Drought and saving water: we should value cultural dispositions.

A cultural predisposition has economic value.  We should try and calculate it in order to be able to assess the benefits of investing in cultural change.

Reflecting on the Californian drought, I imagined a people which is thrifty with water and another which is profligate with water.

The one people has built into its culture a preference to save water: collect grey water and rain water, use it sparingly and carefully, do without products with a high water footprint.

The other people doesn’t give a toss and uses lots of water on emerald green, glistening lawns.

Then you get a mega drought.

There is less economic damage to the culture which is thrifty with water – with fuller reserves and a lower need for water, it is more resilient.  That resilience has economic value: its GDP will be less affected than the GDP of the water wasting culture.

The impact on the economy of the severe drought is a function of the cultural attitude to water.  You can consider the cultural attitude to water as being an asset – a social asset – which has a value.

It would be important to understand the value of that asset and the cost of building and maintaining it.  The economic return on building this asset might be greater than the economic return of moving populations elsewhere, redirecting rivers or drilling ever deeper into ancient, underground reserves.  Numbers would help us to judge the wisdom or otherwise of the different approaches available.

This obviously needs more thought.  Surely a job for the Centre for Belief Economics.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gold-plated gardening tools? How the energy revolution could affect the elite

The elite of a society likes to gather wealth and symbols of that wealth.  In order to accrue significantly more wealth than other people and thereby join or stay in the elite, someone has to have some particular advantage and then there have to be the rules of law which seal that advantage.

Good luck brings the advantage: genes, up-bringing and place account for almost all the different in wealth between individuals.  Yes, you can explain both fabulous insight and hard-work as a function of someone’s mind and character and therefore the result of good luck.

The laws of property rights and contract then seal the advantage: once rule-makers, judges, court officials, policeman and jailors are on your side, then you are safe with your wealth.

Among the people or organisations which accrue fabulous wealth and therefore power over other people are those that hold claims over energy resources, intellectual properties and strategically placed physical assets and networks.  Hence the Koch brothers, Arab princes, Shell or Bill Gates or Larry Ellison. (As long as money is spent and power is wielded in a kind way, there isn’t much problem with uneven distribution of wealth.)

The revolution happening in the energy sector could change the shape of the elite.  Currently we are beholden to suppliers of fossil fuels and also to a relatively small number of organisations which convert the fuels into motion and warmth.  When, as Deutsche Bank, Elon Musk and others predict (e.g. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/deutsche-bank-sees-50-us-states-solar-grid-parity-2016?utm_content=13658214&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter), anyone can pop a relatively low-cost panel on their roof and achieve a certain degree of energy independence, then who holds the key to power?

The Saudis lose out to the sun.  A gain for society; a loss for IS, for purveyors of vulgarity, such as Rolls Royce, and for weapons manufacturers. All good so far.

Any strategic advantage of owning a large, centralised power plant evaporates, and is atomised into a million roofs: power to the people.

Given the proximity between the roof and the end-consumer (a few yards), traders of energy might also lose much of power they have: goodbye Vitol, Glencore et al.  No major loss to society.

The holders of power-generating intellectual property (e.g. GE, Siemens etc) lose out to the people who invent the best batteries and panels.  Would the holding of intellectual property become a monopoly or would it be spread among a wide range of inventors?

Rather than a simple change of guard from one elite to another, there is a scenario where energy is simply no longer a vehicle or bottleneck which confers elite status on those that control it.  It could become democratised and the associated wealth gets spread more evenly across society.

Then the elite will need to search for new bottlenecks by which to maintain their grip on power.  Will they turn to religion?  Will they invest medicine and find the serum for eternal life?  Or perhaps invent a new sport which will attract billions of fans?  Or will their grip weaken, and they slip back into quiet anonymity, tending to their vegetable patches with gold-plated garden forks?

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics, Peak Oil | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Seasonal Tale: The Brilliant Economists of Easter Island

In trying to explain belief economics, I was reminded of a seasonal story: the tale of the utterly brilliant economists of Easter Island.  Despite the historical inaccuracies, it nonetheless makes a startling case.

Belief Economics is the study of why people get up in the morning, and how their aspirations influence the economy.  Some time ago, around 1300 AD a few hundred years after the Polynesians first occupied of Easter Island, a young fellow, Kauʻionālani, would get up in the morning because he was hungry and needed to fill his tummy.  He would jog down to the beach, past the hare paenga, the posh houses of the village elders, and then past the moai, the famous statues themselves.  He would look up with awe at their solemn countenances surveying the eternity of the Pacific Ocean around them.  Then he’d hop into a wooden canoe, and ride the surf for an hour or so to bring in a couple of nanue fish for his daily fare.

