Monday, January 11, 2021



It ought to be, but our government is hamstrung by its own ideologies, its recent history, and our decision to cut adrift from Europe.

The next climate summit COP 26 is so important for our collective future that we should all hope for  a resounding success. The question will be whether the UK is up to the task of delivering on the promise, and achieving worthwhile agreements and commitments. A lot depends on the ability of the summit host to persuade and cajole. Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary has been charged to work full time on preparations for COP 26, and, encouragingly, is quoted as recognising that “the biggest challenge of our time is climate change and we need to work together to deliver a cleaner, greener world”.

On the positive side, the UK does bring some strengths. Tony Blair gave the UK a genuine world first in the 2008 Climate Change Act, targeting an 80% reduction (from 1990 levels) in emissions, the first time such a national target had been introduced into law. The UK is able to claim significant reductions in its own emissions, even if these largely reflect the special circumstances of its gas for coal transformation of the power sector and the off-shoring of emissions that resulted from the Thatcherite de-industrialisation of the 1980s and 1990s. And it has important strengths both in policy formation and in science, both vital for the future.

And growing environmental awareness provides an auspicious international backdrop for climate action. 2020 saw some of the highest global temperatures on record, alarming heat and record wildfires in the Arctic, and record tropical storms in the Atlantic. Even if these and the Australian bush fires are not all directly attributable to global warming, and other factors are indeed often at work, the impact on the public consciousness has been huge.

Even the covid pandemic plays into the wider Green agenda that our failure to protect our global environment has been a huge mistake, with the indications of connections between declining wildlife habitat and the probability of viruses jumping the species barrier.

Finally 2020 has seen the stunning electoral defeat of arch science denier and fossil fuel promoter Donald Trump. Covid-19 has proved not to be a hoax, and so has climate science. The biggest single obstacle to international progress, the intransigence of the USA on climate issues, has softened even if not wholly removed, at least for now.

But this is also where the credibility problems of the current UK government begin. It is not helped by its poor and embarrassing record in appeasing the disgraced Trump, partly in its desperation to find international, and particularly US, support for Brexit.  “… this opportunity is dependent upon Mr Trump’s presidency. Without him the US would be offering no support for Brexit and would be seeking to frustrate it.” (Rees-Mogg, 2018)

The bigger problem is that the Tory party has over a long period been the home of the most vocal climate sceptics – Lawson, Redwood and many others. Moreover “climate hoax” claims,  and more muted efforts to reject or ignore the implications of climate science, are strongly associated with the tendency to theological belief in Brexit (with Lawson fronting the Brexit campaign), an observation I made in this blog in 2016, and which many others, including The Economist, have made subsequently.

Nor is the Tory ideological commitment to low public spending and a small state easy to sustain in the face of the kind of crisis provoked by climate change (or by covid-19 for that matter). Action to reduce emissions, to promote electric vehicles and alternative heat provision, and to mitigate the effects of climate change, are all going to require huge infrastructure spending, policy interventions, and financial commitment by governments everywhere.

But the more interesting challenges for British commitment to climate goals will come in relation to its ambitions for international trade, and its fragile trading relationship with Europe. In July 2020, the EU launched a consultation on proposals for a border carbon adjustment mechanism, effectively a carbon tax imposed on imports from countries deemed to have less rigorous emissions policies than the EU. This provoked predictable outrage from Trump and much of corporate America, but the concept will also have longer lasting and more subtle effects on trade. There are powerful arguments for this kind of tax, to allow a “level playing field” in trade, and to prevent carbon and jobs “leakage” to countries that refuse to cooperate with low carbon goals.

It is very likely that a such a carbon tax, applied at borders, would impact initially only on highly energy intensive sectors such as steel, aluminium and cement. My own view is that pushing it down to other sectors may prove much more difficult in terms of measuring carbon content, with complexities that may make current issues with “rules of origin” look comparatively simple. But the effect on trade negotiations is likely to be more subtle, with pressures to imitate and endorse EU climate targets.

The consequence is that for the UK to operate successfully as the host of COP 26, this initiative is likely to push it closer to the EU position on convergence of trade policy and climate objectives. This is almost certainly in the UK’s short, medium and long term interest anyway, but may be a hard pill to swallow in the aftermath of the bitter divisions, internal and external, of the last four years. Even if the USA, under Biden, adopts a much more progressive position, major players, such as India, Brazil and others, will be much more resistant. The Brexiter reliance, at least in terms of political rhetoric, on new friends and trading partners, will make effective international  influence more difficult. But that of course is just one more negative consequence of leaving the world’s largest free trading block in the first place. A climate coalition with Europe remains the UK’s best policy.

Wednesday, January 6, 2021



For once I can describe myself as an early adopter. I recently acquired an electric car. We are, partly from necessity, a two car family and our twenty year old petrol-driven motor finally gave up the ghost this year. We realised that the cost of keeping it roadworthy exceeded its value by a considerable multiple. It had been mainly an urban run-around, used for short journeys, and the final straw was the realisation that it would shortly cease to meet emissions standards within the M25, significantly limiting its utility.

However replacement was not the only or even the primary motive. I have long argued for electric vehicles as an important route to decarbonising the economy, so I had a strong professional interest in experiencing for myself the joys and pitfalls of ownership, and understanding what the barriers might be to their widespread acceptance as an alternative means of personal travel. Driving an electric car is a delightful experience, but purchase prices are significantly higher than conventional petrol driven vehicles, and there is currently less choice, particularly in relation to larger models.

But prices are likely to come down, choice to improve, and the other barriers are probably more important. The key questions are the connected matters of range and the adequacy of charging infrastructure. These may determine whether most motorists will be willing to have an EV as their only car. Will it actually meet their needs if they are travelling on holiday or to visit distant family?

So this is what I set out to test with a recent 240 mile journey to West Wales. This is just beyond the nominal range of my car, as claimed by the manufacturer, so after allowing for the effects of cold weather (which slightly reduces battery performance) and the need for a safety margin, it was clear that I would need a significant recharge at some point in the journey.

This is where understanding the options becomes important. Stopping on a four hour plus journey makes sense anyway, but that means that ideally one wants to be able to do a significant recharge in an hour. This where understanding the units of battery energy becomes important. My car has a total energy capacity of 52 kWh.  I can recharge it from an ordinary 3-pin plug in my drive at home at a rate of 2 kW. That means a full recharge would take about 26 hours, although I would usually be thinking of recharging when it falls to about 50%. For much of the time 2 kW on an overnight charge might be quite adequate. However that’s not good enough for recharging on a long journey, or even if I’m doing a lot of local driving with longer daily journeys.

Fortunately it is possible to get much faster charging points. I have a home charger, paid for by government grant, which charges at 7 kW. There are plenty of publicly available charging points at 7 kW, and quite a few at 22 kW. Motorway service stations typically offer 46 kW or higher, depending on the type of EV. Remarkably, at the ancestral family home in West Wales we have access to four charging points, each offering 22 kW within 300 metres of our house, in the local village car park.

So the infrastructure is starting to grow. Long journeys still require a bit of extra planning, but ranges in excess of 200 miles mean that an EV will meet the needs of virtually all the UK journeys that we ever contemplate. Long journeys though will demand a good distribution of charging points at 22 kW or above. For people who are not fortunate enough to be able to do home charging, there will need to be a large network of local points, and many of these will be at 2 kW or 3 kW, although local supermarkets are increasingly a source for recharging at higher kW levels.

The current networks of lower power “lamp post” charging points will be adequate if not ideal for EV owners provided there is a reasonable density of these in their area. The main drawback of reliance solely on public charging points will arise  if there are incentives to maintain a semi-permanent connection to the grid, as EVs could provide a valuable source of storage for the power system as a whole.

So what are the remaining issues. The first is the extent to which drivers can rely on a planned recharge. A number of charging locations, especially on motorways, provide only a single charge point for my type of vehicle. This will be a problem as EVs become more popular, and if a queue develops. The second is reliability. Too often some of the charging stations are out of order. Whether this is a simple technical fault, which ought to improve with experience and better maintenance, or whether there are local network constraints, is not clear.

The other irritation is the sheer number of different networks, each of which may demand use of their own mobile phone app, and each of which may have a slightly different tariff. This imposes a substantial cost on users in terms of time, setting up of accounts and passwords, and so on. One urgent need, therefore, is for a much simpler payment by contactless card that can operate across different networks.

But my overall positive is simply the experience of driving an electric vehicle, in terms of low noise, responsiveness (amazing acceleration), energy saving and reduced pollution. Once converted I can’t envisage returning to diesel or petrol power.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020


Two world views reconciled through chaos, but where does climate change fit into all this?

“It is now 180 years since Thomas Carlyle, to some groans, advanced his “great man” theory of history. It is the exceptional human who determines the course of events, he said, and not the impersonal trends of economics, ideas and technology.” With these words, Janan Ganesh, in last week’s Financial Times[1], contrasted these two world views without coming down firmly on one side or the other. The question has revived because of the way we look at the great, or not so great, men or women in our history, not least in the role of commemorative statuary and how far we should re-interpret our own past.

There is, however, another way of looking at the great man theory. It is that human affairs are truly chaotic[2] in the mathematical sense of the term, which is in no sense the same as random or completely unpredictable, or without logic or direction. Chaotic means that small differences in the boundary conditions, such as a handful of votes in an election, or a particular individual, can, though only at certain junctures and with the right opportunities[3], massively alter the future, for better or for worse. But that in no way diminishes the importance of the "impersonal trends" or the realities of geography, economics, technology or the Marxist “class struggle”.[4]

The famous (and widely misinterpreted) butterfly effect is, of course, not confined to great men or women.[5] One plausible story ascribes the UK’s 2016 Brexit vote to a 2013 bar-room brawl in the House of Commons, leading through a convoluted route to a Falkirk bye-election, changes in Labour party rules, and the election of Jeremy Corbyn as party leader. The Corbyn leadership election was in itself a demonstration of accidental and unintended consequences, and there are plenty of credible arguments that his ambivalence contributed massively to the unfolding Brexit debacle. 

Ganesh cites Napoleon as an example and asks whether anyone else could or would have restored order in France after the chaos of the revolution. I have no doubt someone would eventually have succeeded. But the question is a good one. Suppose France had had a Lenin rather than a Napoleon, for example, or Russia had had a Napoleon after its own revolution. The outcomes might have been better or worse in either case, though we shall never know.

Ganesh also defends Mrs Thatcher as the saviour of the UK economy at the end of the 1970s. Personally I am more inclined to blame her for the de-industrialisation of Britain, the financial deregulation that led us eventually to the 2008 financial crisis, and the sell-off of social housing  that underpins a number of today’s most intractable social and welfare issues. More important to the “recovery” of the UK economy was North Sea oil, adding percentage points to GDP year on year, though that too now looks quite small in the grand scheme of things.

In terms of commemoration I'm more inclined to assign importance to the individuals in science who have totally transformed our world (quantum theory, electronics, DNA etc), although even there it has usually been true that others were already treading the same path (Darwin and Wallace for example) and we would have got there anyway. A statue or sculpture that could capture the reality of Schrodinger’s cat really would be worth keeping.

Of course, the biggest impersonal trend now confronting humanity is the rapidly approaching crisis of climate change. That has its own critical limits to particular parameters, or “tipping points”[6]. The combination of these, which have their own analogues in chaos theory, with the entrusting of the world’s largest energy economies to individual authoritarian leaders such as Trump, Bolsonaro or Xi Jinping, is potentially a fine example of chaos in human behaviour interacting with the inexorable consequences of the laws of physics.

We may or may not succeed in containing climate change, but if we hit the critical tipping points because a few leaders, in the next few years, refuse to confront the known challenges, then it will indeed be a frightening collision. The “great men or women” of today will carry huge individual responsibilities, as their actions collide with the massive impersonal trend in radiative forcing. Given that the UK is in 2021 hosting the critical COP 26 meeting[7], it would be nice to be able to assume that this was being approached with both commitment and sound judgement. The handling of the Covid-19 crisis by some of the above does not, unfortunately inspire confidence.

[1] FT, 12th June 2020
[2] An earlier explanation of chaos theory, and what it actually means can be found in an earlier posting: CHAOS AND CLIMATE. And a physical illustration at
[3] But for the Civil War Ulysses S Grant would have remained as an undistinguished ex-Army officer working in his father's leather goods business.
[4] AJP Taylor, in his history of the First World War, gets part way towards this point, arguing that we can distinguish between the general causes of war, eg national rivalries, and the specific provoking incident, an assassination. His analogy is that widespread use of motor cars
[6] The existence of these is sometimes disputed by sceptics who have failed to grasp the science. Climate science suggests there may be several, but the most intuitively obvious relate to the fact that ice melts at a particular temperature. One tipping point in consequence is the polar temperature at which polar ice starts to melt. This effect commits both to eventual sea level rise and the accelerant effect of reduced ice cover which reduces reflection of the sun’s rays at the pole.
[7] COP 26 is the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 26) to the UNFCCC

Friday, June 12, 2020


Two economists, Milton and Maynard[1], are walking in the woods and discussing matters of great importance, but from very different political perspectives, when Milton sees a bunch of brightly coloured berries. He says to Maynard: “To demonstrate my point that everything and everyone has a price, I’ll offer you a hundred pounds if you will eat one cluster of those berries.” Maynard considers the matter, and against his better judgement accepts the offer and eats the berries.

Shortly afterwards, Milton regrets that he was so generous, and complains to Maynard that he will now be short of cash for the rest of the week. Maynard, who by now is starting to feel a little unwell, is not entirely sympathetic, but generously decides to make the same offer to Milton. Milton accepts, eats the berries, and gets back his hundred pounds.

At the end of the walk, Maynard says to Milton: “Well that was really stupid of us. Neither of us is any better off and we may have made ourselves ill.” To this Milton retorts: “Yes, but just think. We have just added two hundred pounds to national GDP.” Maynard considers carefully before he replies. “The only positive thing I can say about this particular addition to national income is that at least it will not have added to carbon emissions.”

On the assumption that economists are always scrupulously honest[2] and declare their income, GDP will indeed be recorded as two hundred pounds higher. Both economists also pay tax at the higher marginal rate of 40%, and tax revenues increase by eighty pounds.

That is not the end of the story. Both Maynard and Milton are later admitted to hospital with mild poisoning, and their (free) treatment results in the NHS spending an additional eighty pounds, a further addition to GDP. Milton adopts a pose of righteous indignation. “A perfect illustration of my point. The private sector creates the wealth and the public sector spends it.”

Of course, had the woods been put into lockdown, or had the consumption of wild berries been prohibited by law, then none of the above would have happened, and the economy would not have been expanded by the income generating activities of our industrious economists. However, it would have recovered very quickly once that prohibition was lifted, and other foolish economists could once again risk their lives by consuming poisonous berries, or tombstoning at Durdle Door.

There are lessons we might draw from this sorry tale, some of which, curiously, may be relevant to thinking about the shape of a post covid-19 economy?

1.    GDP is a highly imperfect measure of human well-being or of standards of living. Not all of what we choose to classify as GDP generates real wealth or contributes anything of significant permanent personal or social value. In a less trivial context gambling, tobacco, alcohol, and vice will all, debatably, and for some people, fall into this category. But GDP measures what GDP measures, including the illegal drugs trade[1]. GDP does not make moral judgements about Milton and Maynard, or tell us what activities are more or less socially desirable. It merely measures transaction volume and fails to measure valuable activities, like child rearing, that are not part of a financial transaction. If we make personal choices on consumption and lifestyle that happen to result in lower growth, that really should not matter in either the short or the long run.

2.    Essential services, in the provision of health, education and infrastructure, should be seen as an essential input to normal economic life, not as a discretionary extra whose provision is dependent on an arbitrary and inappropriate measure of wealth creation. GDP does not of itself create wealth. And building a casino or a tobacco factory is not a necessary condition for a better health service. We should ridicule ludicrous mantra such as Milton’s dogma above on what sectors create and spend wealth. They are meaningless.

3.    In the absence of significant destruction of the capital stock in the current crisis, and other things being equal, there is not necessarily any reason to suppose that the economy, and consumer spending in particular, cannot bounce back quite quickly from its big decline this year – the so-called V-shaped recovery.  Milton and Maynard can resume their walks in the woods.

4.    However, there are many reasons to be more pessimistic about recovery. The greatest is the risk that governments may fail to adopt adequate or sufficiently coordinated macro-economic policies. The most obvious mistake would be a resumption of austerity measures in a misguided attempt to “pay for” the extra costs to the government of supporting business and households through the worst of the crisis.[2]

5.    The other unknown for GDP is consumer confidence. With sensible macro policies this could return quite quickly. “But being allowed to go out and spend is less important than feeling confident about doing so.”[3] This mirrors what happened before lockdown was imposed. Numbers of institutions were already closing, and people voluntarily social distancing[4].  

6.    Some of this will also translate into what is the new normal. It is hard to predict to what extent commuting to the office will be replaced by home working, or what the impacts will be on the demand for leisure travel and aviation. A clear demand for more resilient health and other systems will almost certainly shorten global supply chains. Many people are hoping that the new normal will also accelerate a greater drive development to a Green and more sustainable global economy. All these questions are important and inter-linked, but hard to predict with confidence.

7.    The bigger threat to the future of humanity, bigger than covid-19, is that of human induced climate change. Tim Harford[5] has observed that even the dramatic recent declines in economic activity have resulted in only modest falls in carbon emissions. The reason is that many of the activities stopped by lockdown, like the transactions of our two economists, and in the service sector of the economy, were not carbon-intensive anyway. Treatment of growth as an end in itself is foolish, but restricting economic growth is not per se a plausible route to a zero-carbon economy.  Decarbonisation will in any case require a great deal of investment, manufacturing, construction, and indeed new services. 

[2] Fortunately this reality seems to have penetrated even into the current political establishment, possibly with the honourable exception of old guard figures such as Ian Duncan Smith.
[3] Megan Greene, Financial Times, 9 June 2020
[4] This phenomenon was also observed in Sweden which did not impose a formal lockdown.
[5] Saving the planet demands sacrifices just as Covid-19 does, Tim Harford, 5th May, Financial Times.

Sunday, May 31, 2020


We have been told repeatedly that it is far too early to compare and assess different national policy responses to the covid-19 pandemic. And the apparent cacophony of slightly different models, all working off slightly different data sets, or slightly different starting assumptions about the behaviour of the virus, appears to confirm that view.

At one level of analysis this will be true. If the virus is going to be with us on a semi-permanent basis, and in the absence of effective vaccines or treatments, it is certainly possible that particular approaches will, post event, prove to have resulted in more or fewer deaths. For example, if the virus were to become more virulent, countries that had allowed, by accident or design, more cases to spread in 2020, may do better in 2021 and later.

Conversely, if a vaccine is developed, then the opposite will be true, and actions that have reduced aggregate infections and deaths to date will have been further vindicated. It is also true that it will be some time before statisticians manage to work around all the confusing factors associated with different data gathering practices and definitions, and are able to use what is generally seen as the most useful indicator – excess deaths.

However there currently appears to be one very simple way of describing a complex reality that, with currently available data, captures a very large part of the variance in numbers of deaths, at least between comparable nations. It is the following simplification, which depends only on the basic concept of exponential growth and decline.

Unchecked, a virus spreads with a basic reproduction ratio known as R0. For this virus R0 is currently believed to be at least 3.0 and in the early phases of a national epidemic (less than say 15% infected) this results in an exponential growth of new cases, doubling every few days.  Introducing severe restrictions on person to person contact reduces the ratio below 1.0.  This leads to a rate of decline which is still exponential, but with ratios above 0.5, the rate of decline will be much lower than the previous rate of growth. The shape of the new infections curve will be that of an escarpment, rising like a cliff on one side and falling slowly away on the other.

If we assume that all European societies are sufficiently similar (including in their health systems) that they are likely to have very similar values of R0 both in the initial unchecked phase and in the restriction phase, then they should end up with a very similar relationship between total excess deaths and the number of infections at the date of lockdown.
This is what the first chart[1] (Financial Times online, 27th May) appears to show. The number of infections at the lockdown milestone is a very good indicator of total deaths (to date). There are of course plenty of caveats, both on the quality of the numbers and the use of a logarithmic scale which tends to compress variations about the norm. Even so the relationship is strong.

Total population size, and infections as a population percentage, is irrelevant in this context (at least while the percentage is still small). Chile has three times the population of Austria, and Germany more than seven times that of Belgium, but they can reasonably be shown as close together in the chart. The key indicator Is the absolute number. Moreover some larger countries, like Chile and Germany, managed to take the lockdown decision while their absolute number of cases was still small, and a number of Asian countries, not shown here, will have done the same.

The implication is clear. Early decisive action was what counted. Using whatever it takes -  including test, track  and trace – to maintain exponential decline  is crucial. Comparing international, regional or local values of R0, or the responses of different health systems, will have to wait until we have much fuller information.

[1] There are of course caveats to this chart. These are not final “end of epidemic” figures. Some of the initial data may be questionable. Estimates of infections at lockdown will be based partly on backcasting from later reported figures. Inclusion of the USA may be particularly inappropriate at this stage. Given the virus reached different parts of the continent at very different dates, and lockdown responses varied considerably in nature and timing between states, the USA appears to show a longer and different shaped trajectory for the disease, and to be significantly further from the point where a final total can be estimated.

Monday, May 11, 2020


Beware Fake News  on the economic and other choices we have to make.

There are longstanding debates about the economic costs of moving the world away from its addiction to the fossil fuels that are the prime source of the greenhouse gases causing temperature and climate change. There will be renewed attention to the challenges as the world slowly emerges from the covid-19 pandemic.
There are many elements to this discussion, from estimates of aggregate cost to macro-economic issues of reviving economies through Green investment. Some are discussed in a forthcoming article in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy.[1]   Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?
However, the propaganda battle has also begun, and so have the invented stories. On 7th May the Financial Times commissioned an exchange of views between Christina Figueres, a former leader of the UN climate secretariat, and Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute. Can we tackle both climate change and Covid-19 recovery?

Taxes at $30 for a gallon of petrol? Really?

Zycher, after a fairly conventional if disputable assertion of essential connections between economic growth and energy consumption, claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advocates carbon taxes for 2030 with a midrange equivalent to $30 per gallon of petrol.
I have always been a natural enthusiast for Twyman’s principle, also attributed to the distinguished statistician, the late Andrew Ehrenburg. The “principle” is that any “interesting” statistic is probably wrong. In other words, if a number looks wrong, then quite likely it is wrong. This one was specially “interesting”; my own familiarity with energy statistics, and energy costs and prices, indicated an order of magnitude error.

If it looks wrong, there’s a good chance it is wrong!

Quite apart from the numbers, the attribution of this statement to the IPCC was intrinsically improbable, as the IPCC does not take policy positions. Its function is to report and summarise the literature of thousands of scientific and other publications, including economic modelling. It tells policymakers what we know and don’t know about the risks related to climate change (a bit like the role of the UK’s SAGE in the current pandemic). Its processes are carefully controlled by national governments, and it emphatically does not “do” policy recommendations, or advocacy.

I decided to do a quick check.  Much of the polemic was based on the supposed extremism, and implied naivety or hostility to humanity, of environmental campaigners, exemplified by “$30 per gallon”. It seemed quite important to understand how the author had come to this number. If the alleged advocacy was not correct, it seemed to be a particularly egregious example of dishonest reporting and misinformation.

First this meant chasing up the citation[2], given as Chapter 2 of the IPCC Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 ÂșC. That report also has a Summary for Policymakers. Inspection of that summary did not reveal any mention of carbon taxes or carbon prices. If IPCC were really engaging in advocacy, it is in a summary for policymakers that one would expect to find it. It was not there.

I turned to Chapter 2, which appeared to be where Zycher had extracted his dubious statistic. The chapter consists largely of a technical summary of modelling methods, and hundreds of modelling outputs, all heavily qualified as to assumptions, meaning and interpretation. It does discuss the theoretical impact of carbon prices, but the relevant section, around page 78 of Chapter 2 emphasises the “real world distinction … between implementable and notional [model] carbon prices …” and that any “price … estimated in modelling studies needs to be compared with what is feasible”.

Turning to climate policy discussions, some proposals for more aggressive carbon pricing do indeed favour CO2 prices (or taxes) higher than today’s, typically of $100-200 per tonne. The same section of the IPPC report does identify evidence in support.  “Literature has identified a range of factors … that support [social cost] SCC values above $100.”  But for petrol that would be around 90 cents per gallon, an amount almost lost in the noise, not Zycher’s hysteria-inducing 30 dollars. Focusing on petrol prices in an electric future seems inappropriate but is presumably intended to link back to an everyday price with which most people are familiar.

If anything, environmental campaigners might be concerned that carbon taxes, even at the quite aggressive level suggested above, have so little impact on pump prices to consumers. An amount of 90 cents (or pence) a gallon is less than European governments already levy in tax, and within the range of the normal fluctuations in fuel prices in recent years. It is widely assumed among energy economists that taxing petrol is not a particularly effective instrument for promoting low carbon transport, and that more of the solution lies with electric (or hydrogen) vehicles. A more common financial concern is that governments will be reluctant to face the loss of the fuel tax revenues that stem from petrol and diesel.

Setting up straw men is, I am afraid, a standard tactic for this camp in the climate debate and the wider culture wars. This was a prime example.

[1] Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? Cameron Hepburn, Brian O’Callaghan, Nicholas Stern, Joseph Stiglitz and Dimitri Zenghelis. Forthcoming in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36(S1).
[2] Chapter 2: Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development. .

Tuesday, April 28, 2020


Apologies to regular readers who expect this site to provide analysis or comment on the subject of climate change or the low carbon economy. My excuse for writing about the pandemic here is that the parallels and connections with climate questions will become ever more apparent, and will be with us for the foreseeable future.

Cost benefit struggles with the big issues, but it does help to expose the questions. The economy versus public health poses a false dichotomy. The real debates should be about inequality. And in terms of inter-generational divides, climate change is a much more relevant matter. 

As many people[1] are starting to observe, the debate over how to balance protection from the virus against maintaining economic activity is already playing into the culture wars that have developed over the last few years.  Very loosely, Trump, vocal Brexit supporters (but not necessarily a majority of those who voted for it), opposition to climate action and denial of climate science, market fundamentalism, Tory donors, and much of the political Right are to be found on one side, arguing for the primacy of “the economy” and that “the cure [lockdown] is now worse than the disease”. Internationally one might add, at different times, populist authoritarians such as Bolsonaro, Erdogan and Duterte.  Those favouring the “cure” include the WHO, internationalists[2], most medical professionals, many Left-leaning liberals, (typically) climate activists sometimes citing environmental factors as a likely cause of the pandemic, and currently the greater part of public opinion. If one had to sum up in a phrase the collective position of many in this group, then “… no return to business as usual” might be an approximation.

These loose coalitions are of course both stereotypes. Both sides will in future be forced to recognise the difficulties inherent in maintaining consistent positions that assign absolute priority to either health or national income. Both will also have to reconcile inevitable pressure for less future reliance on global supply chains (less of China) with an equally powerful case for more, or at least better, international cooperation both in health and wider economy issues. Most governments are caught in the middle, enforcing restrictions while hoping for “business as usual”.

With hindsight of course it seems likely that early and effective action, as in Germany, would have avoided some of the stark choices now confronting us. But we (in the UK) are where we are, and for a variety of economic, health and social reasons, long term total lockdown is also proving untenable. The direction of travel is towards a compromise – the search for gradual relaxations that keep infections within some degree of control.

However, the cost benefit arguments remain important, not least because they reflect so much on our implicit values and choices, and represent dilemmas that will continue to haunt us for some time.  It is worth evaluating the arguments, in the first instance on the wisdom of imposing strict lockdowns rather than just advisory and fairly minimal social distancing.  And in order to concentrate on the essential choice, rather than unhelpfully suggesting that the answers lie, as they often do, “somewhere in the middle”, we should contrast the first extreme, the primacy of the economy and the need to avoid negative impact on GDP, with the range of policies that are effective in reducing infection but result in major economic shutdown.   The purist cost benefit argument is that an enormous economic cost has been incurred in order to protect the lives of predominantly elderly and infirm people, and that that cost will in turn bring its own health costs through increased poverty, unemployment and inequality. The cost is typically quantified either in terms of likely lost GDP or of the cost to the Treasury (c. £350 bn) and the public purse, which can be set against an estimated number (perhaps 250,000) of (disproportionately elderly) lives saved. The implied valuation of human life comfortably exceeds the values normally implicit in government policies, in health and elsewhere.

Attaching a value to human life in this way is not a heartless obsession with financial indicators or economics. It is simply a recognition of reality, especially in almost anything involving health or safety. In health policies the concept is explicitly recognised and refined as “quality of life adjusted life-years” (QALYs). In a resource constrained world most people would accept that, forced to choose between life-saving treatment for children and young adults, on the one hand, and short life extensions for the elderly on the other, the former would usually win. QALYs form a realistic basis for assessing the relative value of different medical interventions, and are widely accepted as a starting point for an informed discussion of what should be prioritised in a health system.

Calculations appear to show an “excessive” expenditure from current policies to save a relatively small number of QALYs. It is additionally argued that the economic impact of lockdowns will itself lead to large amounts of not necessarily well-recorded ill health and death, including treatments postponed or not sought, and increases in domestic violence and mental illness.

Finally, this can be seen as yet another example of inter-generational inequity in which the young are made to suffer for the benefit of the old.

At first sight these look like powerful arguments, founded on both explicit cost benefit analysis, in this case loss of output (GDP) or public spending versus value of life, and an implicit cost benefit comparison in terms of different health outcomes. But, as often happens with really big issues, simple arguments can collapse under closer examination. There are several counter arguments:

·         the assumed counterfactual is incorrect; the implicit assumption that, had there not been lockdown, personal behaviour and the economy would have carried on more or less as normal, can now be seen to be demonstrably wrong. One reason is that individuals are risk averse and do not take the actuarial approach to personal risk implied in cost benefit analysis. A corollary is that, in the immediate context, the notion of a collective choice between public health and the national economy is, to a large extent, a false dichotomy.

·         poor health outcomes associated with macro-economic problems do not generally stem from lower GDP per se. They stem from inequality not from overall lower incomes. Promised government spend goes part of the way to redressing the uneven short-term effects of the crisis, and protecting the most severely affected. But the longer-term impacts, particularly if there are significant structural changes in the economy, will be much more important. Prevention or remedial action on any increasing inequality stemming from that will be essential. But that action is necessary anyway.

·         inter-generational injustice is an overstated issue; mortality means there are a limited number of ways in which one generation can steal from the future, and it is not obvious that this is one of them.

The counterfactual – not imposing lockdown and “letting the pandemic take its course”.

Countries have taken approaches that differ in detail, but most have been essentially similar in their approach. Even where fewer formal restrictions are imposed, as in Sweden, actual behaviours and outcomes are not so very different. Tellingly, many in the UK were already modifying their behaviour, and creating their own forms of social distancing before formal lockdown was imposed. With a full-blown explosion of cases and deaths, and hospitals collapsing under the weight of new cases, it is inconceivable that we would not have seen massive changes in personal behaviour, seeking the same outcomes, albeit in uncoordinated and less effective ways, and very likely  a degree of panic, with broadly similar damage to economic activity. The difference is that the damage would have been the result of individual consumer choice, not of government imposed restriction. Most of the economic damage therefore became inevitable as soon as the virus spread into much wider national populations. In reality there never was any way of avoiding the shock and its economic consequences, although there were and remain ways of handling the crisis well, badly or very badly.

There is a reason for this. In matters of life and death, people do not adopt the actuarial approach to personal risk that the cost benefit approach implicitly assumes.  Actuarial-style weighting of probabilities and multiplication by an assumed “cost of damage” makes sense in a policy context of comparing different health interventions. But it does not apply to personal choices. A simple well-known test demonstrates this – the Russian roulette question. “How much of your personal wealth would you sacrifice to avoid participation in the game?” The probabilities can be varied, and the actuarial assumption would be a linear progression from zero (infinitesimal risk) to 100% (when faced with certain death). Students and others faced with this (fortunately hypothetical) question invariably volunteer significantly more than the “expected value” of their survival.

This is not irrationality. It is simply personal preference. Faced with threats to life most people are substantially risk averse, and will make significant sacrifices for the safer option. We can argue that wide public support for lockdowns reflects rationality and risk aversion, rather than mass hysteria.

It's about inequality, stupid!

There is no doubt that the stress on health services is, unless treatment of Covid-19 patients were refused, inevitably bringing some unavoidable collateral damage through diversion of resources from other health problems. But the policy argument is usually much more focused on the potential mid and longer-term health effects of lower incomes and higher unemployment. The economic impact is already and will continue to be very unequal, with some untouched while others are devastated. Sensibly most current remedial measures are about protecting the worst affected individuals, in respect of mortgages and rents, and a degree of protection that will allow businesses, and future jobs, to continue to pay wages and survive the crisis.

In other words, the policies that enjoy almost universal support are about remedies for an immediate and horrendous inequality. It’s ironic that they should be implemented (in the UK) under a governing party not known for its commitment to equality objectives or public spending. But the same considerations should apply to medium term health impacts. It is the extent of inequality that matters, much more than the overall level of GDP. The point is well summarised in a recent Canadian Medical Association Journal article.[3]

“It should not be surprising that economic growth does not lead to improved health. A wide range of research studies of rich countries have revealed that greater national wealth, by nearly any measure, does not lead to better human welfare. The United States, with the highest GNP per capita in the world, has a lower life expectancy than nearly all the other rich countries and a few poor ones, despite spending half of the world’s health care bill. The United States also has the greatest levels of poverty of any rich country, with correspondingly poor health outcomes and huge health disparities. Its population’s health is on a par with that of Cuba, a poor nation that has faced economic embargoes for the past 50 years. The population of the United States is also less healthy than the population of Greece, whose economic status lies in between.

What leads to health in the industrialized countries is not absolute wealth or growth but how the nation’s resources are shared across the population.  Above a certain threshold of inequality, a more egalitarian income distribution within a rich country is associated with better health.”

It will be interesting to see how far the lessons of the current crisis are carried through into future tax, expenditure and social policies.  It is again ironic that politicians and commentators, mainly on the Right, who give overwhelming primacy to the economy, and are now anxious to play up the social and health impacts of lockdown, have usually been those least concerned with the phenomenon of inequality. 

Inter-Generational Justice

It has always been the case that you are more fortunate to be born, or to reach the employment or housing market, in good times rather than bad. But the idea that one generation can collectively, and to its own advantage, permanently deprive its successors is more difficult. Mortality ensures that this is possible, essentially, in only two ways.

The first is through running up external debt. This is impossible in global terms. It is possible nationally, although since most countries will face similar challenges, there is no automatic reason to assume that it will happen. Measures to protect employment and businesses, will lead to an expansion of national and personal debt, but this consists of debts that we owe to each other. Since the holders of that debt tend to be excessively concentrated in higher income groups, or among older generations, there will be an enhanced case for redistributive taxation, and we have already identified the necessity for reducing inequality as a necessary condition for a healthy society.

The second is through running down the capital stock, of plant, buildings etc and also human capital. This is a more challenging question. There is no particular reason to expect physical destruction of capital stock, though there is likely to be significant re-assignment if consumer preferences and public choices change after the crisis.   

But this takes us to an even more important subject. The only way in which we are obviously and dramatically running down our capital stock is through continued destruction of the natural environment. That really is the impossible and undeserved legacy that we are bequeathing future generations.

[1] Culture wars are infecting the UK’s pandemic strategy. Robert Shrimsley. Financial Times, 20 April 2020.
[2]A general term to include supporters of international institutions and cooperation as a general principle. I would have added the “Remain” camp, but a quick survey of FT online comments suggests this group may be quite divided on the issue.

Find link to post your comment below

Sunday, April 12, 2020


Another policy conundrum where the rules may need to be rewritten. Much of the logic of public goods and market failure will be common to most of the greatest issues facing humanity, but nowhere more than in health and the global environment. And knowledge is a crucial resource.

