Posts in Canterbury Public Issues Forum

Scientists say care for environment helps farm production. From: Brian Sandle Date: 04:18 UTC Short link

John F. Raffensperger wrote:
> Yes, when the environment is harmed for production, it is criminal.  And land
is devalued when it is damaged.
>
> Again, that is not what our system is about. Our proposal is about
constraining the impact of business on the environment, and to do so at lowest
cost to business.
>
If retaining plenty of trees could help the environment by helping to
maintain rainflall, the I maintain that is actually a boon to business,
*not* a cost. It is a matter of education to get the message across.

Also, talking about our core industries, the Tertiary Education
Commission said in 2003:

"Increasingly important to these sectors is the ability to secure market
share, particularly around food safety and environmental integrity
issues. These issues are becoming “licence to operate”-type non-tariff
trade barriers. The ability of sectors to proactively position
themselves as the commodity-"

A diabetic who goes to bed with a bottle of water and a bag of boiled
lollies beside them needs education that the shoirt term fix is not the
long term answer. Is that the cost you are talking about: analogous to
giving up those lollies and excess water and assisting the failing pancreas?

Just making them trade water is not going to work. Just making them
trade water and think that they must know the rest themselves is
criminal negligence, if you are in the know. That is what I maintain.
    

Brian

Scientists say care for environment helps farm production. From: Brian Sandle Date: Jan 08 11:28 UTC Short link

John Raffensperger wrote:


[...]
> I'm sure you would agree that we cannot ignore cost.  Most people would not
agree to saving the environment at the cost of ruining the economy, even though
some of us might be willing to see that!  I am trying to find ways to protect
the environment at minimum cost to society.
>
>
Two foremost scientists say in "The Press" yesterday (A13):

"...pastoral scientists have developed a deep understanding of the link
between production and environmental integrity..."

Whereas you imply the environment may have to be harmed for production.
That could be seen as trying to sell  a criminal  attempt to devalue
land and allow it to be purchased cheap.
    

Brian

Moving health and water to business (HPV) From: Brian Sandle Date: Jan 07 22:01 UTC Short link

Helen McLeod wrote:
> Yes there is a huge difference between the health system here and in the US.
>
> Blood tests in New Zealand are a good example of where there are significant
> differences.
> Years ago community pathology laboratories agreed to remove the patient
> payment and just receive a government subsidy for tests performed. Since
> then the labs have been screwed down with few increases in payment.
>
> Also there used to be one nationwide schedule which applied to all labs. Now
> labs have to tender to individual DHBs plus the Cervical Screening Programme
> with separate billing and a huge increase in cost of tendering and
> administration.
Hi Helen,

You are a business development manager of a govt-funded health
organisation. I am trying to think how that works. The purchaser you are
trying to please is mainly the DHB? By showing social responsibilty you
please them more and get more business?

If the customers will not pay enough the business has to think out why.
Sometiems it is because the customers are simply short of money. That
may be a policy thing of central government. Maybe they are trying to
move to user pays, as they decrease income tax. Maybe they are trying to
get DHBs - labs to increase efficiency.

I heard recently that commercialisation of intellectual property,  in
computer software, has actually been reducing the total pool of
knowledge. Giving it the commercial value has not helped.
It is interesting that the more advanced organisations find "free"
software like UNIX to be more suitable for their advanced needs.

I feel commercialisation of the water market will also take away
knowledge of total water management and replace it with local profit
schemes.

The inventor of the Linux/Unix software very cleverly applied a rule
which said anyone may modify and sell the software but may not stop
their customers from doing it further. So knowledge does not get
restricted. That is as I understand.

You may have read in yesterday's "The Press" about policy HPV vaccine
being distributed through doctors to barely pubescent girls. I wonder
about the business side of this. Is the DHB thinking to reduce money on
cervical screening? Screening will still actually be necessary for the
vaccinated  Are they influenced by drug companies wanting to sell the
vaccine?

I ask you to read

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HPV_Vaccine_Controversy.php

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HPV_Vaccine_Production_Plants.php

To John Raffensberger: If I can get to your talk I will be 20 or 30 mins
late.
I wonder if you can cover  the above knowledge philosophy here. I ask
for better spread of knowledge about water issues than your business
model facilitates.

Recent articles about the major water users, the diary industry, have
said new entrants are likely to be finding it very difficult with the
reduced payouts. If I understand one new entrant is the Selwyn
Plantation Board Limited. With the business model will the organisation
be force to sell their land and water rights to defray their losses? The
SPBL were vested with care of shelter for Canterbury into a business
model. I don't think it has worked.

