Tax me, please

People hate taxes. But they are necessary, and some are better than others.

Henry George’s arguments in his 1879 book Progress and Poverty are that all benefits from progress accumulate to land owners. He proposed a single tax on land because the value of the unimproved land is unearned, neither the land’s value nor a tax on the land’s value can affect productive behavior. If land were taxed more heavily, the quantity available would not decline, as with other goods; nor would demand decline because of land’s productive uses.

I agree. A land tax is by far the least bad tax. Milton Friedman even agreed – “In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.”

There are many reasons to prefer land taxes.

Move over horoscopes, forget cold reading, here is… economics!

Derren Brown, famous British magician, mind reader, and all round deceptive yet entertaining fellow, has often discussed the tricks used by psychics and fortune tellers. One particular method, cold reading, involves suggesting non-specific messages, and letting the subject of the reading provide the meaning to the message.

For example, a psychic using cold reading techniques might suggest that there is an old male, or a dog, or another such subject of emotional connection, and let the subject say something like, “yes, my dog Spot died recently”, to which the psychic replies with something like, “I can feel you have a strong bond with those, human or otherwise, that you share your life with”. Essentially, the psychic says nothing except that you are close to the people you are close to. But the delivery of the message makes it appear that the psychic knows something about you that they couldn’t have – unless they have psychic ability.

I will get to economists under the fold.

The value of food security?

Food security, energy security, job security - all political terms that conjure up emotion, deliver electoral support, all the while remaining devoid of meaning.

I have been asked impossible questions in my job. But one comment recently sticks in my mind. It goes:

..there must be some data that they could have used to address the “value” of having future food security.

What value might that be? Do you want a dollar figure that represents the present value of all future value streams from having food security? And do you imply that food security means that Australia remains a net exporter of food?

Wikipedia provides a fairly detailed, but useless, entry on food security. It does not mention national self-sufficiency at all, but merely one’s access to nutrition, and the link with poverty. No surprises there.

I’m all for national pride, but arbitrarily deciding that a country must be self-sufficient in one particular good is a poor philosophical position. If we replaced food security with toilet paper security, or car security, or hat security, we would immediately reveal the absurdity of the argument.

Child care subsidies and maternity Leave: New incentives and unintended consequences

The maternity leave debate was raised yesterday with an angle I had not thought about before, but being an economist, really should have. It suggests that maternity leave has the unintended consequence of encouraging women with young children to work rather than stay home with their children. Rather than bringing families together, it actually tears them apart. Let us examine this claim.

The article claims that more than 80% of children under 5 years of age attend formal day care in Sweden, where 12 months maternity leave is the norm. This figure must surely be closer to 100% of children aged 1-5, given that mothers (or fathers) are paid to stay home for the first year of their child’s life. In Australia, the number of children under 5 in formal day care is currently less than 40%, and much of that I would imagine is part time.

Both the pro and anti maternity leave debaters need to get straight the purpose of their policy. That way we can examine whether there are possible unintended consequences which can undermine the suggested outcomes.

For example, the pro-maternity side appear to want to reduce the cost of child rearing to working mothers. Fair enough. But the unintended outcome of a maternity leave is to decrease the costs of child rearing for working mothers, but not stay-at-home mums. The new incentive structure encourages mothers to choose work over staying home with youngsters.

Complementing maternity leave is the current child care benefit scheme. I have mentioned before how cheap child care can be after all the subsidies are considered – about $15/day/child. This policy increases the net benefits of working for mums, as the cost of working, in the form child care, is reduced. These subsidies provide incentives for mothers to return to work quickly after the birth of their children.

Sweden is the classic case study of the pro-maternity leave lobbyists, but I wonder if they have really examined the outcomes of Swedish policies in detail.

Consider this comment (all quotes from here): 

Policies such as childcare and parental leave have meant that the majority of Swedish women are employed in the labour market and remain there throughout their lives, with only minor interruptions after the birth of a child.