One day he met, U’ilani, who was so fecund that he scarcely needed look at her and she was with child.  The olive-skinned beauty would bear him seven children, seven hungry mouths to feed.  So he was motivated to work a little harder – sometimes joining the dolphin hunt, other days trekking inland to the farmlands where he tended crops of taro and sweet potato, which U’ilani grilled with the fish and wild thyme on a simple wood stove.

As the embers of the fire faded, he would sip cane juice or palm-sap wine and tell tales to the little ones of Hotu Matu’a and the deity Make-make.  But the conversation would turn to the great men of the day and those powerful dynasties of chieftains who provided for all – the Pohakus, the Kealas or the Kalamas: “One day,” he said to them, the red light from the hearth flickering in the eager eyes of his brood (except for Siaki the youngest, who already slept soundly on his mother’s breast), “you will also be able to hew rocks from Mr Pohaku’s quarry and, with Mr No’eau’s chisels, carve the features of those great men onto the stone.  You will cut logs from Mr Kalama’s forest, and slide the statues down from the mountainside to the shore with the help of Mr Keala’s logistics business.  And you will be able to heave up the rocks onto their resting place on the shore.

Thus primed by their father and fired with ambition, the lads of Kauʻionālani grew up into fine young men and for many generations were celebrated for the brilliance of the statues that bore their signatures.

Easter Island had a remarkably efficient education system.  The technologies of stone cutting and tree felling were of vital importance for ensuring that more and more statues could be built for as little work as possible.  So the Islanders determined to reinvest significant funds into technology schools.  The benevolent Mr Kalama and the far-sighted Mr Keala endowed schools where young scientists and technicians could focus on devising better axes, better conveyance systems, and smarter techniques for their deployment.  Mr Kalama, who owned the forests, being so successful in business, was hired by the government to be education advisor.  He said (this is passed down by oral tradition of the Islanders): “My dream is that one day all our children will study technology for six hours a day.  Who needs philosophy and thinkers; who needs myths and deities?  We know what we want and why we want it: Statues, stupid.  The only thing our children need to study is how.  Technology and science are all that matter.”

Easter Island became one of the most technologically brilliant (and god-fearing) nations of the Pacific Ocean.  And thus it constructed its own fate.  As the years went by, the statues got bigger and bigger, as the chieftains vied with each other to vaunt their status and their proximity to the gods.  One day the last tree was felled from the lands of the wealthy Mr Kalama, the weather changed, the crops failed, the last boat sank, and the population was trapped: it could not feed itself and yet it could not flee the island.  And all the while the ancestors and watched impassively from their thrones on the beach.

None of this is that remarkable – many societies have plundered their economic surplus on icons, and will continue to.  Other societies have suffered even more ignominious fates.  But what was special about Easter Island was the brilliance of their economists.  So brilliant were the economists that the “Conch Prize” was established to reward them.  Thus Dr Ikale was celebrated for his examination of the relationship between the number of young men employed in Mr Pohaku’s mines and the number of pink cowry shells in circulation (these being the currency of the day); Professor Tekea was crowned for his theory of efficient utilisation of the Kalama timber stocks; Professor Anama was recognised for his penetrating insights into economic growth and barriers to inter-territory trade.  Another received the Conch Prize for his fish market efficiency theory; yet another devised a ground-breaking formula for calculating the value of options on obsidian, the stone used for making cutting tools with.  These were all vital, brilliant studies, essential for understanding the economy of the day.

Several of those brilliant economists of Easter Island are remembered even now, deified and commemorated in stone, still watching, waiting for the market to turn.

A few lesser known economists survived on the peripheries of academia, making a meagre living from part-time work gathering tern eggs or binding rope.  Their names are not recorded, just scraps of their work remain, etched into bark or, in later years, scratched onto stone slabs.  One sought to analyse the economic return to society of a marginal increase in statue size, but the work was never completed.  Another began a treatise on the impact of ego on economic decision-making among the chieftain classes.  Archaeologists recently found notes on the correlation between resource exploitation and childhood story-telling.  Unfortunately the conclusion was cracked and illegible.

With the benefits of hindsight it is odd that those who examined the boundary conditions and psychological underpinnings of the economic system received little attention, and were often unable to complete their work.  Those that squinted into the narrow, internal mechanics of the economic system were decorated with garlands and held in great esteem.