I have been looking at the climate modelling text by McGuffie and
Henderson-Sellers which says that removal of forest  in some scenarios
may change the climate so much that the vegetation can never recover.
(Interesting book with CD with modelling videos).

Who is keeping any check how the dry weather of Nth Canterbury may be
related to loss of trees resulating from the commercialsation of public
interests?

My hydrangeas I inherited (water loving plants) seem to  do OK under the
shelter of the Japanese laurels. Oh they still need water.
    

Brian


>
>
> An example of the underfunding is a patient requiring a home visit for a
> Prothrombin test when they are receiving Warfarin medication. For $9.26 the
> laboratory is expected to drive to the patient's home, collect the sample,
> enter the details onto the computer, do the test, fax and email the result,
> bill for the test and pay the cost of qualified staff required to meet the
> IANZ quality standards.
> It is no wonder that laboratories here are bleeding.
>
> Best wishes
> Helen McLeod
>
> Business Development Manager
> Medlab South Ltd
>

ECan's approach to water management From: John F. Raffensperger Date: Jan 07 05:06 UTC Short link

Email obscured!  Too bad.  If you are interested in attending, write to me
directly at john dot raffensperger at canterbury dot ac dot nz.
    

ECan's approach to water management From: Brian Sandle Date: Jan 02 15:01 UTC Short link

Brian Sandle wrote:
> John Raffensperger wrote:
>
>> Hi, Brian,
>>
>>
>>
>>> You imply that putting commercial forests on baked land is a watery mix.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know what you mean.
>>
>>
> And I am still wondering what people were taking from your word 'richer'
>
If I might explain a little, I think I am used to the words 'rich' or
'richer' meaning money-rich or money-richer unless another quality is
specified.

What you said, "The anticipated solution space is far richer than simply
baked land & commercial forests",  might have said, 'far more
variable-rich.'
Otherwise I have to think twice that it might be you claiming  more
(money) riches in what you are selling than just investing in commercial
forests would bring.
>>
>>
>>>>   It should take into account the economics,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> With financial economics, the trading in sub prime mortgages sort of thing,
as the master or servant? Such economics has nearly brought down the world real
economy of goods and services.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure you would agree that we cannot ignore cost.  Most people would not
agree to saving the environment at the cost of ruining the economy, even though
some of us might be willing to see that!
    

>>
> Or to make out of it being ruined.
>
> Here is an interesting article about betting to get money from the
> falling housing market:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120036645057290423.html?mod=hps_us_pageone
>
> Others who have made money are ones who sold houses and bought gold
> before the drop.
>
> See what is happening to gold:
>
>
http://www.pensions.gold.org/assets/file/pensions/media/interactivepricechart/index.html
>
> It has got to a peak as it did before its last fall. So would you expect
> a drive to sell gold?
>
>
So where does the 'clever' investor put their money? Maybe not housing.
Maybe not farm land if it is going to be dry. Better get a structure for
doing something with water?

> I thought I would find out about internet raido a couple of days ago. I
> tried out the station called 'Beyond the Ordinary". I listened to a
> couple of programs and a lot of it was getting people to prepare for the
> coming planetary woes. And of course get ready for the 'cashless'
> society - buy gold. (and silver for smaller change.)
>
> I listen to everything with suspicion.
>
> So please do not take it personally when I am on guard, even against
> good credentials.
>
> i-sis.org.uk tells me how GMO companies' former employees have moved
> back and forth to regulating bodies in some countries.
>
> I need to find out for sure that your work is not just a way to
> apparently sweeten the building of a water market as a hedge for big
> player(s) against deteriorating environmental effects on investments.
>
> I don't know if you have read the first http I gave in this article.
> Without being able to understand it totally myself it seems there is a
> fine dividing line between being prepared to profit from others' woes,
> and actually helping to cause them.
>
> I have warned several times that going for a dollar approach to water
> may not result in protecting the resource.
>
> The economy of NZ is not large compared to big corporations. So they can
> bring pressure to conform. If they can sell us dollarisation of water
> that would give them another tool.
>
> I fear that if your thesis is adopted that any protective parts would
> get chopped off pretty quickly, having maybe just been part of the sales
> package.
>
> I keep suggesting you expound on the real economy.
Well thanks in some way your sister answers by separating off from
capital the value of the 'commons', air, water, animals, plants, seeds,
roads, footpaths - our common heritage or common wealth &c. Those things
are our economy, she says, not capital.. But that seems to be quite in
contrast to what could be the outcome of your thesis.. You may mean
well, but big players, who have responsibilites to financial
shareholders, may not be able to go with the spirit of the work. So you
give them an out: they don't have to go as far as 'making the country's
economy fall'. I have to challenge you for letting people continue to
smudge the financial dealings concept  into the real economy. Also I
point out that to your sister, the economy falls when the environment falls.

