Thursday, November 27, 2014

Energy Econ 30: Germany's Renewable Problems and Expensive Electricity

Here are more inconvenient stories for the lovers of Expensive-electricity-ok-so long-as-they're-from-renewables movement, focus on Germany's experience.
  
(1) From Wall Street Journal, Oct. 16, 2013:

Last week the CEOs of Europe's 10 largest utilities finally cried uncle and called for a halt to wind and solar subsidies. Short of that, they want subsidies of their own. They want to be paid, in essence, not to produce power.

The root cause of all this is the Continent's so-called feed-in tariffs for renewable energy, which began in Germany in 1990. A feed-in tariff is a form of mandate that gives solar and wind installations a guaranteed price, usually well above the market price, and ensures that any energy they produce gets priority on the electrical grid. When solar and wind plants are producing, their energy must be taken first, ahead of other kinds of power.

By requiring utilities to take this power—and requiring consumers to pay for it—Germany has increased renewables to 25% of its overall capacity. Berlin wants to push that to 35% in 2020 and 80% by 2050. Not every country in Europe has been as ambitious as Germany, but the European Union's renewables target across the entire Continent is also 20% by 2020.

(2) From WSJ, June 11, 2014:

Wind? Merely to keep pace with the global growth in electricity demand would require the installation of about 280,000 megawatts of new wind-energy capacity every year. According to several academic studies, the areal power density of wind energy—that is, the amount of power that can be derived from a given amount of land—is about one watt per square meter. This means that installing the requisite additional wind capacity would require covering about 280,000 square kilometers (108,000 square miles of land)—an area nearly the size of Italy—with wind turbines, every year. (For comparison, the areal power density of nuclear power is more than 50 watts per square meter. The productivity of oil and gas wells vary, but even marginal wells have power densities of about 27 watts per square meter.)

(3) From Reuters, Aug. 27, 2014:

Germany will continue to need coal-fired power plants, its energy regulator said, warning that Europe's biggest economy should not rely solely on renewables or risk increasing exposure to Russian gas as it shuts down nuclear plants.

"Those who call for an end of coal power generation don't have much interest in a reliable energy policy," Jochen Homann, president of the Federal Network Agency (BnetzA), told an energy industry conference on Wednesday.

"We will close further nuclear plants; these capacities need to be replaced," he said, adding that coal power was vital to achieve this…

(4) From The Telegraph, Sept. 02, 2014:

Germany's flagship green energy policy is in tatters, according to a new report by the consultancy firm McKinsey which says many of its goals are "no longer realistic".

But the McKinsey report says Germany is so far behind its key commitment to cut CO2 emissions that it is no longer realistically achievable…

A major factor in the failure to achieve targeted cuts has been Germany's increased use of "dirty" brown coal, or lignite, to make up the shortfall in power generation caused by its decision to phase out all its nuclear power stations by 2022.

The aim is replace nuclear energy with renewable sources, such as solar and wind power, but they have not yet been able to plug the gap, and the McKinsey report says that while solar energy is on track, the country is behind schedule in developing wind power.

(5) From Mining.com, September 22, 2014:

Only last year the share of electricity generated from coal in Europe’s biggest economy hit the highest in 24 years. The country also opened more coal-fired power plants in 2013 than any other time in the past 20 years as it moves towards a target set three years ago, which aims to have all nuclear power stations shut down by 2022.

Germany’s energy revolution —or “Energiewende”— has come at a high price.According to Bloomberg, it has so far added more than $134 billion (100 billion euros) to the power bills of households, shop owners and small factories.


But falling coal prices seem to have wet the government’s appetite for the fossil fuel, to the point that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s governmenthas recently announced it considers coal-based power plants as “indispensable” for the foreseeable future.

(6) From Wall Street Journal, Sept. 24, 2014:

Berlin’s “energy revolution” is going great—if you own a coal mine. The German shift to renewable power sources that started in 2000 has brought the green share of German electricity up to around 25%. But the rest of the energy mix has become more heavily concentrated on coal, which now accounts for some 45% of power generation and growing....

Greens profess horror at this result, but no one who knows anything about economics will be surprised. It's the result of Chancellor Angela Merkel 's Energiewende, or energy revolution, a drive to thwart market forces and especially price signals, that might otherwise allocate energy resources. Now the market is striking back.

