Monday, October 05, 2009

Various Thoughts

Have had a few different ideas on what to blog on, but no time to knuckle down and actually do it.

* - Putting forth an argument as to why a solid reductions in ghg's via cap and trade will be a boon for those countries exempt due to being underdeveloped.

* - Demonstrating why water allocation trading has great benefits even if it doesn't lead to lower usage - and how this may apply to ghg allocation trading.

* - Expanding on my marconomic stubs to justify panspermia and pre-adaptive evolution.

* - commenting on recent political developments regarding the environment, or Afghanistan.

* - Defining multiple levels of price signals that can make us allocate resources ever more efficiently.


Chris Fellows said...

Putting forth an argument as to why a solid reductions in ghg's via cap and trade will be a boon for those countries exempt due to being underdeveloped.

But put your ear to the wind, and listen to the rising official voices of 'Green Protectionism'! We can only hope some countries will be exempt. Even so, these will certainly be contingent exemptions, and will rely on neo-imperialist conditions imposed on the underdeveloped by the developed.

Chris Fellows said...

...commenting on recent political developments regarding ... Afghanistan.

If the West can live with one nuclear Islamist state (Iran), surely it can live with two (a Talibanised Pakistan). Thus there is no need to keep spending blood and treasure in Afghanistan.

I think this is the forming establishment paradigm, we shall see how successful it turns out to be! The West will probably muddle through but various democratic fellow travellers starting with the letter 'I' which are closer to the action may have a less comfortable time of it.

Chris Fellows said...

Here's a modest proposal I came acros...

Chris Fellows said...

I keep meaning to put up a water pricing scheme I came up with a few years ago but always end up otherwise occupied when I am in the same place as my notes...

The most important thing is to separate the operation of the infrastructure from the actual selling of the water- infrastructure should be government owned and charge for volume pumped through, distance etc., with full cost recovery and then some.

Marco said...

That should indeed be the main aim of water policy.

In Australia it has even moved to the extent that water that lands on a catchment and dam that is privately owned is not owned by or free to the owner of the property. The water taken from the dam is metered and deducted from the allocation (or charged for) and the Government has essentially control(thereby ownership) of releases etc. associated with the dam.

The main difficulties are the aspects special to water. Although it makes sense for someone in Toowoomba to buy water from the Burdekin, this isn't possible/practical until infrastructure is available.

One of the problems with Government buy-backs is that it takes money away from the building of infrastructure connecting plentiful catchments to those lacking, (potentially, private interests may use the money to move the mountain to Mohammed)

In Urban areas, paying by the kL rather than using water restrictions is way more effective in controlling use. It makes sense to only charge during drought, additionally.

In Farming use, water rights need to extend for at least the growing season. I am not 100% sure how the pricing scheme works, but some allocations are tied to the property, and there is a flux to how the regulations apply to allocations that are not.

In general, farmers in areas with prolonged shortages/restrictions are more eager to sell their allocations than those in areas that have had reliable allocations, even if a simple random flood would have reversed the fortunes.

I would hazard a guess that the productivity on every litre of water in Australia is way higher than in almost every other country.