I am not convinced that putting water on to a trading basis would value
it for its real ecosystem-economy uses. I feel that it would be
manipulated to get deals from the market, rather than optimum
production. That is in the similar way to what I referred to last post
about a business making billionis of dollars from people's inability to
pay their mortgages.

So I think it needs to be done more in the way the ozone layer CFCs
matter is being tackled. Protocol for avoiding harmful CFCs have been
worked out, and the technicians trained in them. I ask for that in the
water scene, but you call my suggestion  nanny state, and say the
farmers know quite enough already about water. But I think that the sort
of thing in their minds is what the irrigation businesses are telling
them, that trees spoil it for the big irrigator machines they want to sell.

ECan's approach to water management From: John Veitch Date: Jan 01 04:18 UTC Short link

I write to thank John F. Raffensperger and Brian Sandle for the very
useful discussion about Canterbury's decison making process on water use.

I am certain in my own mind, that we are making a complete mess of this.
The three of us are of like mind about that. In my own view,
understanding the importance of the COMMON, is critical. I do like the
approach that John's sister, Carolyn Raffensperger (
 ) is taking. People engage
when their emotional interest is high. We communicate and think in
language, and finding the right words to say, addresses the topic and
gives new people an easier route into the subject.

Water is part of what I call the "useful common". It is my belief that
the role of governments and local authorities is to preserve and enlarge
the useful common.

The difference between my idea of useful common and Carolyn
Raffensperger's common wealth and common health, as far as I can see, is
that I would include human creations in the useful common. Good laws,
well constructed historic buildings, access to library services,
internet access, and participatory democratic government for instance.

So the water and it's use is important. So is the ability to create and
enforce good law. Many of those who seek to run for public office are
motivated by land ownership issues and by commercial interests.
Traditionally this group has always written law that favours their own
use of the useful common, often by reducing general access to it. Most
readers of this forum understand that.

Fortunately, with open access to much more information today, debates
like this one are possible. Publc support gives people like John F.
Raffensperger, a small chance of winning the intellectual debate. After
that the political debate still has to be won. We are likely to have
disaster before that happens. Those of us engaged in this work know
that. Because we understand, we have little option but to act on that
understanding.

John S Veitch
Papanui
    

ECan's approach to water management From: John F. Raffensperger Date: Jan 01 00:03 UTC Short link

Hi, Brian,

> You imply that putting commercial forests on baked land is a watery mix.

I don't know what you mean.

> >   It should take into account the economics,
> With financial economics, the trading in sub prime mortgages sort of thing,
as the master or servant? Such economics has nearly brought down the world real
economy of goods and services.

I'm sure you would agree that we cannot ignore cost.  Most people would not
agree to saving the environment at the cost of ruining the economy, even though
some of us might be willing to see that!  I am trying to find ways to protect
the environment at minimum cost to society.

> >  all available relevant geographical data, the run-off parameters of best
management practice for each type of land use (including native land use),
> Native being untouched?

The goal is to incentivize people to add soft cover and remove hard cover, but
with the right physics.  That should also incentivize preservation of untouched
native land.

> You say there are best management practices for each type of land use, then
look at the run-off parameters of those? Your words read as if we are faced
with what best managers do and then have to look at the run-off parameters of
what those managers have brought about.

Almost.  Governments around the world (including NZ's unitary authorities)
often specify what they believe to be the best way, say, to prevent
construction sediment from running into streams.  Using "best management
practice" is one way of avoiding re-inventing the wheel.  We would look at the
run-off paramaters of a range of options that existing managers could do, and
simulate all of those for the current situation.

In any case, the PhD student is just getting started.  He is a nice fellow,
from Chile.  Let's see how he gets on, and perhaps in three years I can come
back with a full proposal.

> Under the incentives of time recently passed, Ngai Tahu, for example, have
been converting or intending to be converting Canterbury forest to pasture.

I'm disturbed to hear that.

> I think you are a salesperson rather than an economist. Though you say you
are hoping for a long term approach it does not look like that. You are
marginalising environment to society.

Brian, I'm flattered!  But I think that if I were a salesperson, you would be
sold by now.  You are a very hard sell.  No, I am not a salesman, nor an
economist, but an operations researcher.  I am, however, trying to sell my
ideas to you! That is why I take the time to write on this forum. - because I
care deeply about the environment, because I have worked very hard for many
years on these complex ideas, and now have found support in the scientific
community.

