January 15, 2008 | Graham

Biofuels – told you so!



I predicted 18 months ago that biofuels were problematic and would have negligible impact on greenhouse gasses at the same time leading to starvation. I didn’t touch on land degradation in the post, so the European Union’s ahead of me there, even though it’s taken them so long to catch-up with the obvious.
While having trouble admitting it (they are maintaining biofuel targets although they will be happy to miss them), biofuels look like they are on the way out. Greenpeace reports on the basis of a radio interview to which they link that the EU is backing off its enthusiasm for biofuels because they may make negligible contributions to decreasing greenhouse gases, lead to starvation in the third world, and degrade land. This has no doubt been bolstered by a recent Royal Society report, and an article in Science by Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama.
Of course, biofuels which do not compete with food crops and which do not grow on land used by food crops might still make a useful contribution. It’s just that we are nowhere near producing biofuels with these qualifications. Biodiesel from algae grown in saline water, or ethanol derived from cellulose both have potential, but much weaker lobbies. Most of the biodiesel hype has been from existing producers of food crops looking for alternative markets for produce they are already growing, not competitors.



Posted by Graham at 5:04 pm | Comments (3) |
Filed under: Environment

January 15, 2008 | Graham

Whaling illusion stripped bare



Sometimes the illusion is worth more than the reality. Australia’s claim to an exclusive economic zone in the Antarctic was only plausible while we tried to enforce it against smaller nations because, for example, they were catching Patagonian tooth-fish. And while it was plausible it had some validity. Now a Pyrrhic court victory by an environmental organisation that purports to want to protect whales, has shown just how implausible that zone is, endangering other species while doing nothing to save whales.
The boneheaded action by the Humane Society is reported by the ABC. For reasons best known to themselves they launched court action against the Japanese for whaling in the Antarctic. While awarding them the case the judge, James Allsop, noted “that Japan does not recognise Australia’s Antarctic claim”. Tthe ABC report then goes on to note itself that “[m]ost countries do not recognise the Australian Antarctic claim, which establishes that jurisdiction.” Indeed, according to the judge the Humane Society International recognises that there is no practical way for the order to be enforced.
If there is no way that the order can be enforced, why waste money seeking it in the first place? Australia will not take action against the Japanese under this order because that would be an act of war, not under Australian law, but according to the law of most other countries in the world. It has a lot of things in common with the Iraq war in that respect. But in refusing to take action against the Japanese it will weaken our ability to take action against anyone else in those waters for any other environmental abuses.
Better that this action had never occurred.



Posted by Graham at 4:41 pm | Comments (4) |

January 15, 2008 | Graham

Swan’s ugly duckling with the banks



Wayne Swan’s copped a lot of criticism for his attempt to stop banks raising interest rates, but mostly for the wrong reasons. Swan’s only powers over bank interest rates are persuasive, not real. He heavied the banks and was ignored, stripping bare any perception of power. Next time he tries to talk the banks into keeping their rates low he won’t have a feather to fly with – he’s destroyed any credibility he might have had right at the beginning of his reign.
The approach of a commonwealth treasurer to bank interest rates ought to be to work out what they are going to do, and then to organise his position accordingly. That way the appearance of power can be perpetuated, and the possibility of jawboning them into a less agressive stance in the future maintained.
The correct approach for Swan should have been to point out that the sub-prime crisis is being driven by international factors which are outside the control of the government – i.e. “Don’t blame me”. He should also have made the point that in-as-much as there are domestic causes, they are the doing of the Howard government – i.e. “If you’re going to blame anyone, blame him.” His last point should have been to try to jawbone Australian consumers and companies, rather than the banks – i.e. “The lessons of this are that we need to be more cautious about debt than we have been.”
One of the reasons that the Howard government lost was because it didn’t have a narrative which justified some rises in interest rates and quarantined their position from the blame. They did little more than barrack for economic growth, thus inducing misplaced optimism. While Labor is generally better at narrative than Liberal, in this case it looks like Swan has no idea how to position himself. That calls into question not just Swan’s judgement, but the quality of the advice he is getting both from inside his office, and outside it, from Treasury and the Reserve Bank.
Costello may not have been the greatest treasurer that Australia has ever had, but at least he had the experience to know when to duck for cover, which is what this Swan should have been doing.