==

Sources: Relevant sections from Collapse by Jared Diamond; Wikipedia.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No incentive to innovate?

Industry glibly says: “The low carbon price means there is no incentive to innovate.”

Hell no, there really isn’t an incentive to innovate.  How about solving a really big problem called “how does man live comfortably without smashing up the planet”?  It would be moronic to say that is not an incentive to innovate.

“Straightening out the screaming conflict between what I do at work and what I say to my kids” isn’t an incentive to innovate?

“Coming up with fantastic technologies which will dominate the market for the next few decades”?  Sounds like an incentive to me.

What they might mean is: “There is no short-term economic incentive to innovate.”  Or: “We are not confident that there will be a lasting short-term economic incentive to innovate.”  But short-term economics is only a small part of the story.

They might mean is that cheap fossil fuels are a counter-incentive to innovate.  But the presence of counter-incentives does not mean there are no incentives. Industry should be careful not to use the low carbon price as an excuse for not taking responsibility for climate change.

They almost speak as people raised in socialism, waiting for the hand-out from the government before acting, before taking initiative.  It makes me think that with its huge factories and rigid hierarchies, big industrial business is a form of socialism which crushes the entrepreneur in its people, bleaching its spirit, and turning them into moral paupers living on excuses.

Posted in Climate change policy, Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The logic of a Green UKIP alliance

For some time I have thought there are many similarities between the Greens and UKIP, and now I will try and articulate that.  This might imply that they should team up in the forthcoming election, although I have nothing to say on the tactical wisdom of that.

The common ground of the Greens and UKIP became clear to me after reading Chris Rose’s book “What makes people tick”.  One of the questions he asked among the many surveys he has conducted with thousands of people over the years, is this: “We should all care for nature –  to what extent do you agree?”

The people who would typically vote for UKIP, the so-called settlers – people seeking security and resisting change – strongly support this notion.  They agree with this statement much more strongly than prospectors – people who are more likely to support Labour and the Conservatives.

Nature gives us security and reliability.  Its regular cycles provide familiar markers throughout the year, shaping our routines and habits,.  The land around us is part of what constitutes our sense of place, our home – the things which are close to us and to which we are rooted.  People who do not like change or threats to the familiar, anchor themselves to the familiar and that includes the natural world around them.  Hence the affection that settlers feel for nature.

I think that people’s support of UKIP reveals their feeling that what they know and what they hold dear is threatened by change they cannot control.  They want to feel belonging but they feel alienated.  What they belong to and what they would like to have some control over is wrested from them by the economic elite, by politicians in Brussels and London, by multinational companies which deliberately undermine local identity, by the forces of economic growth which cement up the land around them, and, as some might perceive, by the arrival of alien cultures and behaviours amongst them.  (Yes, our species has deeply ingrained tribal tendencies and blithely to expect people easily to overcome that instinct is unreasonable.)

The Green Party’s emphasis on the local, on protecting the environment, on economic equality reflects the same grievances as UKIP voters have.  There might be a difference in how we deal with the question of having many cultures in one place.  Apparently UKIP voters feel threatened by multiculturalism and Green voters embrace it.  But I wonder how honest the Green voters are to themselves when they say they have overcome their tribal instincts and welcome people of all cultures around them; just as I wonder when UKIP voters feel instinctive discomfort at strange people around them, whether on reflection, they don’t actually realise that the issue is complex and needs careful and compassionate debate.

Despite both groups espousing the local, surely both could join in supporting the political and economic case for fostering peace and well-being in foreign countries from which immigrants escape, so that people actually feel comfortable living there and don’t feel the need to move to the UK.

The fly in the ointment is UKIP’s odd denial of climate change.  I think this is the stupid side of UKIP.  Recently UKIP supporter Arron Banks was interviewed in the Financial Times and was quoted as saying he cannot stand … “pinkos” and former public school boys.  That, too, is the stupid side of UKIP.  To be taken more seriously, UKIP has to discipline people who shoot from the hip, speaking unthinkingly, ignorantly, rudely, uncaringly or without compassion.  But there is a principled case for policies which work to create security and well-being and to reverse the forces of alienation described above.  UKIP has to bolster the intellectual groundings of its policies by working through that principled case.  When it starts to do that it should realise that to care for your home and the land around you means that you have to take climate change seriously.

Until UKIP does that, the Greens would do well to work out how to appeal to the UKIP supporter base, many of whom would agree with the aims and values of Greens, especially if expressed in a down-to-earth way and not with threatening self-righteousness.  But if UKIP does grow up, then the two parties could start to look very similar.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment