How to deal with the world changing
We could we suppose, have some vast army of people - call them GOSPLAN just for fun - who then tell us all what to do, in detail, when something out there changes. Or, well, we could just leave things be perhaps?
Meta, the owner of Facebook, has paid £149 million to surrender lease on a London office block having not moved in any staff two years after signing the deal.
Oh well, made a mistake, loses money and there we are.
Britain’s return to the office has stalled this year, with occupancy levels averaging about 30 per cent, according to data from Remit Consulting — about half the levels before the pandemic.
Given the record shortage of lab space in the UK, British Land is unlikely to have trouble finding a life sciences tenant. Analysts at BNP Paribas Exane estimate that the landlord may even be able to achieve 50 per cent more rent than it was due under the lease to Meta.
Asset unwanted in its current form is to be transformed into a more valuable asset. The very definition of increasing wealth - moving economic assets from lower to higher valued uses.
Seems like a system that works. No bureaucratic direction or plan, just prices coordinating behaviour.
As we say, it’s a system that seems to work. Possibly we could even use it elsewhere as well. Say, that shocking oversupply of high street shops that could be turned into more valuable housing? Or those vast expanses of Green Belt that could be turned into more valuable housing?
After all, we have just proven that the free market does move property to higher value uses, haven’t we.
Good Lord, people actually believe this guff
That green energy, all those renewables, is really cheaper than fossil fuels is something we’ve seen people say. But we’ve never really believed that they, themselves, believe it. For if they did then there would be no need for subsidies, laws, forcings and bans. People will naturally gravitate to the cheaper option and climate change will be solved.
But here we have someone who really does seem to believe this mantra:
Clean energy provides not only a key means to Britain achieving net zero within the timeline we’ve committed to, but also offers households a vital financial lifeline through decreasing the price of energy.
Oh well. But this is not what worries us here, not at all. Markets do refute such delusions even if it might take some time. Precisely because markets work through prices, those easily visible numbers that tell us about relative costs.
What strikes us as significantly dangerous is this:
The UK must now double down on its commitment to achieving a clean grid by 2035 – or risk breaking its net zero by 2050 pledge. Put simply, we cannot view these timelines, informed by expertise from top climate scientists and the Climate Change Committee, as malleable to political whim. They are gradated, clear pathways that must not be tampered with at this stage of innovation and investment as we transform our economy.
This is a demand that we cease to have democracy - at least upon this subject. For it is an insistence that however the next election - or next however many elections - goes this policy must be followed. But the entire point of having an election is to enable changes in policy. If we the demos decide we don’t like the law then we elect someone else and we get different laws. That really is the purpose of the system, that policy change is possible without uprisings.
Yes, this point does also cover other laws that have those “legally enforceable targets” and so on. They’re an abomination unto democracy.
The British constitution, that unwritten mishmash, has a central concept to it - no parliament may bind its successors. For the very obvious reason that the entire point of a new parliament is to change how the place is run - if that’s what the demos decides it wants.
Ossifying a highly contentious policy into the skeleton of the political system is inherently anti-democratic. Shame on those proposing such a thing. It’s not mattocks and pruning hooks time as yet but this attitude that you’ll do whatever we tell you whatever you say in an election is what does lead to such distressing episodes.
Shocking these health inequalities
The government, and the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) in particular, is concerned with health inequalities and it believes women in particular are unfairly treated. Women, worldwide live longer than men so why is that unfair to women? The August 2022 DHSC policy paper claimed “this country’s health and care system belongs to us all, and it must serve us all. However, sadly, 51% of the population faces obstacles when it comes to getting the care they need.” The DHSC policy paper was, naturally, wholly unbiased. As the paper puts it “It’s brilliant that we have received almost 100,000 responses from women [sic] across the country.”
According to the DHSC: “Although women in the UK on average live longer than men, women spend a significantly greater proportion of their lives in ill health and disability when compared with men.” Strangely the Office for National Statistics figures, which it cites, do not support this claim: “Female HLE [healthy life expectancy] increased for those aged 10 years and over between 2011 to 2013 and 2018 to 2020, with the increases being statistically significant in those aged 20 years and over (Figure 2).” Disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) remained the same for men vs. women throughout the five years 2015 to 2020 (Figure 4). Shame the figures are not what the DHSC would like them to be.
On 25th September 2023, the DHSC ministers wrote to the chief executives of integrated care boards (ICBs). By then the Minister for Women’s Health had been joined by the Women’s Health Ambassador and her deputy and the Chief Nursing Officer. The letter said that £25M was being made available for “Women’s Health Hubs” (at least one per ICB): “Hubs bring together healthcare professionals and existing services to provide integrated women’s health services in the community, focusing on improving access to care and reducing health inequalities.” Each hub would cost £595,000, but see below, the DHSC cannot know how the money should be spent of why a hub in Darlington should cost the same as one in Mayfair.
