|
About Z/Yen
History
Clients
People
Testimonials
Z/EALOUS
FAQ
Services
Strategy
Intelligence
Systems
SpecialiZm
Change management
Outsourcing
Sectors
Financial services
Technology
Not-for-Profit
Commercial
Public sector
Activities
GFCI
GIPI
The London Accord
Events
On-line surveys
c
Products
Compliance workstation
Benchmarking
Investment games
PPRISM
PropheZy
VizZy
Knowledge
Books
Articles
Research &
Presentations
Press
Now & Z/Yen
Media coverage
Press releases
Z/Yen imagery
Fun
Photo gallery
Caption competition
Humour
ExtZy
Links
Reading list
Risk/Reward surfing
© The Z/Yen Group of Companies 2008
| |
Michael Mainelli
Executive Chairman of Z/Yen Group,
Mercers’ School Memorial Professor of Commerce at Gresham College
[An edited
version of this article first appeared as “Cash In, Carbon Out” in Financial
World, IFS School of Finance (February 2007)]
Can The Existing Financial System Deliver The
Necessary Change?
In 2004 the government of Denmark and The
Economist teamed up for the most interesting economic research project of the
past decade, The Copenhagen Consensus. The core question was, “If the
world would come together and be willing to spend, say, $50 billion over the
next five years on improving the state of the world, which projects would yield
the greatest net benefits?” Eight leading economists, three of whom were Nobel
laureates, ranked the options and published their work. But among the 17
major options, the three climate change options (optimal carbon tax, the Kyoto
Protocol and value-at-risk carbon tax) were at the bottom of the list.
Applying financial analysis to global problems is difficult. The
analytical issues range from the heterogeneity of problems, to measurement of
GDP, measurement of quality of life or taxation. Predictably,
environmentalists attacked the cost/benefit process that ranked their options
lowest, well below even “lowering the cost of starting a new business”. Some
criticisms were misguided. The Copenhagen Consensus did not say that
climate change was unimportant, it just said that other options, such as
preventing malaria or malnutrition, provided more bang-for-the-buck.
Perhaps the environmentalists should think harder about developing better
options is one terse response. Yet our greatest economic minds and policy
makers seemed unable to persuade environmentalists to re-order priorities for
the world based on rational analysis of costs and benefits. Are we making
the wrong choices on climate change? Are leading economists and policy makers
irrelevant?
Copenhagen Consensus critics have concerns about the application of typical
discount rates to long-term global issues. One can question whether future
generations will ever exist, thus increasing the discount rate; whether we know
all courses of action today, thus implying a zero or even negative discount
rate; or whether there are other issues of similar character and importance to
climate change (civilisation-destroying asteroids or avian flu), thus implying
we shouldn’t lightly alter the analytical discount rate from the norm or we
can’t compare anything. Is time-value-of-money analysis a waste of time?
Tim Haab and John Whitehead’s blog points out a fun reductio ad absurdum
argument, “an extra glass of wine for Alexander the Great matters more than all
today’s capital stock”.
The recent Stern Review, The Economics of Climate Change, bolstered
environmentalists’ economic foundations. Yet Stern found it necessary both
to explain the ethical ramifications of discount rates when assessing climate
change economics and to apply a discount rate significantly below those found in
typical financial analyses. The importance of discount rates warranted a
technical annex – “Chapter 2 Technical Annex: Ethical Frameworks and
Intertemporal Equity” - that is well worth reading for an introduction to the
complexity of setting a discount rate. Stern’s approach has attracted
serious critics in a short space of time, e.g. William Nordhaus, Sterling
Professor of Economics at Yale.
While there are signs of increasing interest in alternative energy, perhaps even
an alternative energy bubble, it is fair to say that current investment
decisions will not affect climate change projections markedly. The current
economic system hasn’t geared up to climate change, and perhaps it shouldn’t, as
David Lascelles pointed out in his commentary “Stern But Woolly” in Financial
World, December January 2006-07, page 45. One could contend that, as
yet, the numbers don’t add up for investment purposes. But there is a
desire for better information, according to a recent Institutional Investors
Group on Climate Change survey, “Respondents stated that there is a clear lack
of products orientated towards climate change, and there is little in the
mainstream. Investment and specialist consultants do not appear to be
providing advice on the subject...”
“Cash In, Carbon Out”
In 2006 BP plc and the City of London Corporation, supported by Z/Yen Group,
Forum for the Future and Gresham College, announced a “call for participation in
The London Accord”. The London Accord is a cooperative initiative to deliver
research reports incorporating climate change prevention opportunities in actual
financial investment decisions for asset managers and corporations. In
contrast to the Copenhagen Consensus, The London Accord focuses solely on
climate change and uses investment researchers rather than academics.
The results are intended for wide publication in late 2007 via Reuters’
syndication and the City of London Corporation Research Series. The Santa
Fe Institute and the London School of Economics are structuring academic input.
So far, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, HSBC, Sarasin, Société Générale, CSFB,
ABN and Canaccord Adams have volunteered to share research on investment in
terms of “cash-in, carbon-out”, and others are encouraged to join.
With an estimated expenditure of £5 million to £7 million for 2007, The London
Accord will be the largest research project in the world on the economics of
climate change. Generation IM, Universities Superannuation Scheme, Axa IM,
Insight Investment, Henderson and the Institutional Investors Group on Climate
Change have already expressed strong interest in the results. By sharing
cost/benefit ranking in terms of carbon and thus lowering the search costs of
information, the project has the potential to influence decisions by investment
managers of several trillion dollars. The tools developed by the project
can be used by NGOs, governments and academics, as well as the primary audience
of ‘buy-side’ investment managers, to create a common understanding of the
effectiveness of investments in initiatives to reduce man-made climate change.
The interaction of private decision-making and public policy is likely to be one
of the recurring themes in the many research papers. Other themes are
likely to include the importance of carbon emission rights, impact of new
technologies, opportunities for greater efficiencies from existing technologies,
importance of further technological research, complexity of micro-economic
interactions and potential for new business models.
Climate change prevention should amount to the biggest societal and
infrastructure change humankind has ever seen. We will have to change, at
the very least, the organisation of our energy networks, our transportation and
our management of emissions. We will have to enforce global carbon
emission property rights – who will send in the gunboats to shut down an
offshore oil-burning facility with a 300 metre high sign, “all tankers welcome,
we just export electricity”? We will have to change our economies on a global
scale, perhaps emitting more carbon in the temperate zones to keep warm while
sequestering it elsewhere. It may well be that The London Accord
participants conclude that it is too early to invest, but, ultimately, climate
change mitigation must be met through economics. The London Accord intends
to improve the starting point with better analysis of the current investment
opportunities.
References
-
The London Accord
-
STERN, Nicholas, The Economics of Climate
Change: The Stern Review, Cabinet Office - HM Treasury (November 2006).
|
Professor Michael Mainelli, PhD
FCCA MSI, originally undertook aerospace and computing research,
followed by seven years as a partner in a large international
accountancy practice before a spell as Corporate Development Director of
Europe’s largest R&D organisation, the UK’s Defence Evaluation and
Research Agency, and becoming a director of Z/Yen (Michael_Mainelli@zyen.com).
Michael is Mercers’ School Memorial Professor of Commerce at Gresham
College (www.gresham.ac.uk).
Z/Yen is a risk/reward management firm helping organisations make
better choices. Z/Yen operates as a think-tank that implements strategy,
finance, systems, marketing and intelligence projects in a wide variety
of fields (www.zyen.com),
such as developing an award-winning risk/reward prediction engine,
helping a global charity win a good governance award or benchmarking
transaction costs across global investment banks. Z/Yen’s humorous
risk/reward management novel, “Clean Business Cuisine: Now and Z/Yen”,
was published in 2000; it was a Sunday Times Book of the Week;
Accountancy Age described it as “surprisingly funny considering it is
written by a couple of accountants”.
Z/Yen Group Limited, 5-7 St Helen’s Place, London EC3A 6AU, United
Kingdom; tel: +44 (0) 207-562-9562.
|
|
