Can we put a price on nature?

One from our pasture spoke at this debate at the Natural History Museum which you can watch online:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/videos/1485

It is the first of four Earth Debates hosted by the Natural History Museum in the run up to Rio Earth Summit 2012. For the forthcoming debates see:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/biodiversity/earth-debates/watch/

The title is catchy but as the speakers also acknowledged not entirely accurate. “Trying to express the values individuals place on the environment in monetary or other terms” would be more accurate but yes it is a mouthful.

The problem with ‘price’ though is that it implies a commoditisation process: markets, supply, demand…’prices can go down as well as up’.

The idea is not to commoditise nature but to ensure that its value is recognised when money related decisions are made. Yes values, as well as prices, can go down…but the current situation we have is one of zero price / zero value as seen in decision-making and all we are trying to do is to change this imbalance to give nature a fairer representation against hard cash, jobs, economic growth arguments.

The debate contains some very interesting discussions between the panellists and in response to questions received. One in particular, a type of question we often get, is worth summarising here.

A question from Ethiopia was taken during the debate about whether valuing nature negatively affects the poor.  Trying to understand the economic value of nature is not harmful to the poor – as once a value for a resource is estimated we can make those who can afford to pay for the services they receive pay while protecting those who can’t. The example given was water: it is possible to allocate an amount of water deemed to be necessary for basic human needs, then put an increasing price on higher volumes to ensure companies and institutions who can afford to pay do so, and more importantly do not waste water once it is no longer free.

Economists talk about values, monetary expression of values and so on but we are also aware that there are other components to value and hence economic value is only part of the picture. Decision makers should not ignore other values (in other words arguments in favour of nature protection) such as scientific drivers, cultural and spiritual values and so on.

While some of these issues have been discussed amongst economists for some time, it was refreshing to see such a multidisciplinary audience on the night and the hope is that the debates continue to be watched by multidisciplinary audiences.

If we have made one progress since Rio 1992, it is that now more and more people acknowledge that not a single discipline or school of thought or political persuasion can save the planet alone….as for whether we can save it if we work together, I remain positive.

Getting FITS XIII

- experiences of fitting household solar energy – Getting FITS XIII is part of a series of blog posts by Limu on the attempt to install solar power at home with the help of the UK Feed in Tariff.

The new PV system had one bit of teething trouble in the first few weeks, as the fuse tripped a couple of times. The installer were quick to come an sort the problem, and on the second time they replaced the relevant part. The smart meter they provided was useful as it showing’0’ was what alerted us to the problem.

This meter runs from a sensor clipped over the wires bringing the electricity generated into the main house electricity system. This transmits wirelessly to a neat white box I’ve put in the hallway, which shows what is being generated.

The system is running smoothly now, with the smart meter ticking over at low levels during the day. Oddly, the system shows a very low level of generation (6 watts) at night, which is apparently due to the electricity flowing into the system to operate the inverter and other kit. I’m looking forward to seeing the generation levels rise through the spring.

We are adjusting to having a different kind of electricity supply. The main change is to try and run large appliances like the washing machine and dishwasher during the day, to take advantage of the free electricity. On the best sunny day in December when two of us are working at home our two computers seemed to be powered mainly by solar energy during the day.

As the generation increases, we can try to transfer more energy use to the middle of the day during the summer. Maybe roasts will have to be at lunchtime and showers taken in the morning rather than late evening. As we watch our smart meters and understand more about our energy use, I’m sure we’ll discover more options.

 

Getting FITS XII

- experiences of fitting household solar energy – Getting FITS XII is part of a series of blog posts by Limu on the attempt to install solar power at home with the help of the UK Feed in Tariff.

The process of registering for FITS payment has gone smoothly, my energy company seems to have had its administration system well-organised. I’ve received confirmation that my solar PV system is registered and now am making arrangements to receive the FITS payments quarterly.

For those thinking of installing PV in the future, the process was fairly straightforward because my installer was in regular and clear communication. Following installation they provided the FIT application form and other paperwork (receipt which is proof of ownership, and MCS form – see FITS VIII), which I sent recorded delivery to the energy company (and phoned to check it had arrived).

It’s a relief to have met the 12^th December deadline, which caused plenty of controversy that may not be over yet. The High Court ruled in December that the Government’s plans to cut the solar Feed-in Tariff (FiT) were unlawful, but Energy Minister Greg Barker has since said the Government will appeal this decision: http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/minister-to-appeal-solar-fit-high-court-ruling-2917.aspx .