Equalling the treatment (health cost) given to women and men means they have to be treated for the same health problems. The flaw in this equality idea is that they don’t actually have the same problems. The male menopause is joked about but, of course, there is no such thing.
One might think assessing the value for money or performance of these hubs would require quite a bit of discussion and serious contemplation so it was hardly generous of DHSC to require 16 questions on the template plus 11 questions on the data sources page to be answered within a week, i.e. issued 22nd September response by 29th September. Template question 16 for example: “Q16. What is the best way for DHSC to access data from your hub to measure or evaluate the implementation and performance of hubs models? If you think a combination of the approaches listed is best then select multiple responses.”
The interesting thing about Q16 is that the DHSC clearly has no idea what these hubs, or removing the non-existent health inequalities, are supposed to achieve. Shocking.
Tax foreigners living in foreign countries
Monty Python once - humourosly, you understand - suggested taxing foreigners living in foreign countries. Gordon Brown seems to have taken the show seriously:
A $25bn global windfall levy on oil and gas profits, paid by the richest petrostates, would amount to less than 1% of global oil and gas revenues and only 3% of the export earnings of these major producers. Each of the richest petrostates can easily afford to pay. The UAE has seen its export earnings rise from $76bn to $119bn; it can afford to contribute $3bn without any impact on the energy prices paid by its domestic consumers. And it is not alone: with Qatar’s export earnings, mainly from gas, rising from $53bn to $86bn it too could easily afford $3bn, as could Kuwait with its export earnings increasing from $63bn to $98bn.
Of course all those foreigners would just live to hand over the cash for Gordon to spend. Just love to.
One thing does occur to us, where is the contribution from Venezuela? Russia? You only have to give the money away if you’re a relatively free and efficient producer? Socialist and authoritarian hellholes are let off the fine? Does wonders for incentives, that does.
Rather more importantly, the people responsible for climate change are those who use fossil fuels, not those who produce them. It should be those who use fossil fuels coughing up therefore.
But, you know, we still think it an idea worth laughing about. Yes, let’s try to tax foreigners living in foreign to fund our spending. Why not? Farce becoming history, didn’t someone say something about that?
Could we suggest a negotiating line? Yes, yes, of course we’ll respect you in the morning, after you’ve handed over the cash.
Often enough free ain't free, Emily in Paris edition
Amazingly the real Paris isn’t like Emily in Paris. Apartments are rather smaller for example - as anyone who has ever tried to live that artistic life in the garret will recall. As the French themselves insist interacting with Parisians can have its downside too. But it’s this part of the description that interests us:
With Emily’s fourth season approaching I’d suggest another kind of escapist speciality tour: one that introduces foreigners to France’s free preschools; its practically free universities; and its universal healthcare.
Things that are not free to produce and or provide turn out not to be free.
The tax wedge is the gap between what your employer tries to pay you and what you get in the palm of your hand. For France this is 47% of your wages. For the US this is 30% of your wages. As it happens - and they don’t need to exactly match up - this is approximately the difference between how much of GDP flows through government in the two polities.
17% of all economic activity is flowing to pay for those “free” things. Which isn’t a definition of free that we think is useful. In fact, we think it’s downright misleading and therefore dangerous.
Things that cost to provide are never going to be free - it’s always who delivers them and how are they paid that is the question.
We shouldn't have Net Zero in the first place
Matthew Parris gets close to the right question:
We’re no nearer the truth of net zero’s costs
But it’s still not the right question. For, “We’re going to have Net Zero now, what does it cost?” is the wrong query. The correct question is here’s the cost now, how much - or how close to - net zero can we get for that?
The base point here has an elegant simplicity. There are costs to allowing climate change to happen. There are costs to stopping climate change from happening. Our goal is the maximisation of human utility over time. Therefore we wish to have the minimal - ie, utility maximising - amount of costs. But, here’s the tricky bit, the minimal aggregate of both sets of costs, those of mitigating climate change and those also of suffering it.
So far everyone should be agreeing. Those who insist there is no climate change and therefore no costs to be carried from it, those also who insist there is, that’s it’s near terminal for the species therefore we should be willing to bear near any burden. Everyone’s base calculation should be the same - what’s the blend of policy to mitigate plus costs of allowing to happen that is utility maximising? Then that’s what we should do.
This is not an oddity by the way, it’s the logical argument at the heart of the Stern Review. This is entirely and wholly mainstream.
Therefore the question “What’s the cost of the target we’ve decided upon?” is logically the wrong question. For the correct one is “What is the cost of not mitigating? Therefore we’ll spend up to that amount to mitigate.”