Take the so-called feed-in tariff, which requires distributors to buy electricity from green generators at fixed prices before buying power from other sources. Greens tout the measure because it has encouraged renewable generation to the point that Germany now sometimes experiences electricity gluts if the weather is particularly sunny or windy.

Ordinary Germans foot the bill for these market distortions, having ponied up an estimated €100 billion ($129 billion) extra on their electricity bills since 2000 to fund the renewable drive. The government estimates this revolution could cost a total of €1 trillion by 2040.

(7) From EurActiv, Oct. 22, 2014:

German companies are concerned about the extra burden they fear will come with a new, higher climate protection target for 2030.
Utz Tillmann, a spokesman for the Energy Intensive Industries of Germany (EID) - which includes chemicals, steelmaking, cement and others - said he supported an ambitious agreement at the Paris UN climate summit in December next year.

But these goals should include strong and comparable commitments for both industrialised and newly industrialised countries, he stressed.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

ADR Institute, Part 2

The newly-launched think tank, Albert Del Rosario Institute for Strategic and International Studies (ADR Institute), held last Friday, November 21, 2014. The Board members, from left:

1. Benjamin Philip Romualdez, President of the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP), 
2. Victor Andres "Dindo" Manhit, Founder and Managing Director, Stratbase, also Professor of Political Science, DLSU,
3. Manny V. Pangilinan, head of Metro Pacific Investments, Smart/PLDT, Meralco, TV5, etc., 
4. Edgardo Lacson, honorary Chair of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) and President of the Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), 
5. Albert del Rosario, DFA Secretary,
6. Raul Pangalangan, former dean of the UP College of Law and publisher of the Phil. Daily Inquirer, 
7. Rene de Castro of DLSU International Studies Department, 
8. Epictetus Patalinghug of the UP College of Business Administration, 
9. Primo “CP” David of UP Diliman Geology and Environmental Science, 
10. Francisco Magno of DLSU Political Science Department, Director of the Jesse Robredo Institute of Governance, DLSU. and
11. (Not in  the photo) Ernest “Ernie” Bower, senior adviser and Sumitro chair for Southeast Asia Studies at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).


Good mixture of personalities. Is this a think tank of big business? Somehow Yes, with MVP there, heads of ECOP and COMP. Is this a think tank of academics? Somehow Yes, with known academics from UP Diliman (NIGS, CBA) and DLSU. Is this a think tank of civil society? Somehow Yes, with PDI Publisher, Robredo Institute, FEF guys there. Again, good mixture of people with different professional backgrounds.

I think the think tank's main clients will  be foreign  governments (through their embassies in Manila), big firms at the Philippine Stock Exchange, PCCI, etc. I saw many diplomats and some ambassadors that night, including US Ambassador Philip Goldberg, cool guy.

Some photos that night where I was an "extra". Below from left: Dr. Vic Paqueo of UPSE, PIDS, former WB/ILO consultant; Dr. Lingling Patalinghug, and Cong. Kit Belmonte. Vic was my former teacher in Econ. 181 (Labor Econ) while Ninong Lingling (yes, he's among my wedding godfathers) was my former teacher in Econ. 171 (Agri Econ) at UPSE sometime in 1983 or 84. Kit was a rich kid, mestizo, but very militant activist in UP then.



From left: Dindo Manhit, Kit Belmonte, Vic Paqueo, Raul Pangalangan, Totol Batuhan, Lingling Patalinghug, Digitel President Doy Vea, me.


From left: Edgardo Lacson (PSE, PCCI, ECOP), Ronnie Recidoro of COMP, me and Dindo. The three of us were discussing about mining and mineral potential, lots of jobs, money and government taxes, of the country, then I dragged Dindo for the photo.


Stratbase's young and dynamic staff, from left: Claudette Guevarra, Krystyna Dy, Bianca Soriano, Mikee Maralit, Lloyd Zaragoza. Me and Kiko Magno were extras here. Mikee is the one who directly invites me in some Stratbase/CitizenWatch events, she is a former student of my wife at DLSU.


Minimal Government Thinkers simply networks with other think tanks, research institutes, and other civil society organizations, like Stratbase and ADR Institute. For us, minimal government = maximum civil society. Things that can be done by individuals and their voluntary organizations need not be assigned to government, local, national or international/multilateral. Because government = coercion. So a minimal or limited government means minimum of coercion in society.