A number of my recent postings have discussed the concept of market failure in relation to global threats, most notably the current pandemic and the growing challenges posed by climate change. Freedom from disease can be regarded as a public good, as can a stable environment and climate, and in both instances there are numerous sources of potential market failure. One, though by no means the only one, is the way in which we manage knowledge and information of all kinds, and this leads us into some complex issues of policy, particularly in relation to the protection of intellectual property.

Knowledge is a public good in that its use by one person does not reduce the ability of others to use the same knowledge. A lighthouse has the same property – every ship that observes its beam can take action to avoid the same hazard. But like all public goods, if it is freely available, there may be an inadequate incentive to create it in the first place. With free use, then there may be insufficient incentive for the creator of that knowledge to invest their time or money in research or development while others can then enjoy a “free ride” on what they produce. Policies may therefore be necessary to support it, either by arranging to pay for it through public expenditure, or through the creation of property rights in respect of the knowledge created, through intellectual property law.

If knowledge is thereby not created (or discovered or reported), this is a market failure (under-production), which society, and hence governments, need to correct.

Intellectual property rights such as patents are one way to do this. But they do so at the expense of another market failure, and a potentially high economic cost. Monopolies prevent the full exploitation by others of the knowledge that is created, and the knowledge is under-used even though its further use would appear to have no cost to society as whole.

The relevant question for society is which of these two considerations is treated as more important in a given period or for particular social and economic conditions. Protection of intellectual property is of course often seen as a key component of free markets, and what we might loosely call modern capitalism, while more collectivist political philosophies, and in particular China, have been widely accused of refusing to respect this particular form of property right.

So it is perhaps surprising to discover the following quote from Thomas Jefferson, one of the most revered of the Founding Fathers and early Presidents of the United States. It is an impassioned defence of knowledge as a public good, and an argument against the idea of intellectual property.

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

However despite Thomas Jefferson, and throughout the late 20th century, the conventional wisdom has been that intellectual property should be protected, even if this had the effect of creating private monopolies. The main mechanism has been stringent patents strictly enforced. But this has created major problems, even in advanced economies, leading to re-evaluation of other new and established means to encourage and finance research, of which there a number, ranging from direct public or charitable sponsoring of research to the offer of prizes for solutions that meet particular needs. It is perhaps ironic, too, that the truly great leaps forward in understanding, for example in the mathematics and physics[1] that underpin virtually every element in the modern world, from electronics to medicine, never depended on intellectual property protection and indeed were largely unpatentable. 

Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has argued[2] that the conventional philosophy of reliance on patents/ monopolies is increasingly dysfunctional. It has led to “an increasingly dense patent thicket, in a world of products requiring thousands of patents, [this] has sometimes stifled innovation”. Even within the research itself, the incentive may be targeted less at new products than at extending, broadening and leveraging the monopoly power provided by the original patent. Increasingly the objective appears to be the protection of corporate revenues rather than the public interest. Stiglitz[3] also argues that “the preponderance of theoretical and empirical evidence indicates that the economic institutions and laws protecting knowledge in today’s advanced economies are increasingly inadequate to govern global economic activity and are poorly suited to meet the needs of developing countries and emerging markets. They are inimical to providing for basic human needs such as adequate healthcare.”

“The US supreme court’s 2013 decision that naturally occurring genes cannot be patented has provided a test of whether patents stimulate research and innovation, as advocates claim, or impede them by restricting access to knowledge. The results are unambiguous: innovation has been accelerated, leading to better diagnostic tests (for the presence of, say, the BRCA genes related to breast cancer) at much lower costs.”

Stiglitz mounts powerful general arguments for the reform of current arrangements in respect of intellectual property, which he sees as more or less inevitable in the context of increasingly “weightless” economies, and the growing influence of many of the developing world economies. But few demonstrations could be more eloquent than the importance of speedy transfer and exchange of information and research in relation to the coronavirus pandemic, or of the other even larger threat of global climate change.

Few recent stories will have generated more international outrage than the Die Welt report that the White House had attempted to relocate CareVac, a research company based in Tuebingen, in order to secure exclusive access to the vaccine “only for the United States”. Equally it is impossible to understate the importance of the Chinese authorities’ early release[4] of the virus genome (after earlier delays in recognising and admitting the seriousness of the outbreak), or the exchange of data between countries on their individual experiences of the disease. Had any of these been treated solely as the property of the gatherers of the initial information, for their own commercial advantage, efforts to deal with the virus would be in a much worse position than they are today.

Similar importance can be attached to the free exchange of information in relation to climate matters, both in terms of the climate science itself, and in terms of the technologies and ideas required to limit and mitigate its consequences. There is a double emphasis when both the objective, health or global environment, and the means of achievement, knowledge and information, can properly be classified as public goods of the greatest possible value.

Two comments on this post.

[1] Without quantum theory, to take just one example, no transistors or electronic systems, no electron microscopes, and virtually nothing we take for granted in modern medicine.
[2] Wealth before Health? Why intellectual property laws are facing a counterattack. Joseph Stiglitz 19 October 2017. Guardian.
[3] Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Development: A Better Set of Approaches for the 21st Century.
Dean Baker, Arjun Jayadev and Joseph Stiglitz, July 2017. Shuttleworth Foundation.
[4] “Potentially really important moment in global public health-must be celebrated, everyone involved in Wuhan, in China & beyond acknowledged, thanked & get all the credit,” Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust in London, wrote in a tweet. “Sharing of data good for public health, great for those who did the work. Just needs those incentives & trust.”