Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

Martyn1981 said:

AGW doesn't recognise borders, so rolling out RE, storage and efficiency jobs, regardless of where the workers come, from won't result in a net increase in the population, just a net increase in the number of workers in those industries, and a net reduction in those employed in the FF (and associated) industries.

Hi

I think that misses the point that was being made ... as you know, I've long believed that the roll-out of renewables was historically being held back to a degree by the relative cost of the energy produced, this being directly related to the generation/capital investment ratio ... hence the need for funding incentives.

This is where michaels' point on economic multipliers becomes relevant - if you can encourage local supply chains using local materials & produce, the money exchanged passes from consumer to supplier, to sub supplier, to producer etc with each recipient paying their own taxes and employees, who pay their own taxes and spend their income as consumers which starts a new loop .... this is where the economic multiplier comes in and why this is good for government revenues, which in turn can create the funds which can be allocated to subsidising renewable energy projects.

Fine, scene set, so what happens when a country acts as consumers of products from other countries? ... simple, you both create an economic multiplier overseas to enrich them whilst ensuring that you need to borrow against future economic activity in order to invest in projects such as renewable energy!!! ...

Just think of the economic effect of simply developing & exploiting local gas reserves to displace energy imports & then allocate the additional (multiplied!!) tax-take specifically to greening the economy .... that's really the point that needs long-term consideration as opposed to the short-sightedness approach that the 'poor birdies & fishies' environmental lobbying groups totally fail to understand  & I'm pretty sure that's what 'michaels' was raising.

On employment, think about the automotive industry as an example - a new plant is built & employs x thousand people, each of which spend their income on whatever they need in local shops etc, so creating a demand for more employment in the area ... now think about the material, component & services supply chain for the plant, if management have a real belief in a lean business model & operate on a tight JiT or even synchronous supply basis then a considerable amount of activity will be clustered around the new plant, again with tax, employees & further downstream economic activity .... effectively the x thousand jobs created in the plant support something like a further 6x thousand related job positions each of which would need to be filled by either local, distant or migrated labour, so in terms of economic preference from a regional or national economic activity viewpoint should be considered by all concerned parties as being - (1) local - before (2) migrated - before (3) distant ... doesn't really affect the globalised total too much, but it does have a direct effect on the the economic activity & tax raised in the region or country of the plant, which can in turn be used to improve environmental & other requirements in the locality, and isn't that what actually counts if you're looking at investing in capital projects? ....

All really summed up in a simple, but totally relevant, quote ... "Economy and environment are the same thing .... that is the rule of nature"

HTH - Z

michaels

Thanks Z, much more eloquently put than I could have done.  The multiplier bit means it makes even more sense to do it now when we have slack in the economy so we are putting to work those who would otherwise have been sat doing nothing compared to before when it would have needed us to stop doing something else - not that that would necessary have been wrong but just that now it really does become a no-brainer.

zeupater

michaels said:

Thanks Z, much more eloquently put than I could have done.  The multiplier bit means it makes even more sense to do it now when we have slack in the economy so we are putting to work those who would otherwise have been sat doing nothing compared to before when it would have needed us to stop doing something else - not that that would necessary have been wrong but just that now it really does become a no-brainer.

Hi

Maybe, maybe not ... it all depends on what you're going to do, why you're going to do it, whether there's a real market for whatever the product is, and importantly, whether doing it will seriously impact on an existing economic sector ... for example, encouraging movement in electricity generation to gas from coal both created & destroyed jobs but the market for electricity remained and the goal of reducing emissions was achieved ...

My issue with the claims made in the article in question is that the projects "would create nearly three times as many jobs for every dollar spent on fossil fuel developments" which "could create more than 100,000 direct jobs" could be a very deep rabbithole  to get drawn into without really checking the validity .... let's take for example the offsetting of jobs lost in other industries, so is the 100k direct  jobs being created really additional jobs, additionally, what is the comparative impact on supply chain indirect jobs ? - if not readily available then then important questions related to employment & overall economic impact need to be asked.

The position as I see it would work only if the stimulation in economic activity was based around onshoring products & services which are currently bought from overseas thus returning the economic multiplier & associated tax-take to the UK to swell coffers to an extent where heavy investment on ecological measures become affordable without resorting to passing additional national debt down to following generations ... it's effectively growing the economy in order to increase investment whilst still being able to balance the books -or, more simply - earning more, spending more and living within your means! ...