Thanks again for the invite, Dindo and Stratbase. Hope to see you in another round of discussions.
All photos above from Stratbase fb wall.
------------

See also:
Stratbase Forum on ASEAN Competitiveness, July 25, 2014
Free Trade 36: Taxation, Regulations, Trade and Rule of Law in ASEAN, August 05, 2014

Citizen Watch 2: On Power and Jobs, August 30, 2014

New Think Tank, Albert Del Rosario Institute for Strategic and International Studies, November 24, 2014

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Lion Rock 16: Photos and Discussions in Reading Club Salon 2014

Here are some photos of the Lion Rock Institute (LRI) 3rd Reading Club Salon (RCS) 2014 held three weeks ago in Hong Kong. Below, our group photo after the morning session, moderated by LRI Chairman Bill Stacey (seated, center). The afternoon session was moderated by Ken Schooland (seated, 2nd from left) of the Hawaii Pacific University. LRI Executive Director, Peter Wong, is standing behind Bill.

Milovan Djilas' book, "The New Class" (1957) was our take off discussion in the morning session. Bill asked something like, "Is there something in Marxism and its class analysis that makes it so appealing to the public and intellectuals?"


Among those who answered Bill's question was Feng Xingyuan (CASS, Unirule, CIPA, in Beijing), standing behind me in the above photo. He reasoned that the term "class" (Marx's capitalist class and working class) is misleading because there are now many "in-between" sectors in society like small entrepreneurs who are also workers and managers of their own small companies, so who exploits whom? 

I agreed with Xingyuan and added that  Marx’s class is indeed misleading and not useful, but Djilas’ concept of a "political class" is useful. Not only in national and local governments political class but also those in the international, multilateral and bilateral bureaucratic class. Good example is the UN, its attached or partner organizations and institutions, in pushing alarmism and more government intervention in crafting climate and energy policies.

Nick Smith (The Link, HK) added that aside from Djilas' bureaucratic class, there is also the managerial class,  An expansion of "class".


Fred McMahon (Fraser Inst., Canada) noted that with global competition, political nepotism has drastically declined in dispensing power and privilege in many countries.

Xingyuan added his observation that the Chinese government's power has increased, there is "methodological individualism", a class of people within the government doing detrimental things. An expansion of the concept of "class" may be ok but “class struggle” is not appropriate. More of “interest struggle” within governments, within businesses.


Here are some points by Djilas in Chapter 3, "The New Class". It talks about huge inequality between the ordinary citizens and the political class, the huge privileges of the latter, a capitalism "disease" that a communist society is supposed to correct, not continue and even exacerbate. This did not happen of course.


And a portion of Chapter 4, "The Party State". Djilas made a quick survey of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, their differences in personality, in one paragraph. Then  the expansion of the communist state under Stalin.


Djilas' book should be read or browsed by current socialists and bleeding heart activists, government and foreign aid bureaucrats and consultants. Their new mantra of "alarming social inequality" points to only one thing -- even bigger governments (local and national) and multilateral institutions (UN, WB, ADB, IMF, etc.) whose main goal is to further redistribute by force and coercion, the wealth and assets of the more hard-working, more efficient, more ambitious sectors of the planet.

This is a different "class" of people. They enjoy the products and innovation of capitalism and individual excellence, then turn around and demonize the free enterprise system, and call for more regulations on top of existing multiple and rigid regulations.

Sincere and non-envious scholars and researchers should not demonize capitalism  and high inequality. Rather, they should demonize policies that prevent the poor from taking advantage of the momentum of innovation and competition. Or create a culture of entitlement, dependency and mendicancy among the poor.

Thanks again to LRI for another stimulating, small group discussions.
-------------

See also 

Free Trade 40: Razeen Sally Joins IDEAS, to Campaign for More Liberalization

Good news for the ASEAN here. Today, IDEAS announced this:

Kuala Lumpur, 24 November 2014 – The Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) announces today the appointment of Dr. Razeen Sally as the first holder of IDEAS Chair of Political Economy and Governance Programme.

Dr. Sally is a globally renowned expert on international trade policy. He is Director and Co-founder of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) and a Visiting Associate Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. He was a faculty member and PhD graduate of the London School of Economics (LSE). He has published numerous works on global trade policies, global economic crises and the Asian economy including the ASEAN and Chinese economy.

Dr. Razeen Sally is a world-known scholar advocating free trade. In 2008, he  produced this book, published by Cato Institute in the US.