The future design of FITS payments is being reviewed by Government, with one option being to lower the per KW tariff as systems get larger. This would spread the subsidy available over more households, but could be less efficient in terms of maximising the renewable capacity supported per pound. Another plan is to build in adjustments in the subsidy level to take into account the costs of panels, which is the major variable in the costs of installation (with labour and scaffolding costs more stable).

New Year Wish for 2012!

This year we’ve done some work on forests, some on fish, some on mammals, some on landscapes, some on alien species, some on smart cities, some on historic heritage, some on ecosystem services, some chemicals, some water, some air (not hot) and some more.

Others have been even busier: IUCN has a good list of news from the world, over the years – click here.

In particular, this one about how to communicate environmental / scientific message rings a bell with me as I often go on about communication (but probably can improve my own skills massively).

Well, to end this year, I could say ‘may 2012 bring everything you wish for’…but it won’t…what will happen is that some of your wishes will come true, some you will wish you never wished and then some wonderful things will happen that you could not have wished for, and some bad things will also inevitably happen for which I wish you strength to cope…but above all I wish you hope…..

 

The Autumn Statement – pragmatic or foolish?

During his Autumn Statement the Chancellor made explicitly clear where the environment sits in his list of priorities. There are just more important things to worry about right now: jobs, growth and deficits.  The tenor of his speech was confrontational and made no concession to the green growth and sustainability as championed by David Cameron when this Government came to power with the aim of being the greenest government ever.

The Chancellor’s message was clear: environmental regulation hinders UK Plc and now is not the time for worthy but costly causes. Of particular concern to those with a green hue was the sentence “We will make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses.”  This was a shot across the bow to environmental groups. They responded in kind. In a letter to the Observer RSPB, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Greenpeace, Wildlife Trusts and Friends of the Earth criticised the short-term mind-set of the Chancellor. Another letter signed by prominent green campaigners said this government was on course to be “the most environmentally destructive government to hold power in this country since the modern day environmental movement was born”.  No love lost here.

One day before the Autumn statement a report was released by the Aldersgate Group.   Pricing the Priceless – The business case for action on biodiversity presented the arguments that protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) is critical for future well being and economic development.  The report had five main findings, each undermining the assertions made by the Chancellor:

1. Future economic prosperity depends on BES
2. BES must be brought into the decision making process
3. Certain thresholds are irreversible
4. Environmental regulation is an opportunity not a threat
5. Loss of BES is a business risk.

The findings and recommendations of this report are not new. This document adds to the growing library that emphasises the importance of ecosystems and biodiversity to economies and business, see TEEB, the Natural Environment White Paper, The National Ecosystem Assessment for instance.

Moreover, a week before the Chancellor’s statement, the Ecosystems Markets Task Force launched. A business led government supported independent group looking at how to improve both the environment and the bottom line. This work further contradicts the sentiments and ideas expressed by the Chancellor.

Why are these reports, initiatives and their findings not making their way into the Treasury? Is the Chancellor on the wrong side of economic thought and momentum? Or are these reports only making headway within the circles that want to hear them? Why is the government supporting and recognising the importance of ecosystems on one hand and ignoring them on the other?

I expect answers to such questions require delving deep into the institutional makeup and spheres of influence within British politics.

Getting FITS XI

The panels are now installed on our roof, just as the gloom of winter has set in and sunshine seems a distant prospect. It wasn’t a straightforward process. One of the dimensions of the roof hadn’t been taken correctly, which means that the planned arrangement of panels didn’t fit.

This meant a rapid re-arrangement of the instalment plans. Instead of 17 230W Innotech panels, we have 13 230W Siliken panels that are smaller but generate more per area. So the panels we have are 3.25kw instead of 3.91kw. The price has been reduced by the installer accordingly, leaving me with the same rate of return – they agreed to this as it was their error in specifying the system initially. In fact, the price I’ve paid is nearly the same as the quote another company gave me for a 2.25kw system, so it’s possible I’ve got a bargain.

Whether that is actually the case will depend on the quality of panels over their lifetime. An industry magazine, PHOTON, undertake annual independent tests in Germany of 16 manufacturers’ panels under controlled conditions. In 2010, Siliken panels produced the highest power output (as a ratio of installed power), coming top of the test. I hope their longevity is equally top-class.

I had wanted to use the Innotech panels because of their production through re-using components (see FITS III). I’ve lost out on this due to the need to adjust the fit of the system to the actual measurements of the roof. But overall, I’m happy that a PV system has been installed successfully and on time. Now I have to register for the FITS payments before December 12^th.