And: 

from 1990-1998 the percentage of women engaged in part-time work fluctuated between 43 and 47 percent, while since then it has decreased to between 33 and 36 percent.

It appears more kids in full time, rather than part time, child care is what you get.

The following graph is of the period following the introduction of 180 days parental leave, at 90% of previous salary, in 1974 in Sweden. This was extended to 9 months in 1978.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the state and the municipalities both covered approximately 45 per cent of the fees, leaving the remaining 10 per cent to be covered by parental fees.

Again, subsidising child care works, in that it increases the uptake of child care. Not subsidising it works too. Cost of childcare exploded in the 1990s, and

…by 1998, 17 per cent of the costs of childcare were being covered by parental fees

The graph above clearly shows this impact. But what of the 2000s boom? We have another policy change to explain that one.

In July 2001 the Swedish government expanded childcare to include children of parents who are unemployed and in January 2002 to include children of parents who are on parental leave looking after a sibling (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2003). In addition, in January 2003 all children aged 4-5 became entitled to 525 hours of free attendance in childcare per year.

It is time for the pro-maternity leave lobby to ask whether having almost all of our children aged 1-5 in full time child care is a desirable social outcome.

My gut instinct is no, but I have no reason for this position. My son is in family day care two days a week, and he started this at 18months of age. He enjoys it, and he learns to socialise with other kids. Since putting kids in child care is a voluntary action of parents, my inner economist says that it must be the best outcome in the circumstances. Of course, the circumstances are the direct result of government policy tweaking the incentive structure.

In the end, it appears maternity leave policies do not bring families closer together, but create a generation where parents and children become strangers.

Solar island challenge

The debate about the environmental benefits of solar power is not dead. This short story is intended to raise serious issues about how we can evaluate the environmental degradation attributable to any choice of technological alternatives.

There are two identical islands, untouched my humans. As part of a real life experiment a group of participants is sent to each island and given the following instructions:

You are to produce 1,000kWh of 240v AC power and send it along a copper wire provided at each island. This wire leads to a remote sensing facility where your electricity output will be measured.
You must generate this electricity with the minimum environmental disturbance.
Your island does not produce any other goods, so all resource use will be attributed to the electricity you generate.

The first group, the ‘Nasties’, agreed that using coal to fire turbines, which would in turn drive a shaft through some coiled copper wiring, would be the simplest and quickest way to go.

The other group, the ‘Greenies’, decided that love child of the green movement, solar electricity from photovoltaic panels, was the obvious way to go.

Neither group faced any knowledge barriers. Each group was full of technical experts who understood all the aspects of metallurgy, pottery, mining, engineering, even agriculture and plant breeding.

They both began their plans in earnest while their impact on the environment was observed via satellite from a remote location.

Both groups need to first establish a reliable water supply, build some shelter, search for edible plants that could be farmed, and manufacture some tools. By the end of the first week, both islands saw a striking transformation in a protected cove as the groups built shelter, cleared land, gather food, planted seeds, and diverted springs. Both groups were confident they would use the least resources on the electricity challenge.

Once water, food and shelter were reliably established, the next major step was to manufacture tools. The island was not short of rich metal ores, and each group began building clay furnaces to extract the metals, which would be used for both tools and later for their own choice of electricity generation.

A few months on, and both islands are occupied by a happy, productive workforce. Each individual member is spending every waking moment contributing to the electricity project. There is no such thing as recreation!

Kilns have been running for some time, and tools have been cast from the metals, such as axe, shovel and pick heads, which are now being used to by the ‘Nasties’ to mine coal. The Nasties feel close to the end of their project. Once they have extracted some more copper for wires, some steel for building pressure vessels and shafts, they will see victory!

The Greenies across the ocean are facing some tough decisions. While they can make fairly impure metals with their furnace, they must be further refined if they are to become part of a photovoltaic panel. Also, the group realises they need a low impact way of growing pure crystal silicon blocks that can be later sawed into wafer thin pieces if they are going to finish their project soon.