He is currently a Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School, in Singapore. He used to  teach at the London School of Economics where he also received his PhD. He is also the Director of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), a global-economy think tank in Brussels, which he co-founded in 2006. He has held research, teaching and advisory positions at institutes and think tanks in Europe, the USA, Asia and South Africa. He is an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington DC, Chair of the Global Agenda Council on Competitiveness of the World Economic Forum, 

Also in 2008, he produced this e-book, "Trade Policy, New Century: The WTO, FTAs and Asia Rising" , published by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), London, 2008.

The book summary enumerated these major arguments why free trade is good. Photo below was taken during the EFN Asia Conference 2014 in Hong Kong. 

• Ideas about free trade started in the West and were originally exported to the rest of the world. But, today, the major challenges for trade policy come from Asia.

• Trade is still the engine of prosperity and the handmaiden of peace. The ‘New Globalisers’ that have been freeing trade have seen rapid economic growth, reductions in poverty and improvements in welfare.

• The authentic case for free trade should be set in the context of classical liberal political economy and, as such, Western political opinion needs to move on from considering the promotion of free trade as a top-down process driven by supranational institutions. Instead it should see free trade as an integral part of a domestic liberal political agenda.

• Supranational organisations, including the World Trade Organization (WTO), have become too unwieldy to be effective in promoting radical trade reform; they should focus on ensuring that their rules are implemented effectively rather than on seeking radical liberalisation.

• Protectionist interests are alive and well and have influence both within individual countries, such as the USA, and within supranational organisations.

• The relatively liberal Western democracies should focus their trade policy on removing remaining explicit protectionist barriers but, perhaps more importantly, also on simplifying and making more transparent inhibitions to trade such as rules of origin and anti-dumping provisions. It is also important that a ‘culture of evaluation’ develops in the West so that implicit barriers to trade are properly scrutinised – especially within the EU.

• Slower reformers, generally lower-income countries, should focus on lowering tariff barriers and quotas – they generally lack the governance capacity to implement more complex reforms. Less developed countries need to lower their tariff barriers between themselves.

• There are over 180 Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) in force. PTAs are spreading like wildfire throughout Asia. In practice, many tend to be ‘trade light’ tools of foreign policy and diplomacy.

• Those Asian countries that have successfully integrated into the world economy have done so through unilateral liberalisation. China has reduced its tariffs from an average of 65 per cent twenty years ago to 10 per cent today. This process of unilateral liberalisation must continue, but the USA and the EU need to ensure that the right background for liberalisation exists by eliminating protectionist rhetoric and actions, such as so-called ‘anti-dumping’ measures.

• A classical liberal, ‘small-government’ domestic culture, which includes the promotion of unilateral free trade, will help ensure that the development of free trade is not knocked off course by vested interests. Dangerous vested interests include those promoting protectionism in the name of environmentalism, protecting strategic industries or promoting domestic security.

• The USA is an indispensable anchor for maintaining global peace. Its leadership is currently unchallenged. It has a particularly important role in engaging constructively with Asian countries to ensure that the best political climate exists for the continued development of free trade and internal
liberal reform in Asia.
-------------

See also:
Free Trade 36: Taxation, Regulations, Trade and Rule of Law in ASEAN, August 05, 2014

Free Trade 37: Multiple Concerns and Regulations in the ASEAN, September 11, 2014
Free Trade 38: Liberalize Rice Imports and Demonopolize NFA, September 28, 2014
Free Trade 39: Advantages of Unilateral Trade Liberalization, October 12, 2014

Monday, November 24, 2014

New Think Tank, Albert Del Rosario Institute for Strategic and International Studies

Last Friday, I was one of the invitees of Stratbase Consultancy Group in relaunching the Stratbase Research Institute (SRI) into the Albert Del Rosario Institute for Strategic and International Studies (ADR-ISIS). It was also the 10th anniversary of Stratbase. A number of academic and corporate VIPs there, and only two legislators. Good crowd, it was held at the Manila Polo Club in Makati.

Seated below are among the Board Members of the new think tank. From left: Dr. Epictetus Patalinghug of the UP College of Business Administration, Manny V. Pangilinan, head of Metro Pacific Investments, Smart/PLDT, Meralco, TV5, etc; Dr. Rene de Castro of DLSU International Studies Department, Dr. Francisco Magno of DLSU Political Science Department.


