Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Energy 50, Cheap oil, natural gas and coal prices

Last Saturday, a $35 a barrel oil at West Texas Intermediate (WTI) was breached. Airlines and shipping lines' fares should go down, more tourism. More farm mechanization, more cows and carabaos will be spared of heavy farm work. 

t 

Some oil products other than WTI and Brent are actually cheaper than these. Like Western Canada, Iraq heavy, etc.


Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-14/never-mind-35-the-world-s-cheapest-oil-is-already-close-to-20

The anti-fossil fuel planet saviours

Many of the tens of thousands of planet saviours and climate hangers who went to the UNFCCC COP 21 meeting in Paris who hate fossil fuel may be shivering with this development. They want the world to cut petroleum use while they do their frequent jet-setting global meetings and junkets on airplanes that fly and cars that run on petroleum.

They will dislike that there will be more trucks, more buses, more cars, more planes, more ships that move more people and goods across cities, islands, countries and continents, as oil prices keep falling.

The animal rights activists should welcome this development too. Millions of cows, carabaos, horses, other big animals will be spared of heavy and punishing farm work as it is cheaper and faster to use more tractors and machines than those animals.

OPEC now a price taker, not price dictator

The old, tested greed by OPEC member-governments have been shattered by heavy competition from shale gas/oil drillers and producers in the US, Canada, etc. Before, whenever oil prices fall down, OPEC would quickly cut their output from 30 M barrels per day (bpd) to around 29 M bpd. Now they cannot and will not do that. They are forced to keep producing at 30-31 M bpd, accept low prices and lower revenues, just to keep their market share.

The rest of us, oil consumers around the world, benefit from this global competition among oil and gas producers. In the Philippines, the minor Peso/$ depreciation contributed to small price rollback. Besides, the $35 per barrel is for 1 or 2 months delivery, meaning by January or February 2016, not December 2015.

Peak Oil theory is discredited

Peak oil, along with peak food and Malthusian hypothesis, climate alarmism, discredited. The short- and medium-term scenario is that world oil prices will hover between $40-$60, still low compared to 2012-2013 levels of nearly $100. And lower than the past decade's prices.

We are in a period of cheaper energy, cheaper food, longer lifespan, healthier people. The problem of many economies now is more fat/obese people than thin and undernourished people. When people die at 50 or 60 yrs old, some would say, "he/she died young". In 1900, when a person dies at 40 or 50 yrs old, that's "long" already because life expectancy was only around 33 years.

So few decades from now, if a person dies at 70-80 yrs old, other people will say, "he/she died young." Why, because average life expectancy then will be at around 100, 110 yrs old.

Regulated fares and the LTFRB

But why despite oil and fuel prices going down, public vehicles in the Philippines do not automatically bring down their fares?  When fuel prices go up, PUV operators and drivers ask for a fare hike again.

The Land Transport Franchising Regulatory Board (LTFRB) of the DOTC is a jerk government agency. MARINA (regulator for shipping companies and operators) and CAB (regulator for airlines) allow fare deregulation. So airlines' fares can go up or down depending on the travel season. The LTFRB officials, past and present, are among the hard-core central planning bureaucrats. No fares can go up or down unless they give permits, unless they affix their signatures.

Not only world oil prices, natural gas prices are also falling, chart over the last 7 1/2 years. More energy at cheaper price, more prosperity.


And world coal prices too. Since the Paris climate agreement is non-binding, no penalties for countries that do not obey their promised emission cuts, then more developing countries like India, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Brazil, etc. will be using this energy source to further empower their economy. Rich countries too like Japan and the US. Prices chart over the last 14 years.


Global capitalist competition will spring us more surprises, for the better. There are lots of shale gas/oil rigs that have been temporarily closed because of low prices. But there are lots more shale oil and gas deposits around. More global prosperity is the game.

Deflation

Yes, cheap energy prices can contribute to deflation or declining overall prices of commodities and services. But it will be a good type of deflation. More output per unit of input. In this case, more oil, more natural gas, per rig.

There is a distinction between good and bad deflation. The good is productivity-driven (cheap oil, cheaper mobile phones and flat tv, cheaper food and shoes, etc.). The bad deflation is due to poor economic outlook in the future (people seldom spend even if they have the money).

