New Energy Focus - 29/06/10
A government-backed independent working group has today (June 29) published a report urging the government to take rapid action to mobilise the Green Investment Bank within six months, with a particular focus on providing funding for Round 3 offshore wind developments.
The Green Investment Bank Commission report, entitled ‘Unlocking investment to deliver Britain's low carbon future', outlines the scale of investment needed to meet the UK's renewable energy targets, penned at £550 billion between now and 2020.
Article continues ...
Blueprint for ‘crucial’ Green Investment Bank published
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
Aurora
Blueprint for ‘crucial’ Green Investment Bank published
The link at the bottom of that page to the report doesn't work.
This is the right one:
http://www.climatechangecapital.com/med ... 202010.pdf
and a couple of the other main reports that are referenced:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images ... ep__09.pdf
http://www.e3g.org/images/uploads/Accel ... e_Bank.pdf
This is the right one:
http://www.climatechangecapital.com/med ... 202010.pdf
and a couple of the other main reports that are referenced:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images ... ep__09.pdf
http://www.e3g.org/images/uploads/Accel ... e_Bank.pdf
Walk with me down this line of reasoning...
1. Investment implies "returns" -- presumably of a scale comparable to 'conventional' investment banks in order to encourage funds.
2. "Returns" require economic growth in order to produce them, building the capacity of the market to produce greater value through either the development (on a highly skewed continuum in terms of market capitalisation) of mass consumption of cheap high volume products (the Asian model) or the production of a low volume of high quality/cost goods (the remaining type of manufacturing in Western economies -- e.g. the arms industry).
3. Production in volume or to high quality implies the continual consumption of energy and resources to produce them, and at an accelerating rate in order to keep the market growing.
4. We don't have inexhaustible supplies of energy and the types of rare metals that are an implicit part of the production of both high volume and high quality goods -- so it's debatable as to how "green" investment banks will fare any better than conventional investment models, especially as many green technologies are actually more reliant on critical natural resources (e.g. rare earth metals).
So!
Green investment isn't "green" because it perpetuates precisely the kind of resource depletion as traditional investment models -- it's a contradiction in terms. Instead we need to look at "green dis-investment", where we create products and services that encourage people to use less, and use the savings from using less in order to pay off the cost of the service. This prevents the "savings" from eco-efficiency measures re-entering the economic cycle and boosting growth/consumption.
Most importantly, this kind of model is an excellent incentive for perpetuating the status quo -- the debt-led model of growth is perpetuated with a veneer of "green" to salve the conscience of those with money to spare. It proposes that we can just change funding models, or energy sources, or business practices, in order to "save the planet", but it is not able to deliver any of these on a meaningful scale because it is still linked to a market economy that is geared to delivering growth, and it's the growth of the human system that's creating the ecological problem in the first place.
1. Investment implies "returns" -- presumably of a scale comparable to 'conventional' investment banks in order to encourage funds.
2. "Returns" require economic growth in order to produce them, building the capacity of the market to produce greater value through either the development (on a highly skewed continuum in terms of market capitalisation) of mass consumption of cheap high volume products (the Asian model) or the production of a low volume of high quality/cost goods (the remaining type of manufacturing in Western economies -- e.g. the arms industry).
3. Production in volume or to high quality implies the continual consumption of energy and resources to produce them, and at an accelerating rate in order to keep the market growing.
4. We don't have inexhaustible supplies of energy and the types of rare metals that are an implicit part of the production of both high volume and high quality goods -- so it's debatable as to how "green" investment banks will fare any better than conventional investment models, especially as many green technologies are actually more reliant on critical natural resources (e.g. rare earth metals).
So!
Green investment isn't "green" because it perpetuates precisely the kind of resource depletion as traditional investment models -- it's a contradiction in terms. Instead we need to look at "green dis-investment", where we create products and services that encourage people to use less, and use the savings from using less in order to pay off the cost of the service. This prevents the "savings" from eco-efficiency measures re-entering the economic cycle and boosting growth/consumption.
Most importantly, this kind of model is an excellent incentive for perpetuating the status quo -- the debt-led model of growth is perpetuated with a veneer of "green" to salve the conscience of those with money to spare. It proposes that we can just change funding models, or energy sources, or business practices, in order to "save the planet", but it is not able to deliver any of these on a meaningful scale because it is still linked to a market economy that is geared to delivering growth, and it's the growth of the human system that's creating the ecological problem in the first place.
They could have a lovely green coloured logo, use green coloured paint on their buildings, and have green coloured carpets. That would make them a green company.mobbsey wrote:Green investment isn't "green"
One of the definitions of green is "young, inexperienced or easily fooled".
