Estado

É um dossiê do The Economist sobre o futuro do Estado e da Administração Pública. Consegui fazer o "download" gratuito do mesmo. Abaixo alguns excertos da primeira peça daquele - a única que li até agora - para suscitar a leitura. Os sublinhados são meus.

A special report on the future of the state: Taming Leviathan | The Economist: 

"[Em Xangai] Over the past five years Ms Ma has paid out 400m yuan ($57m) to the NGOs for social work, mainly to do with the elderly. The groups are evaluated by third parties on things like their corporate governance: the higher their rating, the more money she trusts them with. She provides training in social work and tax advice. She would like donations to more NGOs to be tax-deductible, as in the West."

"[....]

"[....] Nor is it just spineless politicians who are at fault. A lot of economic theorists have predicted an ever larger state since Adolph Wagner linked its growth to industrialisation in the 19th century. The Baumol cost effect is often cited. In the 1960s William Baumol and William Bowen used the example of classical music to show that some activities are not susceptible to improvements in labour productivity. [....] Larry Summers [....] argues that the goods governments buy, especially health care and education, have proved much more resistant to productivity enhancements than the rest of the economy. [and ....] expects that trend to continue. An ageing population will need ever more health services provided by the state. Better education means longer school years, smaller classes and more after-school activities, all of which cost more. Greater inequality will mean greater redistribution [....] The pressure to spend more is continuous [....]

[....] This special report takes a more optimistic view. To start with, it is not inevitable that spending will keep on going up. Countries such as Canada and Sweden have reduced public spending when they had to. Moreover, some governments are massively more efficient than others, and there are huge gains to be achieved merely by bad governments copying what good governments do—such as planning ahead, backing winners and rewarding people for doing the right thing. With a smaller central core and much more competition for the provision of services, most governments could do the same for much less.

On a personal level, the state matters because it has a big impact on people’s lives. As Geoff Mulgan observes in his excellent book on the state, “Good and Bad Power”, the quality of the state you live in will do more to determine your well-being than natural resources, culture or religion. In the surveys that measure people’s happiness, decent government is as important as education, income and health (all of which are themselves dependent on government). 

To business, government can make an enormous difference. Most obviously, if the state accounts for half the economy then improving any part of that will create better conditions for growth. Even if government were to cost the same but produce more (better-educated workers, decent health care, roads without holes, simpler regulation), the effect on private-sector productivity would be electric."

 

Energias renováveis, Portugal, nuclear, Japão ....

Desde há algum tempo a estratégia energética seguida pelos governos Sócrates tem sido sujeita a críticas incidindo sobre o seu custo relativo face a outras alternativas - a necessidade de subsidiação do arranque das renováveis traduz-se no encarecimento da energia quer para as famílias, quer para as empresas; a ênfase nas renováveis, particularmente, da energia eólica, pelas características da produção desta, leva a resultados ineficientes do ponto de vista económico e tecnológico, etc., etc. Muitas destas críticas são articuladas por quem considera a opção nuclear como algo, no mínimo, a exigir discussão em Portugal, na perspetiva da construção de uma, ou duas centrais nucleares, no nosso país. Eu fui acumulando informação sobre a polémica, mas nunca a estudei, e logo não estou em condições de emitir um juízo sobre ela - podem ler o que diz o blogue A ciência é neutra a esse respeito.

O meu partis pris nessa questão foi sempre o de que se deve apostar em primeiro lugar, e de modo enfático, na eficiência energética; em segundo lugar, nas renováveis, com respeito, sempre, pelas restrições económicas e financeiras aplicáveis em cada caso. Entendia e entendo, por um lado, que o necessário encarecimento do preço de energia decorrente da aposta nas renováveis se poderia justificar como prémio de seguro contra os riscos (desde sempre previsíveis e inevitáveis) do aumento do preço do petróleo e da extrema dependência do País do fornecimento dos combustíveis fósseis; por outro, entendia que esse sobre-custo seria um custo admissível pelo fato do  País ser um dos primeiros a encetar, de modo tão extensivo, uma estratégia desse tipo. Como pano de fundo haveria ainda tudo aquilo que diz respeito à emissão de gases de estufa. No entanto, encarei aquela polémica como podendo carrear elementos sérios para qualificar a tempestividade da aposta, quer a dimensão efetiva dos custos  - uma estratégia adequada pode transformar-se num desastre se for mal operacionalizada, e acontece estarmos em Portugal. O tempo dirá do mérito da aposta de Sócrates, e espero que o considere significativo.