That is, the cost of what we’re going to do is the first thing to work out. Because that then determines what we do do. We have, in fact, policy about climate change determined by people asking entirely the wrong thing. Failing to grasp even the basics of the logic of the subject.
But then that’s government for us, eh?
The joyousness of George Monbiot's latest squinny
George has discovered another thing that is murdering us all in our beds as we live ever longer lives in ever better health. Now it’s ammonia:
Many rural people will be surprised to see how polluted their air is, but that’s because the media seldom mention the major source of these particles: ammonia from farms. A study by researchers at University College London found that even in cities, ammonia from farms produces more particulate pollution than the cities themselves do. Farm ammonia contributes 25% of the PM2.5s in London, 32% in Birmingham and 38% in Leicester, while these cities generate from 13-24% of their own PM2.5 pollution (the rest blows in from mainland Europe or comes from construction and road traffic outside the city, shipping emissions and dust from distant deserts).
Well, yes, although the paper we’ve found indicates that farms and ammonia aren’t the source of the particles, they are what allow the particles to form out of dust and so on. But OK, let’s run with George.
It is true that very few areas of the world meet the standards for non-pollution:
We explore if this guideline is attainable across different regions of the world using a series of model sensitivity simulations for 2019. Our results indicate that >90% of the global population is exposed to PM2.5 concentrations that exceed the 5 μg m–3 guideline and that only a few sparsely populated regions (largely in boreal North America and Asia) experience annual average concentrations of <5 μg m–3. We find that even under an extreme abatement scenario, with no anthropogenic emissions, more than half of the world’s population would still experience annual PM2.5 exposures above the 5 μg m–3 guideline (including >70% and >60% of the African and Asian populations, respectively), largely due to fires and natural dust.
That is, the PMI 2.5 limit that WHO currently insists upon is something that’s simply not achievable in a world which includes weathering - dust that is. As to why we’ve a limit so nonsensical that’s just because WHO halved the limits recently.
Yes, we do in fact mean this. The current guidelines, the ones that lead to those stories about 98% of Europeans being killed by air pollution, are based upon a standard that is not achievable even if there were no humans at all to produce pollution. We would suggest these standards are perhaps a little too strict. As in, ludicrous.
At which point the most obvious point to make is that the ULEZ - or any more of them - is clearly nonsensical. The pollution isn’t caused by the vehicles so limiting vehicles won’t change the pollution. And don’t forget that our proof here is direct from the pen of George Monbiot.
We can, and should, go further though. As George says, if the pollution comes from both fertiliser (ammonium nitrate, that artificial stuff that keeps us alive by feeding us) and also from animal dung then we’ll have to stop using both. That means, of course, no meat. But that also has a further effect. For if we can’t use the usual fertiliser, and also we can’t use animal dung because we haven’t got any, then we’re going to have to draw straws for the 90% of humanity who get to starve to death.
Oh, and we’ll also have to kill off that rewilding idea because we’re going to have to use absolutely every scrap of land to feed the 800 million of us left after that cull. Because if we’ve not got fertiliser of any type then that’s just the amount of land we’re going to have to use - all of it.
At which point perhaps it might be possible to inject some sense into the conversation. As always, everything is a series of trade offs. So, on the one hand we’ve air pollution standards the same as we had before Sept 2021. On the other hand, trying to meet this new standard, the death of 90% of humanity, the wiping out of every piece of nature that’s not a food crop and even then we still cannot meet the standard because meteorology and geology - that dust.
We suggest - just as a proposal you understand, a subject for discussion - putting the WHO back in its box and firing up the barbie for a steak. You all will be driving around to partake, yes?
Recycling should be a one bin, not seven, operation - anything else is just rubbish
We now have the Prime Minister stating that not everyone will be forced to have seven recycling bins, at least not immediately. At which point some are telling us that this was never going to happen at all. Ah, but yes, it was, as Tom Forth points out. It’s right there in the law.
To be extreme and absurd about it, think on what this means for the country building the smallest new housing in Europe. At 76 m2. If we think of a metre as the space for a bin (that’s the absurd bit) we’re trying to insist that 10% of the rabbit hutch be given over the recycling bins. And as modern planning permission doesn’t allow anyone to have a garden any more (that’s the extreme hyperbole bit) then that seems more than a bit of an imposition.
But as we’ve pointed out before about the seven bins, it’s possible to be entirely reasonable about this. Given that all recycling systems require subsidy they don’t, in fact, save any economic resources, rather they expend them. So why are we doing that? And that’s before we even think about the time required for each household to sort and collect in the right manner.
We should, instead, have the one simple collection method from the one single bin. Which is then processed centrally. Let’s take advantage of economies of scale after all. That which is valuable is extracted, that which is not gets burnt or landfilled.
Do note that we’ve nothing against recycling - one of us lived off scrap metal recycling for years, we can’t be against economic recycling. But we do insist that we should stop doing the recycling that loses money and costs resources. After all, isn’t that the point? To save economic resources by recycling? So let’s do that then.
One bin, one factory, only recycle what makes money. We all know this makes sense so why aren’t we doing it?
A new word for an old idea
The new word is fluxophobic, meaning fearful of change. It describes those who want the world to stay as it is now, and who think every change is to be opposed and avoided. This is for people who think every habitat should be preserved as it is now, or perhaps even restored to what it was when they were younger, with any changes reversed.
Every species must be preserved as it exists now, with no space left for new species to evolve and replace existing ones. High Streets must remain crowded with small shops specializing in different things. Places where bats nest must be kept as is, rather than encouraging the bats to nest elsewhere.
New building is opposed because it involves change. The demolition of transformation of old buildings is similarly opposed for the same reason. Agriculture must be carried out in traditional ways, and innovations are to be deplored, especially those that involve “interfering with nature.”
Are fluxophobes conservative? They are conservative with a small “c,” denoting the character trait that wants things to stay the same. But they are not in the Conservative political tradition that accepts change, but wants it to be spontaneous, rather than imposed from some preconceived plan of what some people think society ought to be like. Conservatism (with a capital “C”) wants change to come from below, rather than being imposed from above.
The real world is characterized by change. It changes from moment to moment as well as from year to year. We step and do not step into the same river, said Heraclitus, for new waters flow ever about us. The world is in flux, not in stasis, no matter how much those fearful of change deplore this.
Most people welcome economic growth because it increases the prosperity that will enable us to do more of the things we want to do. Yet economic growth necessarily involves change. It comes about as new products and processes increase productivity. It necessarily involves displacement, as some established companies are elbowed aside by newcomers. It involves employment churn as some job are lost and new ones take their place.
The fluxophobe is distressed by the changes that economic growth entails. Indeed, some of them oppose it, urging us to seek instead a more settled world in which people are content with their lot. Adam Smith did not agree with them. He spoke of “the uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition,” believing aspiration to be part of what it is to be human. It seems to be human nature to seek a better life, and change is essential to that.
Fluxophobia is less common among young people than it is in the elderly. The young are generally more flexible and more adaptable to change, and they welcome the opportunities it brings with it. Many of the elderly are more set in their ways, and unsettled by the loss of tranquility that changes involve.
The Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions unleashed the idea of improvement into the world, and set in motion a period of rapid change that still continues. They set humanity on an uphill course in which change brought betterment, both in living standards and in life’s opportunities. Fluxophobia has its hold on some people, but ultimately it means stagnation rather than improvement.
The economics of climate change
Apparently we’re to have less Net Zero. Or later. Or something at least:
Rishi Sunak is facing a growing Tory backlash over plans to water down his key net zero policies, with MPs saying it would be “the greatest mistake of his premiership”.
Bans on petrol cars and oil boilers in the next decade are among the green pledges that could be loosened under the Prime Minister’s plan to meet the 2050 net zero target in a “better, more proportionate way”.
Ahead of a major speech this week, he admitted that the Government has “not been honest about costs and trade-offs” of net zero.
As the actual economic report - that Stern Review - says we shouldn’t have an emissions target anyway. As the Nobel Laureate on the subject points out, Bill Nordhaus, we shouldn’t have an emissions target. Because that’s the wrong way to incentivise the innovation necessary to gain less climate change. We need to use prices and the market, not bureaucratic dictat.
But OK, everyone’s decided, wrongly, to use a target instead. As we’ve pointed out before, they’re still getting it wrong even if we allow them that pass.
For the economics here is terribly simple. There are costs of allowing climate change to happen. There are costs of stopping climate change happening. The costs we don’t have to carry by not stopping it are therefore benefits of allowing climate change to happen. Equally, a benefit of stopping climate change is not having to bear the costs of climate change happening.
This is obvious. So is it also obvious that there’s a fairly delicate dance between those two sets of costs and benefits. We wish to optimise the outcome, maximise human utility over time. That means bearing the least cost we possibly can while gaining the largest benefits possible. Again, all entirely obvious.
That delicate dance then changes when the costs of action change relative to the costs of inaction. We’re just finding out that offshore wind power is three to five times more expensive than we were told. So, as we’ve noted, we desire less wind power in our mix.
But we’re also now being told the true costs of everything planned in emissions reduction. Those costs are higher than we had been led to expect. Therefore - and entirely rationally - we should be agreeing to have more climate change.
Prices have changed to the correct answer is different. Anyone not arguing for less climate mitigation in the face of rising prices is therefore wrong.