The BBC reports:

Investing $1.3 trillion (£800bn) each year in green sectors would deliver long-term stability in the global economy, a UN report has suggested.

Spending about 2% of global GDP in 10 key areas would kick-start a “low carbon, resource efficient green economy”, the authors observed.

They also recommended following policies that decoupled economic growth from intensive consumption.

The findings have been published at a meeting attended by 100 ministers.

Well, as some of us have said for while it’s time for a Green New Deal.

And it can be done.

Feb 072011
 

Good to see the Observer noting the work of my fellow Green New Dealers Ann Pettifor and Colin Hines yesterday.

They deserve it for their invaluable contributions to building the alternative to the mess we’re in.

 

From the FT:

Barack Obama will on Thursday propose to cut oil and gas subsidies to make way for new “green energy” tax incentives designed to encourage US businesses to upgrade their commercial buildings and make them more efficient.

White House officials said the move was intended to spur job growth in the construction industry and make commercial buildings 20 per cent more energy efficient by 2020. Officials declined to comment on the cost of the expanded tax credits, but said Mr Obama was “committed” to paying for the investments by eliminating subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

Just a hint of a Green New Deal?

 

I have worked on and off for the creation of green bonds to fund green infrastructure development in the UK for more than eight years, usually with environmentalist and Green New Deal coordinator Colin Hines, who is my partner in Finance for the Future. As a result of this work I am a member of the Climate Bonds Initiative, an informal group of professionals working on this issue from around the world.

Ben Caldecott is another member of that group and he has an article in the Guardian today explaining the importance of Green bonds. I recommend the article to anyone with even the vaguest interest in this issue.

 

Simon Jenkins is a perplexing, and confused man. He’s written a piece for the Guardian in which he strongly criticises, on Keynesian grounds, the rise in VAT. And he has also strongly recommend that if cash is to be raised it should come from big business and banks. All of which is just fine. But then he gets terribly confused:

The chancellor is right to reduce the deficit. Rising this winter to its highest peacetime level, its cost in interest is enormous and, if unchallenged, risks a confidence collapse on a par with Greece and Ireland. Osborne has also been right to reduce public spending that had become a bull in the Treasury china shop. Labour knows this, having put the bull there, but it lacks the guts to suggest how else to get it out. When it comes to the economy, Ed Miliband is still on paternity leave.

Well, there’s some truth the last point, but not the rest. That’s just wrong.

Let’s talk absolute cash – it’s value changes over time. In percentage terms our deficit is way below the level in the 50′s and 60′s. Interest rates are low. People want to lend us money. The cost is affordable. No one repays a mortgage in 4 years when 20 years makes sense. There is no need to tackle the deficit now. And as we will all find – the reason government spending is so high is that we wanted it that way and until 2008 we also paid for it, quite happily, deficits being tiny in percentage terms and almost entirely explained by investment. I’m not saying all was rosy and there were no issues to address – like PFI, for example – but to say things were out of control was just wrong. They weren’t. This crisis was caused by bankers – as Jenkins admits – and no one else – and he can’t have it both ways.

And in that case we need a Keynesian solution to this problem, not a neoliberal cutting agenda which Jenkins’ realises will not work.

There are numerous ways to do this. First, tackle the tax gap. I stress, that won’t solve the problem by itself. But spending on more staff at HMRC, new legislation to tackle tax abuse, the domicile rule, residence abuses and to restrict allowances and reliefs for the best off and new taxes on banks and the highest paid employees could between them raise £20bn from the tax gap and a great deal more from the banks. Since all will take time to introduce they won’t harm recovery now but will pay for costs when recovery is under way.

Second, we need a stimulus package. That could come from Green Quantitative Easing.

Third, we need to ensure that reform of pension funds so that at least 25% of all funds contributed is invested in new job creating industry in the UK is a condition of tax releif being given.

Add these up and we have a job creation programme, a boost for business, a crack down on those not paying their way that does not harm those who already are doing so, and better pension prospects as funds are invested in real economic activity and not inspeculation.

This is a programme for real change.

That’s what Jenkins and other should be talking about. Not least because it is possible, and deliverable now.

 

As the Guardian notes:

The government’s radical programme to slash spending will see the first rise in absolute child poverty for 15 years, with almost 200,000 children pushed into penury, according to an analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Tax changes introduced by the coalition government will, the leading independent fiscal thinktank finds, increase absolute poverty by 200,000 children and 200,000 working-age adults in 2012-13.

Cuts to housing benefit alone will force a further 100,000 children into poverty.

This is deliberate.

It is deliberate because there is a choice on this issue.

There is a choice available to close the tax gap. That could raise at least £20 billion a year.

There is a choice available that could redirect £20 billion of pension fund cash into new jobs in the UK economy, helping prevent the curse of unemployment.

There is a choice to start a Green New Deal available and on the table – a real industrial strategy for the UK. And it could be funded from Green Quantitative Easing.

In other words, this poverty is not inevitable.

The alternative is available.

Which means it is deliberate.

The ConDems should not be forgiven for making the wrong choice.

 

Yes, I know all that I and others say about taking figures in isolation and extrapolating from them. But new car sales down 11.5% on last year says two things. First Labour’s polices worked. And second there’s a decided lack of confidence in the economy right now.

I know manufacturing gave optimistic signals this month – but if people aren’t buying that makes little sense.

I remain profoundly pessimistic – unless we do Green Quantitative Easing – which will transform the economy for good.

 

The Green New Deal for Northern Ireland has been formally launched. This is  direct spin off from the group of which I am a member.

As the Belfast Telegraph reports:

Refitting thousands of homes to save energy would create more than 2,300 jobs in Northern Ireland, a lobby group has claimed.

The Green New Deal campaign wants the Government to provide £72 million over a three-year period to slash fuel bills and carbon emissions.

Ministers are considering how to deal with some of the deepest public spending cuts in recent years.

Utility Regulator Iain Osborne, chairman of the pressure group, said: "We are fully aware of the funding constraints currently affecting government, however we believe they must react and take leadership in order to help businesses recover from the recession, enable consumers to reduce their energy bills and save money, while also reducing carbon emissions and energy usage."

I’ll watch progress with real interest.

Congratulations to all involved.

 

FT Alphaville has published an exchange between UBS economists on the need for a central infrastructure bank at this time of economic crisis. Extraordinarily the exchange concludes with this comment:

My basic position is that fostering the kind of structural economic transformation and innovation that has been laid bare as essential by the financial crisis is a – maybe the – central public purpose. The private sector cannot make the running here – certainly not yet. We have no choice. A national infrastructure bank that facilitates and channels the excess money in our economies towards, say, new and alternative energy technologies, and the type of infrastructure that might revolutionise manufacturing processes is a worthy pursuit.

What is quite extraordinary about this is that this is, in effect, an endorsement of the whole Green New Deal position.

I’m delighted to welcome them on board. So long as UBS can take part openly, honestly, accountability, transparently, and with full information exchange taking place, they can join the green new deal any time they like.