There is little role for governments in this type of deflation, and they should not intervene more, like imposing higher petroleum taxes. The WB and IMF have been lobbying for this tax hike for sometime now. They believe that petroleum being a "public bad" should be taxed more. Nehh? Those WB, IMF, UN, other multilaterals' officials and bureaucrats love to jet-set and travel a lot, on petroleum-powered planes and SUVs, meaning it is useful for them, then declare petroleum as a "public bad"?
------------

See also:

Sunday, December 13, 2015

BWorld 31, Comparative electricity exchange market in Asia-Pacific

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last December 09, 2015.


Voluntary market exchange, the people’s freedom to sell and supply and freedom to buy and purchase, is among the cornerstones of a free and dynamic society. When they are not forced to sell to only one or two buyers or not forced to buy from only one or two sellers, then there is more competition. As a result, prices are reasonable and affordable and the consumers benefit from this kind of economic freedom.

In the electricity market, the presence of many power generation companies, many power plants from various energy sources, many distribution utilities and organized consumers, is one precondition for having a competitive and affordable electricity prices. Especially if governments do not impose lots of taxes, fees, charges and royalties that push electricity prices upwards.

Many modern economies have their own electricity exchange markets, similar to their respective stock markets. These are generally independent organizations or corporations, independent from government.

Here are Asia and Pacific economies which have their own platform for electricity spot markets. (See table)


The Philippines’ Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM), created under Republic Act No. 9136 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), became operational in June 2006.

The US and Europe have their own respective electricity market platform too. Examples are the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, USA, and the European Power Exchange SE owned by the APX Group, covering Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg.

In the above table, it is notable that the Philippines seems to be the odd-man-out because PEMC, supposed to be an independent organization and corporations, remains to be under the leadership and control of the Department of Energy (DoE).

Take the case of the Energy Market Co. Pte. Ltd. (EMC) of Singapore. The Board is composed of seven prominent individuals, none of whom is from the government, and seems none is from any energy players (covering generation, transmission, distribution). The Chairman, Wong Meng Meng, is a topnotch lawyer known more for litigation and arbitration, not in energy economics or engineering. So it is a clear example of independence from government and from stakeholders.

During the Senate public hearing last Oct. 8, chaired by Senator Sergio R. Osmeña III, Chairman of the Committee on Finance (Subcommittee B), the issue of PEMC governance and WESM administration was tackled. The eloquent Senator pointed out the following points, among others:

(1) Under EPIRA, PEMC is supposed to last for only one year and would transition to an independent market operator (IMO).

(2) PEMC has existed for so long (12 years now), they are now saying, “Now we have experience in operating the grid because we already practiced for 10 years.”

(3) The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) regulates and has oversight function over PEMC. PEMC does not consider itself a government-owned and controlled corporation, supposedly independent, but the Chairperson is the DoE Secretary.

(4) PEMC was created in 2003, and the DoE Secretary is an over-staying Chairman for 12 years already.

(5) PEMC being a private corporation is not subject to audits by the Commission on Audit.

(6) PEMC says it is private, independent of government, then must go to the Chairperson (DoE Secretary) to change rules.

There are several important issues that PEMC and the DOE seem to violate EPIRA, supposedly the mother of all electricity reforms including the creation of ERC, Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM), WESM and IMO.

One, PEMC should have been nonexistent several years ago, only one year after the creation of WESM (June 2006); meaning PEMC should have become IMO by June 2007.

Two, the DoE Secretary should be out of PEMC or IMO as its Chairman. It cannot be really independent of government if the Chair is the DoE Secretary, which issues a Department Circular, which becomes part of the rules of PEMC and WESM.

Three, the PSALM, a government corporation with big presence in power generation in Luzon-Visayas, may have justified presence in the PEMC and soon IMO board; but the National Power Corp. with minimal presence in power generation, its presence in the Board looks questionable. There are huge players in the generation sector that are affected by PEMC and WESM rules that are not in the board.

Four, if PEMC is dissolved and IMO is created, there are two issues to settle. (1) IMO is independent of both government and stakeholders, like Singapore’s EMC, or (2) IMO is independent only of government but will be composed of stakeholders, like the Philippine Stock Exchange model.

This writer is not a stakeholder, not a consultant of any of the stakeholders or the government but writes only from a consumer’s perspective.

Hence, he wishes to repeat and help continue the advocacy in the sector: (1) reduce or abolish certain energy taxes, fees, permits, royalties that contribute to expensive electricity, (2) establish fiercer competition among players and stakeholders, and (3) have the government lay down and enforce fair rules that apply to all without exception, not add more layers of costly bureaucracies and regulations.
• • •
Minor erratum in a previous column entitled: “WESM, PEMC and the search for competitive electricity prices” last Nov. 4. On the PEMC Board, it said:

“One from the Market Operator, one from the National Transmission Corp. (now known as the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines), four from DUs; one from WESM customers including but not limited to suppliers...”

The National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) wrote saying that: “NGCP is an entity separate from the National Transmission Corporation (TransCo)... NGCP as System Operator, holds a seat at the PEMC... holds the concession and franchise to manage and operate the country’s power transmission assets.”

Thanks for the correction.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the President of Minimal Government Thinkers Inc., and a Fellow of South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET). minimalgovernment@gmail.com
--------------


See also:

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Climate Tricks 46, More alarmism --> more climate money expectation --> more disappointment

The main irony of climate alarmism is this. 

1. Top climate activists and UN officials paint very scary, very alarming scenario 100 years away,
2. People and climate activists from developing countries demand more climate money, hundreds of $ billions per year of money (ie, more alarmism, more climate extortion), 
3. Officials from rich countries, their economies already saddled in heavy public debts, resist the huge climate money blackmail,
4. More disappointment, even anger, with deadlocks.

This is repeated yearly in all the past Conference of Parties (COP) meetings by member-governments of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).

Take this story for instance last December 04, 2015:

“PARIS, France - Angry developing nations warned Thursday that increasingly tense UN talks aimed at averting catastrophic climate change would fail unless a bitter feud over hundreds of billions of dollars was resolved.

Negotiators from 195 nations are haggling in Paris over a planned universal accord to slash greenhouse-gas emissions that trap the Sun's heat, warming Earth's surface and oceans and disrupting its delicate climate system.”


Some stories at the end of the COP 21 meeting, December  11, 2015:

"Britain and other rich countries face demands for $3.5 trillion (£2.3 trillion) in payments to developing nations to secure a deal in Paris to curb global warming. Developing countries have added a clause to the latest draft of the text under which they would be paid the “full costs” of meeting plans to cut emissions." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4637269.ece

"The night saw an ugly brawl as US Secretary Of State John Kerry threatened that developed countries would walk out of the agreement if they were asked to commit to differentiation or financial obligations. “You can take the US out of this. Take the developed world out of this. Remember, the Earth has a problem. What will you do with the problem on your own?” he told ministers from other countries during a closed-door negotiation on the second revised draft of the Paris agreement." 

ISSUES THAT HAVE DELAYED AGREEMENT
Should developed countries have a legal obligation to pay for climate change
Should developing countries, that do not have historical responsibility for emissions, also contribute to the fund
Should burden-sharing be based on current economic capabilities or a combination of historical emissions and current economic capabilities
Should the actions of developing countries be linked to the provision of finance and technology or should they be treated at par with developed countries going forward
Should there be a periodic review of delivery of finance and technology by developed world or not
Should the long-term goal be to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degree by the turn of the century or should it be somewhere between 1.5 degree and 2 degrees
Should poor and vulnerable countries continue to hold the right to file for damages against permanent loss caused to them because of climate change.

"Reacting to second version of the draft, Adriano Campolina, ActionAid Chief Executive, said, "In the closing hours of the Paris talks we have been presented with a draft deal that denies the world justice.

"By including a clause for no future claim of compensation and liability, the US has ensured people suffering from the disastrous impacts of climate change will never be able to seek the justice owed to them." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../50136956.cms... 

So here are some of the ironies and hypocrisy of climate alarmism movement.

Irony/hypocrisy 1: more alarmism, more extortion for climate money, more anger and disappointent.

Irony/hypocrisy 2: more hatred of fossil fuel, more use of fossil fuel with thousands of airplane flights to reach Paris from tens of thousands of climate negotiators + hangers on.

Irony/hypocrisy 3: many planet saviours hate nuclear power, then they go to France, enjoy uninterrupted electricity while France is the #1 nuke-dependent country in the planet. In 2013, 76% of its total electricity output came from nuke.

Greenpeace irony/hypocrisy very clear. They oppose nuke power, declaring, "End the nuclear age" http://www.greenpeace.org/internati.../en/campaigns/nuclear/

And they are in France, the #1 nuke-dependent country in the planet. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th nuke-dependent countries are Ukraine, Sweden, S. Korea and the US, 2012 data. 


Source: International Energy Agency (IEA), 2014 Key World Energy Statistics.

The planet is fine, it does not need self-proclaimed "planet saviours" and just undergoing the old and tested climate cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, endlessly, with or without humans and their SUVs. 

The planet's inhabitants though need to be spared and saved from those climate charlatans whose goal in spreading climate alarmism is more government, more global ecological and energy central planning. Alarmism now simply digs its own contradictions and problems. 
------------- 

See also:

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Free Trade 58, TPP and its rabid critics

I am reposting these two papers below, published this week in Kuala Lumpur. The first is a well-written piece (as usual) by a good friend, the second is a press statement by IDEAS. The image I got from the web and just added here.


(1) Be wary of anti-TPP ideologues

by Wan Saiful Wan Jan 
(CEO, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia)

I am usually very keen to take part in discussions about the benefits and challenges of trade liberalisation.

The Trans-Pacific Partner­­ship (TPP) agreement is one of the steps towards further li­­beralisation and I have been taking part in many events with those who oppose it lately.

But I am losing steam very fast and I have been asking myself many times if it is actual­ly worth the effort to debate the TPP cri­tics.

The anti-TPP activists have been campaigning for many years. I remember reading some material from them back in mid-2013.

The text of the TPP was released on Oct 5, 2015, but they have been opposing since mid-2013.
That means, at the very least, they have been opposing the TPP more than two years before they even knew what the TPP is.

In other words, when they started campaigning against it, they did not even know what it is.

To make it easier to understand, let’s turn that into a political analogy. If someone comes to you and says that Party A is bad news, a rational person would react by asking for the evidence.

If the only evidence is based on hearsay and assumptions, it is very likely that the person is talking from ideology and sentiment instead of rational thinking. It is also likely that he is a supporter of Party B trying to badmouth Party A.

That is exactly what has happened to the TPP. If anyone pretended to know the content of the TPP before Oct 5, he was either a bomoh or an ideological activist.

There is no other way to explain the pretentious behaviour of claiming to know something that was not even released yet at that time.

The reality is, those who have been campaigning against the TPP are mostly ideolo­gical anti-liberalisation activists. They be­­lieve that a paternalistic government must protect us forever because we will never grow up as strong adults.

Their opposition to liberalisation is driven by the ideological belief that Malaysians are too weak and too stupid, and therefore, they as the clever ones, must protect us from competition.

Over the last few months I did try to engage with some of them. But I found them impossible to engage with because they jump from one point to another without any desire to take in answers to the issues they complain about.

And they will dismiss any answer you provide, accusing you of not knowing enough because only they have the superior ability to grasp complex issues.

They usually start by saying the TPP was negotiated in secret and therefore it must be bad. It does not matter how many times you explain to them that it is normal practice to negotiate the final deal before making it public.

They are not interested in the answer and before you know it, they would jump to a dozen more complaints, all of which are plucked from the Internet way before the true text is released.

If you tell them that the complaints are not in the actual text, they will say it may not be in now, but there is no guarantee it cannot be inserted in the future.

How do you talk to someone who refuses to accept the fact but is very quick at bringing into the conversation all future possibilities? Since there is no guarantee that driving a car is safe, should we ban all cars?

The main point here is that their opposition is driven by blind anti-liberalisation ideology. It does not matter that two cost benefit analyses have been released to say that the TPP would bring many benefits to the rakyat.

They would scramble to find faults with the studies, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they will soon accuse the two studies as biased just so that they can ignore the data and stick to their own opinions.

When it comes to ideology, data and facts are irrelevant.

Having said that, some of the complaints against the TPP deserve to be analysed further.

There are concerns about the potential impact of the extended copyright and patent protection on pricing of the protected items. Many parties have expressed concern about the potential risks behind the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS), the government’s ability to conduct public health measures, impact on labour rights, domination of big powers especially the United States, and so on.

