Bank capital requirements based on credit risk serves no purpose, based on fighting climate change does.

Sir, Ben Caldecott writes: “The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris climate change agreement will be unattainable unless banks finance solutions to these massive social and environmental challenges.” “Banks need a better climate change strategy” July 1st.

The current risk weighted capital requirements for banks are idiotic since these are based on the assumption that what is perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what is perceived as safe. But these are also totally purposeless. I do not really favor this type of distortion but there’s no question banks would serve a better purpose if their capital requirements were based, not on credit ratings, but on Sustainable Development Goal ratings.

Obviously such capital requirements would automatically generate “loans that charge lower interest rates to borrowers who meet or outperform sustainability targets” just as the current ones generates lower interest rates to the sovereign and “the safe”, all paid by less and more expensive credit to “the risky”

Of course it would be of utmost importance in that case that the SDG rating agencies are not captured by any of the climate change fight profiteers that abound.

That said, before any climate change fight initiative, including the Paris agreement, what would be most effective is a high carbon tax, with all its revenues shared out equally to all citizens. Why has that not been implemented yet? The simple answer is that because for states that lives on cronyism that is of absolutely no interest.

Sir, if the world is to have a chance to afford successfully fighting climate change, or at least afford to mitigate some of its worst effects, we have to circle all our wagons in an effort to keep out of it all those who are just out to make monetary or political profits.

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com/2015/04/my-proposal-for-this-earth-day-2015.html

@PerKurowski

One country, setting the example of a very high carbon tax, and sharing out all its revenues equally among all its citizens, would be a real game changer, in so many ways.

Sir you correctly argue, “Time is running out for us to halt dangerous rises in temperature…this is no longer a scientific or technological challenge, it is far more a political and social one.”, “How to rescue the global climate change agenda” December 27.

But when you hold “The depressing reality about climate change is that we could solve the problem, at manageable cost” that is not necessarily so. Sir, let’s face it, the truth is that there are way too many whose real interest, more than solving the challenges of climate-change, is to profit from the process, whether financially or politically, whether they are aware of it or not.

I’m as concern as anyone with the problem but in my case I really did not mind so much president Trump’s blindness, since I have always thought of the Paris agreement in terms of being just an interesting photo-op that would serve as a very dangerous pacifier.

So to align political and social incentives; to allow the market signaling how the problems should be best tackled; and to keep costly profiteering out of the process, I have for years thought the best alternative is a very high carbon/pollution tax which revenues are shared out in their totality equally among all citizens.

Why does that idea not meet more interest? The answer is clearly that the redistribution profiteers see that route as one that could very dangerously affect the value of their franchise, since there could be pressure for the revenues to be redistributed to all, a sort of unconditional variable basic income, should also for instance include all income generated by any existing gas/petrol taxes.

Our planet that I often refer to as our pied-à-terre needs a champion that decides to go down this route to set an example to follow. My grandchildren are Canadian so I would love Canada showing the way.

PS. This is exactly what I proposed how Mexico City should tackle its serious pollution problems in a letter you kindly published in May 2016.

@PerKurowski

To save the earth, start by saving it from phony saving-the-earth profiteers

Sir, Martin Sandbu writes about “how a conflict of interests over climate change — something that really is humanity’s common challenge — aligns with and reinforces a deeper culture war dividing centrist urban elites from system-critical populists… [So] we have missed the potentially much greater obstacle of political polarization in the age of populism” “The burden of tackling climate change must be shared”, November 5.

Hear hear! This is exactly the type of issues and challenges we must learn to tackle, if there’s going to be any hope for us to survive as the society we always dreamt of, or avoid turning into that society we always dread, something that in fact means even more than our survival on earth.

But, when Sandbu speaks about what “reinforces a deeper culture war dividing centrist urban elites from system-critical populists”, I disagree, because the real hard core divide in this case is between those expected to pay for to help save our planet, and those who expect to profit from those efforts.