The Nasties have cast their pressure vessel, with intake and outlet holes. They have filled the vessel with water, and have joined the inlet and outtake with a long cooling tube. The strands of copper that were roughly beaten and rolled into wire have been built to a crude alternator on the shaft that leads out of the turbine, which itself is a rudimentary contraption on the side of the pressure vessel.

As the winter approaches, the pattern of habitation on the two islands is clearly diverging. The Nasties have a simple network of tracks between their protected domestic dwellings on the lee side of the island, and the coal and ore reserves to the east. A small area of land that was cleared during their first week was yielding native crops that were feeding the group. They have a built their makeshift powerstation just metres from the exposed copper wire that disappears through thick plastic tubing into the ocean. A steady stream of workers brings more coal and ore and they realise that quality of their metals needs to be improved, before the turbine will generate power.

But the Nasties are confident. They had generated some power. A boat had arrived that brought a multimeter so that they could refine their generator to produce the required electricity. After current was detected on the wire, and the device was sent to both islands to assist in the final refinement.

The Greenies thought the delivery of such a device was a little premature. They had been trying to use as little coal as possible, but soon realised that to generate the 2000 degrees Celsius necessary to extract silicon from sand, which is much higher than they need to extract the metals, they would need lots more coal, and a better insulated furnace.

The pattern of habitation on the Greenies island grew rapidly around their original settlement. They were in a period of growth, expanding their abilities to extract metal, and silicon, and expanding their mining to include sand. They worked hard both physically, and intellectually, with their greatest minds devoted to establishing more efficient methods of silicon extraction and growing.

It was exactly 10 months after their first footsteps on the island that the Nasties had met their electricity generating goal. Another boat arrived this time to collect them and observe the environmental conditions on the island. While there was obvious disturbance around the settlement, and cleared tracks leading to ore deposits, as well as smaller tracks that were used when foraging for wild food, most of the island remained untouched. The observers estimated the total consumption of timber, coal, and mineral ores by the Nasties.

We will stop the story there. The point here is that we would need such an experiment if we were ever to really know the environmental impact attributable to single consumption decision. My gut feeling is that the Nasties would have an easy time of outdoing the Greenies at their own game.

Of course, there are plenty of issues with the design of this type of experiment in the first place - what's the major one?

What does it mean to 'save a life'?

I have been reading some great articles about poor science journalism, and gross misrepresentation of the facts. These articles got me thinking about what it actually means when a new drug, vaccine, surgery, or other medical intervention has the possibility of ‘saving thousands of lives’. What exactly does the phrase ‘save a life’ mean?

My starting point for this analysis is that everyone dies. Therefore, we cannot save someone from death; at best we can postpone death – from being the direct result of condition X, to being the result of some unknown future event.

The question is further complicated if we consider the flow on effects from death. For example, a child (A) may die from disease X, but the flow on effect from this one death is the birth of another child (B) by the couple, who would not have chosen not to have that child (B), had the first child (A) not died young.

So here we have a theoretical conundrum. In the previous case if child A had be ‘saved’ by a new drug or surgery, child B would never had been born. Imagine then comparing two hypothetical scenarios:

Scenario 1 -
Child A is ‘saved’ by a new drug or surgery.
Child B is never born
Child A lives until the age of 60.

Scenario 2 –
Child A is not saved and dies
Child B is born
Child B lives until the age of 90

If we consider a year of life to have an equal value amongst all individuals, we can say that Scenario 2 provides more life. The net effect of the drug/surgery is to postpone the death of Child A by, say 55 years, and eliminate the chance of Child B being born. Scenario 1 provides 35 years less combined life years than Scenario 2.

In a more general sense, do we need some death to create life?