The other board members are Dr. Primo “CP” David of UP Diliman Geology and Environmental Science, Atfy Raul Pangalangan, former dean of the UP College of Law and publisher of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Benjamin Philip Romualdez, President of the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP), Edgardo Lacson, honorary Chair of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) and President of the Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), and Ernest “Ernie” Bower, senior adviser and Sumitro chair for Southeast Asia Studies at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Photo below seated, DFA Sec. Albert del Rosario (ADR), four Ambassadors from different countries, and Mr. Romualdez of COMP.


Sec. ADR giving a speech about the new think tank named after him. He was introduced by the founder and Managing Director of Stratbase, Prof. Dindo Manhit, after Dindo gave an overview of Stratbase's 10 years of accomplishments.


A story from Business Mirror a day before the event. Similar story was reported by Manila Bulletin, The Tribune, Manila Standard and the Inquirer.


I met a number of old friends and new acquitaintances there. This photo from left: me, Gary Olivar who is a fellow UPSE alumni, also the Spokesperson of former President Gloria M. Arroyo, Sen. Sonny Angara, Arnel Casanova, President and CEO of the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), and _______.


Again with Sen. Angara, Ramon Casiple, President of the Institute for  Political  and Electoral Reforms (IPER), Carol Manhit (Dindo's wife) and _______.


Among the various UP Diliman guys and alumni that night. With fellow UPSE alumni Jeffrey Ng, President of Cathay Metal Corp. and Cathay Land, Raul Pangalanan of UP Law, and Cong. Kit Belmonte of Quezon City. Kit was a former famous UP student leader, coming from a very rich family yet a very activist, "mestisong tibak".
With Prof. Kiko Magno, a DLSU Spanish visiting Prof., DFA Assistant Sec. for Legal Affairs Eddie Vega. Kiko, Ed and me are also fellow alumni of the UP Sapul, Polititical Science Club.


Ok, ADR-ISIS is not a free market think tank advocating limited government, unlike our partner think tanks within the  Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia, but I think the ADR think tank guys are open to hearing free market perspectives.  For instance, I was a participant in two small group round table discussions held by CitizenWatch Philippines/Stratbase this year. And two of my papers, one on ASEAN free trade and the other on the Philippines power/energy and rice trade sectors, were published by SRI. Thanks to Dindo.

I hope this informal partnership will continue in the coming years.
Photos above from PBEST, Mikee and my cameraphone.
------------

See also:
Stratbase Forum on ASEAN Competitiveness, July 25, 2014
Free Trade 36: Taxation, Regulations, Trade and Rule of Law in ASEAN, August 05, 2014

Citizen Watch 2: On Power and Jobs, August 30, 2014

Energy Econ 29: UK's Renewable Problems and Expensive Electricity

Some not-so-good news for the subsidize-renewables and  climate alarmism movement.

(1) From Sunday Express, October 15, 2014:

The green crusade of successive governments is set to double electricity bills for households and cost homes £26 billion a year by 2030, it was claimed yesterday.

"The cost of renewable energy and carbon taxes will put an extra £983 a year on household bills by then, compared to relying on a mix of nuclear and new gas-fired power stations, three experts told a Lords committee.

They also said the “foolhardy” green policy will do little to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The Scientific Alliance report highlights warnings by the regulator Ofgem that the margin for electricityproduction for the 2015-16 winter will be at an all-time low of 2 per cent compared to the pre-privatisation requirement of at least 20 per cent.

It means that in times of high demand, such as during very cold weather, Britain would be at risk of power cuts."

The alliance argues that wind power – which is the main renewable energy source depended on by Government – is unreliable.

(2) From the UK Gov, October 19, 2014:

The subsidy change will also save up to £2 million of taxpayers’ money each year that won’t be available for these subsidies. The reform follows other government measures designed to end support for solar farms in agricultural fields. The Department for Energy and Climate Change recently announced that renewable energy subsidies for new large-scale solar farms will end next April....

The changes the government is making are expected to slow down the growth of solar farms in the countryside in England. There are currently 250 installed, with the biggest covering as much as 100 hectares. Under previous plans, the number of fields dedicated to solar farms was set to increase rapidly, with over 1,000 ground-based solar farms expected by the end of the decade across the UK.

(3) From The Telegraph, October 21, 2014.

Our power stations are ageing fast. We have eked out their lifespan for longer than expected, but replacements are urgently needed. Yet for years, our politicians have failed to act, promoting costly and over-subsidised renewables rather than building new gas or nuclear plants. To make matters worse, much of our capacity has been scrapped, in compliance with environmental restrictions set in Brussels.