But Sandbu also refers to a remedy to that, when he mentions, “the carbon ‘fee and dividend’ approach advocated by climate scientist James Hansen [which] would levy duties on fossil fuels and redistribute the revenue in equal per capita amounts to all residents”

That’s precisely in line with what I recommended in a letter published in FT on how Mexico City should go about in order to reduce its serious pollution problems.

If Emmanuel Macron, perhaps hand in hand with Canada’s government that is also thinking about higher carbon taxes, decides that all revenues from taxes on fuel, and similar, are to be shared out equally among all citizens, that would set an example to other nations, that would at least be worth some ten Paris agreements.

Sir, let me be cleat about it. If I am going to help to save the world, by paying higher carbon taxes, I want all of it translate into a clear market signal that saves the planet, and not into something which unduly enrich those promoting saving the world, or those profiteering on the process.

@PerKurowski

It suffices for one single nation to set a high tax on carbon emissions and share out its revenues among all its citizens, to really begin saving our pied-a-terre.

Sir, Martin Wolf, whether it is true or not, is absolutely correct calling out: “It is five minutes to midnight on climate change”. We have no right to ignore that threat, even if its possibilities were low. “Inaction over climate change is shameful” October 23.

Wolf asks and answers: “So what needs to change? Net global CO2, methane and nitrous oxide emissions would need to fall to zero” though he also observes. “This is very unlikely to happen. That is no longer because it is technically impossible. It is because it is politically painful.”

It should not be! If only one nation went ahead and placed a big tax on carbon emissions, and shared out all resulting tax revenues equally, unconditionally, among all its citizens that would be a game changer… many would be politically pressured to jump aboard saving the planet that way.

Why does it not happen? Quite simply, the redistribution profiteers, those who profit from negotiating conditions, won’t touch with a ten feet pole an unconditional pay like this, less it spreads to other areas of their franchise, for instance by means of a Universal Basic Income.

Do I know? I come from Venezuela where nothing similar to its current tragedy would have happened had its oil revenues been shared out equally to all Venezuelans, and yet that possibility is rarely mentioned by the opposition, because there’s always an infinite pool of aspirants to be the next redistributors on turn.

Paris Accord? To me it was just a great photo-op for redistribution and fight against climate change profiteers that would do little to improve the chances for my grandchildren to live better.

More than a year ago the Climate Leadership Council proposed a carbon tax along the lines of what I describe here… seemingly they were silenced!

PS. For Mexico City, to combat pollution, I proposed just that..

@PerKurowski

Climate-change fight profiteers capture governments (and perhaps FT too). Only citizens can really fight climate change.

Sir, you write “The UN issued a stark warning last month on the scale of the challenge, noting that even if governments act on their plans to cut or slow emissions, national pledges so far add up to only a third of the reductions needed to meet the goals of the Paris accord. Negotiators meeting in Bonn this week are supposed to be crafting rules to ensure countries step up their efforts.” “A sharp reality check on the climate challenge” November 15.

Forget it! The Paris agreement was just another great photo-op. If you really want to be able to do what it takes to save our pied-à-terre, you have to keep out the few big green profiteers able to lobby governments (and perhaps You too), and incorporate all the citizens in that quest.

How? Huge national carbon taxes with all its revenues shared out equally to all citizens. The moment a citizen gets a check and is himself turned into a small profiteer of the fight against climate change (and of the fight against inequality) all changes.

Sir, you have published a letter of mine before describing this type of solution, but you might be mightily targeted by those green profiteers too. So beware!

@PerKurowski

Much more than the Paris Climate (photo-op) Agreement, our pied-à-terre needs revenue neutral carbon taxes

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “In no area are global spillovers more significant and co-operation more vital than climate… The main obstacles to such action are three. First, specific economic interests, notably in the fossil fuel industry… Second, free-marketeers, who despise both governments and environmentalists, reject the science, because of its (to them) detestable policy implications. Third, few wish to…threaten their standard of living, for the sake of the future or people in poorer countries” “Climate change puts poorest nations at risk”

Not so fast! There are those of us who believe that the threat of climate change is so real that there is no need to convince us with the “people in poorer countries” argument. The best interests of our grandchildren suffice. And there are those of us that despise the idea that so much of the important sacrifices required could be dilapidated enriching governments and environmentalists. To mostly attribute “specific economic interests” to the fossil fuel industry is to be too biased.

Of course the poorer countries should be helped, but the brunch of the climate change war effort, needs to be carried out as much as possible by sending out strong market signals, letting the markets operate freely assigning resources; and aligning the incentives as best as possible.

For that I strongly believe that a huge carbon a tax, shared out entirely to the citizens, is what first should be happening. Let us for instance suppose that petrol (gas) was sold all over the world at Norway’s current price of about US$2.10 per liter (Venezuela would have to increase its prices US$2.09 per liter) and that 100% of what that tax produces, goes directly back to the citizens.

Then we would fight climate change and inequality at the same time; which would be great since as Martin Wolf rightly holds: “The linked challenges of climate and development will shape humanity’s future.”

Sir, nothing in the Paris Climate (photo-op) Agreement seems to me remotely as powerful and effective as revenue neutral carbon taxes.

Similar to what I proposed for Mexico City

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com

@PerKurowski

World Bank has thrown a very timely and important spanner into the works on how to combat climate change

Sir, Henry Sanderson reports on a report of World Bank that states: “Technologies needed to meet the Paris climate agreement from wind, solar and electricity systems are “more material-intensive” than current fossil-fuel supply systems, a report by the bank says.

The mining or extraction of metals and rare earth elements could create environmental problems in terms of energy, water and land use” “World Bank flags up renewables resource risks” July 18.

This makes of Trump’s refusal to play along with the Paris Agreement, a truly minor event. That the reports comes up only now, further evidences how green-business’ interests is skewing the whole debate. I have for years held that if our fight for saving the environment is planned or commandeered by profiteers, we are toast.

If the world adopts a revenue neutral carbon tax the resulting price signals will not only reduce the demand for carbon containing energies but will also allow for a more efficient allocation of resources. 

@PerKurowski

A revenue neutral carbon tax helps face climate change, inequality, structural unemployment (UBI) and promotes growth

Sir, Ed Crooks reports that “Eleven leading international companies… have joined a campaign backing a revenue-neutral carbon tax in the US, as a way of tackling the threat of climate change that “embodies the conservative principles of free markets and limited government”. “GM and Total among 11 multinationals to support US carbon tax campaign” June 21. 

And yesterday, George P. Shultz and Lawrence Summers also signed up completely on the idea. “The inevitable climate solution” Washington Post, June 20.

Indeed, as I have written to you many times before, a carbon tax which revenues are equally redistributed to all, “carbon dividends”, is the way of how to align the market signal that helps face the current environmental challenges, with the current concerns about inequality and lack of sustainable economic growth.

It also constitutes a fiscally sound way to begin funding the universal basic income the society so urgently needs in order to face growing structural unemployment, before social cohesion breaks down, as then it might be too late.

It follows the same principles as what I proposed in May 2016, in order to combat pollution in Mexico City, and that you surprisingly yet very kindly published.

So Sir, forget the Paris Climate Agreement lamentations, at least for a while. The Climate Leadership's Council proposed carbon dividends proposal carries a lot more green, social and economic punch.

Please, even if this could make Trump to become a greater green hero than Al Gore, swallow it, for the best of our young. If Washington Post seems to be able to do so, you could too. 

PS. A decade ago I protested the trading of carbon credits as being just indulgences issued in order to keep on committing environmental sins. But carbon-tax-dividends, is that not something like democratic climate change indulgences, applied to and shared by all?

@PerKurowski

Martin Wolf, if we are to save our pied-a-terre, that will not happen by pitting clean Obama against dirty Trump

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “Trump’s bad judgment on Paris” June 7. 