The concerns should indeed be addressed by our Government. The rakyat deserves to be told the real picture.

Unfortunately, and I choose my words carefully here, the Government has been very lousy at providing explanations on these issues.

After five years of negotiation, we see today a Government that seems to be clueless how to conduct the necessary public education exercise.

All the burden seems to be placed on Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed and his Ministry of International Trade and Industry. This is wrong because the TPP was negotia­ted by the Government as a whole, involving 16 agencies.

By right they should work together and pool resources to educate the public.

But we only see silence from almost all the other agencies. In fact some, including go­vernment-linked companies that were represented in the negotiation, are publicly hinting that the TPP should be rejected even though they were involved at the negotiation stage.

If this is not incoherence, should we call it irresponsibility?
--------- 

(2) Results of TPP cost benefit analyses validate need to liberalise Malaysia’s economy

PRESS STATEMENT

Kuala Lumpur, 7 December 2015 – The results of the two cost benefit analyses on Malaysia’s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership conducted by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) were released last week.

“Making an informed decision about Malaysia’s participation in the TPP requires a systematic and rational approach utilising the best possible evidence and analyses,” stated Wan Saiful Wan Jan, IDEAS Chief Executive Officer. “These two reports allow our parliamentarians, decision makers and civil society stakeholders to get answers on their concerns and then to make informed decisions.”

Wan Saiful added that: “I am glad that both reports did not play down the many concerns raised by various parties about the TPP. The fact that the two studies concluded that Malaysia would, overall, benefit from joining the TPP validate what we have been saying all along that liberalisation is good for the rakyat.”

“I want to emphasise that the government needs to get their act together to inform the public about the benefits of this trade agreement. So far it has done a lousy job at explaining the TPP despite having five years of negotiating it. It is unacceptable that the burden is piled on MITI alone, while other ministers behave as if they are unconnected to the process. All the ministries involved need to speak up as one government and there must be a coherent strategy to communicate with the public.”

“At the same time, I am worried about those who oppose the TPP because they have been unduly influenced by anti-liberalisation activists. These activists will oppose the TPP even when studies say it is good. They have been opposing it for years, before reading the actual text of the agreement or digesting the conclusions from the two studies. Even now, they will continue to oppose it regardless of these recent developments.”

“It is shocking how much coverage these anti-liberalisation activists have received and how many people have been influenced by their scare tactics. I expect that they will now be scrambling to find faults and attempt to discredit the two studies in order to save the little credibility that they have left. We must not be fooled and allow ourselves to be terrified. I urge everyone to read the two studies and decide based on the facts. We must ignore made-up accusations thrown by those who are driven by ideology rather than facts.”

“On the other hand, the two cost benefit analyses documented that Malaysia has obtained various exemptions and carve outs from the TPP, such as in the areas of Bumiputera policies and GLCs. I understand the short term political needs for these exemptions. But from the perspective of the longer term welfare of the rakyat, these exemptions will blunt the full benefits of the TPP. It would mean that Malaysia will not gain the maximum benefit from this round of liberalisation,” said Wan Saiful.
------------

See also:

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

BWorld 30, Tourism and airport transfer at NAIA

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last December 03, 2015.


Tourism provides income and creates jobs for many economies in the world. Singapore, for instance, attracts foreign visitors two times its population size while Hong Kong gets visitors four times the number of its residents.

The Philippines, being detached from the Asian mainland and an archipelago, does not get enough foreign visitors compared to its neighbors in the region. Thus, while one can take land transportation from Thailand to Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, or from Malaysia to Singapore, it cannot be done in the Philippines. One needs to fly from Manila to other exotic islands and famous beach resorts like Boracay, Bohol, Cebu, Palawan, Davao and so on.

Nonetheless, there is consistent growth in the Philippine tourism industry, attracting nearly 5 million foreign visitors in 2014. (See Table 1)


In terms of spending by foreign visitors and returning Filipinos already based abroad, the Philippines received nearly $4.8 billion in 2014. It is not as big as what Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and other neighbors receive but it is twice what the country earned a decade ago. (See Table 2)



Since we aim to attract more foreign visitors and guests, it is important that infrastructure and logistical support are simple and provide convenience to our visitors and returning Filipinos, especially frequent travellers.

The airport transfer at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) to different destinations is generally very inconvenient and time consuming, especially with the on-going construction of skyways near and around the four terminals.

Take the case of VJ, a Filipino expat for most of his professional life who has been living in Singapore for three years now. His work takes him to the entire Southeast Asian region, traveling at least 25% of his time. He can fill one passport with stamps in an average of 1.5-2 years.

VJ flies from Singapore to Manila once or twice a month, both for work and personal travel. At NAIA, he would normally take the yellow airport taxi, whose rate is higher than regular taxis. Despite forking out extra for the same service, VJ prefers the yellow cabs since the cars are in better shape and the drivers are more professional.

Recently, the queue for the yellow cab has been longer than usual, taking passengers one and a half hours before they get a ride.

Another option is to take the “Bayan ko” flat rate white cabs. They cost more but at least the queue is more manageable, that is, if cars are around. Typically, a trip from NAIA3 to Ortigas for a yellow cab is around P275 and around double that amount for the white, flat rate taxi.

With the frequent heavy traffic around the airport, even queueing to get white cabs takes 30-45 minutes.

Last Nov. 6 when VJ flew back home, he was ready to take the white cab but saw that the line was extended, thinking that it would take him one and a half hours to get a ride.

One lady asked him if he wanted a quick ride to Ortigas, it would cost him P1,550, triple the price of the more expensive white, flat-rate cabs.

Another lady approached him and offered a ride to the same destination for P1,250. Because he was very tired, he took the bait.

The lady took him to Bay 1 of Terminal 3 and a white sport utility vehicle hurriedly picked him up. An airport policeman or traffic enforcer later hailed the vehicle but they were let go after a quick conversation with the driver. The driver told VJ that the policeman is the father of one of the female barkers. The driver then stopped and talked to one of the barkers, telling her that he will “take care” of the enforcer later or words to that effect.

Expensive rides, bad experiences at airport transfer

VJ is familiar with all the other airports in Southeast Asia and swears that they are devoid of this kind of taxi scam. He tried Uber before with good experience but for some reason, its signal is weak in NAIA3, or they may have been blocked, or Uber cars refuse to ply NAIA3.

Among the quick and convenient airport transfer for passengers would be different aircon buses or vans that will take passengers from terminals 1-3 to Makati, Ortigas, Cubao, Manila, Alabang, and so on. Passengers can get off at major hotels or take the ordinary taxi from those business districts. This will significantly reduce the number of cars that go in and out of the airport and hence, smoothen traffic flow.

If complicated, politicized, and bureaucratic franchising system is not a factor, private players can easily field these buses or vans and give faster and cheaper transportation for the passengers. But there could be heavy politics and opposition lobbying at the Land Transport and Franchising Regulatory Board and the Manila International Airport Authority as this new scheme will adversely affect the taxi duopoly (yellow and white/flat rate) and the third, “taxidap” scheme at the airport.

If this taxi duopoly plus taxidap scheme are kept for a long time, then the Philippines will not get more foreign visitors as these horrendous experience will be factored in by the tourists. It is safe to assume that Cambodia and Myanmar will overtake the Philippines in attracting more tourists by 2016 (see Table 1 again), if not this year.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. heads Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc., and is a Fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET).
-------------

See also:
BWorld 26, IPRI 2015 in APEC economies, November 19, 2015 

Election 18, On Duterte's killing field of 1,700 murders

Of the 5 declared and serious Presidential candidates for the PH elections in May 2016, Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte is the most controversial, most drama-filled, most sensational.

Why? These headlines today in major newspapers in Manila are self-explanatory. 


From a city government-sponsored murders to state-sponsored murders if he becomes President. 

The PDP-Laban party's standard bearer is a self-confessed murderer of 1,700 people. Even if it's a joke, it's a shameless joke.

The man is laughing at the claimed 700 murders, small time daw. He publicly, explicitly, categorically brags that he and his death squads have killed 1,700. For me, only a sick mind would do that, publicly announcing and bragging that he has killed such a big number of people with zero trial.

About his good public health program, these are two different things. To be falsely accused, then zero trial with 100% bragging of summary execution, that's horrible. If he must brag, then he must brag about his performance in public healthcare, it should be fine. NOT with the number of people he has killed. Not counted here are those killed by his death squad, the families of victims who are too scared to complain or sue the Mayor fearing that they could be the 1,800th or 2,000th victims.

It is repugnant to see justifications by Duterte supporters that such large-scale murders are ok. To hell with investigation of allegations, just kill and kill. By the hundreds, by the thousands. If one of their friends or relatives was among those 1,700 dead people, falsely accused with zero trial, just outrightly murdered, I don't know if they would still support such large-scale murders.

I think Duterte has reached the stage or mental level of deriving joy from killing people. Kill few guys here, have some welfare programs to minimize public backlash. Then kill again a dozen there, another papogi programs. And kill more. Zero trial with 100% bragging. 

Good luck to Duterte supporters. A person who has acquired the joy and satisfaction of summary murders, zero trial and zero fear of accountability, will have a larger field of joy and happiness when he becomes President. Killing fields beyond Davao, what a joy. Kill dozens or hundreds in Cebu, in Negros, in Samar, in Camarines, in Cagayan, in Isabela, in Metro Manila. Kill and kill. What a joy.

Dragging Mar Roxas, Jojo Binay, Miriam Santiago, etc. here is a secondary or non-issue. The main issue is the penchant for large-scale murders by a Presidential candidate and publicly bragging it. Corruption is everywhere, drugs are everywhere, so there will be deaths and killings and murders everywhere when Duterte wins. No more trial, no more correctional for these people, especially petty criminals who may have sold 1 gram of marijuana. They just deserve instant death from Duterte and his men. wow.

Forget rule of law. Only rule of men and murderers will dominate.
Shame on you, Duterte.
-------------

See also:

Sunday, December 06, 2015

BWorld 29, Paris COP: Emission cut targets vs. energy needs

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last November 27, 2015.
----------

To fight poverty and unemployment, increased electricity supply at cheaper rates should be made available in the country, spurring growth, which creates more jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities.

High poverty incidence and darkness kill people. They are more exposed to dangerous informal sector work, criminals and robbers lurking in dark corners, more prone to road accidents due to dimly-lit streets roads, more prone to fires due to frequent use of candles.

Thus, the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP) in Paris this coming Nov. 30 to Dec. 11 should not be used to hamper or even kill cheaper and reliable electricity sources in the future.

The Philippines’ Climate Change Commission (CCC) however, sent an ambitious plan to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change last October. It said:

“The Philippines intends to undertake GHG (greenhouse gas; CO2) emissions reduction of about 70% by 2030 relative to its [business as usual] scenario of 2000-2030. Reduction of CO2 emissions will come from energy, transport, waste, forestry and industry sectors. The mitigation contribution is conditioned on the extent of financial resources, including technology development & transfer, and capacity building, that will be made available to the Philippines.”

What is the reference period, 70% of what by 2030?

In an Oct. 2 BusinessWorld report, “Philippines makes conditional offer to cut emissions by 70%,” it said:

“If fully implemented, the Philippines’ carbon emissions should drop 70 percent by 2030 from 2000 levels, said Lucille Sering, head of the country’s Climate Change Commission.”

70% drop from 2000 levels. Wow.

And in another report, CCC Deputy and Assistant Secretary Joyceline A. Goco said that their initial estimates showed that the Philippines would need around $12 billion to $15 billion in support to achieve its intended nationally determined contributions.

The basis for such ambitious and unrealistic commitment rests on questionable, if not wrong scientific data. There was global warming in the past century coinciding with the rise in CO2 emission from human activities and modernization, true. But there was also global warming during the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period, when there was not even bicycles during that time.

The current big El Niño that affects the Philippines and other countries in the tropics is true, we can expect drought conditions in the dry months of December-May.

But to say that it is the “Godzilla” of El Niño, the biggest and warmest of all time as reported in many papers, is not true. The big El Niño in 1997-98 was more severe than the current one. (See chart)



Meanwhile, following are the numbers for electricity production in big Asian economies. Not included in the list are Asian economies with low electricity consumption, or those which consume less than 30 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) like Afghanistan, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

The sources and distribution of such electricity output per country is also given. The table is divided into two parts: those countries which have 90% or more of their total electricity production coming from fossil fuel sources, and those below 90%. (See Table 1) 



Our four more developed Asian neighbors -- Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong -- have fossil fuel dependence of 92% to 100%. They can attract more manufacturing and other industrial players; more hotels, financial institutions and malls because they have stable, reliable and more affordable electricity supply. And they create more high value jobs to their economies, and that partly explains why their people have generally escaped from poverty and high unemployment.

For other Asian countries with less than 90% dependence on fossil fuels, their big hydro power and nuclear power have filled up the gap. For instance, production of nuclear power in million tons oil equivalent (mtoe) in 2012 were as follows: S. Korea with 34 mtoe, China with 22 mtoe, Taiwan with 9 mtoe, India with 7 mtoe.

Singapore with only 5.5 million population consumed almost 47 billion kWh; Hong Kong with only 7.3 million people consumed almost 39 billion kWh; Malaysia with only 30 million people consumed 134 million kWh. In contrast, the Philippines with 101 million population consumed only 73 million kwh or nearly one-half that of Malaysia’s consumption when the Philippine population is more than three times that of Malaysia.

There is a need to further expand energy production in the Philippines, make the supply of electricity more abundant and the price to go down and more stable.

Today is a good opportunity to expand power generation capacity from conventional sources -- coal, liquefied natural gas and oil (West Texas Intermediate) and coal. Their prices have been declining since the past few years. (See Table 2) 



More electricity supply at cheaper prices is a must to sustain the fast growth of the Philippine economy. This is more evident in many industries that are electricity-intensive like manufacturing, hotels and business process outsourcing that are open almost 24/7.

It is doubtful that the CCC’s target of 70% cut in carbon emission by 2030, 70% from 2000 level, has any realistic basis, even if the targeted $15 billion of climate money is given to the country. It seems that the reduced emission target was taken with little considerations for the electricity needs of the country.


Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc. and a Fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET).
------------


Saturday, December 05, 2015

CSOs and State 24, Mark Zuckerberg and Charity

Another civil society and volunteerism in action. Giving away one's own money, not other people's money collected by force.

"Mark Zuckerberg and his wife pledged to give away virtually all of their $46 billion in Facebook Inc. shares, setting a new philanthropic benchmark by committing their massive fortune to charitable causes while still in their early 30s.... promising to donate 99 percent of their stock in the social-networking company "during our lives."


"Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday that he's giving away 99% of his Facebook shares — valued at $45 billion today —during his lifetime." http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-giving...

So not entirely by next year or next 5 years. He plans to increase his wealth from the current $45B to perhaps $100B or $300B, then give away 99% of it. Maybe in 20 years. It's all about volunteerism, not coercion.

"Zuckerberg and Chan have already donated more than $1.6 billion to charity in the past decade, including a $100 million gift to the Newark Public School System, a $25 million donation to the CDC to stop the spread of Ebola, and a $120 million commitment to education in the Bay Area." -- from the BI article above.

So there is record already, gave even before announcing this new initiative.

This is a new phase of global capitalism. Those super-super rich, they see that governments are getting more bureaucratic, more coercive and even more stupid, they do not like how their huge tax money is being spent by those governments. So they spend and distribute their OWN money to see more meaningful results.

Politics of envy 1: rich people don't give to charity, damn them.
rich people give to charity, directly or indirectly, still damn them.

Politics of envy 2. All people, rich and middle class and poor alike, should be disempowered to do charity projects. Only the government, its politicians, legislators and officials/bureaucrats can be trusted. wow.

"It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?" http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-skeptics...

Politics of envy 3: Only government central planners can do real charity, wow.

“I applaud their emphasis on ‘promoting equality,’ but that starts with paying one’s taxes,” said Gabriel Zucman, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “A society where rich people decide for themselves how much taxes they pay and to what public goods they are willing to contribute is not a civilized society.”

"by using an LLC instead of a traditional foundation, we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively." Zuckerberg said that if his intentions were to avoid tax, he could've simply set up a charity. "If we transferred our shares to a traditional foundation," he wrote, "then we would have received an immediate tax benefit, but by using an LLC we do not. And just like everyone else, we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC."

He posted: "This enables us to pursue our mission by funding nonprofit organisations, making private investments and participating in policy debates — in each case with the goal of generating a positive impact in areas of great need.

"Any net profits from investments will also be used to advance this mission."
------------

See also:

CSOs and State 23, Financial education and Pidro Sing, October 27, 2015