If things continue as they are, the prospect has been raised of Seventies-style restrictions on energy use, even rolling blackouts. That is a grim prospect for a 21st-century economy....

(4) From Mail Online,October 15, 2014

Former Environment Secretary said support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive.

He called on Whitehall to was to scrap the Climate Change Act. 

He warned claims of impending environmental disaster were 'exaggerated'.

(5) From The Telegraph, November 7, 2014:

In a shocking assessment, National Grid last week said that Britain’s cushion of spare generating capacity had sunk to just 4pc, down from 17pc three years ago and its lowest level in five years. And that’s despite a series of emergency measures, including incentives to business to use less power, to deal with the looming blackout problem.

That a country of Britain’s size, status and relative prosperity is running such risks is a quite shocking state of affairs. There is admittedly some justification in Mr Davey’s excuse – that this is largely the fault of the last lot, and particularly the disastrously inadequate and idealistically minded energy policy run by our now friendless Labour leader, Ed Miliband. Replacement, base load generating capacity takes a long time to build, and it should have begun a long time ago.

(6) From The Telegraph, October 5, 2014:

Green taxes on energy are undermining British businesses by imposing costs which are not faced by international competitors, Vince Cable has said.

The Business Secretary admitted that a compensation scheme for heavy industry introduced by the government in 2011 is failing to "go the whole hog" and redress the balance. He said that British firms are "struggling" to compete with their international rivals on price, which is leading to work going abroad.

"Many of our manufacturing companies and exporters – particularly in areas like steel and cement and others which consume lots of electricity – are struggling against international competition because of the cost of energy.

"They will argue that because we are trying to be green we are imposing costs on them which their competitors don't have.

The Germans, the British, "they are prepared to make sacrifices to address", including suffering some health and overall diswelfare. 

(7) From the International Business Times, November 6, 2014:

More than 15 million UK households plan to ration their energy use this winter to cope with "sky-high" energy costs, according to uSwitch.

The price comparison website, which surveyed 5,300 people, found that almost six in ten (57%) people have already cut back or plan to ration theirenergy use this winter in a bid to reduce bills.

The research also revealed that more than a third of people (36%) who rationed their energy last winter said it affected their health and wellbeing.

"In this day and age it's shocking to see so many being forced to go without heating and risk their health, simply to cope with high energy bills," said Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy at uSwitch.


(8) From The Times UK, November 21, 2014:

Subsidies that will cost households £14 a year and hand energy companies windfall profits to keep the lights on will be “challenging to defend politically”, a credit rating agency has said.

Companies will receive the payments to stop them closing power stations, even though in many cases they would remain open anyway.

Moody’s suggested that politicians could scrap the capacity market subsidy scheme if there is another backlash against green energy levies.

The agency said in a report: “While for a few plants, the capacity market may make thedifference between closing and staying open, the concept and cost of paying many other already economic plants even when they are not running may be challenging to defend politically in the context of the recent debate around the affordability of energy bills.”


(9) From CityAM, November 20, 2014

By promoting expensive forms of electricity – and discouraging cheaper forms, as the World Bank has done by, for example, refusing to finance coal-fired power plants – the West is burdening poor countries with the most expensive ways of generating power. The growing fleet of renewables in Europe, particularly in Germany and the UK, is leading to an increase in fuel poverty. Such an approach would be even more damaging in poor nations, which desperately need cheap and reliable energy and growth to alleviate poverty.

The UK and other rich nations should no longer fund decarbonisation in the developing world. In the short to medium term, developing countries need access to plentiful, cheap and reliable electricity. In any case, promoting renewables in the developing world is not an answer to dealing with the effects of the climate system.
--------------

See also:

Thursday, November 20, 2014

EFN and LRI's Workhorses

The Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia annual conferences, the various big events of the Lion Rock Institute (LRI), like other major events in the world, would not be possible without the efficient hands and minds behind them. I am referring to the workhorses of EFN and LRI, Pett Jarupaiboon (FNF's Regional Program Officer for EFN and Human Rights) and Wilson Li, respectively.

Above photo, Wilson and Pett at the dinner gala and last day of EFN Conference 2014 in HK, at the famous racetrack. They could afford to smile widely then as the bulk of many work has been done. Lower photo, also with Wilson and Pett, on the evening of the last day of EFN Conferencce 2012, also held in HK. I see how these two guys work and I call it the "duopoly of micro labor" :-) Great work as usual, Pett and Wilson.


