Speeding up the Transition to Electric Vehicles.

It is inevitable that Electric Vehicles (EV) will take over as the main form of land vehicles in preference to the internal combustion engine (i.c.e.). I think there are important benefits that will almost certainly see this claim being fulfilled. These benefits also point to the need for overcoming the delay of implementing this transition.

1. The internal combustion engines emit undesirable pollutants that affect people’s health. This is a serious problem in cities where most people live in the world today.  

2. Electric Vehicles are overall more efficient in terms of energy even if they are powered from electricity generated from fossil fuels and thus have a lower carbon footprint.

3. Electric vehicles are simpler in design with no exhaust, engine, gearbox or clutch required. They are easier to drive and have less maintenance costs than the i.c.e.

4. It makes no difference to what energy source or fuel is used to create the electrical energy so the EVs are similar over the world today and forever into the future.

5. As more electrical energy is created from renewable energy, then the carbon footprint of the EV becomes smaller and smaller.

6. Having more EV’s allows the amount of energy from renewables in the energy mix to grow faster.

(At the present electricity generation may be less than 1/3 rd of the total energy demand from many countries. There may be times when the country produces 100% of its electrical energy and this limits the incentive to build new renewables. By having a greater fraction of the energy mix from electrical use increases the incentive to build more renewables)

7. EV’s batteries will likely be charged outside the times of peak demand and thus increase the overall efficiency of the electrical grid; (That is an improved load factor which decreases the amount of generation required for the same reliability)

8. A “smart grid” will very easily, with readily available technology, improve the load factor efficiency further. If a parked vehicle is to be charged over a known prolonged period of time, such as overnight, or through the working day, then the grid can choose when to charge the vehicle and thus matching supply and demand more effectively. There should be many owners (including public transport) where this would be convenient.

There are difficulties with this developing technology, for example providing the necessary charging infra-structure, particularly for those who can't have home charging facilities or to overcome range limitations. There will be many such cases with city dwellers who will be unable to have access for home charging facilities. It seems, however, that the advantages are so important that these issues will be overcome; the sooner the better.

Overcoming the “catch 22”:

There are many motorists at the moment reluctant to buy an EV without adequate charging facilities and there is little incentive to provide the facilities unless the demand increases. This of course is the classic “catch 22” situation.

Can carbon taxes or regulation overcome procrastination?

An important point to be made, when it comes to political solutions to environmental issues associated with energy use, is that there is unlikely to be a single solution to cover every country and every energy sector. .A carbon tax or an emission trading scheme may be very effective in changing the way we provide electrical energy and on certain key industries’ use of fossil fuels, but what rate would a carbon tax, for example, need to be to change motorists habits?

To see how effective a carbon tax may be in having an impact on reducing i.c.e. vehicles, it is worth comparing UK and US petrol and gasoline prices. In the UK the fuel costs are about twice as high due to fuel taxes on petrol. It is estimated in the US that a carbon tax of $1/ton would increase fuel costs by about $0.009/gal. To increase the cost of fuel for transport in the US to above that currently in the UK in order to have any influence it may be in the order of what may be politically unacceptable today. That is to be somewhere around $400/ton! It should be noted that this estimate is based on changing motorists choices and does not reflect the fact that fuel costs for vehicles is higher using gasoline than using electricity even if produced from gas, without any carbon tax.

Market forces alone are not overcoming this reluctance fast enough, however with government encouragement this may well be overcome with a combination of a few strategies such as: -:

1. Put an extra tax on i.c.e. vehicles.
2. Provide more charging facilities.
3. Put a deadline date on purchasing i.c.e.vehicles.
4. At a council level put a deadline date on i.c.e. Vehicles allowed in certain town locations.
5. Provide better EV public transport.

( The aim is really to reduce i.c.e. vehicles, not merely to increase EV’s)

Towards an Alternative Narrative

While it may not be easy to forecast the precise tweaking of taxes and government expenditure that will be announced at the next budget, the reporting of it is almost certainly will concentrate in these general areas (if past reporting is anything to go by):

1. The recent growth in the country's economy expressed in terms of GDP

2. How the budget will affect the individual as seen from the perspective of that individual. (The shopkeeper, the pensioner, the taxi driver, the small business person or the employee in a large exporting sector are all likely candidates to be interviewed)

3. The expected changes in growth as a result of the tweaking made in the budget.

There are assumptions made, and hidden messages that when revealed, explain our collective thinking, acceptance and maintenance of an economic system that needs further examination.

