Tom Youngman

LeftCentral: Feed-in Tariff Review

Following a request to the UK Youth Climate Coalition website, I recently wrote an article for the ‘LeftCentral’ blog regarding the government’s fast-track review of the Feed-in Tariff. An extract of the article follows:

Last Sunday I watched the first episode in the new series of ‘Dragon’s Den’. At around 9:45 came the serious proposition, the project that (we’ve all now pretty much sussed the show’s structure) will definitely get investment. As a sustainability activist, it pleased me greatly to see Chris Hopkins, MD of Ploughcroft, a solar panel installer, occupying this slot.

His appearance on the show demonstrated one thing clearly – solar power is now a solid investment. All five ‘Dragons’ were keen to invest – Deborah Meaden even declared she already had a stake in another solar installer. It’s rare to hear a piece of technical energy policy mentioned on a peak-time television show, but the entrepreneur attributed the success of his business (and the British solar industry) quite explicitly to the Feed-in Tariff.

…

The fast-track review of the Feed-in Tariff for solar photovoltaic panels fundamentally conflicted with the original strengths of a highly successful policy. At the core of the policy is creating confidence on the part of the generator that their income from the subsidy is guaranteed. Price reviews were always acknowledged to be needed to keep the subsidy economic as the cost of technology decreased, but by holding a hurried review outside the regular cycle, the government severely knocked this essential confidence.

To read the full article, click here.

Idea of the day: Green Investment Bank bonds for the public

Many people have compared decarbonisation to the world wars. An international crisis, requiring all of society to unite in action and, to an extent, in frugality. This is a natural comparison to make - the first major recycling took place in the wars, people are once again growing their own food at home or in public spaces, the ‘make do and mend’ mentality is returning - but this has only really been matched on a domestic scale.

The real war effort took place in industry. In a matter of weeks, typewriter factories transformed to make machine guns and ribbon factories produced parachutes. The removal of iron railings for smelting, in reality, largely produced useless pig iron - but the psychological impact made it worthwhile regardless.

So maybe we need to look to other areas of the world wars for inspiration - in their positive action and not just their frugality. After all, frugality is only a way to expend more energy in other areas. We need an industrial revolution to match that of the internet, one which will transform our society completely, and that needs funding.

Current government plans to fund ‘green’ investment revolve around proposals for a Green Investment Bank. DECC and the Treasury have said to have been disagreeing over the details for some time, and it has been dramatically restricted (some say to a level which will prohibit its success), but the concept is sound. Now it needs investment. These are projects that will pay back over time, but do require a large capital investment - hard to achieve through taxation.

How was large capital investment achieved through the world wars? Bonds.

Government savings bonds still exist and are a vital way of raising revenue. Many people would like to invest in transition technologies that will lead us to a sustainable economy, but don’t have the right medium in which to do so. The accountability of democratic government will inspire trust to invest much more than the ethically ineffective shareholder-owned banking system. Government backed bonds would be safe, suitable for pension funds and resources would be available to ensure money went to the right places. Combined with investment through taxation, the pot available would be huge.

The public recognise the benefits of a low-carbon economy, on the whole, and are awaiting opportunities to invest intelligently, with proper information on how their money is spent. This is a luxury denied us by the current banking system and one which a system of bonds alongside the Green Investment Bank could deliver.

In the USA during the second world war, American Boy & Girl Scouts sold $8 billion worth of ‘war bonds’. That tactic could even be repeated again - changing the face of British banking. Now those would be some bankers deserving of bonuses.

American Expansionism: A Critical Barrier to Sustainability

In the 1920s - at the height of some of the fastest years of industrial expansion the United States has ever seen - the USA’s agricultural economy was suffering. Although there were many factors to this, the degradation of land (creating the infamous ‘Dust Bowl’) was certainly one of the most serious. For generations American farmers had been able to slowly move westwards, exhausting countless hectares beyond repair, simply able to roll the Western frontier onwards.

In the 1930s, this frontier reached the Western deserts - the West Coast already spoken for. The American agricultural economy was obliterated, left only accessible to a few large-scale operators. The industrialisation that then allowed the region to continue was fuelled by war.

After the second world war, America’s focus changed. An economic empire was built (expanding on that which existed in central America in the early 20th century) cementing its position as a global superpower. Exploiting its own natural resources to the full, the USA looked abroad for profit-making. 

This economic empire has been supported by the US Government, as would be expected. In more recent years this has gone to greater extremes, with oil opportunities almost certainly playing a part in the Iraq war’s initiation.

This week saw Wikileaks reveal the fatal next stage of this expansionism. Global speculation about natural resources to be revealed by melting arctic ice is high, and the cables from diplomats at the Arctic Council reveal America’s ambition in the area. America’s claim to the arctic relies on Alaska, to which its claim is tenuous, not being contiguous with the rest of the nation and itself only colonised for its gold reserves. Even if it is considered 100% America’s right to govern Alaska, it is undeniable that America’s claim to the arctic is much weaker than that of Norway, Sweden, Russia and Canada, for example.

As well as securing rights to the Arctic themselves, the USA is pushing its corporate style of expansion in the region. Capitalising on Greenland’s push for independence from Denmark, America’s ambassador to Denmark stated in one of the leaked cables: “To help the Greenlanders secure the investments needed for such exploitation, I recently introduced Home Rule Premier Enoksen and Minister of Finance and Foreign Affairs Aleqa Hammond to some of our top U.S. financial institutions in New York”.

Climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity at the present time, a fact increasingly recognised by new parties, including American military generals. To exploit Arctic oil reserves, revealed due to climate change and certain to further climate change, is to enter a vicious cycle on short-sighted logic. America has demonstrated in the past its ability to exploit resources without regard to their continued use, or the wellbeing of the planet as a whole, and I do not doubt this could happen again.

American Expansionism may have taken human beings to the moon, but without regard for sustainability of resources, it may be responsible for taking human beings from the earth as well.

Mankind invented money, became accustomed to it and was promptly enslaved by it. An alternative is still possible.

via my Twitter.

An Observation: The Effect of the 2008 Financial Crisis on Music

Music has evolved, as it always does, in the past few years - notably getting more electronic, more ‘retro’ sounding and more heavily produced. The raw guitar sound that was prevalent a few years ago is no longer heard nearly as frequently.

Of course fashion in music changes just as in does elsewhere, but fashions change due to certain influences - and the state of the economy is a major one. You might expect music in times of financial hardship to become more resentful, angry and downtrodden, but this is far from the direction the mainstream industry has taken - instead the mainstream has become more club-orientated, more cheesy R&B and Hip Pop and much less instrumental and emotional, in my opinion. 

What is most startling is how a whole generation of bands disappeared around the time the financial crisis was in full swing. Bands such as Mumm-Ra, Larrikin Love, Pull Tiger Tail and Joe Lean & The Jing Jang Jong all dispersed, seemingly overnight. At one time Joe Lean & The Jing Jang Jong were tipped to be the next big thing, earning relentless hype from the NME and coming 7th in the BBC’s ‘Sound of 2008’ poll - but they never even released an LP.

The commercial music industry has suffered in the last decade, experiencing difficulty as a result of piracy and an inability to adapt to the changing ways in which people consume music. This means their reliance on credit would have been high, something which became in short supply due to the crisis. It seems likely that they would have experienced high pressure from creditors to remain stable - and to drop bands that appeared a risk. The new wave of raw, emotional Indie bands were this risk. Joe Lean & The Jing Jang Jong are the extreme of this - an album was recorded and sent to critics, but deemed by the record label to not ”represent their current sound” and promptly scrapped.

This wasn’t the end of the world, and is little more than an observation, but it does seem that few new guitar bands have emerged to truly take up the mantle these, and bands such as Bloc Party, which changed their sound heavily, left behind.

Tuition Fee Rises: An Economic Argument Against

No matter whether you oppose or favour students paying £9000/year for education on the basis of ethics, the economic arguments against the tuition fee rises seem to have been ignored. Giving up on the concept of affordable higher education is argument enough to kill the tuition fee rises for me, but other people need more convincing.

The government’s argument for this is the same old story - to cut the deficit, to reduce public debt. Public debt needs tackling, undeniably, especially as it is unfair to leave the next generations in power with its burden - but this is being done in an ineffective manner. The government saying the availability of cheap student loans only payable once you earn £21 000 mean social mobility will not be reduced by the fee rises. Therefore if each person pays £3000 more to go to uni and the government pays £3000 less, £3000 of debt is merely being shifted per person from government to individual.

Why is this a problem? Government debt is backed against public owned land, industries, assets and the long-standing good reputation of Great Britain as a whole - seemingly quite securely. Student debt is backed against the future of an individual. I think you’ll agree that one seems hugely preferable to the other.

As well as becoming more of a burden on future adult generations than less, this personal debt will remain with people for life - at the very least for many elections to come. This is the only plus side - perhaps it will prevent many future Conservative governments as people have massive debts as a reminder of where they went wrong in the past.

No, we should not protect the City.