"Não há almoços grátis"

‘TINSTAAFL’ | Victor de Conceição Gonçalves | Económico:

"[....] a prática que existia no século XIX em muitos bares norte-americanos, e também nalguns ingleses, de oferecer a comida (‘free lunch') aos clientes que comprassem pelo menos uma bebida. O almoço era grátis, apenas era necessário pagar as bebidas. Aparentemente, a comida não importava. Obviamente que nos locais onde havia esta prática comercial as bebidas eram mais caras do que naqueles onde não havia 'almoços grátis'.

Na primeira metade do século passado, o acrónimo ‘tinstaafl' (‘there is no such thing as a free lunch') começou a ser popularizado, explicitando a ideia que mesmo que alguma coisa pareça grátis existe sempre um custo a pagar por alguém. O custo pode ser indirecto ou não ser imediatamente evidente, mas existe. Em muitas áreas, ‘tinstaafl' procura evidenciar o custo de oportunidade ao tomar-se uma decisão. Se uma pessoa ou grupo beneficia de algum bem ou serviço de graça, seguramente haverá alguém a pagar por esse benefício.

Em Portugal, o acrónimo tem sido pouco divulgado. E não se tem querido entender a ideia subjacente. A rede de estradas que temos; os estádios de futebol construídos; a quantidade de serviços públicos e empresas públicas que existem sem uma justificação clara; a facilidade com que o Estado (essa entidade mítica) proporciona uma casa grátis, ensino universitário (tendencialmente) grátis, prestação de cuidados de saúde grátis, acessos viários grátis, etc., são exemplos [continuar a ler ...] .

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Entendamo-nos: justifica-se, nalguns casos,ou, melhor, em muitos casos, que assim possa acontecer. O que não tem justificação alguma é que nos esqueçamos que assim é, e isso, mais que não fosse, porque potencia, desculpa, viabiliza, o mau uso  de recursos escassos, logo a ineficiência, a corrupção, a preguiça na reflexão estratégica, etc., etc.

Mas há outras notícias do futuro

Não tenho dúvidas quanto à capacidade de encontrarmos soluções tecnológicas que possibilitem uma resposta adequada às consequências da inevitabilidade (já está adquirida, penso eu) das alterações climáticas - as notícias referidas abaixo (a confirmarem-se) poderão ser um exemplo disso. A dúvida está em saber se o quadro político-institucional, ideológico e dos interesses, em países estratégicos para concretizar aquela resposta, como é o caso dos EUA, o vai permitir através da procura dessas soluções e da potenciação das, no entretanto, já descobertas.

Google-backed startup zaps electricity waste - Environment - The Independent:

A Google-backed startup on Wednesday came out of "stealth mode" with a way to dramatically cut the amount of electricity wasted by data centers, solar panels, hybrid cars and more. Transphorm has made a module that can cut by as much as 90 percent the amount of electricity lost while converting currents in anything from laptops to elevator motors and massive computer server farms. Figures cited by the startup indicated that inefficient electric power conversion in the US power grid wastes the equivalent of the output of 318 coal-fired power plants and costs the nation's economy $40 billion a year.

"- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Climate change no problem, says futurist Ray Kurzweil | Environment | guardian.co.uk:

Author, inventor, and futurist Ray Kurzweil [....] 's prognostications are derived from his law of accelerating returns -- the idea that information technologies progress exponentially, in part because each iteration is used to help build the next, better, faster, cheaper one. [....]

Kurzweil also believes this theory can be applied to solar energy. As part of a panel convened by the National Association of Engineers, Kurzweil, together with Google cofounder Larry Page, concluded that solar energy technology is improving at such a rate that it will soonbe able to compete with fossil fuels.

"- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Notícias (potencialmente) boas, mas que outros qualificam

Seria muito bom uma corrida (estilo do que se passou entre a URSS e os EUA, no espaço, nos anos 60) entre os EUA e a China no domínio das renováveis e da eficiência energética:

• Smart Grid Arms Race? U.S., China Face Very Different Challenges | SolveClimate.com: "Talking about a green revolution as a competition between China and the U.S. is like putting two teams on the same field that play different games. Yet, this has been the popular spin on news that China’s spending on smart grid technology will exceed that of the U.S. by $200 million. It has also been the spin on high-speed rail and the so-called 'clean tech arms race.'"

As notícias (potencialmente) boas...:

• Sustentabilidade é Acção: Bill Gates e a energia nuclear "limpa": "Bill Gates esteve no mês passado a dar uma conferência no grupo TED sobre uma nova forma de energia nuclear.[...]" Acedam a este blogue e vejam o vídeo que vale a pena.  

•  Op-Ed Columnist - Dreaming the Possible Dream -Tom Friedman NYTimes.com

... e as qualificações feitas por outros (respectivamente):

• Bill Gates is wrong about “energy miracles” « Climate Progress»

• Dear Vinod Khosla & Tom Friedman: No amount of sequestration will make coal “clean” | Grist: "No, no, a thousand times no. Even if a coal-fired power plant sequestered 100 percent of its carbon pollution, it would not be 'clean.' Even if, as Khosla says, it sequestered all its carbon pollution and helped abate carbon pollution from other sources, it still wouldn't be 'clean.'"

Sobre energia, picos do petróleo e coisas quejandas

• Never mind what people believe—how can we change what they do? A chat with Robert Cialdini | Grist: "When it comes to energy, policymakers are often confronted with human behavior that seems irrational, unpredictable, or unmanageable. Advocates for energy efficiency in particular are plagued by the gap between what it would make sense for people to do and what they actually do. Efforts to change people’s behavior have a record that can charitably be described as mixed. (See my post, Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior.)"

• Readers Respond on "Squeezing More Oil from the Ground": Scientific American

• We’re running into oil rather than running out - The National Newspaper

• Society ignores the oil crunch at its peril | Jeremy Leggett | Environment | guardian.co.uk: "Warnings of a crash in oil production are no longer limited to a prescient few individuals - major British companies and oil CEOs are now sounding the alert"

________

PS: Mais este ainda: The Oil Kingdom Goes Green | Uncommon Wisdom: "Saudi Arabia is the world’s richest oil producer — the desert kingdom pumps out nearly 10 million barrels a day of crude. So when Saudi Arabia turns to the sun to solve its energy problems, you should sit up and take notice."

É bom que a Universidade dos Açores se preocupe com as implicações do aquecimento global para os Açores: - há mais alguém?

• Diário do Campus de Angra do Heroísmo da Universidade dos Açores: Alterações climáticas em debate em Ponta Delgada

• Diário do Campus de Angra do Heroísmo da Universidade dos Açores: Félix Rodrigues aborda o clima em Jornadas : “Alterações climáticas são monstros que nos atormentam nos sonhos do presente”

Ao menos todos parecem terem começado a preocupar-se com a eficiência energética, mas há ainda muito por fazer:

• Diário do Campus de Angra do Heroísmo da Universidade dos Açores: MIT, DOP E GOVERNO Estudo sobre consumo energético estuda Famílias Verdes nos Açores

Preço do petróleo, globalização, economia local (de novo), eficiência, preço do carbono e por aí adiante

Bem, só vendo e ouvindo, e ainda por cima numa pronúncia, acentuadamente, texana [penso eu]. Não sei se em 2012 teremos o barril de petróleo a $225, mas que para lá caminhamos, disso não tenho dúvidas, e algumas das razões invocadas (algumas de que não me tinha apercebido) são inquestionáveis. As implicações para os Açores serão aquelas que cada um quiser conjecturar.

"Jeff Rubin, the former Chief Economist of CIBC World Markets, speaks at The Business of Climate Change conference. Mr. Rubin predicts $225 per barrel oil by 2012 and with it the end of globalization, a movement towards local sourcing and a need for massive scaling up of energy efficiency."

Jeff Rubin At ‘The Business of Climate Change’ · Environmental Leader · Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives

Sobre economia, sustentabilidade e eficiência

Uma excelente síntese de um problema complexo, mau, e, tornando-se. progressivamente, pior - eu teria uma qualificação a fazer, ou uma dúvida a pôr, sobre um aspecto do que é dito (não está a bold), mas isso é ainda trabalho em progresso, e por isso fico por aqui.

Vou transcrevê-lo em grande parte, mas deviam lê-lo na íntegra:

"In 1850 when the total world population was 1.26 billion, the idea that resources critical to industrial society would decline or even run out seemed far-fetched. Fast forward to today where threats of fossil fuel depletion, mineral depletion, groundwater depletion, fisheries destruction, soil erosion and decline in soil fertility are being seriously discussed in scientific, policy and journalistic circles. The population has reached almost 6.8 billion, and there are questions about whether current rates of consumption can continue without threatening the resource base vital to modern society as well as the stability of the climate and critical ecosystems. 

The human footprint on the planet has increased enormously, not merely by the factor of about 5.3 times suggested by population growth, but more like the 45 times suggested by the rise in total consumption of energy. (See slide number 13 in David Hughes' excellent presentation before the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas - USA 2008 conference.)

Neoclassical economists have long held that industrial societies will not run out of needed resources for two reasons: 1) Rising prices for scarce resources will lead to more efficient use of them, and 2) those same rising prices will spur innovation that will end the need for the scarce resource or find a more abundant substitute. Many of the same economists have also embraced the idea that exponential growth of the world economy can go on indefinitely, in part because of the effect of prices on efficient use of resources and substitution for them. These claims are not easily dismissed for historical reasons. History has recorded case after case of more abundant resources being substituted for increasingly scarce ones. And, human civilization has experienced almost continuous economic growth since the dawn of the industrial age. 

Still, some scientists and even a few economists are concerned enough to propose an entirely different basis for economics. 

First, they point to the impossibility of perpetual economic growth. Since the economy is a subset of the environment, it cannot grow larger than that environment. Yes, we may learn to do things more efficiently and more intelligently over time. But at some point the physical throughput of the economy will cease to grow. We simply cannot process more material than is contained in the entire biosphere. And, the limit of what we can process is undoubtedly only a fraction of the total biosphere since human life depends on the proper functioning of many other ecosystems which must have access to resources from the biosphere as well.

Second, efficiency in resource use has only led to greater consumption, a counterintuitive outcome known as the Jevons Paradox. The world has seen again and again that as efficiency in resource use increases, prices drop and more and more people are able to afford and therefore demand those resources to enhance the quality of their lives. Efficiency also tends to promote overall economic growth. The end result is faster depletion of finite resources and overuse of renewable ones such as fisheries. 

Third, substitution requires time. Because industrial society is entirely dependent on the continuous functioning of its machine infrastructure, disruption resulting from the failure to find a substitute for a critical input such as, say, fossil fuels, in a timely fashion risks the collapse of that system."

Continuar a ler em Biophysical Economics: Putting Energy at the Center - Scitizen.

Leituras sobre sustentabilidade e uma sobre eficiência energética: o exemplo da Califórnia é espantoso!

• Brazil: Who will pay for Amazon's 'Chernobyl' ? | Climate Ark: "It's barely eight in the morning and already the dusty oil town of Lago Agrio, on the fringes of the Ecuadorian Amazon, is sweltering. Its name means 'sour lake' in Spanish, after the hometown of Texan oil company Texaco -- a fitting name for an area of once-pristine rainforest that has been decimated in the pursuit of oil. So severe is the environmental damage here that experts have called it an 'Amazon Chernobyl'. But the people of Lago Agrio and its surrounding area have been fighting back. Sixteen years ago, 30,000 Ecuadorians began legal action against the US oil company -- now owned by Chevron -- they hold responsible. Early this year, from the town's tiny courtroom, a lone judge will deliver a verdict on their class-action case. If the judge rules in favour of the Ecuadorians, Chevron could face damages of $27.3bn (£17bn), making it the biggest environmental lawsuit in history." 

• Biodiversity is not just about saving exotic species from extinction | Robert Bloomfield | Environment | guardian.co.uk: "Biodiversity is integral to our daily lives. It is not about the loss of exotic species which have been the focus of conservation activities by the foundations and trusts of wealthy nations. It is about the vital resources which underpin the wealth and health of the world's poor and that provide the vital needs for the heath and wellbeing of us all. The equivalent to the Stern report for biodiversity is called The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). It warns that our neglect of the natural services provided by biodiversity is an economic catastrophe of an order of magnitude greater than the global economic crisis. Year on year, the irreversible loss of natural diverse genetic resources impoverishes the world and undermines our ability to develop new crops and medicines, resist pests and diseases, and maintain the host of natural products on which humans rely. Equally significant, are the vital natural services that the world's ecosystems provide. These include providing vital oxygen, decomposing waste, removing pollutants, providing the natural buffers that help manage drought and flood, protect soil from erosion, ensure soil fertility, and provide breeding nurseries to maintain fish ocean stocks. The list goes on, and among these immeasurable vital functions of nature is of course its ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The ability of forests, bogs and salt marches, tundra, coral and ocean plankton to sequester carbon should be our greatest ally in managing the increased emissions of fossil fuel activity – a key theme of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen last month."  

• You can thank Arthur Rosenfeld for energy savings « Climate Progress: "California homes are loaded with personal computers, widescreen TVs, iPods, PlayStations, air conditioners, massive refrigerators, hot tubs and swimming pool pumps. Despite that, Golden State residents today use about the same amount of electricity per capita that they did 30 years ago."  

• Human civilisation 'will collapse' unless greed culture is stopped, report warns| Climate Arks: "The world's population is burning through the planet's resources at such a reckless rate -- about 28 per cent more last year - it will eventually cause environmental havoc, said the Worldwatch Institute, a US think-tank. In its annual State of the World 2010 report, it warned any gains from government action on climate change could be wiped out by the cult of consumption and greed unless changes in our lifestyle were made. Consumerism had become a 'powerful driver' for increasing demand for resources and consequent production of waste, with governments, including the British, too readily wanting to promoted it as necessary for job creation and economic well-being."  

• Mudança para a sustentabilidade | Económico: "Uma consulta rápida ao dicionário permite verificar que sustentabilidade está relacionada com conceitos como defender, fortificar, conservar e perpetuar. Com uma leitura atenta das notícias chega-se rapidamente à conclusão que esse é o maior desafio para a próxima década. Mas deve ser uma sustentabilidade global e não parcial."

De acordo com a tese e, por favor, digam a si próprios, face ao que se vê nos gráficos, se isto é sustentável.

Nota: Clicar para aceder a versões maiores

"Don't get me wrong: all efforts to build and develop renewable energy and energy efficient technology are useful and very necessary. My point is that, by themselves, they will not yield any results. To make them work, we need to put an absolute limit to energy use. Imagine that the European Union or the US would decide that in 2020 we can only use as much energy (or electricity) as we do today. Interestingly, all other efforts suddenly make sense. If the share of renewable energy would rise, then the share of non-renewable energy would automatically fall. Energy efficient technology would be automatically transformed in energy savings, and not in extra applications or performance, as it happens now (the energy efficiency paradox)."

Low-tech Magazine: How (not) to resolve the energy crisis

A China, cada vez mais a China - diversos, de diversos ângulos...

 Nota: Clicar sobre a imagem para ter acesso a uma versão maior.

A importância da China no panorama mundial é algo muito consensual neste momento, muito "conventional wisdom", e como tal, como usualmente sucede nesses casos, a efectiva capacidade que terá para formatar o nosso futuro, a real dimensão do fenómeno, no bom e no mau sentido, tende a esbater-se, a não ser ponderada, ou assumida devidamente, mesmo na consciência daqueles que afirmam ser óbvio aquele juízo. A "conventional wisdom" mesmo quando apreendendo, em termos gerais, um fenómeno, se não qualificada por um fluxo constante de informação, adequada, e problematizada, não é mais do que uma outra forma de ignorância (perigosa) - digamos, uma analfabetismo culto, se me é permitido o oximoro.

O conjunto de referências abaixo, acumuladas ao longo de Dezembro e Janeiro, ilustram bem o que digo acima. Surgem no quadro claro da importância da China, mas matizam pormenores, aprofundam áreas de fronteira do fenómeno, geram optimismos e preocupações, e colocam novas questões. As notícias do modo como a China, no terreno, está a encarar a eficiência energética, e as renováveis, é para mim, um motivo de optimismo - em última instância, as coisas a correrem muito mal, prefiro que os meus filhos, ou os meus netos, a viver num mundo "chinês" do que em nenhum; como irá evoluir o crescendo geo-económico e político chinês, ou a possibilidade de ele ser parado, levantam questões; e quando os chineses começam a acumular reservas (stocks) de matérias primas, e de minerais raros, não é caso de começar a perguntar o que eles sabem, que os outros não sabem?

• A Review I Will Treasure Forever: "...far from a knee-slapper and unlikely to be chosen by Ms. Winfrey for her book club..." - Grasping Reality with Opposable Thumbs: "[...] Richard Pachter:: I've long thought that the best advice one can give a youngster seeking success in the business world is to learn Chinese. Our pals in Beijing and Shanghai hold serious paper on us ('Us, U.S.,' as Paul Harvey used to say) and they can wreak terminal havoc upon America, its institutions and infrastructure, if and when they chose. But it's not really in their best interests to ask us to ante up and watch us turn our pockets inside out, show our empty hands and shrug.Why? "

• Roubini Global Economics - RGE Monitor -- Emerging Markets EconoMonitor: "It is my considered opinion that the West is underestimating China on a number of different levels. If we want to talk superpower politics, then China has always been a superpower albeit one that has been slumbering for 60 years. [...] China is more like the teacher, simply sitting back with a rye smile and watching the children fight it out on the playground and doing its own thing for the long term good of China. Where am I going with this - a recent post EAFE Pro looked at China's recent buying of copper and aluminum. I knew such buying was taking place but was surprised at the sheer scale. So why? China is taking advantage of the global recession to buy cheap and stockpile. China knows it will need the metal eventually just to construct the buildings, machines and cars it knows it will need in the future. " A figura acima foi retirada deste artigo.
  

• China: Innovation in electric bicycles: "China has gone crazy for electric bicycles -- they are far and away the biggest selling form of transport on the streets, with 120 million of the battery-powered two-wheelers whizzing up and down the thoroughfares."

• Ukraine : le remède chinois ? | Telos

• China pursues the technology that will save humanity « Climate Progress

• China as hegemon | The Economist: " Mark Thoma directs us to  Dani Rodrik, which discusses the book 'When China Rules the World', by Martin Jacques. So what will it be like when China rules the world? Americans and Europeans blithely assume that China will become more like them as its economy develops and its population gets richer. This is a mirage, Jacques says. The Chinese and their government are wedded to a different conception of society and polity: community-based rather than individualist, state-centric rather than liberal, authoritarian rather than democratic. [...] The thing about 'western' hegemony over the last century is that North America and Europe had a relative monopoly over developed nation status. China won't be so lucky; at best it will be first among peers. It therefore seems unlikely that China will be an overwhelming net exporter of ideology or culture, no matter how rich its economy grows."

• Op-Ed Columnist - Is China the Next Enron? - NYTimes.com: "I am reluctant to sell China short, not because I think it has no problems or corruption or bubbles, but because I think it has all those problems in spades — and some will blow up along the way (the most dangerous being pollution). But it also has a political class focused on addressing its real problems, as well as a mountain of savings with which to do so (unlike us)."Mais que não seja pelas estatísticas que apresenta, o artigo merece ser lido.

PS (14.01.10): Esqueci-me de colocar esta referência: Book Review - 'When China Rules the World - The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order,' by Martin Jacques - Review - NYTimes.com [tem a ver com a penúltima referência acima].

PS: E mais este ainda: China’s world centrality| Janela na Web: One key theme of the book is that China manifest great potential to become a new center of growth in the global capitalist system, but it is not guaranteed, as it requires China to solve a lot of intractable problems first. The book was finished before the global crisis. The crisis verified this view of the book: on the one hand the problems China is facing when trying to sustain its growth in the aftermath of the crisis is much bigger than before the crisis; but at the same time, I still hope that the crisis could serve as a wakeup call that in the end will push China to shift its course of development into a more sustainable and equitable one.

O preço só por si não resolve todas as falhas de mercado e de comportamento

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price | Grist: "Using energy more efficiently in buildings may be the fastest, cheapest way to substantially reduce carbon emissions in the short-term. How can we make it happen?"

O preço só por si não conseguiria suplementar as falhas de mercado e de comportamento que impedem que os particulares (e o Estado) aproveitem adequadamente os ganhos de eficiência potenciais que existem: nota sintética e muito boa.

Ganhos financeiros da eficiência energética - sinais promissores do mercado

Richard's Real Estate and Urban Economics Blog: Eichholtz, Kok and Quigley find Economic Value from Green Buildings (via J. Bradford DeLong's Grasping Reality with All Eight Tentacles)

Açores e renováveis: muito bem!

:ILHAS: Eficiência energética:

"[...] em Outubro deste ano, a ilha das Flores esteve 12 dias a funcionar exclusivamente com recurso a energias renováveis, numa situação inédita a nível nacional e que nos deixa a todos, acredito, orgulhosos. As Flores, a par com São Miguel, são as ilhas dos Açores onde a taxa de penetração das renováveis tem, neste momento, maior incidência, se bem que existam características endógenas favoráveis para que, a curto prazo, a contribuição das energias renováveis na produção de energia eléctrica no arquipélago passe de 28% para 75%, até 2018."

Isso será excelente, mas fico com dúvidas sobre os números: por exemplo, isso acontecerá independentemente do comportamento da procura de electricidade ao longo período até 2018?

Deverão ler a nota do :Ilhas na totalidade.

O que os outros vão fazendo, e mais um exemplo de um pequeno empurrão ("nudge")

"This fall, 50,000 Massachusetts power customers are getting their first energy report cards in the mail. Just as in school, they’re being judged against their peers, with the model citizens getting smiley faces and the laggards getting advice for cleaning up their acts. Until now, these homeowners could only judge their own energy use by their month-to-month bills. The new Home Energy Reports (HERs) compare their energy use to that of neighbors with similar demographics and similar size homes. Officials hope the peer pressure encourages users to take a few simple steps to stop wasting electricity — and money.[...]"  

"[...] In 2007, Cialdini and colleagues conducted an experiment that involved placing one of four door hangers on the doors of participants once a week for a month. The door hangers informed residents that (1) they could save money by conserving energy, or (2) they could save the earth’s resources by conserving energy, or (3) they could be socially responsible citizens by conserving energy, or (4) the majority of their neighbors tried regularly to conserve energy. Although residents reported that they would be least influenced by their neighbors’ energy usage, this was the only type of door hanger information that led to significant efforts to conserve energy.[...]"

Continuar a ler em Keeping Up With The Joneses to Save Energy | SolveClimate.com. Sobre o "nudge", o pequeno empurrão, ver também aqui e aqui.

O que os outros se propõem fazer

Obama announces $3.4 billion in smart grid investments “to build a clean energy superhighway.” Creating a clean energy economy will require an “all-hands-on-deck approach similar to the mobilization that preceded World War II…. I also believe that such a comprehensive piece of legislation that is taking place right now in Congress is going to be critical.” « Climate Progress

Quantificação de coisas conhecidas

NRC: Burning fossil fuels costs the U.S. $120 billion a year — not counting mercury or climate impacts! « Climate Progress

"A new report from the National Research Council examines and, when possible, estimates “hidden” costs of energy production and use — such as the damage air pollution imposes on human health — that are not reflected in market prices of coal, oil, other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them. The report estimates dollar values for several major components of these costs. The damages the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize."

O que os outros querem fazer

Northwest states project efficiency measures could meet 85% of new electricity demand through 2030 « Climate Progress

Diversos sobre o modo como os Eua estão a responder aos desafios

Algumas das coisas que fui lendo a propósito do momento dos EUA - mas, muito ficou pelo caminho.

Op-Ed Columnist - Cassandras of Climate - Krugman - NYTimes.com:

But the larger reason we’re ignoring climate change is that Al Gore was right: This truth is just too inconvenient. Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not, contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a whole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don’t.

Nor is it just a matter of vested interests. It’s also a matter of vested ideas. For three decades the dominant political ideology in America has extolled private enterprise and denigrated government, but climate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action. And rather than concede the limits of their philosophy, many on the right have chosen to deny that the problem exists.

Op-Ed Columnist - The New Sputnik - Tom Friedman - NYTimes.com:
If we can continue stumbling out of this economic crisis, I believe future historians may well conclude that the most important thing to happen in the last 18 months was that Red China decided to become Green China. [...]And when China decides it has to go green out of necessity, watch out. You will not just be buying your toys from China. You will buy your next electric car, solar panels, batteries and energy-efficiency software from China.

The rich still run the US Mark Weisbrot Comment is free guardian.co.uk:

Corruption takes many forms in different countries and locations. Here in the United States it may not be as common to pay off a judge or a customs official as it is in most low- and middle-income countries, but we do have quite a bit of legalised bribery, especially in the form of electoral campaign contributions.

The most obvious current case is that of healthcare reform, where the powerful insurance, pharmaceutical and other lobbies are in the process of vetoing some of the most important parts of the healthcare reform that most Americans want and need.

Bill Moyers on the health care debate, Democrats, and Afghanistan - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Bill Moyers was on Bill Maher's show last night and spoke about the core failures of Democratic Party in the context of both the health care debate and the ongoing escalation in Afghanistan. The whole discussion is really worth watching [...] but I want to excerpt several key parts, including his very complimentary featuring of this post I wrote on Thursday regarding Democrats.

A strange madness - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com:

Something is going very wrong in the heads of a substantial number of Americans.