> Farming business is very dependent on the environment. But financial business
is out for externalising costs on to other businesses, or on to society, aiming
to take over and control land, seed banks and animal genetics for the short
term dollar and to retain control thereafter.

Yes, I agree 100% with you.  The goal of our work is to force business to
internalise the costs they they impose on society and the environment.  You may
be interested in Wikipedia's excellent article on the subject,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality.  Note especially the section towards
the end of that article about the Coase Theorem.  If you have a read about the
Coase Theorem, I think you will quickly find that it gives government and
business justification for pure laissez-faire markets of the worst kind.
Furthermore, since Coase came from the University of Chicago in the early '60s,
and because his ideas let government and business very much off the hook for
environmental protection, the "theory" now permeates considerable law and
regulation.

Coase's ideas have been attacked by other economists.  Recently, Eric Maskin
(Princeton, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Maskin) and Sandeep Baliga
(Northwestern Univ) wrote an interesting paper, "Mechanism design for the
environment," in which they show that Coase's "theorem" can fail for the
environment, basically because if half the population cleans up, that's
probably enough, and the rest are free loaders, which hacks off the first half,
who then won't clean up on their own, and the whole thing fails.  Here is a
quote from their paper, "We conclude that, in the case of nonexcludable public
goods, even a diehard Coasian should agree that outside intervention is needed
to achieve optimality. The government - or some other coercive authority - must
be called on to impose a method for determining pollution reduction. We call
such a method a mechanism..."  Maskin & Baliga then proceed to propose pricing
mechanisms that are likely to be more effective than Coase's (true laissez
faire) approach.  I've been reading through their paper for several weeks now
trying to absorb it all, and it is tough stuff.

There are other problems with Coasian theory, too.  In addition to the free
loader problem, we identified transaction costs as a key issue with water
allocation (also mentioned on the Wikipedia page on externalities). These
transaction costs apply to everyone - farmers who want more water, government
that must manage the consents, and environmental interest groups that want more
water for the environment.  The smart market addresses these issues head-on.

> > Regarding the rest of your note, maybe we are going into a drought period
as you suggest.
> I suggest there are natural cycles and we might make use of that to grasp at
repairing things we have done.

Yes, we should.

> >   I have been trynig to design systems that will be permanent, and stand
the test of time.
> And I think that in order to do that you would need to understand the
difference between financial economics and the real economy.

Brian, I have an engineering degree from Northwestern University, an MBA and a
PhD from the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business, and I teach
in management science at the University of Canterbury's College of Business and
Economics.  I was even recently promoted there.  I teach at almost all levels
of tertiary education, including to Honours students and MBAs.  I've had
masters and PhD students.  I agree with you that understanding the economy is
important for helping to protect the environment.
    

ECan's approach to water management From: John F. Raffensperger Date: Dec 31 20:40 UTC Short link

Hi, Rik,

>  All 'new world' societies have a similar history, so this should not be news
to you.

I don't know what you mean here.

> But when legislatively enabled theft of common resources is the norm
/problem, creating a market system around that produces mostly more systematic
theft.

I worry that this kind of generic complaint and emotional rhetoric doesn't
advance the debate very much.  But I appreciate your feeling here, and feel
much the same.

> "Cultural values" would prove to be, protect, and enable a completely
different, and larger, set of values than market values.

Relying exclusively on "cultural values" for allocation of the commons has had
a long history.  Aristotle discussed the problem of the commons some time ago!
Yet the result remains unsatisfactory to a great fraction of the community.  I
want to be clear:  the cultural values are the *reason* for our desire for
better management of the commons.  I think that reliance on the true motivator
to also supply the technical solution has not got us anywhere.  Some new
mechanism is at least worth a try.  I share those values more deeply than you
know, and any voice (however inauthentic you think it) on your side is still on
your side.

> The only issue is how much damage with it have done before then, through
shift in dependence upon milksolid value to milksolid quantity?

Yes, true, but a fairly short-term issue, in the purview of the business people
involved, and not one that resolves how we as a society wish to manage the
commons.

> ... creating a new category of abhorrence for the near future World Court to
have to try, as we begin to fight our way out of increasing global chaos - the
climate criminal.

You've lost me here.

> ... These pollution costs too must be factored into your "economics" / market
model, for a 'water market' to start to make sense.

I agree that carbon and water both need to be factored into the cost of dairy,
but those costs should not be confused, nor treated as one.  A price for carbon
and a separate price for water.

> And of course the giveaway for crime is the lie. The dairy industry promotes
it's primary positive as 'food to feed a hungry world': the SanLu type of
'food'. In fact they increasingly produce industrial casein, and ('bio')ethanol
- where there is market support for it, including a greenwash dividend. Climate
criminals nonetheless.

Rik, I see you're letting off steam.  I sympathize in a general way, but I
worry about somewhat different things.

> Can you please provide an example state where what you are proposing has been
applied and evaluated? Or is New Zealand to play its traditional role of
"social laboratory" in this 'water market' regard?

No, I cannot.  The smart market for ground water is new and untried.  A smart
market for surface water was proposed (and tested in a lab) by the Nobel Prize
winner Vernon Smith, but to my knowledge was not implemented anywhere.  Smart
markets for other goods (natural gas, electricity, radio spectrum,  Chilean
school lunches, & many more) have been thoroughly studied, implemented
successfully, and put in active operation all over the world.  Their operation
is expanding.  Our smart market for water is designed to solve shortcomings
*especially protection for the enviroment* of water markets elsewhere. It is
unique in that respect, as well as others, especially its low transaction
costs.

The system could be tried in a single catchment, e.g., Selwyn, Marlborough, or
Nelson.  It would not need to be implemented nationally.  It could be tried for
a year or two, and then discarded if deemed bad in any way.  It could be
implemented for less than the cost of the preliminary cost/benefit analysis of
a new dam, with a greater gain.  For implementation in Nelson, we calculated a
100% return in the first year, with far better environmental flows.

I do not have a "free market" or "laissez faire" philosophy.  It is anything
but that.  If you want full disclosure, I came from the University of Chicago,
Graduate School of Business, the Capitol of Capitalism, the same place that
brought you all those Nobel Prize-winning supposed far-right free market
economists.  (Many of them aren't actually "free market" folk at all, but I
wouldn't want anyone to change their underlying beliefs.  LOL)   If you have a
close look at my proposal, you will see a highly controlled and centrally
managed system with the highest respect for the commons and the environment.
It is anything but "free market"!  And economics has moved beyond Milton
Friedman and Ronald Coase as well.  The U of Chicago Nobel Prize winners
themselves are now in the forefront of saying that government must take a
central role in managing the commons - the commons can *not* be left to the
mercy of the "free market".  So, to all,  please spare me baiting comments
about the godless evil "free market", because I already agree with you more
than you know, and that is not what this system is doing anyway.  Those
comments are just talking past the actual debate.  Furthermore, I've already
heard all the objections about poor people, injustice, global chaos, etc., and
have even written them up in my proposal.   I want the environment  protected,
and I want justice, and I want poor people protected.

Have a look at what my sister, Carolyn Raffensperger, is doing.
  She and I have different approaches
- she is an anthropologist and a lawyer, working with community activism and
law, poetry and language.  Many people find that approach highly attractive.  I
am an engineer, working with hydrology, mathematics, and computer code.  Many
people don't find this analytical approach attactive.  She and I want the same
thing:  to protect the earth for the sake of our children. Actually, she
doesn't have any kids, while I have three, so I'm even more strongly motivated!
    

ECan's approach to water management From: John F. Raffensperger Date: Dec 30 08:40 UTC Short link

Hi, Brian,

> My new PhD student is working on this problem.  We are developing a system to
incentivize people to dig up concrete and plant trees!
>> As John explained earlier, by "pulling up concrete" he means the converison
of impervious baked land to treed.

The anticipated solution space is far richer than simply baked land &
commercial forests.  It should take into account the economics, all available
relevant geographical data, the run-off parameters of best management practice
for each type of land use (including native land use), and a range of society's
preferences about environmental protection.

Regarding the rest of your note, maybe we are going into a drought period as
you suggest.  I have been trynig to design systems that will be permanent, and
stand the test of time.

- jfr
    

ECan's approach to water management From: John F. Raffensperger Date: Dec 30 06:19 UTC Short link

Hi, Brian,

> http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1004-flooding.html "Based on an arbitrary
decrease in natural forest area of 10%, the model-averaged prediction of flood
frequency increased between 4% and 28% among the countries modeled."

My new PhD student is working on this problem.  We are developing a system to
incentivize people to dig up concrete and plant trees!  The hydrology modeling
is rather difficult.

Warm regards,
    

Fritz
-----
John F. Raffensperger, Ph.D.
Dept. of Management, Private Bag 4800
Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
+64-3-364-2987, ext. 8616.

Personal web page, http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/people/jfraffen/
Water Markets Research Group,
http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/research/waterresearch/index.shtml

Explore Operations Research: http://www.ScienceOfBetter.org/.