It's possible to think that some people haven't quite got the point
Those manganese nodules down there in the abyssal deeps, there’s a fairly concerted move to get them dragged up to feed the renewables revolution. Also a fairly concerted move to make sure they don’t get mined at all:
Louisa Casson, a Greenpeace campaigner, criticised the industry for running the conference and banks for considering investing in the “dangerous and unnecessary” projects to “make a quick profit”.
“This destructive new industry wants to rip up an ecosystem we are only just starting to understand,” she said. “[They are] aiming to make a quick profit while our oceans and the billions of people relying on them bear the costs.”
Well, yes, we all knew Greenpeace were bananas - build absolutely nothing anywhere near anywhere.
This being The Guardian of course certain details manage to escape them:
The hoped-for gold rush lies thousands of miles away on the bed of the Pacific Ocean, where trillions of potato-sized nodules of rare earth elements
Umm, no, they’re nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, none of which are rare earths. Anything to do with financial numbers confuses of course - this is The Guardian:
expected the ISA to agree a payment regime that would hand mining companies a post-tax profit of 17.5%.
No, it’s for an internal rate of return, IRR, of 17.5%.
But details, schmetails, except we do love this proposal, which does seem to be wholly and entirely missing the point:
The African Group considers that this philosophy alone is insufficient. More specifically, the African Group will only support a payment regime that demonstrably:
a.) results in deep-sea mining contractors facing rates of payment (an overall burden of taxation)
that are within the range of those prevailing for land-based miners;
b.) results in substantial and fair compensation to mankind whenever deep-sea mining occurs; and
c.) either i.) constrains production from deep-sea mining to a level that does not result in lower
metal prices and a loss of government revenue from land-based mining; or ii.) results in high
enough revenue from deep-sea mining for governments with revenues from land-based mining
to be fully compensated.
We grasp the fully compensated part. That’s just the countries which currently host mines trying it on. Shrug, commercial negotiations are about trying it on and seeing what one can make stick.
But don’t you love that idea? A new mine may only be opened if it doesn’t reduce the prices of the metals mined? Rather missing the point of opening a new mine really.
That demand is actually that the current mines must have a cartel over any new mines to protect their profits in perpetuity. Given that this is a UN driven process don’t dismiss the possibility of it happening either.
Perhaps this international negotiation thing isn’t in fact quite the way to manage new technologies?
Let's just not have fresh food checks then
The Guardian tells us that checks on fresh food from the remnant EU are to be delayed again:
The delays could push back the full implementation of Brexit controls until 2023, sources said, with physical checks removed and a potential relaxation on the requirement for import of products, animals, food and feed system (IPAFFS) paperwork.
We’ve not had such checks for near 18 months now. In fact, we’ve not had such checks for some four decades if we include the time we were inside the EU.
The absence of such checks in the near 18 months since we left has produced no problem that anyone has reported upon. And we would have been told if there had been some outbreak of turnip trichinosis, shallot shigella or equine lasagna - that last being a real one and one that happened during our membership period.
The benefits of such checks would therefore seem to be zero. The costs of them will be something above zero. Doing something that costs but which gains no benefit at all is one of those things we shouldn’t be doing - it makes us poorer.
Yes, of course, it’s possible that the absence of checks could lead to problems. But having tried it for that near 18 months we’ve now found out that the could is actually does not. One of the values of experimentation is that we move from that world without the Rev Bayes to one with his insight. Given that we now have real world evidence we can assign a probability to the possibility of problems with not having checks. It’s zero.
So, let’s just not burden ourselves with the costs of those checks. For they’re not needed.
We can gain the same policy advice through another construction as well. The r-EU has armies of inspectors wielding their clipboards all over the fresh food production system. This was good enough for us while we were inside that system. Now we’re outside those r-EU inspectors are still there, doing their wielding. There’s absolutely no point in our checking their work, as we didn’t used to, so let’s not bother ourselves with the cost of doing so.
