Will Hutton has written an article on climate change in the Observer this morning. In it he says:
[T]he world's energy production ... needs to be technologically transformed to become as near carbon-free as possible, which will only work if there is a substantive global research and development effort led by governments, matching those of conquering space or winning a war, to explore the necessary technologies.
I find it hard to disagree with that. As he also notes the private sector is woefully failing to step up to the mark, which means:
Thus the case for governments to fill the gap — the argument of “a global Apollo programme to combat climate change”, authored by Sir David King and lords Browne, Layard, O'Donnell, Rees, Stern and Turner. If global R&D on energy was raised from $6bn to $15bn, focused on new build energy from renewables, principally solar, that could feed into national grids and be guided by a road map committee, the authors think solar energy could be grid competitive with coal as soon as 2022.
That's the good news. But what's his answer to how this is to be done? He does not seem to have one. The best he can suggest is:
$15bn may seem a far away target. Intriguingly the knight and six lords behind the Apollo programme may even be making progress with their argument: Obama and Bill Gates will announce on Monday in Paris a multibillion dollar public private fund, backed by more than a dozen countries along with companies and philanthropists, to back an Apollo-style programme for energy. Decarbonisation is going to become a big global market.
So, it's the private sector after all, and Bill Gates at that. Will hasn't the conviction to suggest that there is an alternative.
That alternative is Climate Quantitative Easing. When the EU is spending €60 billion a month on conventional QE right now the cost of climate change is tiny in comparison. And the benefits almost inestimable.
But for let's not suggest that we might print the money using the power available to any central bank to solve the biggest problem facing the world. That might threaten central bank independence, and deliver 1% inflation, and neither of them would do in a world where bankers rule.
Will has all the right arguments but none of the right solutions. It's time for the world to be bold and go for unconventional funding to tackle the biggest problem we face.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Altruistic benefactors are very welcome to play a part in progress and research. But, who is in charge here. Cynically we know it is not necessarily those we elected. What’s in it for us is the driver, from powerful entities, stating the obvious I know, Great vision and commitment is needed from governments without the chaperoning lobbyists beside them. University research and development, wonderful but does their funding have strings attached. And now here in Lancashire we wait for Westminster to decide that we must be fracked because it is of national importance, remember to revere those in high office who protect us thus. I am personally very reassured that they do indeed have the nations best interests at heart. Mad, we are not a little upset.
Individuals like Bill Gates (no matter how successful they are do not represent the face of capitalism.
Don’t be so generous with your praise for big government. Here in the far North where it’s so cold you can’t punt outdoors for 11 months of the year, there are two main ways of getting to the Orkneys. One is the Pentland ferry service operating with no taxpayer subsidy, the other is the route operated by the Government subsidised Serco NorthLink. Guess which one has by far the most fuel-efficient ship? Yes, it’s the one operating without subsidy , the one that is most affected by the price mechanism of competition.
And who developed the technology for that ship?
I do not dispute the market as a delivery mechanism: for that it is great
But I doubt its ability to innovate
Baxter
Competition eh? And at whose cost was the investment in new technology made?
Any ideas about what the pay for the staff is like for the two operators? Or the level of tax credits?
Note that I am asking the question – not answering it. I’d like to know since you are apparently so well informed about ins and outs of ‘competition’.
Hi Pilgrim, The staff of Serco NorthLink are more unionised, have higher pay, and longer holidays. There is a book called Pentland Hero for more information and comparison. I wrote a longer answer yesterday but it mentioned free trade and government spending less ( on rich people ) so it didn’t make it through the filter, smiles.
No, it didn’t make it through because you misrepresented that you are an MP and have constituents
And I am bored by that
And the drivel
I may be wrong but I think I’ve been on both of these ships and if so I have to say that’s not a great example of public vs private. If you have one assured link – the subsidised one – using a superior vessel offering what to us was a much better service (and which on our day liaised with a rescue service performing a training exercise) and another, a much poorer vessel that was a little cheaper but did not inspire confidence, then it may be that one can win on fuel-efficiency but only through one comparison, one single comparison! Should the Northlink service invest in a brand new vessel just to win on one single feature?
It looks to me like the private ship is piggy-backing on the mere existence of a subsidised service and so might not even exist but for the public service.
There is of course another problem with relying on major private financiers to find low carbon energy solutions – they will seek solutions that they can control and maximise their own return, without regard to the externalities of their solutions on the wider population.
The world needs distributed community owned solutions, which may well involve both state (Green QE) and private (co-operative based) finance initiatives to implement, but that the local populations ultimately own and benefit from in the long term (through economic democracy).
If not, we will go from a privately owned fossil fuel driven world (with all its resulting instabilities and externalities) to a privately owned renewable driven world (with a different but essentially the same nature of instabilities and externalities).
The private financiers want to keep their snouts firmly embedded in the trough and whatever agreement that comes out of Paris or future conferences will inevitably be designed around their interests and not the population as a whole.
Community based green finance will almost certainly need to fight its own corner, supported by enlightened states who can keep the private financiers under proper control.
What about Community Interest Companies? So-called social enterprise schemes which can still pay dividends to shareholders with PLC status whose features are:
“- Assets owned by the company are held in an asset lock which secures those assets to applications for the good use of community.
– Limitations applied to dividend and interest payments made to shareholders and financiers ensure a profit can be made, but the primary focus remains on achieving benefit for the community”
The asset lock would ensure rentiers can’t get a foot in (one hopes).
Any merit in this, Richard?
Yes
But probably not at the scale required
But I am open minded on the issue
Baxter
Rather than write essays, isn’t it about time you read some?
If you read Prof Alfred Baird’s stuff from Napier University you’d find that ferries – like trains and aeroplanes – are favoured by investors for the regular income they deliver – not because they help people get around. The fuel efficiency of the Pentland ship has nothing to do with the environment perhaps but just ensuring a better return for investors?
So it’s not competition delivering benefits but rather the rapacious need to make profit out of everyday activity instead – especially when the alternatives may not be better – a sort of monopoly perhaps? I’m all for state monopolies when the benefits accrue to the public; not when they accrue to the few in the private sector. Intellectually, you are making the wrong point. Profit is king here – not competition.
I’d still like to see wage and fare differentials between the two operators in your next ‘essay’. Let’s see who really pays eh?
I’m all for real workers who do most of the value work getting paid well, treated well etc., especially in the Highlands where such things are becoming rarer.
BTW Prof. Baird is a consultant to HM Government I believe.