Another hypothetical can let us examine this question. Imagine a new drug is invented that, for example, promotes tissue repair, and the life expectancy of the population rises dramatically over just a few years. Does this prolonged life of existing generations come at the expense of future generations? If the birth rate did not slow as a reaction to this, population growth would also see a dramatic spike in population growth.

We can think about the ambiguity of ‘save a life’ more when we consider treatments for the elderly. If a drug cures one life threatening disease in an 80 year old, and they die a year later from a different disease, did the drug still ‘save a life’? Again, I would say that we can just postpone death. In this case, the drug postponed death by one year.

But if the same drug could be used on a child, it may postpone death by quite a number of years. Does it then ‘save a life’?

Economists know that a very large chunk of government health expenditure goes to treatments in the last 30 days of someone’s life. All we can derive from this is that we are getting some very poor ‘life returns’ on our health investments. It is a much better investment in terms of ‘life returns’ to fund medical care for the young.

I guess my point is that if we don’t think about saving lives, but rather about postponing death, we get a much better perspective on the effectiveness, and usefulness of various medical claims. We also need to consider that postponing death is not inherently a good thing for society as a whole, although it often is for the individual person whose life is prolonged. I hope anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia activists can think deeply about these issues before launching their next hysterical propaganda campaign.

Homogenous Humanity

I want to take a bit of a break from the financial crisis to talk about humanity, and more specifically, racial identity. The growing number of interracial and relationships I have witnessed, including my own, has led me along a line of enquiry that has some interesting implications.

To summarise, the question bugging me is whether the increased interracial breeding, especially in Australia, and probably much more so around the world, will cause distinct racial identities fade away? More importantly, will we end up with a ‘standardised’ race of humans? Or, will other environmental factors contribute to changing the nature of humans? Could we develop new races?

Overall, what will this impact have on our society?

The issue has bugged me since I learnt that there are in fact different races. At primary school I was completely ignorant of race. I had friends back then who I only now realise are Aboriginal, Indian, and Chinese. Further confusion was raised when I discovered that there are many policies that specifically determine outcomes based on race – with various Aboriginal assistance programs. There is an obvious justification for singling out the Aboriginal people for assistance given Australia’s history, but what about the half Aboriginal guy? Should he get half the assistance? Should half of him assist the other half of him? Why does he identify as Aboriginal and not Irish anyway? What about the quarter Aboriginal Chinese Indian African guy? Or is he something else altogether?

This brings me to the important social implications of such racial change. With which groups will the mixed race generations identify. Am I Indian or Chinese? And what if India was at war with China (heaven forbid); with which powerhouse will I side? My point is that the destruction of racial identity might have a beneficial effect of decreasing animosity amongst nations. In Australia especially it would be difficult to conjure domestic support for wars with nations whose racial heritage runs through the blood of many of our citizens.

Will religiousness fade away as racial ties fade? What religion would the son of a Buddhist and a Catholic be?

Would we try and preserve ‘pure’ races? Will some become extinct through breeding alone?

Maybe I should have at least proposed some hypothetical answers to these questions before I started writing. Please, I am interested to know your thoughts. Having a half Anglo-Saxon (what am I anyway?), half Chinese son myself I expect that many more questions will be raised. Will this generation of interracial children have trouble fitting in at school, being neither in the Chinese nor Aussie crowd? Who knows.

Carbon tax V Cap and trade

This blog is to help those interested in understanding why there is a debate between these two alternative policy options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While at first a cap and trade scheme and a carbon tax appear to be different versions of the same thing, there are important differences. These differences explain the push from big business for a carbon tax.

First, we must recognise that a tax is simply a reallocation of funds between economic agents – from individuals and companies, to the government. Thus a carbon tax, a cigarette tax, an alcohol tax and a GST all generate government revenue. We know from my previous blogs that all consumption is equal (in resource terms). If governments do not spend this extra tax revenue, they will reduce other taxes, but the total economic production will be the same afterwards, as will the total consumption by all economic agents. Therefore a carbon tax will not reduce carbon emissions.

