這剛好說明了較早前我提出的可再生能源的潛在限制。可再生能源的生產受地理因素所限制，以這段報導為例，大幅提升生產可能導致食物產量下降。減輕了與能源有關的環境問題，但卻使糧食價格上升，即是環境成本轉化成社會成本，如果這一個情況持續，恐怕對一些倚靠國際組織提供食物援助的第三世界國家來說會是一個災難。Malthusianism returns!? Sustainable development is a contradiction?
******************************
全球農夫種「能源」減種食糧
日本「Karu」牌脆片縮水10%、德國慕尼黑啤酒節的啤酒大幅加價嚇怕了酒客、馬來西亞公務員15年來首次獲得加薪。這三件看似風馬牛不相及的事情，其實息息相 關，它們都受到一股全球新趨勢影響︰生物燃料熱潮，令農夫們決定增加栽種「綠色石油」，減少種植食用的粟米和大麥，脆片袋 的脆片，悄悄地減料。
脆片「縮水」 啤酒加價
世界各地的農夫都在自問︰「我要種食物還是能源？」農夫陷入要填滿全球8億個汽車油缸，抑或餵飽60億人腸胃的兩難抉擇。美國俄克拉荷馬州農夫柯爾決定把他141公頃的田地，撥1/3種植基因改造粟米，用作生物燃料，因為他相信以糖、粟米研製而成的生物燃料乙醇，價格會上升。
美國政府年初大力提倡使用乙醇，令農夫一窩蜂改變農地用途。過去一年，種植粟米的農地就增加了15%。若明年白宮真的做到乙醇增產一倍的目標，那麼40%的粟米就會變成汽車燃料。
粟米田多了，大豆供應減少，導致價格上升，便宜的棕櫚油乘勢而起，富了來源地馬來西亞和印尼，大馬庫房水浸，政府決定拿出相當於172億港元，讓所有公務員加薪7.5%至42%，令他們分享成果。
英國《泰晤士報》
(AppleDaily 26/8/07)
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Environmental politics of electricity in HK (conclusion)
Based on a chapter of my dissertation I have prepared a shorter article. The title (tentative) is "Electricity and environment politics in Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined". Below is the conclusion:
The reasons why sustainable electricity policy in Hong Kong remains underdeveloped go beyond lack of environmental awareness or private commitment to the common goods as often said. Supply-demand relations are ill-constructed in a way that everyone is fairly aware but nobody has the motivation of taking meaningful actions. It stems from the path-dependant institutional setup that restricts a timely transformation, in combination with the Government’s treatment that attributes the problems merely to these structural constraints, more appreciating scientific and economic rationalities than communicative actions.
Everything starts from the historical constraints embedded in the regulatory structures. Hong Kong has never given environmental endeavour the same priority as economic growth. Particularly at the time of economic downturn, no official can afford to undermine growth for the sake of environmental protection. Cross-sectoral sustainability imperatives are at odd with its conventional administrative culture and handled in a piecemeal manner, and apparently the style has been extended to electricity policy. These constraints inevitably nurture critiques from the concerned parties along with the growing public awareness and the (yet successful) democratic movement. These then turns to an emphasis of the role of utilities as the contributors of the causes as well as the solutions and a view that environmental gains are a function of a unidirectional, ‘one-to-one’ relationship between the government and utilities. Local community, however, has never been convinced that environmental protection should be taken as a reason for making more profits if the citizens’ living will be affected. Consequently, the Government as a reactive party deals with the problems mechanistically, while the utilities’ private interests are posited as a conflict to the social objectives. Communicative actions exist only on the consultation documents but not in the policy.
From a broader perspective, the administration’s treatment of electricity is a reflection of the local environmental discourse. With respect to environmental management, it is reluctant to transform itself from a ‘controller’ to a ‘facilitator’ regime and seems to return to the technical dimensions of sustainability (Hills & Welford, 2002; Hills, 2004). Policies addressing the socially constructed consumption rationality that need ‘bottom-up’ demand-side commitment earn little credit. The weakened Government is inclined to play a stronger role in controlling the industrial operations of electricity provision which involve less costs and are more welcomed by taxpayers, rather than prompting substantial behavioural changes in consumption which are normally politically more costly as this often challenges consumption sovereignty (Murphy, 2001b). Extension of the production-focused approach is thus more preferred given the current political climate.
The Hong Kong energy economy is inevitably framed by this situation: electricity provision appears as a conflict between supply and demand sides; while there are certain degree of improvements in the power generation processes, promotion of sustainable energy consumption remains rhetoric and ineffective in the absence of political commitment. As such, it has constituted, at best, only the first half of the notion of sustainable development. What is in need is building a positive, collaborative relationship between the utilities, and the Government and the consumers in particular. Opportunities for negotiation and a more equitable distribution of responsibility between the stakeholders should be given a heavier role in the new agenda (Blake, 1999). However, we do not expect this will happen tomorrow because the minimal progress in democratic development in near future and the extension of the utilities’ monopolist status are going to ruin the ‘trust’ between them and this compounds the guilt of the regulatory constraints.
The reasons why sustainable electricity policy in Hong Kong remains underdeveloped go beyond lack of environmental awareness or private commitment to the common goods as often said. Supply-demand relations are ill-constructed in a way that everyone is fairly aware but nobody has the motivation of taking meaningful actions. It stems from the path-dependant institutional setup that restricts a timely transformation, in combination with the Government’s treatment that attributes the problems merely to these structural constraints, more appreciating scientific and economic rationalities than communicative actions.
Everything starts from the historical constraints embedded in the regulatory structures. Hong Kong has never given environmental endeavour the same priority as economic growth. Particularly at the time of economic downturn, no official can afford to undermine growth for the sake of environmental protection. Cross-sectoral sustainability imperatives are at odd with its conventional administrative culture and handled in a piecemeal manner, and apparently the style has been extended to electricity policy. These constraints inevitably nurture critiques from the concerned parties along with the growing public awareness and the (yet successful) democratic movement. These then turns to an emphasis of the role of utilities as the contributors of the causes as well as the solutions and a view that environmental gains are a function of a unidirectional, ‘one-to-one’ relationship between the government and utilities. Local community, however, has never been convinced that environmental protection should be taken as a reason for making more profits if the citizens’ living will be affected. Consequently, the Government as a reactive party deals with the problems mechanistically, while the utilities’ private interests are posited as a conflict to the social objectives. Communicative actions exist only on the consultation documents but not in the policy.
From a broader perspective, the administration’s treatment of electricity is a reflection of the local environmental discourse. With respect to environmental management, it is reluctant to transform itself from a ‘controller’ to a ‘facilitator’ regime and seems to return to the technical dimensions of sustainability (Hills & Welford, 2002; Hills, 2004). Policies addressing the socially constructed consumption rationality that need ‘bottom-up’ demand-side commitment earn little credit. The weakened Government is inclined to play a stronger role in controlling the industrial operations of electricity provision which involve less costs and are more welcomed by taxpayers, rather than prompting substantial behavioural changes in consumption which are normally politically more costly as this often challenges consumption sovereignty (Murphy, 2001b). Extension of the production-focused approach is thus more preferred given the current political climate.
The Hong Kong energy economy is inevitably framed by this situation: electricity provision appears as a conflict between supply and demand sides; while there are certain degree of improvements in the power generation processes, promotion of sustainable energy consumption remains rhetoric and ineffective in the absence of political commitment. As such, it has constituted, at best, only the first half of the notion of sustainable development. What is in need is building a positive, collaborative relationship between the utilities, and the Government and the consumers in particular. Opportunities for negotiation and a more equitable distribution of responsibility between the stakeholders should be given a heavier role in the new agenda (Blake, 1999). However, we do not expect this will happen tomorrow because the minimal progress in democratic development in near future and the extension of the utilities’ monopolist status are going to ruin the ‘trust’ between them and this compounds the guilt of the regulatory constraints.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
人口與環境
人口問題其實是環境問題的根源，18世紀末英國經濟學家馬爾薩斯(Thomas Malthus)提出人口的增長率往往高於資源的增長率，結果引致資源不足，繼而帶出疾病、戰爭、餓荒等等社會經濟問題，這些天災人禍使人口又會向下調整。
不過，自踏入廿世紀以來，科技的高速發展令人對這套被稱為馬爾薩斯主義的觀點產生質疑，因為現實告訴我們，人口上升並沒有帶來預的災難性影響。可是，這些反馬爾薩斯主義者忽略了一點，就是資源耗用的時間性。使用某一資源的影響不一定是即時性的，而可以是十年、五十年甚至一百年後才會顯現出來，環境資源就是一個典型的例子：一天之內砍光地球上所有樹木不會立刻導致人類滅亡，即使一天之內用盡了所以非再生能源人類活動也不會立刻終止。廿多年前經濟學家Julian Simon說只要human capital(e.g.人類的智慧)仍在，便可以不斷製造出各樣資源，包括能源，所以就算挖乾了所有油田也無礙，人類可以轉靠可再生能源，可以製造風力發電機、太陽能裝置等等，人類活動依然可以靠增加人口(即增加human capital)來生生不息延續下去...
