2 years seems a long time but feels like yesterday. In that period the NZ$ fell from 0.82 to 0.49 and now is back trading just below 0.68. Wow…talk about currency whiplash.

So back then I suggested the RBNZ should think about selling as much NZ$ as they could. Why? Why go against prevailing market sentiment which is that intervention doesn’t really work and simply provides a target for the speculating hordes which incidentally account for 95% of the volume of daily trades.

That’s a fair sentiment when your currency is falling but when it’s rising? And when you have an eye popping foreign debt of almost 140% of GDP……that’s foreign debt not overall debt.

And yet the punters keep buying the NZ$. Perhaps they know something I don’t. Maybe 50 years worth of oil has been discovered in the Southern Basin. Who knows?

The point is that at some point that money has to be paid back and at the moment, due to the sneaky monster that is compound interest, we can’t even get close to reducing it.

But now is the time to strike.

Again I would like to suggest that the RBNZ starts selling NZ$. When you have a lot of something to sell it’s always best to do it when others are keen to buy. Now is that chance.

By selling NZ$ now and paying back, or at least holding for that same purpose, it will take the pressure off the very precarious dependency we have on overseas lenders.

This doesn’t eliminate the debt but simply transfers it to a domestic situation where it can be managed at lower rates and where there is no threat of having to suddenly repay.

How can the RBNZ do this? Again this is very simple. Print NZ$ and buy US$. There is no change to the actual money supply just how the debt is denominated.

Considering the implosion Iceland experienced and the unfolding disaster that is Ireland (surviving only due to its membership of the Euro), it makes complete sense just to get on with this now.

To allow foreign debt to be run at such a level is financial mismanagement of the highest level.

It also shows a willingness to be dictated to and dependent on overseas interests. This makes no sense at all when the country’s economy security is at stake.

Pretty bubbles in the air.

They fly so high,

Nearly reach the sky,

Then like my dreams,

They fade and die.

Fortune’s always hiding,

I’ve looked everywhere,

I’m forever blowing bubbles,

Pretty bubbles in the air.

Never did I believe the mighty Hammers would have understood the machinations of central banking so well. Maybe they knew?

Reading the recent Fed statement, one may feel that the lessons of the recent crisis have not been fully understood or learnt. That’s the problem with the ability to print new money to replace old. It gives a feeling of relief and so help the markets to recover, in fact recover strongly. But there is nothing here that suggests the policymakers know what they are doing.

Crisis dealt with? For now.

Another case of yes, no, maybe, no. The recent G8 summit started with a resounding yes but soon slipped back into a rather tentative not on your nelly.

Simply put the developing or poorer nations have got pressing issues of poverty to deal with and they simply don’t see why they should have to pay for the ecological sins of the developed and richer nations, never mind the fact that they got rich on the back of an imperialist framework!

It just seems that no deal can ever be done without some form of equity payback. There has been some suggestion that revenue raised from either carbon taxes or auctioning of permits could be rebated on a per capita basis. This is simply redistributing the costs in a progressive manner and makes sense on the face of it.

However, can’t see the wealthy punters in the West going for that. What to do?

Maybe it’s time to look for the simplest solution and just get a carbon tax on the books. It’s quick and simple as you only need to tax, at source, basic fossil fuels: oil, gas and coal.

This is something i posted about in 2007 but it’s time to take another look.

Let’s say we have established a price for “carbon”,this being a proxy for externalities caused in the combustion of fossil fuels. The most efficient way to alert the market to this cost is to price it in at source ie where the fossil fuel is sold wholesale. This would be the global oil, gas or coal exchanges.

In my paper, Climate Control, i argued for the establishment of a World Energy Agency, where all fossil fuels were sold through. Simply add on the price of carbon and leave it at that. As a one point global process it would be very simple and then that price information would flow out across the world. End of story.

But there are two issues here:

One is that we are trying to stop carbon quantities breaching certain levels. The price elasticity of fossil fuel consumption may hinder this somewhat as consumers of oil products are slow to change demand in response to price. But there is no doubt that the price rises over the last few years certainly caused some pain in the wallet and made people think about ways of cutting back on petrol usage.

The second issue is interesting. What happens to that money? Who does it belong to? As a charge being levied by the WEA it has no soveriegn recipient. So i propose this “charge” goes into a Global Environmental Contingency Fund (GECF). I want to make clear this is not a tax, it is a cost. It is therefore directly related to an expense which is in this case the use or environmental services.

Let’s stop using the word tax. It’s incorrect and draws attention from the fact that we are simply paying for a service we are using.

So how could the GECF work? I have to give that some more thought but the rough idea is that it would hold those funds in bonds (sovereign) or could lend them out at low interest to fund projects that have a positive environmental benefit. This is the tricky bit. But let’s sit with the first piece. The money comes in and sits in bonds. That’s it. So it’s not being spent on projects of a dubious outcome. As the title implies its a Contingency Fund. We don’t know for sure what will happen in the future. The money can be repaid if required by discounting the price of fossil fuels if it turns out that the cost has turned out to be lower.

What could New Zealand do right now?

Implement a tax and use that revenue to reforest the whole country. This can link into a global emissions trading scheme at some point but the important point is to make sure that the tax collected does not go into the general pot.

People need to see the flow of money from them into pure offsetting activities. If we don’t restrict supply (the only accurate and long lasting solution) then we have to slowly change behaviour and do it in the most straightforward way. A ring fenced and targeted tax is probably the best option we have right now given the likelihood of any global agreement at Copenhagen.