This in essence is (or should be) a time to consider how well our country is progressing and to re-evaluate this progress in terms of our goals, values and priorities expressed by the political system the country has chosen. The way the budget is reported gives us good insight into how our economic system works or is perceived to work.  The adequacy and rationality of this needs to be considered. There are assumptions made, and hidden messages that when revealed, explain our collective thinking, acceptance and maintenance of flaws in the system.

1 The recent growth:

It goes without saying that if GDP is not rising adequately or is falling, then this would be considered bad news, and if the economy is growing it would be good news.

However when this apparently obvious assumption is made, that doesn’t need to be explicitly stated, we need to look deeper.

1. The assumption of whether or not this growth is beneficial has generally been made indiscriminately. It implies we accept our economy to grow without the need to prioritize our goals. Generally we do not know if this growth has come from building adequate housing, providing enough food and water supplies, exporting weapons, production of throwaway goods, increased excessive purchasing of food etc.

b). Through compartmentalized thinking it assumes that issues such as reducing food waste or individual’s reducing their carbon footprint has not been taking too seriously by too many people. The previous or the next topic that is reported is just as easy to consider these issues without any connection or contradiction being made apparent.

c). It implies we will all be better off if GDP grows. In some countries that have good governance this may be the case, but to assume this is the case in general is over-optimistic.

d). It assumes that we have an economic system that must grow indefinitely; that we must produce more goods indiscriminately; throwaway, wasteful, destructive or otherwise, than we did the previous year and that this will continually year on year indefinitely. It is assumed that it is reasonable for each country in the world to have this aim forever.

It is hard to imagine that we have come to accept these hidden messages without the need to be stated. If they were stated explicitly perhaps more of us would stop and question this irrationality.

2. Assessing policy from the viewpoint of the individual.

It is assumed, at an individual level, we all consider how good or otherwise policies are in terms of our own short term financial gain or loss.

It seems in every case the shopkeeper will describe how it will financially affect the shopkeeper. The pensioner will describe how it will financially affect the pensioner etc. Perhaps this was the way questions were asked pre-recording, or the interviews were selected post-recording. The messages however are what we have come to expect without question:

a) It is assumed, at an individual level, we all consider how good or otherwise policies are in terms of our own short term financial gain or loss

b) It is assumed, at a country level, we can evaluate policies by adding up or averaging these individual assessments.

This in effect implies we don’t not function as a society and is an example of a more general fallacy: - The fallacy of composition. “when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).” A tragedy of the commons type of situation is sometimes regarded as inevitable. It is of course not inevitable in any specific case but it can be if one makes this fallacy (of composition) as in the hidden messages on this aspect of budget reporting.  Thankfully, for example, many fishermen are aware of the need for regulation to prevent collapse of the fish stocks. Unfortunately some are naive enough to believe that it would be a good thing if catches were not to be regulated because then they alone would reap the benefits. In the case of the budget we need also to consider the social and environmental consequences that are not apparent in the sum of everyone’s perceived individual gain.

3. The expected effect on growth as a result of the budget.

This will be stated with confidence but yet it is not based on hard science; neither is it necessarily based on mathematical certainty. This is based on economics that is a social science that involves how it is perceived that people will respond to price or tax changes. A less rational society may respond more dramatically to price changes but also a more enlightened society may respond quite differently.

The method by which the budget is reported with its hidden messages assumes a society with a narrow set of values and hence believes confident predictions can be made on how the economy will change.

An alternative narrative.

We fear that economic systems may collapse but yet we prolong a system that will lead to its ultimate collapse unless, of course, it is changed.(A future post will develop this).

We need to face up to the fact that we need prioritized beneficial growth. (A future post will develop this).

Next: Speeding up the Transition to Electric Vehicles.

A Price or a Value on Nature?

When we consider the interconnected “Planetary Boundaries” that we may cross we see that they are all directly or indirectly connected to humanity's interaction with the natural world. To ensure our chances of a sustainable future it is essential that we consider our impact on the land, the oceans and biodiversity in general. It has been argued that we should put a price on nature to ensure sustainability.

In this section I will consider whether or not we can put a price on nature, what this may mean or not mean, and if so should we do so? What are the potential benefits or pitfalls in attempting this?

In 2011 Pavan Sukhdev gave an excellent Ted talk on “Put a value on Nature!” in which he discusses the “economic invisibility of nature”. He indeed makes a very good case for considering economic decisions with an increased awareness of the benefits of nature. It is well worth listening to, but why should I also consider potential pitfalls?

To ensure that humanity follows a path that is sustainable, a clear statement of goals such as the United Nations sustainable development goals (UN SDGs) is essential. I made the point in section 3 of this series that they should be based on core values and it may be worthwhile to read that section. Not everyone will share these goals and indeed some may focus on personal wealth and power. The path that we take is uncertain but we may not even agree on the need to aim for a sustainable world or the kind of world that is valued. In a previous section I discussed those that hold political views that will oppose any regulation that will distract from their agenda; namely to “move towards a more extreme political framework that allows businesses to operate without the need to consider the environmental or social consequences”. With any proposed policies that are envisaged, we must be wary of the steps that may be taken by others to undermine effective policy.

There is another issue that needs resolved about these goals:

Can we add up all the things we value that I discussed in section 3 of this series to arrive at a figure for comparison purposes?

If these goals are based on values we cannot trade one of them off for another.

These goals are not commensurable. It is like “comparing apples and oranges”.  When considering the goals regarding nature, it is wise to be aware of all the “ecosystem services” that nature provides and that some of these “services” within an ecosystem can be given a price in pounds or dollars. What we must not do is say that the value of say a forest and all its intrinsic values is equal to x$.  When or if we do, we risk the degradation of the forest on potentially flawed market values by those who do not share our values.

Pavan Sukhdev (link above) considers economic benefits of nature that we may have overlooked but that we are gradually becoming aware of.  This will certainly improve the short term economic decisions we may make as we include the benefits of regulatory functions that say a forest may have in issues such as flood control or distant rainfall that the forest influences.  This price we put on nature is one that can be measured in dollars but it is not the same as a value when considering our SDGs.  This price can be used as an argument to preserve woodlands, mangroves etc by pointing out, to those who do not even value nature, that degradation of the reserve is not in the best financial interest.

However by confusing value with prices, or by compromising values through appeasement, we risk losing valuable reserves through a short term, possibly flawed economic argument that would have otherwise not have been contemplated.  The pitfalls of trusting purely market solutions are described here in” The Pricing of Everything” by George Monbiot in a Guardian article.

When we look for success stories on environmental issues we can see that a combination of methods using market values is required while being aware of the limitations of market values. This occurs when we have clear goals based on values. The Union of Concerned Scientists discusses the complexities of protecting forests from around the world in “Deforestation Success Stories”. Here we see some albeit limited examples whereby deforestation is stopped and compensation for the loss of economic gain to individuals is compensated through some direct finance scheme. Being aware that success is only limited and that there is much more to do, the Union of Concerned Scientists give recommendations to policy makers. Some examples from page 56 are given here:

• “Establish moratoria. Voluntary or legislated moratoria on deforestation per se, on permits to clear forestland, or on the purchase of goods produced in deforested areas can help address the drivers of deforestation. Moratoria, even if temporary, can become parts of corporate responsibility policy that transform whole sectors and move provisional moratoria toward permanence.

• Obtain financing for action. Although the success stories in this report cannot provide a clear cause-and-effect relationship between international financing and successful results, it is notable that all the cases depended to some extent on international support. There is the potential in many other countries to reduce land-based carbon emissions substantially if financing were provided to do so. The stories in this report should bolster the political will, country by country, to obtain or provide such funding and thus contribute to the global effort to curb global warming.”

Concluding.

When we put a price on nature this can contribute to reasons for preserving natural ecosystems. We must be aware that the price only represents economic value and that this value is likely a short term price and only the price we have recognised so far. Further this price can be further devalued by irresponsible or misguided lobbyists and hence the price should not be used as an excuse for ecosystem degradation.

See also “Putting a price on nature may backfire”

Goals and Values for a Sustainable Future.

In part one of this series - regarding whether or not humans are on a sustainable path - I made the point that our path is NOT predetermined.

Rather than being up to fate, our future will largely depend on our collective goals which will in turn depend on which values we prioritize. Ultimately it is our collective values that will determine what goals we have in place which will determine if we have a sustainable future. This is the greatest task facing each generation. As we become aware of social unrest or the planetary boundaries that we may cross, this task is more in need of concerted action today than ever before.  But first we need to make clear what we mean by a sustainable future.

A sustainable future.

What many people think about when considering the issue of a sustainable future is whether or not our human civilization will continue without a global catastrophic fall. This fall may arise from an inability to provide adequate basic needs for humans as we cross boundaries that lead to tipping points with a resulting sharp fall in population. The boundaries may be those as described by the science of biophysical thresholds that have shown to exist. These thresholds cover interconnected environmental aspects such as biodiversity loss and climate change and are well documented in “Planetary boundaries”. (The link is a 2015 update).  Social and political unrest due to intolerable living conditions may aggravate or hasten the arrival of a potential collapse as we approach or cross some of these boundaries. A catastrophic fall may also occur if our financial systems collapse.

These possibilities all become more likely if we do not have an adequate political framework that looks ahead and makes appropriate plans.

The science behind the environmental boundaries, however, should not be confused with the policies that we must develop as a result of this knowledge about “the safe operating space for humanity”. Any policies we implement will depend on the values that we collectively have and on the politicians we choose to carry these out. This is largely a democratic process.

Sustainable development goals.

Integrating the science of the planetary boundaries with the social science of economics has led the United Nations to set up their sustainable development goals (UNSDGs). The planetary boundaries provided a framework for these sustainable development goals

These goals reflect a definition of sustainable development that includes economic, social and environmental aspects. As an exercise, compare and contrast what your proposed goals and values are and how you would add them up and prioritize them. In any case how would you ensure that none of your prioritized values were forgotten?

A sustainable path.

A sustainable path must ensure a future that meets the needs of society. When choosing qualities and values it can be helpful to think about what kind of world you’d want your children or grandchildren to find themselves in.

Here is my priority list in no particular order; a world or society that indiscriminately provides:

1. Enough clean water, food, warmth and shelter

2. A means whereby everyone can contribute to society

3. An environment that provides clean air, and natural resources including farmland woodlands, forests, clean rivers that run to the sea, coral reefs, wetlands and mangroves etc.

4. Enough time free from labour that allows meaningful education and time to reflect and pursue interests beyond that of merely trying to eke out a living

5. Affordable health care when needed

6. Industry that can provide and replace a responsible quantity of products

7. Governance that promotes the availability of these needs.

Prioritizing.

Are there any of these you would omit; any that you would replace; any others that you would prioritize? With this in mind you can evaluate the UNSDGs. In later sections I will comment on evaluation.

The benefit of having clearly defined goals.

The United Nations goals go into a lot more detail than my goals above that are merely stated in a qualitative way. The UNSDGs are accessible to all with quantitative targets with dates for assessing progress and dates for reviewing. These goals also help mobilize people, organisations and governments in an agreed direction but with room for modifying at regular reviewing dates.

A further note on values.

The seven values I have stated above (or 8 if the indiscriminately provision is included) are values in the sense that these are things that one might value and are measurable. They are based on core values that are essential in determining these and must be encouraged and nurtured. These non measurable core values, however, such as empathy or respect, can be disingenuously presented and on their own difficult to report progress on.

Towards an alternative narrative.

A price or a value on nature?

Trump? Brexit? What’s going on?

Immigration control is a smokescreen for the real intentions of Trump and his appointees. Nevertheless, it is a very real and damaging issue if not tackled humanely. The  Trump team (with very similar attitudes to the Brexit team) know that this is an emotional subject and will divide the electorate. The many who suffer as a consequence of this smokescreen are merely collateral damage in their eyes.

Not everyone on Trump’s team is racist; they may be immigrants themselves, some have married foreigners, but their rhetoric is very much aimed at persuading members of their electorate who do hold racist attitudes. The team may not be anti-Muslim, but they know that there are those who fear the very weakest and those in most need: the refugees.

We who oppose these actions must tackle both the prejudices and racist smokescreen and also be aware of their real intentions. We have no other option. The Trump team feel they are winning. As we rightly attempt to “put out the fire” that they lit they can get on with their more subtle agenda; hidden enough to go unnoticed by much of the electorate.

“Their” agenda:

To move towards a more extreme political framework that allows businesses to operate without the need to consider the environmental or social consequences.

That’s it. That sums up all their moves. That is the longer term goal; to maximise their profits in their lifetime. Now I am not just referring to Trump (he personally is unpredictable) but the team that will use him and aim to gain power and his support by pandering to his narcissistic temperament.

The evidence.

The starting point for them is to dismantle regulations. We take for granted the many regulations that have both improved social conditions and reduced environmental damage. The Trump administration has already begun this dismantling. This climate deregulation tracker from Columbia Law school is regularly updated.

Historically, we have seen that hard fought for regulations have improved the lives of many around the world. These conditions relate to working hours, health and safety, pollution emissions, human rights etc., that many have opposed with all their efforts and would like to remove if they get the slightest of chance.

It is clear that in general the Trump team will be very sympathetic to climate change denial since the obvious solution to this problem is that we will need to deal with the external consequences (or social costs) of the causes of human induced climate change. (The same applies to many related environmental issues such as bio-diversity loss and degradation of oceans via excessive nitrogen leakage from croplands). To tackle these environmental issues we will need to continually upgrade and improve tax systems and regulations. These are global in nature but handled differently around the world to accommodate different climate, geographical, and political conditions. Unfortunately, many climate deniers have managed to get onto Trump’s team.

Playing on fear.

A short life-time business opportunity is the arms trade. I would expect this not only to continue but to expand on the basis of my claim that we are witnessing a “move towards a more extreme political framework that allows businesses to operate without the need to consider the environmental or social consequences”.

For those who have no concerns of the “collateral” damage this provides an ideal opportunity to promote life-time financial personal gains. If the weapons get into “the wrong hands” this has the added advantage of increasing sales, increasing, terrorism, increasing fear of terrorism, encouraging extreme political attitudes that further promotes fear of foreigners and refugees. A reinforcing cycle is created. Whether this is done wittingly or or otherwise the consequence are the same.

Hope.

All around the world we see protests at Trump’s attitude to women and immigrants.People are either involved directly or are witnessing these events via word of mouth and via the media. Trump over-impatiently exposes the more subtle agenda by attacking regulations and the science of climate change within the first days of his presidency. This draws attention to these issues that have largely not been seen as connected or have not been in the forefront of people's minds.

It is my hope that Trump may have unwittingly sparked a rebound effect that will promote awareness and a willingness to put out his “fires” from inhumane immigration attitudes to the need to curtail environmental degradation and improve social well-being for all.

Are we on a sustainable path?

It is possible.

There is no destined pathway that we are on. It is only when we look back we see the pathway we have taken so far:-

2016 Is likeliest the hottest year since instrumental records began and the largest break up of an ice shelf in the Antarctica has reached a high enough possibility of occurring this year that scientists working on the Brunt ice shelf are to be removed for their safety.

Last year also saw the greenhouse gas CO2 crossing 400ppm (largely due to the burning of fossil fuels) and this is the trend that is largely the cause of our present day warming trend.

This warming trend is also implicated in the mass bleaching and damage to coral reefs threatening much of our global food supply. By 2015 an El Nino event in the south pacific was clearly underway and it had been realized that the expected warming from this natural event would be superimposed on the warming trend we have seen over the past century. With this knowledge it was predicted that further extensive mass bleaching through 2015 and 2016 would occur. Sadly the expected outcome did in fact materialize.

These are just some of the many indicators that show the trend we are on in a warming world. Climate change is but one of the many ways we are trespassing some of the Planetary Boundaries that in turn threatens sustainability. A large and growing population with increasing consumption and an increasing energy demand that is coupled to carbon emissions is largely responsible for this.

However “Are we on a sustainable path?” is not a question that can be answered easily. If we extrapolate linearly some of the underlying causes in these trends; for example the trend in world population or the carbon dioxide emissions over the last century, then it would appear the likelihood of a neo-Malthusian catastrophe seems inevitable.

However if we are going to extrapolate we need not do so linearly (or exponentially). Extrapolation is difficult and we could put more emphasis on some of the changes to these trends we presently see occurring globally.

Here are important trends showing we're not on a linear path and choices we have to promote things we can do to accelerate those more sustainable trends:-

1. A demographic transition that is taking place which indicates that world population may stabilize through improved health, education for all, improved wealth etc . This demographic transition is indicated by, first, declining death rates, followed by declining birth rates.This transition is happening at a faster and faster rate in developing worlds. Of course, the fact that death rates decline first means people are living longer. Most countries have either passed this transition or are in the middle of this transition. The expected life span of most has now mainly stabilized but there are more young people living today with longer life spans than we have had previously. This is the main reason for world population growth today. (See "Dont Panic" by Hans Rosling)

However if the transition occurs at a faster rate as seems plausible with improved communications and well stated sustainable development goals, then our ultimate and possible stabilized population will be lower than would otherwise be.

2. Technologies are improving such that we can obtain our energy without carbon emissions and it is feasible (but not necessary) that this will occur first in the developed world. (See environmental Kuznets curve theory).

3. Political change. Worldwide CO2 emissions are still growing but with appropriate action to account for the social cost of emissions the speed at which technological changes can occur may also speed up, similar to what we are now seeing in demographic transitions.

The political changes to spur this must come from an educated public that will encourage policies such as a carbon tax or a cap and trade system. These are some of the steps required to achieve the aims given to our governments that was made clear in the Paris agreement of 2015.

4.Social changes. Ultimately the developed countries will have to not only cut their
carbon emissions but also at least stabilize their total energy demand to achieve a realistic chance of a sustainable path. It is to be hoped that the least developed and the developing countries will quickly converge to a poverty free sustainable level. The sooner these things happen the easier the solution.

Both pessimism and optimism on their own can lead to complacency. We must look to the possibilities and to the choices we make. It is possible that we will follow a path leading to
sustainability but that will depend on which choices we make both in our personal lives and the political pathways taken.