Wolf writes: “Above all, the earth is not just an arena. It is our shared home. It does not belong to one nation, even such a powerful one. Looking after the planet is the moral responsibility of all”. Precisely! I agree 100%!

But when Wolf suggests, “the remaining participants in the accord must… commission an analysis of how to deal with free riders. Everything must be considered, even sanctions.”, then I disagree, 100%.

That has clearly little to do with how to help our planet and all to do with furthering the ongoing polarization in the world, all to do with fighting it out in an “arena”.

Really, what does “free riders”, in a “non-binding” agreement, in which “no coercion was involved” mean? So if US had remained in the “framework” (because a framework is all the Paris Climate Agreement is), and not done anything, would that have been better?

I was like most against Trump (the US) pulling out of the accord, but, after it happened, I take it as the best thing that could have happened. At least now we will no longer be lulled into feeling more secure about our planet by something that might just be a dangerous illusion of a solution. Something that might just have been a huge political photo-op; and a congenial gathering of green subsidies distributors and customers. Now at least we all know better how little punch that Paris Accord really carried.

So, let’s take it from here. Let us inform the Americans that a revenue neutral carbon tax, like the one recently proposed by some republicans, might carry ten times as much environmental saving punch than the Paris Accord. Let’s inform Trump that if he helps to support a successful implementation of such plan he could become even a greater hero to the Greens than Al Gore… that he would have been touched by Abraham Lincolns’ “the better angels”.

Sir, I sincerely believe that the price signals of a carbon tax; with all its revenues distributed among citizens, instead of being redistributed by some few, is the best way to live up to our moral responsibility towards what I often lovingly refer to as our pied-a-terre. If Donald Trump helps that to come thru, I at least am more than willing to forgive most of his very much salon inappropriate behaviors.

PS. And really, what is a Paris Climate Agreement that was signed by a president but not put up for ratification by the US Congress? In 1920, it was the US Senate that said no to the League of Nations with a 49 to 35 vote.

@PerKurowski

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com

To sell the Paris Climate Agreement as a real solution to our pied-a-terre’s environment problems, that’s a disgrace

Sir, Pilita Clark writes: “Mr Trump has exposed the fragile nature of the Paris accord. Countries face no legal obligation to meet any emissions-reduction target in their national climate blueprints, including the US. Nor is there anything legally to prevent them from submitting weaker plans” “US dithering exposes fragility of Paris accord” June 1.

If so then all those who sell us the illusion of the Paris Climate Agreement being a real solution, are more in fault hanging on to it, than Trump reneging it.

I have of course not read the Agreement. Who has read it all? To me this type of global agreements too often just feeds crony statism. To me this type of global agreements becomes too often just another photo-op for politicians.

To have a chance to really dent the environmental problems of the world, we need to come up with incentive structures that are green-profiteers proofed. Otherwise we will most probably not be able to afford it.

My preferred solution is to send the right market signals by means of for instance carbon taxes, and distribute all those revenues to all citizens in order to compensate for the increased costs. That would help many citizens to contaminate less, while affording to do more of something else they could want.

Another example: The Economist writes: “Climate policy, a jerry-rigged system of subsidies and compromises, in America and everywhere, needs an overhaul. A growing number of Republicans want a revenue-neutral carbon tax. [Like the one I suggest] As this newspaper has long argued, that would not only be a better way of curbing pollution but also boost growth. A truly businesslike president would have explored such solutions. Mr Trump has instead chosen to abuse the health of the planet, the patience of America’s allies and the intelligence of his supporters.” “The flaws in Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris accord”, June 1.

The question is then: Why does The Economist not denounce the Paris Climate an Agreement for what it is, a political convenient illusion of a solution? Just because being against Trump trumps all other considerations?

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.ca/2017/04/solutions-that-share-out-all-benefits.html

@PerKurowski