Supervising Wilson and another workhose is LRI Executive Director, Peter Wong. He succeeded Andrew Work who then went to become the Exec. Dir. of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in HK, before starting his own publishing business, The Harbour Times. Above photo, with Fred McMahon of Fraser Institute (Canada) and Peter, at the dinner and end of EFN Conference 2014. Below photo, with Peter and Grover Norquist, President of the Americans for Tax Reforms (ATR), during the 4th Pacific Rim Policy Exchange, Sydney, Australia, September 2010.


Above photo, LRI co-founder Simon Lee, with Barun Mitra.  Taken during the LRI 10th anniversary dinner gala last November 05, 2014. Lower photo, with Andrew Work andEMHN's Philip Stevens, also at the end of EFN conference 2012 in HK. Also in the photo was another good friend Cathy Windels plus her Indian friend.


During the LRI's 1st Reading Club Salon in 2012 in HK, two interns helped us. Janice Fung and Jude Law (at Barun's left). These two young interns appeared at HK Legco public hearing and argued on certain issues, they are very articulate and brave. Above photo taken during LRI gala 2014, lower photo taken during EFN conference 2012.


Two other guys who helped LRI during the Reading Club Salon 2014 and EFN Conference were Jadranco Brkic, beside me at an escalator ride when we went to  the Admiralty to watch the HK protesters. Also in the photo were Wan Saiful Wan Jan (IDEAS, Malaysia) and Ken Schooland (Hawaii Pacific Univ., USA). Jad has been taking lots of photos and videos during the two events and posted them in youtube and facebook. Lower photo, with Laurence Milton Pak, another LRI intern.


Thank you for all the hard work you have put in making EFN and LRI remain dynamic organizations -- Peter, Wilson, Pett, other friends.
--------------

See also:
2004, MG and LRI Were Born, November 19, 2014

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

2004, MG and LRI Were Born

The Lion Rock Institute (LRI) held its 10th year anniversary Dinner Gala last November 06, 2014, at Harbour Grand Hong Kong, the same venue for the EFN Asia Conference 2014. Among the most memorable photos for me that night is this. From left: Parth Shah, President of the Center for Civil Society (CCS) in India, Andrew Work, co-founder of LRI, HK, me, and Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute, India.


Parth, Andrew and me were batchmates at the "Mackinac Leadership Conference 2004", held in April 2004 at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midlands, Michigan, USA. More than ten years have passed and we are still around  fighting for free market, free trade, limited government, rule of law, individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Minimal Government (MG) was only one month old and LRI was possibly two-three months old then. I and Ellen Cain of the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), Andrew and a few others, were granted an International Fellowships by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. So  it was my first exposure to the international free market movement. Thanks to Atlas and Priscilla Tacujan who recommended us to Atlas.

Our batch photo, 10 years and seven months ago at Mackinac Center. 


Mackinac President at that time was Larry Reed, VP was Joe Lehman. Around 2007, Larry became President of a bigger free market think tank in NY, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and Joe became Mackinac President. At one of our evening events at Mackinac. The "Asians table" plus our batchmate from Italy (to my left) and Larry Reed, beside Parth.


After Mackinac, we went to Chicago to attend the Atlas Liberty Forum, April 2004. I shared a room in the hotel and my roommate then was Barun Mitra! Barun is perhaps the most veteran (and most prominent) among all Asian free marketers, having been in the movement for about three decades now. When I was still a socialist and a great fan of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky in the 80s, Barun was already spreading the ideas of Hayek, Mises, Ayn Rand, Friedman, among others.


These are portions of the Atlas Year in Review, Fall 2004. Page 14.


And on page 15.

After the event in Chicago, we went to Virginia, stayed at the Atlas staff house in Fairfax and we started meeting various market-oriented think tanks and research institutes in Washington DC, Arlington, etc. I came back after a month, May 2004.

In October 2004, the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference was held in Hong Kong. LRI was part of the team who helped organized it of course. Out of the eight Asian participants who went to  Mackinac, six of us went to HK as well. From left: Cuoung, Joe Lehman, Ellen, Jargal, Parth and me. Andrew was there of course but we could not  find him as he was moving around when we assembled for this photo.


The group photo of the EFN 2004 conference. Taken from the Atlas 2004 report.


Thanks to Atlas, thanks to EFN and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), for their support to advocates and fighters for limited government and free market in Asia. 
------------

See also: