The Guardian reports this morning:

The dispute between energy firms and the government over the level of tax paid for offshore UK drilling dramatically escalated on Sunday with British Gas threatening to shut down an important gas field on the Irish Sea.

Centrica, which owns British Gas, closed the Morecambe Bay field for routine maintenance and warned it may not reopen it because of the 12% tax rise on offshore drilling profits that was announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, in the budget in March.

Now I’m not saying Osborne / Alexander got their decision on extra energy taxes right – r managed them well – but I am saying this is posturing by Centrica. It’s a variation on the ‘if you tax us we’ll go away’ theme. As the Guardian also reports:

In February, Centrica reported record profits of £742m at British Gas – a 24% leap on a year earlier – provoking criticism from consumer groups. Centrica had pushed through a 7% increase in energy bills just two months earlier.

And there is, of course, a simple solution. If they refuse to extract the gas then we should nationalise their assets and do it instead. That was what British Gas was created to do. The mistake was Thatcher’s. She thought the private sector was efficient. That’s not true. But they’re definitely a bunch of charlatans when it comes to making threats about not paying tax – and it’s time to call their bluff.

 

The Guardian has reported:

Japan has raised the severity level of its nuclear crisis to the maximum seven, putting the emergency at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant on a par with Chernobyl.

Officials from the nuclear and industrial safety agency (Nisa) confirmed that the crisis level had been raised from five to seven on the international nuclear and radiological event scale.

At the same time there are reports of serious shortages affecting economic production, 200,000 people without homes or having restricted access to them, there will be serious health issues for many, the sea has been contaminated affecting the food chain, maybe for some time to come, and the plant still has no cooling system meaning the crisis is far from over yet.

I think in retrospect that justifies my comment on March 11 that:

Don’t think nuclear melt down in Japan is some minor issue.

It’s massive. For the world.

I am very, very worried.

This issue still has the capacity to have such an impact – and may well do so, given that the awareness of the severity of the issue is growing, not declining.

I’d compare that with Tim Worstall on his blog, who said:

Absolutely the worst that could happen, absolutely the worst possible outcome, is that the reactors end up as a puddle of cold metal at the bottom of their containment vessels.

That’s it. The chain reaction is already shut down. All that is left is the residual heat which the water is cooling. If the water doesn’t cool it then yes, the rods and fuel might melt. At which point they might stay liquid until they hit that 2-3 metres of reinforced concrete underneath them where they will solidify.

So the worst possible outcome is a 40 year old reactor which cannot be used again.

If evidence were needed that, as ever, the man has not a clue what he’s talking about, this is it.

As ever, the judgement of the right wing is proven to be utterly unsound.

 

On Saturday I wrote a blog entitled This is not just nuclear melt down – it’s the next world financial crisis too. The usual right wingers (in the main) rolled out to say there was no risk of nuclear melt down in Japan and that I’d got everything wrong. Even yesterday there were economic commentators saying this tsunami would be good for the Japanese economy.

Well it does look very likely that there has been a meltdown.

And evacuation is becoming a serious issue.

Japanese debt has become about the most expesnive in the world to insure.

The Nikkei index is collapsing.

My fears were well founded.

If oil was not going to tip us into recession then this disaster will.

The time to face perhaps the biggest economic and social question the world has ever had to address – how we fuel our future.

It’s time for a Green New Deal. Except, and I’ll be candid, we did not envisage problems on this scale arising so soon. But the Green new Deal group remains ahead of the pack – at least we saw the issue.

 

I have noticed that UK discussion on the threat from nuclear power in the wake of the Japanese crisis concentrates on reactor design. I have yet to see discussion of the combination of environmental threat combining with nuclear risk creating a UK crisis.

But it could, very easily. I have always found it bizarre, for example, tat the UK has two nuclear power stations at Sizewell. Sizewell is next to Dunwich – once a major East Anglian town, now lost under the sea due to coastal erosion and sea surges.

Sea surges are predictable in the UK. The last was in 2007. The last major one was in 1953. The impact then was above 5 metres in places.

Is Sizewell able to take that impact? I don’t know. But candidly – I doubt it, and always have. Canute failed. I don’t see how modern nuclear engineers can succeed in stopping the sea either.

This is not just an issue for Japan.

 

A nuclear power plant in Japan is failing – part has already exploded. The melt down of the core is being discussed.

It’s been my nightmare since realising the folly of Sizewell and nuclear power as a teenager living in Suffolk.

If that melt down happens – and I sincerely hope it does not – then we’re not just heading for one of the biggest ecological disasters in human history. We’re also heading for a massive humanitarian disaster. And if Tokyo is as disrupted as I fear – it being only 200 miles or so a way, we face potential global financial melt down.

If there is no one to deal wih the counter party to debts in a global financial system it stops. Banks can’t work through that.

Don’t think nuclear melt down in Japan is some minor issue.

It’s massive. For the world.

I am very, very worried.

 

I’ve just blogged a letter sent to the FT by some of the leaders of the UK’s financial services industry in which they say:

If the only question is, “Is it legal and profitable?”, then all that matters is that what is done complies with the regulations in force and makes a profit for the seller and the institution they represent.

At its most extreme this philosophy undermines any concern for the best interests of the customer, and subordinates these entirely to the pure self-interest of the seller in maximising profit as an end in itself. It legitimates exploitation and in the end subverts the very basis of trust in the market on which all profitable activity depends.

I am going to accept this letter at face value. Why not? It may contradict all Milton Friedman said. It may contradict shareholder value. It may not appear consistent with the way these organisations have behaved, but let’s assume these guys (they’re all male) mean just what say, which concludes:

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the leaders of financial institutions – not their regulators, shareholders or other stakeholders – to create, oversee and imbue their organisations with an enlightened culture based on professionalism and integrity.

And let’s assume this means:

  1. They won’t exploit;
  2. They want to build trust;
  3. They want integrity;
  4. They want the most effective markets possible;
  5. They wish to be enlightened;
  6. They want to be professional.

I’m not going to read in words that aren’t there. But let’s play a game for a moment with these words and explore what they might mean:

Goal Interpretation Required action
Don’t exploit Be accountable so we can sure you don’t Report truthfully, fairly, openly and honestly for what you do to evidence that you aren’t exploiting by making fair profit, paying fair wages, and paying your taxes where they are earned.
Build trust Tell us who you are, where you are, what you do, when you do it, and what the consequences are Tell us where all your companies are, publish all their accounts without exception, consolidate your results on a country basis, link that to your annual financial statements.
Build integrity In western ethics, integrity equates to honesty and truthfulness. It is the opposite of hypocrisy. It requires consistency. Pay your tax. Don’t help others not pay tax. Close your tax haven operations. Demand the right to disclose all suspicious transactions – and evidence the fact you do by publishing data on the number of suspicious transaction reports made. Promote automatic information exchange. Oppose banking secrecy.
Build effective markets This requires a level playing field: access to capital, access to data, and a commitment to involvement, not exclusion. Commit to tax compliance: Tax compliance is seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes.  This is the basis for a level playing field.

Demand unitary taxation.

Demand full disclosure for all limited liability entities.

Enlightened Is this enlightened self interest? Or is it something more? What it does imply is the opposite of greed. And it does imply as a consequence a willingness to share.  Consider the importance of stakeholders. Report to them. Respect the right of government. Don’t try to undermine their income streams. Pay the tax they expect. Enjoy the benefits that flow from doing so.
Professional This must mean act ethically, surely? What else? Do no harm. Seek to do right. Be tax compliant. Do not avoid the law. Do not abuse regulation. Prove you don’t. use the fact you don’t as your PR and save on sponsorship as a result as the state will be able to provide what you pay for – and much more – if you are really ethical.

 

What does this translate to:

First, support country-by-country reporting.

Second, stop tax avoiding.

Third, stop selling tax avoidance.

Fourth, pull out of tax havens except to supply genuine local services, now.

Fifth, be tax compliant.

Sixth, support automatic information exchange.

Seventh, report all who opt for withholding under the European Union Savings Tax Directive as being suspected of tax evasion, now, because that must be true.

Eighth, demand that all companies make full disclosure of their accounts.

Ninth, demand due diligence by state corporate registers on beneficial ownership of companies.

Tenth, demand registers of trusts showing beneficial ownership.

Eleventh, demand that tax evasion be a predicate offence for money laundering.

Twelfth, do not abuse transfer pricing rules.

You can do it.

Walk the talk.

Do it.

Now.

Peak oil

 Environment, Green New Deal  Comments Off
May 122010
 

My Green New Deal colleague Jeremy Leggett is a world expert on peak oil. As he’s written today:

In the run up to the UK election, evidence of an imminent global oil crunch has continued to build, un-noticed by the majority of people, almost entirely uncommented on in the election campaign. The CEO of a major oil company has admitted it no longer pays to build up new oil reserves. A US military panel has warned of dramatic shortfalls in oil supply by 2015. A senior US government official has said he is worried that peak oil could come as soon as 2011. In the wake of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security report warning of peak oil by 2015, an FT columnist has opined that policymakers, economists and "peak oilists" are "starting to speak the same language." Meanwhile, BP – or was it Halliburton? – have shown that deep-water oil production is not as easy as many hitherto imagined. CIBC’s Jeff Rubin has gone as far as to suggest that the Deepwater Horizon accident will be to offshore oil development what Three Mile Island was to nuclear.

All these developments and more you can get up to speed on quickly, if you need to, in my triple crunch log, which is now updated through today on http://www.jeremyleggett.net/triple-crunch-log/

I recommend it.

Feb 102010
 

Society ignores the oil crunch at its peril | Jeremy Leggett | Environment | guardian.co.uk .

This time the warning [of an impending crisis] is not limited to a prescient few individuals. Major British companies, led by Virgin, Scottish and Southern and Stagecoach, are flagging the danger, in today’s report from the UK industry taskforce on peak oil and energy security . So too are the CEOs of oil companies themselves, in the case of Total and Petrobras, and growing numbers of other senior oil industry figures, usually recently retired. Even the International Energy Agency is sounding the alert, in a coded sort of way.

With modern economies geared to their rivets on just-in-time supply of copious amounts of affordable oil, society surely ignores this risk issue at its massive peril.

Jeremy Leggett is one of my Green New Deal collegaues.

He’s also the guru of this issue.

And I am wholly convinced his warning is timely and appropriate.

Oil at $200 a barrel changes a great deal – and will massively disrupt our societies, built as they are on oil.

Can we survive that? The answer, as the report says, is to start work on the alternative options now.

 

A young hamster doubles its weight each week between birth and puberty. But if it grew at the same rate until its first birthday, we’d be looking at a nine billion tonne hamster, which ate more than a year’s worth of world maize production every day. There are good reasons why things don’t grow indefinitely. And yet politicians are convinced that the economy needs to keep growing, no matter what the costs.

New research published by nef (the new economics foundation) argues that unless economic growth in rich countries levels off at a steady-state, we will have absolutely no chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. It’s time to realise that rich countries have matured enough and now, like a healthy hamster, we need to stop growing.

The report, Growth isn’t Possible: Why rich countries need a new economic direction, concludes that, in an economy designed to respect environmental thresholds, it may actually be easier to achieve human well-being, social equality, full employment and strong public services.

Go read. This is the reality of life.