One quite interesting discussion I had earlier this year with ECOS magazine editor James Porteous led me to a paper by Barney Foran, entitled Powerful choices: Options for Australia’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Foran suggests that revenues raised from a carbon tax can be allocated to a future fund, which is basically an offshore investment vehicle. I think he fails to understand that this investment itself has serious carbon implications (This translates as “let’s stop climate change by taxing Aussies and investing in Chinese production”).

A cap and trade scheme on the other hand is actually a restriction on the amount of emissions – a ban on emissions once they hit a given level. This will guarantee emissions reductions (at least within Australia). Unfortunately, we know that to be effective, environmental policy must come at an economic cost – and this scheme will limit Australia’s total production, and limit its international competitiveness.

Without getting too political, the 5% target recently announced for the cap and trade scheme to be adopted in Australia in 2010 is infinitely greater than any carbon tax that could have been proposed to seek wide public approval. Intriguingly, I would suggest that the current governments popularity with green groups would increase with the proposal of a "large" carbon tax, even though it would be less effective at reducing emissions.

Free will and determinism

A mighty debate has emerged in the corridors of Z block, where I have an office at QUT. As you might expect, I was the instigator of this debate. It all started innocently enough, when I proposed that we examine an article that suggests people do not know their own tastes and preferences (you can find a version of it here http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0510.pdf).
If we do no know whether something is good or bad, and simply use our immediate environment for clues, where does our free will fit in? And does the concept even exist?

It is a hard thing to question the idea of free will, and that is probably because there is no agreement on a specific definition. I will try and narrow this down. The definition must certainly cover the notion that each individual is responsible for their own actions, as they are an expression of their free will. This enables us to differentiate actions as the result of personal will as opposed to the will of others. It must also entail the idea of choice. That the actions we choose to take were not set, and that we faced opportunities to exercise our free will to determine which choice to make. Free will must therefore be a necessary precondition for any personal responsibility.

My debate in the corridors started because I suggested that of course free will cannot exist, because free will itself must have a cause. An idea cannot come from nowhere. And if it could, why do we pursue scientific endeavour? If one thing can come from nowhere, what is to stop many other physical occurrences coming from nowhere? This lead nicely into the idea of determinism, which put simply, says that every cause has a cause. So if free will causes my actions, then something must cause my free will. In the article we examined, this free will was caused by the suggestions of the author during his experiments.

I might take this a step further. Recent experiments have shown that decisions that might have previously bee regarded as free will, can be predicted up to 10 seconds before they are made by scanning unconscious brain activity (see http://www.physorg.com/news127395619.html). So in that period between the prediction of the choice, does the participant have free will to change their decision? I suggest not. If you have seen any of Derren Brown shows, this type of control by the subconscious seems all powerful (you can read about him here http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/ or check youtube for some interesting videos).

So if our decisions are caused by subconscious environmental cues, and are made before we even know it, where does this leave free will and personal responsibility? How can we convict a criminal for his actions when they are determined solely by his environment (and genes of course)? To turn this conundrum around, how would we convict an alternative criminal whose free will appears from nowhere? His defence would be that my free will just appeared in my brain and made me do it – it was beyond my control. So some level of causality is required, although my brain gets tired thinking about these issues. (maybe have a read of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/)

These are some interesting issues, and point to the heart of scientific endeavour and our understanding of humanity. What are your thoughts? How would you define free will? And do you believe every cause has a cause?

Recycling not such a great solution

It would be hard to find an environmentalist who does not see recycling as a way to reduce resource consumption, and subsequently improve our natural environment. But there is no clear evidence that the emergence of recycling has reduced resource consumption. In fact, there is a solid theoretical argument that recycling has limited impacts on decreasing consumption of the targeted resource, and is likely to increase consumption of other resources. This alone should not be controversial to economists, but the real question is why we continue to perpetuate the myth. Let’s start digging to the bottom of this mystery.