但是Julian Simon支持人口無限增長的論調是站不住腳的，因為他完全漠視了所以human capital都需要用自然資源來製造、運作這一事實，沒有自然資源根本不可能有human capital，太陽能裝置也得耗用金屬!
人口增長至某一程度，就一定會對環境帶來沉重壓力，除非......
不過，自踏入廿世紀以來，科技的高速發展令人對這套被稱為馬爾薩斯主義的觀點產生質疑，因為現實告訴我們，人口上升並沒有帶來預的災難性影響。可是，這些反馬爾薩斯主義者忽略了一點，就是資源耗用的時間性。使用某一資源的影響不一定是即時性的，而可以是十年、五十年甚至一百年後才會顯現出來，環境資源就是一個典型的例子：一天之內砍光地球上所有樹木不會立刻導致人類滅亡，即使一天之內用盡了所以非再生能源人類活動也不會立刻終止。廿多年前經濟學家Julian Simon說只要human capital(e.g.人類的智慧)仍在，便可以不斷製造出各樣資源，包括能源，所以就算挖乾了所有油田也無礙，人類可以轉靠可再生能源，可以製造風力發電機、太陽能裝置等等，人類活動依然可以靠增加人口(即增加human capital)來生生不息延續下去...
但是Julian Simon支持人口無限增長的論調是站不住腳的，因為他完全漠視了所以human capital都需要用自然資源來製造、運作這一事實，沒有自然資源根本不可能有human capital，太陽能裝置也得耗用金屬!
人口增長至某一程度，就一定會對環境帶來沉重壓力，除非......
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Path dependancy of HK electricity policy
這幾天我在埋首整理篇dissertation，又多了一些想法
First, the failure of the electricity policy with respect to environmental aspects is obviously path dependant. The rationale of the SCAs was virtually necessitated by the local development history. 'Growth first' was so clearly written in the SCA documents. This is what the people (including the general public) want (not only in the past, but, to your surprise, also now). SCAs is doing what the society wants.
Second, the changing socio-political environment produces a basket of conflicts. Democratization speeds up social movement, amplifying the voice against the high (really high?) electricity prices and environmental damage by the power plants. On the other hand, we know that any meaningful changes in the electricity provision privately owned depends on changes in demand sides. Given a strong 'public' and weak government particularly after 1 July 03, the latter tends to avoid challenging the consumption rationality. So we don't have DSM after 2003 when the pilot scheme ended, we don't have energy tax, we don't have electricity price rise. The only things the Government does is 'window dressing' and shouting at the power companies, but they actually don't want any big changes.
The sad news is that I do not expect substantial changes in these situations. While the old 'paths' ('growth first') is likely to go on, the new one has elements contradicting the sustainability discourse. At a first glance, the people have become environmentally more conscious. Yes, they are, but if there is a tradeoff between environmental and economic benefits, they aren't. Their ethical minds are weakly constructed, weaker than we expect. This is more obvious in electricity matters.
First, the failure of the electricity policy with respect to environmental aspects is obviously path dependant. The rationale of the SCAs was virtually necessitated by the local development history. 'Growth first' was so clearly written in the SCA documents. This is what the people (including the general public) want (not only in the past, but, to your surprise, also now). SCAs is doing what the society wants.
Second, the changing socio-political environment produces a basket of conflicts. Democratization speeds up social movement, amplifying the voice against the high (really high?) electricity prices and environmental damage by the power plants. On the other hand, we know that any meaningful changes in the electricity provision privately owned depends on changes in demand sides. Given a strong 'public' and weak government particularly after 1 July 03, the latter tends to avoid challenging the consumption rationality. So we don't have DSM after 2003 when the pilot scheme ended, we don't have energy tax, we don't have electricity price rise. The only things the Government does is 'window dressing' and shouting at the power companies, but they actually don't want any big changes.