Getting FITS X

- experiences of fitting household solar energy – Getting FITS X is part of a series of blog posts by Limu on the attempt to install solar power at home with the help of the UK Feed in Tariff.

It’s happening now. Scaffolding has gone up and the chimney has been lowered. A few of the bricks from the chimney are now propping up a new playhouse in the garden (thanks to my brother in law for his help putting that up). Awaiting installation of the panels next week. I’m on course to beat the cut in subsidy, which has brought plenty of reaction from the sector.

I’m not entirely immune to the policy change. Approval for connecting my system is needed from the electricity company for it to operate at full capacity. This hasn’t been received yet, so the system installed will be adjusted slightly with the use of a different inverter that reduces the maximum generated output slightly – by around 5%. The system will operate at 95% capacity or more rarely (only under ideal conditions of sunlight and temperature). So the total electricity generated will reduce by much less than this, and the payback of the system will only change fractionally.

This issue reveals the core of the objection to the sudden change in FITS – that it is implemented on a timescale that is shorter that those over which relevant work is undertaken. This is why industry feels Government is riding over it roughshod, with few concerns for the consequences.

Installation next week!

Parking charges

Last week saw daily outbursts of indignation at the proposals by Westminster council to extend parking charges and restrictions into the night in Central London. I’m amazed that because people are famous as actors or for running strip clubs they think their opinions on transport planning should carry more weight.

The ‘outrage’ at those facing a challenge to their cosy cars reminds me of similar opinions expressed before the congestions charge was introduced by Ken Livingstone. It was predicted to decimate the retail economy in various ways. Although the congestions charge may have changed shopping patterns, these gloomy predictions of its effects haven’t materialised, but air quality in central London has improved.

Air pollution remains a problem, costing us in terms of health treatment and quality of life (see, for example this page from Client Earth on the health impacts of air pollution or, for quantitative figures, this table from Defra on the damage costs per tonne of pollutant). So those opposing the current proposals should remember how the majority of pedestrians will benefit from restrictions on the minority who drive.

There is one argument currently put forward against the parking restrictions which I sympathise with. Many travelling late at night, particularly women, don’t feel safe on London’s streets. Those able to drive can protect themselves somewhat from this, others can’t. Again we can learn from Ken’s congestion charge: its political acceptability was helped by the reinvestment of revenues in public transport. Part of the revenues from the proposed parking restrictions should be spent increasing police (or community officer) presence on the streets. This would help the whole of London, including the polluters displaced from their cars.

Getting FITS IX

- experiences of fitting household solar energy – Getting FITS IX is part of a series of blog posts by Limu on the attempt to install solar power at home with the help of the UK Feed in Tariff.

A date has been set to install our solar PV panels! The scaffolding will go up next week, and after lowering a chimney to remove its shading (see FITS II), the panels will go on the following week.

All these arrangements are just in time, as the Government has announced earlier this month that the subsidy for solar PV installation will be slashed in half on 12^th December (Link) . Although not an unexpected change, the timing of this policy development is a shock. The subsidies available are now generous (partly because solar panel costs have fallen), and so a cut in the subsidy rate was widely expected. The timing of this was expected to be at the end of the financial year – in the Spring 2012 budget.

The policy change has been brought forward to save money, pushed through on a ‘fast-track’ process, which allows Government to by-pass the usual rules of public consultation. This may seem fair enough if the subsidy is not cost-effective spending, but the short notice given brings problems. Firstly, it undermines a new industry in solar PV installation, which has been generating employment. A period of months rather than weeks would allow the businesses involved in the industry more time to adjust to the changes.

Secondly, and more importantly, such rapid changes to a market-driving subsidy undermines confidence in the Government’s green agenda. Efficient policy solutions to many environmental problems involve correcting externalities by establishing markets for them. These markets (like the EU’s carbon emissions trading scheme) are heavily dependent on the quality of the Government policies on which they are based. If Government is inclined to make surprise short-term changes to those policies, then this can only undermine confidence in all environmental markets.

Therefore, the rapid alteration to FITS policy is not just damaging to the solar PV market, but undermines and contradicts the intention in the Natural Environment White Paper to encourage environmental markets.

Finally, the short-notice of the change may leave some households stranded in the middle of the process to install panels. My process should be complete well-before 12^th December. Others earlier in the process may face an awkward choice, and may question whether a company they employ will still exist under the new subsidy regime. Reassuringly my system comes with a 10 year CPA (consumer protection association) backed insurance.

Dilemmoo: Publicly broadcasting cow patties

Last Thursday I attended a recording of the new (as yet unaired) BBC Radio 4 show ‘Dilemma’, hosted by Sue Perkins. The format of the show involved Sue posing hypothetical moral dilemmas to her four panellists who generally went off on tangents about their own-life experiences or thoughts on the dilemmas, but eventually had to make a decision on what they would do. Interestingly, on the night I attended it seemed like the show decided to focus a bit on environmental morals. One dilemma focused on a climate change tax on airfare and the entire last section of the show featured a NIMBY-ist “choose your own adventure” type series of dilemmas that had each panellist deciding on a dilemma that arose due to the previous panellist’s choices.

As someone who frequently feels like banging my head on the desk every time I read a tabloid (wrongly) screaming that environmental policies price the poor out of heating or eating or travelling, I was aghast to hear Perkins pose the carbon tax dilemma to her panellists as something along the lines of “If you could add the entire cost of the effect of airline carbon to the cost of airfares and save us all from climate change, would you do it if it meant that it would only make flying available for the very rich?”

I was also rather perturbed to hear one of the panellists (I assume he was moderately famous to be a panellist but I didn’t know who he was and can’t remember his name) when posed with a dilemma of placing a recycling plant within his neighbourhood reply with, amongst other comments something along the lines of “China and India would produce more waste in a day than we could ever hope to recycle in our lifetime”. Even IF this was true, this is a ridiculous argument for justifying a ‘do nothing’ reaction from developed countries – we should be attempting to recycle our own waste which saves energy and resources. Whether we should do this or not is not affected by what other countries do.  If his argument had instead been that the recycling plant should have been moved to India or China, this would have been perfectly valid argument; the money that would have been spent on a plant here could perhaps build a larger plant there, therefore increasing recycling.  But of course that wasn’t the argument he was making – he was simply trotting out the same kind of populist (I imagine the panellist thought he was ‘cool’ by having views contrary to logic, just like teen smokers) blather you read on comments to news articles which reinforces the views of others who have the vague notion in their mind – a “blind leading the blind” situation. Imagine how much more influential it would sound coming out of the reputable BBC!

I therefore had my own dilemmoo for the night: Do I sigh, accept that that’s the way people are going to think and that the Beeb have the freedom to broadcast whatever they want? Or do I stand up in the middle of the show and shout “You’re wrong!” and continue to have a discussion with the writers and panellists during the show?

Well, I did neither of those. Rather, in the hopes that I would be able to influence the editing of the show and change future content, I dropped the following into the ‘other comments’ part of the feedback form sent out by the Beeb following the show:

… I thought one of the dilemmas posed in this show did not reflect facts. This is dangerous going out on a public service because it would fan misinformation further and make people more likely to think that tackling environmental issues is too expensive/highly inequitable or not for them. 

In other words, YOU could be responsible for dangerous climate change.  The dilemma I’m referring to is the one that refers to raising flying costs to include the carbon cost.

Internalising the full cost of flying into the airfare would NOT make flying only affordable to the rich. An average fare increase of 25 euros (http://www.eraa.org/issues/environment/164-internalisation-of-external-costs) is not really breaking the bank. It may result in LESS vacations for poorer people, but not none whatsoever given a baseline that they would normally go on a vacation involving air travel.

(It would also, as one of the panelists pointed out, shift people onto alternative forms of transport such as trains or ferries for instance to Europe or other parts of the UK.)

So I guess in addition to the dilemma posed being just wrong, the panelists just weren’t knowledgeable enough about the area to make a good argument. This includes one of the panelist’s inane comment that China and India cause more problems in a day than we could ever hope to fix in a lifetime. So maybe you should just steer clear of policy-type dilemmas. Or just get smart panelists.

Sorry about the rant, and I know this is meant to be good light-hearted entertainment, but I think it is important that when it comes to climate change, misinformation isn’t spread (as it is dangerous to implementing good policy to mitigate climate change), especially through an organisation with such a high reputation such as your good selves. 

To be fair to the show and the other participants, I enjoyed it apart from those two points, and Sue Perkins and the lovely Scottish woman who had a thing for Gillian Anderson also seemed quite disturbed by the NIMBY/populist reactions of the other participants.

Now in the format of the show, it’s over to you readers. Do you agree/disagree with what I did? What would you have done?

—

Related past moos:

In “Are you low-carbon today?” Daisy talks about recycling in Beijing

In “Booing domestic flight bans” I wrote about taxing airfares rather than banning domestic flights