I’m not really sure how to explain this succinctly, but I will give it a go. It is best to have in mind throughout this explanation a particular material – think glass, paper or aluminium. There are two cases to consider – one in which recycling is subsidised by the government, and one where it begins via market forces.

Imagine that the glass industry realises that it is cheaper to source glass through recycling then from sand mining. If recycling was not an option, glass would be more expensive than what recycling enables it to be. Because glass is cheaper due to recycling, it enables the industry to produce glass products more cheaply, creating a higher demand for these products. Of course, glass is rarely a final product itself, and thinking of bottles here, cheaper glass and products will require more caps, labels, cartons and shipping. Furthermore, because of the access to recycled glass has decreased demand for new glass, the price of new glass may fall, encouraging greater consumption. In all, recycling can reduce the consumption of new resources by a much smaller amount than first thought, and can increase consumption of other resources. In fact Valerie Thomas, in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, shows that second hand goods (the equivalent of recycling) can actually increase the consumption of those goods with large second hand markets.

The second type of recycling, the subsidised variety has similar results. It artificially makes recycled materials cheaper and therefore makes the goods made from both recycled and new materials cheaper – again increasing demand for the resource in question, as well as complementary resources.

So why then, if recycling can at best result is a minor reduction in resource consumption and an increase in consumption of other resources, and at worst result in an increase in consumption of the resource in question as well as others, do we persist in advocating it as an environmental cure all?

I would suggest the reason is simply that environmentalist do not know any better. Also, if you acknowledge that recycling is not effective it leaves very few options remaining that do not involve radical social upheaval. Governments must surely know about the ineffectiveness of recycling, but perpetuate the myth as a way of appearing active on the environmental front.

The most important point to take from this is that recycling may very well be counterproductive. Shouldn’t we at least know if what we are doing is helping or harming the environment?

Health care - an economist environmentalist perspective.

There are a number of issues I want to publicise on this blog, all of which challenge the economic and social orthodoxy that so rarely provides causal explanations and the ability to make even simple predictions. Today, I want to explain the predicament of public health care with two simple theories, both of which have somehow escaped much focus from mainstream economists.

It is best to start with what one would expect the health care current situation to be, and where the fingers are currently pointed. With the rapid technological advances in medical treatments, and the rapid reduction in price of almost all medical treatments including preventative measures, one would expect a healthier society and lower costs for running the healthcare system. But instead the system is in a funding crisis (as is the case in many countries), and people are seeking medical treatments more than ever. The finger is being pointed from some corners at the bureaucracy, for inefficiently providing services, and from other corners, simply to a shortage of funding. But would improving the efficiency of the system and the funding relieve the current pressures? I suggest not.

It is probably time to introduce the first theory to explain why I say this. It is known as Baumol’s disease, and describes how costs of production rise due to improvements in labour productivity in other sectors of the economy. In his classic example, William Baumol shows how improvements in labour productivity in other sectors of the economy (for example in farming, mining and manufacturing) lead to increased costs for playing a string quartet. Since individuals have a choice of whether to supply labour in the industries with increasing wages due to productivity improvements, or to the string quartet, the salary of the musicians must rise to attract them away from the other industries. If we replace the musicians with nurses, doctors and hospital administrators, we can see that it is our improved productivity in other areas that is causing this rise is health costs (as well as most other services). One might argue that productivity is improving in health professions as well, but a nurse making their rounds still needs as much time as ever, even if they are checking more medical vital signs.

The second theory that helps to explain the situation in health care is a broad interpretation of Jevons paradox. The theory explains that the efficient use of a resource does not diminish its consumption, but in fact increases it. The theory was developed in response to improvements in the efficiency of the coal fired steam engine, but it nevertheless applies to more broad cases. To begin this intuitive explanation one fact must be made clear – almost half of the medical costs a person incurs in their lifetime are incurred in the last thirty days of their life. With a little thought it is clear to see why this is the case. What has happened is that improvements in medical treatments have enabled us to live longer lives, and because of much of the preventative treatments, we die less suddenly then ever, increasing these 'death postponing' medical costs. Because we can diagnose more problems, we can visit doctor more readily, we treat more medical conditions then ever. Thus, it is because of the very efficiency and effectiveness of medical technology that our demand for it has grown, both during our lives, and in our ‘prolonged death’.

This harsh reality escapes almost every economist looking to improve the health case system. If we continue to improve productivity elsewhere in the economy, health costs will rise, and on top of this, their own technological breakthroughs lead to further demand for medical treatment. An analogy that might be more accessible is the idea of the paperless office. We have had wonderful improvements in the efficient provision of paper, but also elsewhere in the economy to actual produce the documents we wish to print. In all, paper use has risen dramatically, and if not for the reduction in real costs of paper (the opposite case to the labour of medical profesionals) the costs would have also sky-rocketed.

There is no easy way to reduce the health care burden. Actually, burden is not the right word, for health care itself supports much of society. Without it, there would be less of us, less of us in a healthy condition, and less production elsewhere in the economy. Looking in this way, those politicians who believe in productivity and growth might actually want to invest more in health care, due to the flow on benefits. For those who think less growth is the way to go because of environmental concerns, be aware that this goal conflicts with that of improved health spending, and improved health and life expectancy of the people.

What a complex world.

Amory Lovins - a crackpot with a mo!

The world media is full of optimistic talk of a future hydrogen economy and soft energy paths courtesy of Amory Lovins. Most famously he coined the term 'negawatts' to describes energy savings from energy efficient gizmos. For some reason, otherwise intelligent people have jumped on board the scam train and preached that the best thing we can all do is use energy more efficiently, and there will be not need for more energy generation capacity.

Rather than waste more time, I will bluntly show the absurdity of this claim. I currently eat one banana a day, but could eat them more efficiently, resulting in me eating just one per week! Each week I am now producing 6 negabananas! Surely there is no reason to clear the forest for banana planations since we can all consume them more efficiently! Lovins however takes the whole 'negascam' thing even further. He says that consumers should be paid to produce negawatts. Seriously, I produce an thousands of negawatts - I could plug in flood lights into all the electricity sockets in my home, using thousands of real megawatts (hours that is) but I don't. Therefore, I am instead producing thousand of negawatts. Where is me cheque?

The reality is our global economic system requires energy, and for the system to grow, we either need more people, or more energy available per person. It is a simple as that. Our choices are to continue using more energy each year and maintain growth, or use less energy and have negative growth.

Vegetarianism and the environment – a different angle

“It takes soo much less land to produce a calorie of energy from vegetables than from meat. If only we all ate less meat we could free up so much land from farming.”

This type of message is heard quite often, especially around my suburb, which is renowned form its high concentration of hippies. But on what basis are such claims made?

There is no debate that less land is required for a vegetarian diet than an omnivorous one. The debate centres on whether widely adopting vegetarianism is likely to result in an improved environment.

Let us meander through a thought experiment. Imagine the world today, and the present diet of the people, and then imagine that in one day 95% of people decide to become vegetarian. Meat industries of the world collapse while grain and vegetable farming expands rapidly. At this point the world is fed on the new diet, and some land previously used for grazing is now vacant. This is the utopia envisioned in the quote above, but what happens next?

The world does not stand still, that is for sure. There are many flow-on effects. The typical diet will now be cheaper, allowing money to be spent elsewhere. Not only will this consumption have environmental impacts of its own, but the increased level of wealth will allow a population increase. Such a rise in population will result from increased life expectancy afforded by increased wealth. More people will also require more resources. The likelihood of such effects offsetting the reduction in land used for meat production on the net environmental condition of the globe is uncertain.

What is certain is that such a narrow justification for individual actions to reduce environmental pressure is misleading, and can often suggest the opposite result from the true eventuality.