The sad news is that I do not expect substantial changes in these situations. While the old 'paths' ('growth first') is likely to go on, the new one has elements contradicting the sustainability discourse. At a first glance, the people have become environmentally more conscious. Yes, they are, but if there is a tradeoff between environmental and economic benefits, they aren't. Their ethical minds are weakly constructed, weaker than we expect. This is more obvious in electricity matters.
This is the results of two government survey
(where is the environmental goals?)
Saturday, August 4, 2007
A reply to the last post
I got a reply to the last post in the discussion.com, I post it here (in blue colour) and wrtie a few lines as a reply to it.
Definitely it is too early to expect social learning to occur and make a difference before envir technologies get mature (technology is usually a driver of societal changes in an ecological economy), but I am less pessimistic because I think the trend of urbanization and civil society following better education and income levels will do the job, just like HK. That means, in my opinion, the major barriers lie in the institutional setup (in both regional and national levels) rather than in household level if we move beyond merely environmental protecion and towards sustainable development (obviously they are not identical). 。
Social learning requires both individuals' values changes and provision of an insitutional 'platform'. It is not accurate to describe the problem as a lack of puiblic awareness or willingness, given that people's behaviours are shaped by institutioal setup to a very large extent. Awareness does matter, but as it grows its importance diminises, and it will become nothing hif policy initiatives do not adequately fit in their minds. As in HK, you do not need to worry about awareness issues indeed, it is more likely that the bottleneck appears in what decision makes assume and expect their people want. There will have no future at all if Chinese gov assumes and expect more stringent laws and advanced technologies are the way to the SD, just like what HK decision makers did.Individuals' values or preferences are not necessarily envir-friendly as you pointed out.
But that's the reason we need social learning. It is a way to transform individualistic values to social, collective values that are more consistent to SD. Democratic deliberative forum for environmental purposes, for example, is an emerging approach that may help.
I do believe 'self-interest' is inborn, but human behaviours are socially constructed too.
原帖由 FireStallion 於 2007-8-4 09:18 PM 發表
Well, if we talk about social learning, I am really worry the learning willingness and ability of the people. Behavior change!!!
What makes people change their behavior?
For me, I can tell for myself as I am going to build a new house. The budget is my constraint. I will build my house just to pass the regulation, though I want to get it better than the regulations required.
But for HK ppl, what will make them change?
Definitely it is too early to expect social learning to occur and make a difference before envir technologies get mature (technology is usually a driver of societal changes in an ecological economy), but I am less pessimistic because I think the trend of urbanization and civil society following better education and income levels will do the job, just like HK. That means, in my opinion, the major barriers lie in the institutional setup (in both regional and national levels) rather than in household level if we move beyond merely environmental protecion and towards sustainable development (obviously they are not identical). 。
Social learning requires both individuals' values changes and provision of an insitutional 'platform'. It is not accurate to describe the problem as a lack of puiblic awareness or willingness, given that people's behaviours are shaped by institutioal setup to a very large extent. Awareness does matter, but as it grows its importance diminises, and it will become nothing hif policy initiatives do not adequately fit in their minds. As in HK, you do not need to worry about awareness issues indeed, it is more likely that the bottleneck appears in what decision makes assume and expect their people want. There will have no future at all if Chinese gov assumes and expect more stringent laws and advanced technologies are the way to the SD, just like what HK decision makers did.Individuals' values or preferences are not necessarily envir-friendly as you pointed out.
But that's the reason we need social learning. It is a way to transform individualistic values to social, collective values that are more consistent to SD. Democratic deliberative forum for environmental purposes, for example, is an emerging approach that may help.
I do believe 'self-interest' is inborn, but human behaviours are socially constructed too.
原帖由 FireStallion 於 2007-8-4 09:18 PM 發表
Well, if we talk about social learning, I am really worry the learning willingness and ability of the people. Behavior change!!!
What makes people change their behavior?
For me, I can tell for myself as I am going to build a new house. The budget is my constraint. I will build my house just to pass the regulation, though I want to get it better than the regulations required.
But for HK ppl, what will make them change?
短評中國環境政策
中國環境政策其實在某些方面有一定成果，尤其是在技術層面上、管制措施上 (但地區政府陽奉陰違仍是一個問題)，而且在國際壓力之下，態度也是想消極也不行。而我想指出的是，中國的情況可能是『有心無力』，有一些根深柢固的內在因素阻礙了其環境政策上質量方面的推進(Qualitative improvement, more than laws and standards) 。
要邁向可持續發展，中國目前的情況是先天不足，主要是人為因素 – 特別是政治架構。沒有民主意識就不會有公民參與政策制訂，可持續發展裡『社會』這一環不單指貧富問題，也是公民社會的建立，讓人民可以影響政策大方向之餘，亦讓他們從討論、對話當中學習及提升個人的可持續發展思維，從而促進 social learning (democratic environmental movement is more than votes and protests, but construction and alteration of values and preference which are the ultimate cause of behaviours) 。所以，我們很難想像中央政府可以在政治對內與對外均封閉的情況下符合到這一環。所以恐怕短期之內中國仍會跟隨技術主義的路線。
*************************************************
全球氣候暖化致極端天氣
(明報)08月 03日星期五 05:10AM 【明報專訊】中國7月份多個地區出現極端天氣，中國氣象局 更指出，全球氣候變暖，是造成嚴重水災及乾旱的原因之一。綠色和平 項目經理陳宇輝表示，中國政府在處理氣候變化問題上，態度積極，原因是嚴重天災會造成人命傷亡及巨大經濟損失，早前召開的8國集團（G8）峰會上，國家發改委主任馬凱表示，中國不承諾量化溫室氣體減排目標，但不等於中國不承擔對氣候變化應負的責任。
陳宇輝說，事實證明全球變暖導致的極端天氣現象愈來愈明顯，全球各國都應採具體措施，減少排放溫室氣體。港府亦應盡快全面研究，了解氣溫上升對海水水位、生態以至疾病的變化及影響，從而制訂應變措施。
天文台 過去曾多番指出，全球暖化 對本港最直接的影響是將來可能不再有冬天，預料至本世紀末，香港平均氣溫將上升攝氏3至4度，而12度或以下的寒冷日子，會由2000年至09年每年平均16、17日，減至平均0.8日。此外，天文台預料，目前至世紀末，會出現3年大旱及6年雨量遠高於平均數的現象，海水水位則會上升28至58厘米，威脅沿岸低窪地區。
Friday, August 3, 2007
Preference construction for sustainability
The economic dominance of Hong Kong development history is necessarily conducive to economic individualism, reductionism which has significantly impeded the merits of its environmental policy. Without downplaying their roles in mitigating pollution, some environmental policies, like sewage charges and emission limits, are deterministic and do not see the construction of preference as a policy goal in search for a sustainable path. Consultation exercises, on the other hand, are meaningful because it is a kind of deliberative activities that were totally absent in the colonial years. However, did they make any difference to the environmental policymaking? I doubt this. What I want to point out is, one of the goals of sustainability policy is to facilitate formation and transformation of preferences. Preferences, or values, are ultimate cause of behaviours; ignorance of the ways they evolve will produce no qualitative change in the ecological economy.
The idea above is drawn from an academic paper I finished reading a few minutes ago. Below is an extract from that article, written by Niemeyer and Spash; the latter is a prestigious ecological economist who recently works in deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) to which I am very interested in.
“The treatment of individuals as ‘economically rational’ (that is, self-interested and aiming to maximise utility), is far removed from the individual as a member of a community who aims to achieve a collectively best outcome. Thus, economy theory tends to assume that preferences about collective environmental goods and services are predetermined and require no further explanation. Once humans are viewed as moral agents, their values, and consequently, preferences, can only be understood in historical, social, and ecological contexts (Siebenbuner, 2000). Preference construction means taking into account the formation of preferences and their change through campaign, media coverage, advertising, or survey processes.”
(Extracted from Niemeyer, S., & Spash, C. (2001). Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19)
The idea above is drawn from an academic paper I finished reading a few minutes ago. Below is an extract from that article, written by Niemeyer and Spash; the latter is a prestigious ecological economist who recently works in deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) to which I am very interested in.
“The treatment of individuals as ‘economically rational’ (that is, self-interested and aiming to maximise utility), is far removed from the individual as a member of a community who aims to achieve a collectively best outcome. Thus, economy theory tends to assume that preferences about collective environmental goods and services are predetermined and require no further explanation. Once humans are viewed as moral agents, their values, and consequently, preferences, can only be understood in historical, social, and ecological contexts (Siebenbuner, 2000). Preference construction means taking into account the formation of preferences and their change through campaign, media coverage, advertising, or survey processes.”
(Extracted from Niemeyer, S., & Spash, C. (2001). Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)