, she’s a hard road ahead.

A Loving Smack – To Smack or not To Smack?

We are currently enmeshed in a debate about the role of smacking in society here. A piece of legislation currently in Parliament is calling for the abolition of the right for parents to use “reasonable force” on their children. Of course how does one define reasonable force. New Zealand struggles with a culture of violence towards children (adults also) and this legilsation has been seen as a way of saying no to any kind of violence.

http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/section59/

Now this has seen some people get pretty steamed up about the government interferring in their “right” to discipline their children as they see fit and the middle classes will be criminalised for just giving occasional smacks which hardly qualify as violence. It’s been quite a ding dong battle with Parliament passing the legislation against general public opinion which has been against it.

I had this letter published today in the Christchurch Press,

Dear Sir,

The response to the proposed Bradford legislation has been quite revealing about attitudes towards children in New Zealand. As John Tamihere eloquently expressed children are mere chattels to be dealt with as any parent sees fit. That used to be the way husbands viewed their wives and judging by the statistics on domestic assault some still do. It is only through legislation that real social changes have been able to take root and become embedded in society.

At first this legislation can seem invasive but as Pita Sharples exhorted it’s about saying no to any kind of violence within our families. There are many non-violent ways to discipline a child. Some don’t give instant results like a sharp smack but in the long run they have better results. We need to listen more to our children and find out why they are behaving inappropriately and then deal with it. Hitting someone and then telling them you love them is a lame excuse for a lazy and angry approach. Big respect to Pita Sharples for making a stand even though he knows it’s the harder road to take.

Yours Sincerely.

So what do people here think? As Pita Sharples said “how can we hit something we love”. But some would say a short sharp smack lets children know when they have stepped over the line (i’m just saying that for balance).

Parenting is damn hard work and parents need way more help and resources to bring up their children. Such irony…one of the easiest and most pleasureable things to create and one of the hardest to look after

I feel that resorting to any kind of violence is simply reinforcing a culture where violence is used as a method of resolving disputes whether at a basic interpersonal level or a geopolitical one.

The attraction is that violence usually gets you an immediate result but the long-term consequences are usually a disaster. So what can we do? What do we need to do to make a non-violent society. I have my own ideas but i would love to hear from others on this subject.

Peace and love to all.

Parliamentary Officers – Keeping the Long View

A few weeks ago in New Zealand we celebrated the 20th Anniversary of our Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment. This is an office of Parliament and therefore independent of the government of the day. The Commissioner reports to the Speaker of The House and the officers of the Parliament Committee.

This is an incredibly important position. Government is hamstrung at the best of times by short term considerations such as re-election and the constant sniping from the lobby brigade. The Commissioner on the other hand can afford to take a long term view and can criticise the government freely and ultimately acts as a guardian for the environment.

 The only other country to have such a position is not a country but a province of Canada. Ontario passed an Environmental Bill of Rights back in 1994 which was a very forward thinking piece of legislation and this is monitored by the Environmental Commissioner of the Environment.

 Canadians and New Zealanders both live in spaces of outstanding natural beauty and wonder. And yes we rely on the land for our food, energy and shelter but we are also aware that it cannot be pillaged without due thought for the consequences.

 These officers provide a balance to the me-now culture that dominates courtesy of a society drunk on credit and the growth imperative that follows. Whilst i am not a great fan of bureaucrats Parliament (or similar legislature) is the representation of the people and the common good and more countries could use this type of model.

 In Europe there are several Sustainable Development Commissions. Their job is to be an independent voice also and often are appointed by the Prime Minister with a mandate to be objective and critical. Of course their powers are limited to an advisory role whereas an officer of Parliament carries more weight.

 Democracy is in a fragile state these days. We don’t respect our politicians, the election process is more and more about money and people feel disenfranchised. Officers of Parliament can bring more respect as they work on behalf of the people and the institution that represents them.

 It’s time to rescue our political institutions before they become completely corporatised. Let them take the long view without interference and let’s leave short term-ism to the business sector.

Sustainability – Where do we start?

 

Sustainability – what is it?

Sustainability is a much maligned word “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Well that’s a tad harsh but the word has been dragged through the mud from the early days of “sustainable development” to the “four pillars” namely enviornment, economy, social and cultural.

Reductionism rules!

You could argue that we have a sustainable society already because we are still here…6 billion of us. That’s not a bad effort considering we started off with just two .

But when we look back at our history we see clearly the duality of our existence: misery, bloodshed, violence and despicable acts; and amazing creation, beauty, love and art. It;s hard to argue that much has changed in the last 10,000 years at least.

So where to? Can we ever become whole or will we always be engaged in a battle between the dark and light forces in our amazing universe.

I believe sustainability as a metaframework not an end in itself. It allows us to ask ourselves “what kind of society do we wish to live in?’…..if we can define that then all the other stuff will follow. The problem we have know is we start with the reduced view whether it is the environment or social issues or economic growth.

Then when it all ends in conflict we wonder why.

So where do start? Well there’s the ten commandments magna carta, uk bill of rights moving along to more modern frameworks such as the US constitution and one i quite like is the UN Declaration of Human Rights which came into being on 10 December 1948.

This was ratified by all then 58 member states which was no mean feat. The committee which prepared the initial text was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt herself. You can view it here

www.un.org/overview/rights.html

Article 25 and 26 are of particular interest being on the issue of education and well being.

It’s well worth a read.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US consitution notes:

Congress has the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof”……….it doesnt say banks have that power mind you.

Coming back the the topic at hand: how do we craft a society that sustains itself without the externalisation of environmental, social, cultural and economic costs.

 - Eliminating poverty (Article 25 of the UNDHR).
- Compulsory free education to 16 for all (Article 26 of the UNDHR).
- Life, Liberty and Security of Person (Article 3 of the UNDHR)
- Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (US Declaration of Independence)

I could go on.

What is it that we want? We dont want our prisons overflowing with societal detritus. We therefore must ensure at all costs all children we bring into this world are well looked after with resources to ensure that is the case. Decent fresh food not the fossil fuel sugar laden processed rubbish churned out my the corporatised supermarkets. No wonder so many children are going round the bend…we’re poisoning them.

Safe, secure and healthy homes are vital for our children. Well resourced educational facilities are next on the list alongside decent parks and safe public spaces. Ripping poverty and its bedfellows out of our society has to start now with major expenditure….the kind normally reserved for invading other nations and killing machines.

If anyone argues “show me the money”…well it’s right there in front of you. There always has been and continues to be a huge transfer of wealth from the state to the private financial sector. It’s fact: in the UK the sum has been estimated at GBP20-40bln a year. In the US i imagine it will be a more significant sum.

Underlying all this is the question of who owns the money supply, where does the power lie.

If we dont have an idea of what we’re aiming for we will most certainly miss the target. We know we already have as levels of happiness and well being have been static for decades (sorry GDP is not going to help).

If we focus on building strong roots then sustainability will come. Right now no amount of fiddling will help. As the Declaration of Independence noted,

“whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter it or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness”.

How to curb excessive house price rises

Today Michael Cullen revelaed an audacious plan to apply a mortgage levy to fixed rate mortgages. This predicatably went down like a lead balloon. It’s just another tax on property owners and likely to be very regressive in nature.

House prices are expensive especially when related back to wages and rents. The question to ask is why prices have risen so much in the last 5 years. One simple explanation is increased migration. This creates demand for new housing for the new population but it is also the nature of the new arrivals that is important. Many immigrants are skilled and wealth with 60% approved last year under the business or skilled categories. Added to this was a general weakness in the NZ$ back in 2001/2002 which made NZ property look very cheap. This in turn allowed higher prices to be paid for property mainly through the auction process here which created a general revaluation of property across the board.

That revaluation in 2002/2003 lifted prices and generated a whole new group of property investors and developers. Property was suddenly on the move and a great investment. With immigration picking up again it is hard to see how prices can fall from current levels.

By imposing a mortgage levy all the government would achieve is to make people less well off leading to higher wage demands. As the imposition of stamp duty in the UK showed it is hard to restrain a property market when demand is strong.

With so much overseas capital arriving, even with the NZ% so strong (though it should be noted not so strong against A$, Eur or Stg) it is very difficult to control the property market.

One alternative is to look at the actual supply of money otherwise known as credit. There has been mention of LoanToValue ratios and attempting to control them. It may be easier to actually limit or reduce the amount of credit banks can grant, in essence saying “hey there just isn’t any more money out there”.

I will explore the issue of changing the reserve asset ratio another time but it is clear that the mortgage levy is not the answer.

Do incentives work?

Research from the UK into people’s “green” behaviour demonstrates that people respond poorly to price signals and very rarely make the changes required without strong arm tactics. Recent fuel surcharges on air travel have made little difference to people’s travel plans. As our recent experiences with credit show us, people are always happy to go into debt to have what they want right now. Ecological credit is no different.

We must stop offering unlimited ecological credit if we really want to cap greenhouse gas emissions at any chosen level. Like our money supply it is currently in an acceleration phase upwards with little or no control.

Time to Limit Fossil Fuel Production

Climate Control: Managing Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions

It’s time to face the fact that climate change can only be dealt with at the global level in a similar manner to ozone depletion.

I issued the following press release today. Read the full paper at the above link.

Should we limit fossil fuel production

Monday, 5 February 2007, 11:56 am
Press Release: Sustento Should We Limit Fossil Fuel Production?NZ economist proposes global fossil fuel production quotas to stem greenhouse gas emissions.

Christchurch-based policy institute Sustento says governments must set up a global quota system urgently to control fossil fuel production.

Institute director, Raf Manji says the Sustento Framework is based on the reality that climate change is a global problem and needs to be dealt with at the global level.

“Currently efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been devolved to the national level where policy has been limited to improving energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy. This approach has not yielded major results and other policy proposals such as carbon based taxes have not found favour with either politicians or their voters.

“As the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report demonstrates this policy impasse needs immediate attention,” he urges.

The Sustento Framework calls for action at the production rather than consumption level. The Framework combines a global carbon inventory with an agreed limit to global greenhouse gas emissions, and from that produces an annual production quota for fossil fuels.

“This guarantees that agreed targets will be met – unlike current consumption reduction approaches which simply hope that this will happen,” he says.

Mr Manji is aware that critics of this approach argue that producers will not like the idea of quotas but, he counters, this approach was very successful in dealing with ozone depletion via the Montreal Protocol where producers rather than consumers were targeted.

Quotas also currently operate within OPEC and informally within the IEA, which represents non-OPEC producers. In July 2006 the G8+5 met for the first time to consider climate change issues. This group alone controls 76% of global coal production, 57% of natural gas and 38% of crude oil production. G20, which is an enlarged version of the G8+5, controls 94% of coal, 73% of gas and 59% of crude oil.

“If the problem of climate change is to be taken seriously by the major nations of the world then it is likely that forums such as the G8+5 will be the place where concrete action will be possible,” he says.

In 1977 the Brandt Commission proposed an international strategy on energy.

“If we are to limit growth in greenhouse gas emissions now is the time to implement such a proposal,” concludes Mr Manji .

ENDS