Posted by Graham at 10:41 am | Comments (2) |
Filed under: Australian Politics

January 15, 2008 | Graham

US universities – best quality at lowest cost



Generally the more in demand an item, the more expensive it is. So an Ivy League university ought to be pretty pricey. Not if you’re Yale. The press release pasted below implies that most Australian students could get into Yale for around $2,000 to $5,000 per year and pay the fees by doing 7 hours of work around the campus. Sounds pretty attractive, and vaguely ominous for international education, one of Australia’s biggest export industries.


Yale Cuts Costs
for Families and Students


 

New
Haven, Conn.—
Yale
University President Richard C. Levin announced today that Yale is reducing
the average cost of sending a student to Yale College by over 50% for
families with financial need.  This new policy would apply to all students
returning to campus in the fall as well as entering freshmen.  This
represents the largest increase in spending for financial aid in the
University’s history.

 

The
reduction in costs will be spread across a broad range of incomes.  Families
with incomes below $120,000 will see their contributions cut by more than
50%, while most families with incomes between $120,000 and $200,000 will see
cost reductions of 33% or more.

 

Families
earning less than $60,000 annually will not make any contribution toward the
cost of a child’s education, and families earning $60,000 to $120,000 will
typically contribute from 1% to 10% of total family income.  The
contribution of aided families earning above $120,000 will average 10% of
income. 

 

Yale also is
increasing the number of families who qualify for aid, eliminating the need
for students to take loans, enhancing its grants to families with more than
one child attending college, exempting the first $200,000 of family assets
from the assessment of need, and increasing expense allowances for foreign
students during school vacation periods.  Yale calculates financial aid by
taking into consideration a family’s total income and assets, family size
and number of children in college, family medical bills, state of residence,
and a number of other factors.

 

The combined
changes will increase Yale’s financial aid budget by more than $24 million,
to over $80 million annually.  Yale also announced that it would hold its
increase in tuition, room, and board charges in 2008-2009 to the expected
level of consumer price inflation, 2.2%.

 

“Yale should
be a college of choice for the very best and brightest students from across
America and around the world, regardless of financial circumstances.  We
want all of our students to make the most of Yale – academically and beyond
– without worrying about excessive work hours or debt.  Our new financial
aid package makes this aspiration a reality,” said Levin.

 

Building
on a Yale tradition

 

In 1966,
Yale was the first private research university in the United States to
establish need-blind admissions, where candidates are evaluated for
admission without regard to financial need. Yale also committed at the same
time to meet the full demonstrated financial need of every U.S. student who
was admitted. Yale awards no merit scholarships and no athletic scholarships
– all financial aid is based solely on demonstrated need. For over four
decades, Yale has not wavered from this commitment. In 2001 it extended this
policy to foreign students, and it has increased aid numerous times to
reduce the financial burden of a Yale education. Three years ago, Yale
exempted families with less than $45,000 in income from making a financial
contribution to the cost of attendance.

 

As grants to
families increase dramatically, students also will see the amount they are
expected to contribute from their own earnings fall sharply, from the
current rate of $4,400 to $2,500 per year.  Students may earn that amount by
working on campus for about seven hours a week, eliminating the need to take
loans or to work excessive hours.

 


Additionally, Yale will increase the adjustment for families with additional
children attending college and add to the allowance already given to
international students to help them with expenses when school closes for
vacations.

 

To increase
transparency, the University is building an online calculator to provide
families with a way of estimating net cost of attendance. By this summer
Yale will have a web tool for helping families make an initial estimate of
their expected contributions.

 

Here are
some examples:

 

 

 

   Examples of Parental and
Student Annual Contributions

 

 


                                                                                               
Case A                                    Case
B                             Case  C

 

 


Parents’
Income                                                         
$60,000                        
      $90,000                                           
$180,000

 


Parents’
Assets                                                             
$100,000                      
    $150,000                                           
$200,000

 


Parents’ Contribution


                                                                       


                        One child in college


                                               


                                                New
policy                                             
           0                                      
$2,950                                         $23,050

 


                                                Old
policy                                                
   $4,450                                   
$12,550                                       $38,150

 


                        Two children in college

 


                                                New
policy                                             
           0                                      
$1,500                                     $11,650

 


                                                Old
policy                                                
   $2,750                                    
$7,350                                         $22,300

 


Student’s Contribution


                       


                                                New
policy                                                
$2,500                                     
$2,500                                          $2,500

 


                                                Old
policy                                                
   $4,400                          
      $4,400                                     $4,400

 

 



Posted by Graham at 10:35 am | Comments Off on US universities – best quality at lowest cost |
Filed under: Education

January 09, 2008 | Ronda Jambe

Hey dude, who moved my super?



Like many Australian approaching retirement age, I have started to move other assets into an industry super fund. The tax free lure dangles like the golden ring on a merry-go-round. The only hitch is that it really is a merry-go-round, and my ticket only gives me a limited number of rides. Like the old farmers hit by floods in northern NSW, or the Nigerians who have lost all in the riots, options for starting again tend to close in on all of us.
Do I dare take the still warm egg from the soft nest of super?
Having made the leap last August to put all my super into the ‘socially responsible category’, I have now seen it diminish in value these last six months. They keep explaining that the high growth means high risk, but as the most conservative (timid really) of investors, I foolishly thought socially responsible would mean low risk.
In any case, ALL the categories (even cash) for my super fund seem to have been negative this last little while. And while they may eventually recover, I am also aware that the whole sub-prime mess is now spreading to the banking sector. And by the time things bounce back, I may well have lost so much that the losses can’t easily be recovered. My ticket on the merry-go-round has a time limit, as actuaries know.
Several friends have their money with trusted financial advisors, and claim that they are now not paying tax and that their funds are increasing in value. But that makes me nervous too. Isn’t that what my big industry fund should be doing, saving my money and investing it so it grows? I’ve yet to meet a financial advisor I feel really confident about. At least you can see and try a used car, and assess the dealer accordingly. And what’s wrong with paying some tax? It’s like giving to charity and hoping they do something smart with it. Sort of.
So I’m taking another leap, counter-intuitive or perhaps just stupid: At the age of 60, instead of drawing down that glittering tax free allocated pension, I’m taking my money out of super and putting it into the only investment that I’ve done well out of. You guessed it: real estate.
It would be nice to branch out into something like commercial real estate, but I’ll probably just plod along with housing. Perhaps in a country town that is growning slowly, and where it is possible to get a 3000m2 block.
Being almost as concerned about food securityAdrienne Langman, the author of ‘Choosing Eden’, is just part of the story. The other part is that I enjoy designing places to live in, and learning how to do it more sustainably. My neighbors were so moved by her book that they are now rethinking their retirement. A small acreage in Tassie is looking good to them, with an extended family to move things along.
But back to the money markets and the hard yakka of protecting meagre assets acquired over several decades of working life. No one, regardless of their position on the wealth spectrum, wants to go backwards as they retreat from paid employment.
If the banks are marching towards greater securitisation, and money is going to become harder to come by, that must mean more expensive money. But how that will impact on housing at a time when immigration and internal population proceeds without check is another matter.
Could Australia experience a fall in house prices? If so, where and how hard? And how does one hedge the bet?
Any views more informed than mine (that’s just about all of you) are welcome.



Posted by Ronda Jambe at 12:34 pm | Comments (4) |
Filed under: Commerce

January 03, 2008 | Ronda Jambe

A 12 step program for saving the environment



It’s as easy as 1-2-3: Intention – Design – Governance. Times 4, because you need to keep looping around.
Hello, this is my Thursday Blog, in fulfillment of the only New Year’s Resolution I dare to make. A committment to blog each week is made all the easier for having nothing to say, and knowing that comments are highly unlikely in any case. Bloggers have no doubt been compared to 18th century pamphleteers, ephemera flowing by.
But surely we need the equivalent of a 12 step program. The first step might be admitting that our species is not exactly playing fair with all the other species on the planet, and that individually we are helpless. Any animal that intentionally set fire to a church, knowing that at least 35 people would die, is a creature that makes the San Francisco tiger seem like, well, just a big pussy cat.
So intentionality, to decide what exactly we are aiming for, is a big first step. All the relevant cliches apply, such as you can’t get there if you don’t know where you are going. Actually, I dispute that, as I often arrive in wonderful places, either physically or intellectually, without planning. But it is definitely better to be generally right than perfectly wrong. This little homily comes from an advertising text book I was teaching from last semester.
And that’s why we need to go through the loop at least 4 times. Because if we get the intention generally right, but mess up on the details of the design, we can just change on the fly. Isn’t that the way the world works anyway?
Perhaps these are trivial observations, but planning in the ACT does not give the impression that the intention is survival. Canberra has christened 3 new suburbs this week, which are intended to fill in the open space between Belconnen and Weston Creek with about 73,000 people. Nearby Bungendore, the sleepy village one passes through on the way to the coast from Canberra, is planning a subdivision for 1300 homes. My rural friend says it will change the nature of the town, in ways that are probably not welcome to many.
I see Weston Creek becoming busier, less friendly, and more crowded once these new areas get going. Everyone has the same comment: where is the water going to come from?
This spring has been a reprieve for Canberra, with generous rains. However, these still fall short of the long term average. And it is too late for the 10,000 street trees, mostly natives, that have been cut down due to drought.
A recent book and a New Year’s trip to Sydney serve as reminders of the sharp gap between reality and sustainability. The intention, and therefore the design elements, all seem to assume endless complexity and unbounded growth. Governance, the dimension that covers the legal, social and economic accountabilities of our system, is misguided at best, often malicious in practice.
How can it be that 30 years after I first decried the lack of street signs on many Sydney’s major streets, they are still missing? Or that people now need GPS systems just to navigate it’s labrynthine paths?
Choosing Eden, by Adrienne Langmore, is the book about a 50 something Sydney couple who got so spooked by Peak Oil that they moved to a farm near Coffs Harbour. There the story ended as they implemented their permaculture and low-carbon lifestyle amid like-minded folk. People with intentions, because without that you can’t design what you want.
The Melbourne trams always strike me as an unintended design feature: they have a traffic-calming effect, thereby helping to make the city feel more low key.
Canberra is building crazily at the airport, but without adequate public transport or housing nearby. The great Shangrila of Gungahlin, on the other hand, has endless houses and people, but few jobs. Does this sound like a city-state preparing for the future?
The give away is the ACT document Weathering the Change, which has many sensible intentions. Their noble goal is 50% reduction in emissions by 2050. However, it doesn’t address issues of population or possibly providing for more localised food production might be sensible. The intentionality is limited, and while smart urban design is mentioned, the offering will be fairly conventional.
We are all addicted to growth of all kinds that is managed (perfectly wrong, although every detail is in place) by a growth-driven approach to governance.
Surely enough said for one Thursday. Time for me to do something about my sad, dry vegetables outside. But as a reward for anyone who has read this far, check out the recent report from the International Food Policy Research Unit, or just look at the summary given in: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204091925.htm. The report emphasises the impact of rising world food prices and scarcity on the world’s poor, but there are some obvious extrapolations as the globe heats up.

(more…)



Posted by Ronda Jambe at 12:15 pm | Comments (6) |
« Newer Posts