Green doesn't have to mean it's good for the planet!
I agree that the bank is being set up as an attempt to maintain BAU, and as such it cannot work.
However, just because growth overall is no longer possible, that does not mean that some areas cannot grow, as others shrink. If the bank attracts a growing share of a diminishing pool of physical resources, it can invest those resources in wind farms and other renewable energy schemes. They may fail to generate the financial returns on investment expected, but at least the wind farms will have been built. Given the shorter lead times for wind farms, relative to nuclear power stations, I think this is the best realistic option for maximising future UK energy supply, given the real state of the economy.
However, just because growth overall is no longer possible, that does not mean that some areas cannot grow, as others shrink. If the bank attracts a growing share of a diminishing pool of physical resources, it can invest those resources in wind farms and other renewable energy schemes. They may fail to generate the financial returns on investment expected, but at least the wind farms will have been built. Given the shorter lead times for wind farms, relative to nuclear power stations, I think this is the best realistic option for maximising future UK energy supply, given the real state of the economy.
True, which is why I raised the issue about setting up some form of "dis-investment" system to simplify the transition to lower consumption.RalphW wrote:However, just because growth overall is no longer possible, that does not mean that some areas cannot grow, as others shrink.
E.g. gas/power companies using their markets and expertise installing solar thermal for free but still charging the same rates -- that would eliminate the tendency for eco-efficiency to boost economic efficiency by preventing re-spending of the "savings", whilst at the same time reducing demand on fossil energy. However, it's for precisely that reason that many utility companies are not likely to follow this model because it challenges the centralised power and market value created by having a monolithic energy company (e.g, I might be able to maintain my own solar system, but how am I going to maintain a remote gas well in Siberia? -- fossil fuels create economic power because they are a private/state-controlled economic resource that can leverage influence with those able to marshal the capacity to exploit them).
What your asking for, is in effect, plain old deflation isn't it? I think that's exactly what we're going to see over the next half decade. Money will be taken out of the system, jobs will be lost, and less 'stuff' will be produced, mined, briefly used and then dumped. There's nothing so sustainable as poverty.
Jim
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
Mobsey
Growth isnt equal, just because the total isndeclining, it doesnt mean everyone is declining.
However, this is a government bank, the idea that returns will be prioritised is laughable, it'll just run up hundreds of billions of losses and dump them on whoevers in government 20 years from now.
Growth isnt equal, just because the total isndeclining, it doesnt mean everyone is declining.
However, this is a government bank, the idea that returns will be prioritised is laughable, it'll just run up hundreds of billions of losses and dump them on whoevers in government 20 years from now.
I'm a realist, not a hippie
The green investment bank is just a financial mechanism whereby the government can channel taxes into subsidising energy projects but keep the money on the national books to make UK Plc look (more) solvent.
As such, it's probably a brilliant idea at this stage of the game.
As such, it's probably a brilliant idea at this stage of the game.
Andy Hunt
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
Eternal Sunshine wrote: I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth.
-
RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12780
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
Or renewable energy kit. Which will, at least for a few years, repay as an investment, even if large chunks of the rest of the economy (for example retail sales) are shrinking, no?mobbsey wrote:or the production of a low volume of high quality/cost goods (the remaining type of manufacturing in Western economies -- e.g. the arms industry).
True. Traditionally in periods of growth the rich have got richer whilst the poor have got slightly richer, whilst during recessions the rich get richer whilst the poor get poorer.DominicJ wrote:Growth isnt equal, just because the total isndeclining, it doesnt mean everyone is declining.
The difference with this recession is that because the growth rate in many western states has been inflated by debt for the last twenty years, today the rich are getting richer but the not very poor are getting poorer too!
The economy is a zero sum game, and usually many people lose small so that a few can win big. However, as value has to be recycled in the economy to make this happen the rich won't be able to get richer if the poor get poorer for a long period -- they'll run out of people to fleece! So, on the back of a protracted energy/resource-induced recession, the rich will get poorer too.
-
Aurora
The Independent - 05/07/10
Chris Huhne and Vince Cable: The green economy is still viable
Article continues ...
Not True.mobbsey wrote:The economy is a zero sum game
Relative wealth is a zero sum game, but actual wealth isnt.
I'm relativly poor, but I'm actualy wealthier than all but the kings of 2000 years ago, I'd argue I'm wealthier than even them.
Valuing a PC cetnral heating aboe a horse and deer park.
The Poor might get relativley poorer, but few would argue they were better off in a single roomed hovel with a pit in the back garden as a toilet.
I'm a realist, not a hippie