That is, the r-EU itself is already carrying all the costs of inspecting the fresh food they send us so why should we bother?
The Guardian on corporate profits
The Guardian is shocked - shocked - that corporate profits have increased.
The analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission filings for 100 US corporations found net profits up by a median of 49%, and in some individual cases by as much as 111,000%. Those increases came as companies saddled customers with higher prices and all but ten executed massive stock buyback programs or bumped dividends to enrich investors.
Given that the purpose of a company is to enrich investors we find ourselves very relaxed about this, very relaxed indeed. It is competition which benefits consumers, not the capitalism part so much.
We would though argue slightly about some of the detail:
Steel Dynamics profits increased 809%. The company was “not materially affected by inflation” as higher prices “exceeded” increased supply chain costs.
Well, yes, tariffs on imported steel will have that effect upon a domestic steel producer. Tariffs are the deliberate choking off of the competition which benefits consumers after all. If this noting of the profit rise had been accompanied by The Guardian calling for abolition of the tariffs then we’d be right there with them. But it isn’t is it? We’ve the capitalists being blamed for what the government has deliberately gone out and done.
Fertilizer giant Nutrien’s profits shot up by about $1.2bn on “higher selling prices [that] more than offset higher raw material costs and lower sales volume”.
One of the things Nutrien does is make nitrogen fertilisers. The price is set globally, N. America enjoys lower natural gas prices - fracking - than the rest of the world, so a N. American nitrogen fertiliser manufacturer will enjoy super profits as a result of fracking. The solution to such excess profits is to allow fracking elsewhere - Guardian?
Concentration is particularly pronounced among commodity companies, a problem highlighted in the grain market. CPI data shows bread and cereal prices increased by 30% and 7% between 2019 and 2021’s fourth quarters, while wheat skyrocketed to an all-time high in March as war largely eliminated Ukrainian and Russian crops.
Meanwhile, four large grain producers control about 90% of the market. Among them are Archer Daniels Midland, whose profits jumped 55%, and Bunge, whose profits swung by about $280m. Three companies control 73% of the cereal market.
Those are not grain producers, farmers produce grain. They are grain traders and transporters.
There are indeed things that can be done to reduce corporate profits if that’s what is desired. The Guardian doesn’t suggest any of the useful ones - pity really.
Nuclear Doublespeak
The government waking up to the importance and urgency of new nuclear power generation is good news indeed but it may not happen with the speed the announcements imply. The nuclear industry employs some of the finest brains in the country but not all of them are dedicated to what is best for the UK. Some are more committed to their own interests. They are the members of SPAVIN. After procrastinating for 12 years, the Secretary of State told an expectant Commons, in January, that a Sizewell C decision might be made before the end of this parliamentary term. SPAVIN is to blame.
If you wonder why it takes at least four years of discussions with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) before an application for a new generation plant can even be submitted, SPAVIN is to blame. And then it takes another two years or so to consider it. And the Department of the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, has to carry out its own multi-stage review in parallel. The US process is carried out by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission much faster. Certified pre-approved "off-the-shelf" designs and early site permits allow approval for a reactor site to be "banked" for future use. The USA’s single license combines construction with operating and can be acquired in only a year (p.10) compared with six in the UK.
If you have never heard of SPAVIN, that is because it is a secret society: the Society for the Protective Assertion of Vested Interests in Nuclear. Members’ cover is good because they practise the opposite of what they preach. The longer and the more complex, the more consultants put in the bank. For example, recommendation five of the Nuclear Industry and Research Advisory Board’s (NIRAB’s) 2020 report to the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) reads “UK investment in nuclear fission should be leveraged effectively through international R&D programmes.” Apart from demanding £1bn for five years of unspecified research, international programmes are being ignored (“foreign stuff is too risky”). One Small Modular Reactor (SMR) is planned to be available by 2030 and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs) will be considered in the next decade. SMRs and AMRs are small reactors that can be transported on the backs of lorries. The former are used in nuclear submarines and both are available today. In short, reality does not match the rhetoric.