HTH - Z

Martyn1981

Hi Z, i appreciate that boosting one industry might impact another, so this has to be considered when injecting stimulus monies to spend your way out of a recession/depression, but in this case we have a FF industry that absolutely has to shrink going forwards, and a RE (plus storage / efficiency) industry that absolutely has to grow.

So most nations realise that stimulus spending is essential, and also that investment in RE is essential (and the sooner the better) so combining the two is timely. So it might sound a bit cold blooded, but this has to happen, and the sooner the better for national economics and fighting AGW, so if they were my A$'s I'd be putting them into RE not FF's in this choice example.

[Edit - I should add, to explain some of my concerns, that stimulus monies for the US gas and oil industries is being used to pay down some of the debt that the shale industry has built up. And whilst I'd hope that Australian lawmakers would put in place rules and regs on any FF support, they too support the FF industry 'quite a lot'. M.]


Same story, just a different source:

Economic Recovery Funds For Renewables Would Create 3 Times As Many Jobs For Australia

Martyn1981

I won't hold my breath, but I will cross my fingers (and toes).

Alok Sharma announces green recovery working group

Business secretary Alok Sharma (pictured) has launched a ‘recovery round table’  bringing together businesses, business representative groups and leading academics to look at ways of capturing economic growth opportunities from the green transition.
Membership of the working group has not yet been published but the government says it will aim to be representative of UK industry, consist of approximately 20-25 participants and be chaired by the business secretary.

Coastalwatch

zeupater said:

michaels said:

Thanks Z, much more eloquently put than I could have done.  The multiplier bit means it makes even more sense to do it now when we have slack in the economy so we are putting to work those who would otherwise have been sat doing nothing compared to before when it would have needed us to stop doing something else - not that that would necessary have been wrong but just that now it really does become a no-brainer.

 ... it's effectively growing the economy in order to increase investment whilst still being able to balance the books -or, more simply - earning more, spending more and living within your means! ...

HTH - Z

Think I understand your explanations Zeup, although I did have to read it more than once before doing so! I'm always amazed at how many differing thoughts and views surface on such topics, most being beyond the power of my thought processing, but I do try to keep up.

With this awful pandemic taking so many lives, extreme measures have been put in place in an attempt to suppress it's effects. Unusually, economics has not been the priority in this instance.

While Mart stated earlier that "AGW doesn't recognise borders", I don't believe it recognises economics either.

With our Government Ministers being so keen to be "guided by the Science at present" I do wonder if they will apply similar enthusiasm to AGW whose ultimate effects will show the pandemic to be little more than a rash in comparison.

Admittedly I'm just a simple soul who has difficulty seeing the many shades of colour(I understand there are over 8 million) that exist between black and white.

zeupater

Martyn1981 said:

Hi Z, i appreciate that boosting one industry might impact another, so this has to be considered when injecting stimulus monies to spend your way out of a recession/depression, but in this case we have a FF industry that absolutely has to shrink going forwards, and a RE (plus storage / efficiency) industry that absolutely has to grow.

So most nations realise that stimulus spending is essential, and also that investment in RE is essential (and the sooner the better) so combining the two is timely. So it might sound a bit cold blooded, but this has to happen, and the sooner the better for national economics and fighting AGW, so if they were my A$'s I'd be putting them into RE not FF's in this choice example.

[Edit - I should add, to explain some of my concerns, that stimulus monies for the US gas and oil industries is being used to pay down some of the debt that the shale industry has built up. And whilst I'd hope that Australian lawmakers would put in place rules and regs on any FF support, they too support the FF industry 'quite a lot'. M.]


Same story, just a different source:

Economic Recovery Funds For Renewables Would Create 3 Times As Many Jobs For Australia

Hi

What really needs careful consideration is that directly stimulating one economic sector to effectively destroy another probably has close to a net zero ongoing economic impact so the cost of the stimulation has to be considered as lost and unrecoverable, therefore only affordable through the creation of debt - however, forms of stimulation which actually prevent money leaving the UK economy (importing of goods, services, produce & materials) actually have a positive effect on GDP, which in turn creates additional wealth & tax-take to spend on the transition to a green economy .... this doesn't necessarily mean that debt won't increase in the short term, but it provides a mechanism to both pay down any debt that is needed within a reasonable horizon and still fund other projects :- effectively a win-win scenario ...