The rot set in when some halfwit, back in 2011, set the ONR up as an agency of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), i.e. the government department that stops one doing whatever one should be doing. When the Admiralty, Air Ministry and War Department merged in 1964, the HSE’s equivalent was then also considered as the parent body but the government decided the MoD would make a better job of shrinking the armed forces to the point where they would be no danger to anyone.
The moral of this sad tale is that ONR and the rest of the public service nuclear sector should be focused on providing the most, and of course safest, nuclear power to the UK soonest. Members of SPAVIN need to be detected and rooted out. The UK can only learn from best world practice, if we do what they do today and stop chuntering on about leading the world in nuclear development 60 years ago.
Prototype Ferries - A Bridge Too Far
Scotland’s ferries, owned and operated (as Caledonian MacBrayne or ‘CalMac’) by the Scottish government, have become a disaster for the 70,000 people who live permanently in the islands served by their ferries — and the thousands of business, visitors and tourists who rely on these lifeline services.
Ask them, and you will hear only complaints about incompetent management, the chronic unreliability of lifeline services, ageing ships that suffer constant breakdowns, fraught nerves, missed connections and abandoned hospital appointments, irregular supplies in the shops, lost business and more.
Yes, Scotland sometimes has rough weather. But that does not stop ferries running reliably in Norway or Canada. But then most ferry operations there are performed by private companies who know they face competition if they fail customers.
Cal Mac is a state-run operator and competitors are not allowed. The ships’ owner, Caledonian Marine Assets Limited (CMAL), also runs many of the harbours. Both are owned by the Scottish government. As is Ferguson Marine shipyard commissioned to build the two new dual-fuel car and passenger ferries.
This lack of competition — and CalMac’s domination by the RMT union — might explain why Scotland has probably the oldest ferry fleet in Europe, with staffing levels almost twice the European average.
It might also explain why the decision to update the fleet with two dual-fuels to serve CalMac’s busiest routes (Arran and the triangular route between Uig, Tarbert and Lochmaddy) has descended into farce. Political dithering meant that by the time the decision was made, much of the fleet was already ending its design life, leaving CalMac scuttling around to fill the gaps caused by frequent breakdowns. Rather than use a true and trusted design, two completely new ships were commissioned — each different but both massive, carrying 127 cars and 1,000 passengers.
And of course the new ships had to be ‘green’ — capable of running on marine diesel or liquefied natural gas (LNG). Which was a brave move, given that there no pure LNG ferries yet operate anywhere in Europe. Unsurprisingly, the design and build problems multiplied. The ships are now predicted to be delivered five years late. Meanwhile, passengers face daily disruptions.
The budget — already enormous for island ferries — has escalated too. The original £97m estimate took no account of the duel-fuel design challenges. The final bill could rise as high as £400m, according to one former government shipbuilding adviser — and that doesn’t even include the shore infrastructure, such as LNG storage facilities.
Kevin Hobbs, Chief Executive of CMAL, denies the idea that the two new ships are over-ambitious prototypes, saying “hundreds of LNG vessels have been built and are operational across the world.” But then most of those are designed for long-haul tanker/container fleets, not island-hopping ferries. Operators are generally cautious about using LNG.
The special equipment needed to ship, deliver and store (or ‘bunker’) LNG impose significant costs. For most ports, the cost too big and the risks associated with storage are too large. For example:
the extreme low temperatures (-162°C) requiring special materials for storage
the need for more storage space of up to 150% of fuel oil storage space.
the dangers of leaks, both due to the extreme cold and the risk of asphyxiation (the gas is odourless and colourless, making detection virtually impossible)
the need for a strict separation of gas and air — burning gas can only be extinguished by removing either the oxygen or the gas
as venting to air is not an option, a means to deal with boil off gas is required.
But the main risk is from Boiling Liquid/Expanding Vapour Explosion. That can be caused by a rupture in a storage facility, allowing the liquid gas to evaporate too rapidly for the valve systems to withstand.
Nor are LNG’s ‘green’ credentials very solid. It is still a fossil fuel and lower-carbon options may well supersede it. The UK’s LNG is currently imported mainly from Qatar. CalMac’s supplies will have to be driven hundreds of miles from the Isle of Grain facility in Kent. And the Danish firm handed a £5m contract to build two huge underground tanks to store the LNG for the new CalMac ships have revealed they will not be ready until 2025, meaning that until then, these ‘dual-fuel’ vessels will have to run on diesel anyway. It's all a classic example of a pipe-dream specification that doesn’t consider the infrastructure costs needed, nor subject these requirements to rigorous examination by an independent review team.
Meanwhile, the RMT and everyone else in the nationalised ferry system has resisted the idea of allowing in competitors in to fill the service gaps. They even rejected the idea of bringing in the Pentland Ferries standby ferry MV Pentalina, which had conducted successful trials on the Arran route. During the trials, the RMT wrote to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, alerting them to “significant unauthorised alterations to the superstructure” of the Pentalina. Those alterations mostly amounted to the removal of a fridge from the on-board servery, which consequently had an unintended impact on the fire separation between the galley and the passenger lounge — a ‘problem’ that could be fixed in hours. The fact is that the RMT don’t want to be shown up by any competition.
So islanders’ lives and livelihoods remain blighted, because of ideology, politics, bureaucracy and resistance to competition. Isn’t it time we ended this whole charade?
Just to remind, we do not measure life expectancy by place of birth
Knowing more about the world around us is a good thing. Often enough we cannot know the thing we wish to know so we use a proxy. This is fine, as long as we understand that we are using a proxy and that such proxies have their limitations. Use the proxy to try to tell us something the proxy cannot tell us and we’ll get into all sorts of trouble.
For example, we do not measure lifespan by place of birth. We measure lifespan by place of death. This should be obvious enough for that future is unknowable and yet we do want to construct some sort of idea of how long this glorious life will be.
This is, sadly, important:
Girls born in the poorest areas of England will have almost 20 fewer years of good health compared with those in the wealthiest, according to figures that also reveal overall life expectancy in the most deprived areas has dropped significantly.
Female healthy life expectancy at birth in the most deprived areas was 19.3 years less than in the least deprived areas in 2018 to 2020, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). For males it was 18.6 years less.
All of that is abject nonsense.
“It also highlights that in the most deprived areas, people are living more of their life in ill health,” he said. “Girls born in the poorest areas of England live 19 fewer years in good health than those born in the wealthiest. A staggering difference in life chances.”
That is not true.
Earlier ONS figures are here.
Deprivation deciles are based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation
And:
The English Indices of Deprivation measure relative levels of deprivation in 32,844 small areas or neighbourhoods, called Lower-layer Super Output Areas, in England
So, to recap. We measure where someone dies and at what age. There is no cross-collation or checking of where someone was born in the system. Absolutely none, we have checked this with a coroner’s office, the information simply is not available (the long form certificate necessary to be able to check place of birth against place and age of death is simply not public information).
If we were to be measuring at the level of a country, or possibly even a county, then the proxy - age and place of death - would be useful if not perfect in determining life expectancy at birth. Not perfect because some do change country (it is what, 14% of the UK that is currently foreign born?) and more change county.
But when we start measuring at this level of detail - those Lower-layer Super Output Areas are around 1500 people each, much smaller than the XXX part of a postcode and a small handful of them at the XXX XX_ level - then we are using a very, very, imperfect proxy.
For the percentage of the population that dies in the same or adjacent postcode as their place of birth is around and about zero.
We simply do not measure, in any useful manner at all, life expectancy by place of birth. Therefore we cannot, except at the grossest - ie national, roughly and maybe - level make any useful conclusions about life expectancy by detailed place of birth. Which also does mean that we can make no policies which will change this as we’ve no damn clue what it is in the first place and couldn’t measure any change that we did manage to make either.
Failing to understand that an imperfect proxy is being used means that we’re getting into all sorts of trouble here. So, we should stop doing this, right?
Don't do something, just stand there
We’re told that economic management institutions need to be updated, polished, brought into the modern world:
“Our disappointments around economic growth are not because we’ve just run out of ideas like neo-liberalism or socialism, but it is because the economy has changed,” Haskel said. “Trends towards intangible assets like software need new institutions. This includes competition policy, cities policy and regulation. If we don’t change, then the intangible economy is going to stall, which will become the source of our difficulties.”
We’re entirely fine with real world institutions changing but this is rather our point here. It’s who changes them and how that matters. Take, for example, the wise guidance of the Rolls Royce minds of the civil service over something as simple as whether a baby may be allowed to enter the country or not:
Olga Kolisnyk applied five weeks ago to take her two children – Illia, 11, and baby, Maria – to the UK from their home in war-torn Kharkiv but the process has been tied up in red tape.
Kolisnyk, a university professor, was initially told by UK officials that her infant daughter would be allowed to travel as she had been added to her mother’s Ukrainian passport.
But two days later she was informed by visa officials in Sheffield that this would no longer be acceptable – and that Maria would have to undergo biometric scans 800 miles away in Warsaw before they would be able to fly to Britain.
These are not the people we desire planning anything to do with an actual economy now, are they? But guess who will be doing the planning if politics or government are allowed to have anything to do with the economy?
Sir John Cowperthwaite refused to allow anyone to compose GDP figures for Hong Kong, on the grounds that some damn fool would only try to do something with them. The place got richer, faster, than anywhere else on the planet up to that date.
State planning, just say no, not even once. For it possible to look at what state planning actually does and then consider the merits of it, you know, by their actions ye shall know them?
One way to read Wealth of Nations
Given the length of it Adam Smith’s “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” has a number of possible interpretations. One that we find useful at times is as a prolonged scream against the iniquities of the guild economy:
Chris Young, coordinator of the Real Bread Campaign, said new bread labelling rules need to be imposed on supermarkets and leading bread companies to protect smaller-scale traditional bakeries. The campaigners have complained of a “sourfaux free-for-all”.
He said: “We believe many people are being misled when they are buying their bread. Making sourdough is a slower process. We would want the definition to be ‘bread made without additives and using a live sourdough starter culture’.”
The government has formed a bread and flour technical working group to review the regulations, and the Real Bread Campaign has submitted a raft of proposals for a radical overhaul of bread labelling.
One of the things which makes Wealth of Nations timeless - despite the length of the 18th century prose - is that there are always attempts to reimpose those guilds and guild rules upon the economy. Attempts which, as in the original scream, need to be fought against.
If Mr. Hughes and his compañeros wish to label their bread as “bread made without additives and using a live sourdough starter culture” then so be it. We do have truth in advertising laws and so if that’s what they say it is then that is - likely enough - what it is. And if people prefer to have something marked “sourdough” that does not meet that standard then the absence of “bread made without additives and using a live sourdough starter culture” will be something of a clue. There will be some portion of the nation that does prefer some modicum of the sourdough process, some modicum of the flavour and at half the price after all. The insistence upon “sourdough” meaning “bread made without additives and using a live sourdough starter culture” is an attempt to reimpose those guild distinctions of who may make what and how.
The other way to put this is that the people buying the bread are capable adults. This must be so otherwise we’d not be running a democracy where all have the vote. If people are to be trusted to select, by careful consideration, their political representatives then it logically follows that they can buy the bread they prefer.
Exponential growth in the use of minerals and natural resources
A small thought on that idea that human society is just going to have to stop using those natural resources because they’re going to run out. We have dealt with this at length by outlining quite how much there is out there to use before. Here though the point is just about that idea of exponential growth.
We use more of a resource each year, then more again, then more - and so it doesn’t matter how vast the total resource is, that multiplication of use over time is simply going to bring us up, hard, against that limit then, obviously, we all die.
Aiee!
This does depend upon the idea that usage rises exponentially of course. It isn’t true of certain materials. Thorium usage has declined substantially since we stopped using it to make gas mantles. Mercury usage is declining so much that there are - real and honest - plans to dispose of the recycled excess back into the mines it first came from. But those are minor metals and so could be said to not illustrate the concept properly. That they are minor metals because we don’t use much of them and even that in declining quantities won’t hold much weight with the catastrophists.
So, something much more basic. Iron ore. Global usage is rising, yes, it is. Building out a civilisation for the first time - as China is a long way through the process of, India is perhaps starting - takes a lot of steel. But do we get to a point at which consumption of that necessary raw material, the iron ore, declines?
As it happens yes, apparently we do. US iron ore consumption stats for this year are here. US production, including a net export, is around 50 million tonnes a year. US resources are 110 billion tonnes. So, that can go on for a very long time without problem. Except, of course, for that pesky exponential growth. So, does that occur?
Historical statistics are here. Current production of iron ore appears similar to what it was in 1906. Well under half what it was in 1955. Imports and exports in 1905 were trivial, the US was a - large - net importer in 1955 and is currently a net exporter.
We appear to have something akin to the Kuznets curve here concerning basic resource consumption. Yes, it rises as civilsation is built. Then it falls again.
As to why, yes, the US does recycle much scrap steel these days. The majority of steel used now comes from this source. No, this wasn’t because the hippies demanded it - Nucor’s first electric arc furnace that works only on scrap was opened in 1969 when the hippies were still coming down off those first bong hits.
But the US also uses less steel than it did back then. 25 million tonnes in 1906, 28 million tonnes today but in 1955 it was 70 million tonnes. It isn’t just the rise of recycling, it’s not replacement with imports, it is just true that as a society matures it uses less of these most basic of products, iron ore, iron and steel.
We agree that global production and consumption of iron ore - of iron and steel - is larger than it used to be. It’s also true that iron ore resources are around 800 billion tonnes. Exhaustion of that will require that exponential growth in production and consumption. Which appears not to be what does happen. Rather, consumption rises as a society is built then tails off again.
Resource consumption does not rise exponentially. Therefore the catastrophists are wrong. Which is a welcome and cheerful thought, isn’t it?
HRT and the joys of government planning
Beaming in from outside the Westminster Bubble we now have the news about the Great HRT Shortage. HRT solves a problem, it should indeed be widely available. Having government in charge of it therefore seems like a bad idea:
HRT ‘betrayal’ forces women to buy on the black market
One line of thought to follow here is that prices, in markets, are what prices in markets will be. The NHS pays an agreed amount to those who make the HRT materials and if that’s not enough then supply will be short. Prices will then become what prices actually are, not what the NHS determines they should be. This is something that those who would abolish markets and prices need to understand about the reality outside that Bubble - markets and prices will out whatever you do or say about them.
The other useful line of thought concerns this:
Why are there HRT shortages?
Demand has surged in recent years amid high-profile menopause awareness campaigns, which have reassured women over HRT side-effects and highlighted the benefits of the therapy. The number of monthly prescriptions in England has increased from 238,000 in 2017 to almost 538,000 in December 2021.
However, there are insufficient stocks to meet this demand.
Government deliberately and specifically - and probably righteously - drove up demand. At the same time government failed to add to supply. Therefore prices rose as a result of the dearth of supply to meet that rising demand. Markets - and prices - will out as we say.
The takeaway here is that we should not be using government to plan things. It’s possible to make all sorts of theoretical arguments both for and against the idea. But as with any scientific hypothesis it is the evidence of reality that wins. Government simply isn’t competent to plan things therefore we should not use it to plan things.
Among the wider ASI family there are a number of young children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and so on. All of whom do grasp that if Mummy’s to take more drugs then there need to be more drugs to take. As government is incapable of realising what is apparent to babes and sucklings we really do need to reduce the number of times we try to use government to do things.