So an example - The UK has moved the bulk of electricity generation from coal to gas in order to benefit the environment which has resulted in a substantial increase in the import of LNG and an associated loss of the aforementioned economic multiplier effect to both the UK economy & treasury tax take, reducing the pool of available funds for stimulating investment in renewables .... without the short-sighted intervention of many vocal groups of ecological & environmental interest, the obvious alternative would have been the rapid investigation & development of UK onshore gas reserves as a temporary bridging measure (with effectively no additional AGW impact!) to both fund & accelerate the very move to renewables that they seek - that's why I've often mentioned that they're little more than hypocritical NIMBYs that don't consider the whole picture & are effectively happy to have gas extracted elsewhere & transported half-way around the world (well nearly!!) as long as we're not doing it anywhere near 'my back garden', even though the majority of concerned 'local' individuals & groups (usual suspects!) have to travel many miles in order to get to their 'back garden' ...

It's simply how you manage a business or run a project ... there are options that work & critical paths to follow that can deliver a desired outcome utilising the available resources ... nothing new there! ..

HTH - Z         

zeupater

Coastalwatch said:

zeupater said:

 ... it's effectively growing the economy in order to increase investment whilst still being able to balance the books -or, more simply - earning more, spending more and living within your means! ...

HTH - Z

Think I understand your explanations Zeup, although I did have to read it more than once before doing so! I'm always amazed at how many differing thoughts and views surface on such topics, most being beyond the power of my thought processing, but I do try to keep up.

With this awful pandemic taking so many lives, extreme measures have been put in place in an attempt to suppress it's effects. Unusually, economics has not been the priority in this instance.

While Mart stated earlier that "AGW doesn't recognise borders", I don't believe it recognises economics either.

With our Government Ministers being so keen to be "guided by the Science at present" I do wonder if they will apply similar enthusiasm to AGW whose ultimate effects will show the pandemic to be little more than a rash in comparison.

Admittedly I'm just a simple soul who has difficulty seeing the many shades of colour(I understand there are over 8 million) that exist between black and white.

Hi

I agree that emissions doesn't recognise borders or economics, but the solution involves actions by people within borders which involves expenditure decisions that have economic impacts within those borders which will in turn directly effect those people ....

Think of it this way - none of us as individuals or small groups can have any real impact on decisions on a global basis or even in nations on the other side of the world, but we can make a difference locally, within our own borders ... solutions to very large problems are usually addressed through dissecting the whole into smaller elements and addressing those according to some form of logically agreed sequence as manageable sub-projects within an overall project .... seeing the solution as a huge overtaking costing an unaffordable amount simply brings everything to a halt as no-one can really get their heads around the scales & complexity involved in order to take the necessary decisions or focus on the critical path elements ...

So what is the current plan? ... what are the critical path elements? ... where should resources be focussed? ....... the answer currently seems to be - do something globally along the line of 'everything' by 2050(ish), but asking for the global or even local detail of what, by who, by when & in what order has been totally overlooked, probably because not many of the relevant people have management experience in huge global projects ... AKA, what a mess we find ourselves in, but at least the experts are having regular international jollies at public expense & have few worries on financing their considerably larger than average 4x4 SUV  lifestyles! ...

HTH - Z

EVandPV

Bad news for BP workers but another nail in the coffin for the fossil fuel industry :

"BP has announced plans to cut 10,000 jobs amid following a global slump in demand for oil because of the coronavirus crisis. "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52966609

zeupater

EVandPV said:

Bad new,s for BP workers but another nail in the coffin for the fossil fuel industry :

"BP has announced plans to cut 10,000 jobs amid following a global slump in demand for oil because of the coronavirus crisis. "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52966609

Hi

You'll probably find that many multinationals, large concerns & even some SMEs will be looking to take long-thought-through restructuring plans off the shelf, blow off months (/years) of dust and implement them under the cover of the current health/economic issues, after all, what's the come-back from the employees & unions at the moment? ... "we'll go on strike"? ... not much of a threat when the conclusion is that there's between no & a positive impact on the employer if they were to do so, so just add BP to the growing list amongst the like of Boeing, Ford, Nissan, BA, Easyjet, IBM, HP, Thyssen-Krupp etc & hope that economic confidence & activity starts to recover ASAP ...

HTH - Z