Tag Archives: markets

Land resources

I don’t think we’re being imaginative or aggressive enough with tackling climate issues. Nor are we thinking about how to sync-up our efforts to grow our economies, improve lives together with environmental conservation efforts. There are plenty of false dichotomies that result from how we’ve developed our economies. It’s haunting us and discouraging us from thinking in worthy directions for problem-solving.

One example of a dichotomy that may turn out to be false in the long run is the issue of food versus fuel. The food shortage problems today is driven by logistics and localised disaster more than aggregate unavailability or insufficiency. If anything, instead of trying to outright ban dedicated energy crops or crop-based feedstocks for biofuel production, it would be wiser to encourage a programme of reducing desertification and farming of marginal land with resilient crops that can be used as feedstocks for biofuels.

Another involves questioning of thermodynamically-unappealing solutions. Direct air capture (DAC) requires that energy is so cheap that you should mechanically capture the carbon dioxide from the air with machines. And yes, it doesn’t take as much land per unit of carbon captured. It could even compete with vegetation/forests. One could consider through the lens of this competition with nature: Forests takes about 860 square km of land to absorb 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide whereas if you were to build a DAC plant plus a solar farm powering it which can capture 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year would only take about 30 square km, which is ~3.4% of the land area. [my calculations are back-of-envelope and derived from unit figures here and here].

Yes, but then what about the limited lifespan and all the value chain emissions from making solar panels and DAC systems? Indeed, those trade-offs are worth thinking about, which is why we probably won’t advocate replacing natural habitats and forests with DAC. A forest is more than just sequestering carbon, but also provides other ecosystem services such as enhancing biodiversity, increasing groundwater supply, and even helping to clean the water and reducing the risks of desertification.

At some level, biofuels compete with synthetic or e-fuels; and biomethane perhaps is imagined to compete with hydrogen. But all of these are false dichotomies. The world needs us to keep working on different solutions and coordinate our efforts to scale them where they make sense. One can be purist about different things and get nowhere. Let’s try to lay out the trade-offs and work through those in specific contexts rather than seek to rule out solutions on the whole.

What made Singapore’s economy?

One of the reasons I determined to study economics was because Singapore was a country labeled as an economic miracle, and I thought it’d be cool to figure out what was behind it. For decades, we’ve been told that it was the brilliance, hard work and sacrifice of our forefathers, strong leaders and a little bit of circumstances that made us what we are today.

It was a nice feel-good lesson but it wasn’t always easy to make clear of what it means for the future. There was limited strategies that we could adopt out of it. We did also learn that Singapore was a trading hub so it was vital that the world trading system went on and developed, because we facilitate that trade across west and the east, and we served those large vessels, and loads of containers, bulk goods that had to change hands in our location. So the port we had serviced these people and lots of local companies and industries grew to support that.

Even that wasn’t enough; it was thanks to the brilliance of our early leaders which attracted industrial players to set up shop in Singapore, provide employment, opportunities for skills, and provide an industrial core on which we could develop from. To accomplish all that, we need to have good and well-educated labour force, and a very stable environment. The strength of our government is delivering on all of that.

Today, our economy remains extremely reliant on trade, though one may argue that our original intent was to use trade to lift ourselves up enough to develop our own industrial giants and core. A couple of countries like Taiwan, Korea, Japan and even China sort of achieved that but Singapore remains much stronger in terms of the bringing in foreign direct investments, and providing services to parts of the economy that’s doing very well. We have yet to really build up strong giants, opt-ing instead to play the financial game which is heavily reliant on money as an asset.

I think it is clear that we had spotted an opportunity to bring ourselves out of poverty through the economic strategies but after it delivered good results previously. From now, we will need to figure out the way forward that does not merely involve repeating past actions, but improving upon those past actions more radically. Finally, we ought to recognise that our final goal is to create our own industrial champions that can secure a footing in the global stage.

60 years on, we have matured a lot as an economy but I think it’s only the beginning.

War against biofuels

As I continued my work promoting the circularity of recovering organic waste and residue for energy purposes (mostly through the production of various biofuels), I begin to see the challenge that this space face.

Right now, EU is putting strict rules around the feedstocks allowed for the biofuels that count towards decarbonisation in their jurisdictions and hence the emergence of ISCC EU standards and certification for the value chains surrounding biofuels (and of course, other renewable fuels). Some crop-based feedstocks are allowed, but most crop-based feedstocks are being penalised by the indirect land-use change (ILUC) considerations – which are being reconsidered at the moment. However, there are some groups who are outright against crop-based feedstocks and considering them unsustainable.

Transport & Environment, in particular, have been rather against the whole idea of biofuels and champion a future that is based on hydrogen. They view biofuels as transition fuels that have no place in a net zero world. Consider the letter crafted to push shipping companies away from biofuels for green shipping just because they claim particular crops have been devastating the environment. They continue their assault on palm and soy industries instead of working alongside to find solutions to help these industries boost yield and reduce deforestation. Consider the achievement of the corn industry in the US, driven by the need to produce bioethanol. Won’t it be better if people work together to realise such improvement and increase the supply of alternative fuels in the world rather than screaming doom and gloom about one feedstock or another?

So what kind of doom and gloom are they perpetuating here, you ask? They commissioned a study by Cerulogy showing that “palm and soy oil would likely make up nearly two-thirds of the biodiesel used to power the shipping industry in 2030 as they represent the cheapest fuels to comply.” Again, the concern is food supply being affected as the resources are directed to energy; and also deforestation driven by these crops as feedstock? Isn’t EU Deforestation Regulations (EUDR) meant to look into these areas? Why not just use the tracking and scrutiny to prevent that damage instead of creating blanket bans? Use an lifecycle assessment-driven approach? And focus our efforts on developing clearer standards for lifecycle assessments rather than trying to exclude solutions before they hit the ground?

Well, if you really want to promote hydrogen, you can also consider the environmental damage from the lack of circularity in the solar, wind and battery materials space. The thing about green hydrogen is that it will require intermittent renewable power and these resources do also take up land space. They may not compete with food crops because they use marginal land; or that livestock can continue to coexist amidst solar panels. Wait, food crops could be grown with other parts of their biomass directed to fuels too! And many of these crops can be directed towards animal feed for feedstocks.

I agree that we probably want to think through a bit how the incentives we create can have very bad unintended consequences. But trying so hard to do that on biofuels is not going to undo the problems introduced by decades of subsidising the fossil industries via various policies. Those distorted incentives are plaguing us till this day.

Why is there such a war against biofuels? I don’t get it.

Capital’s bargaining power

Recently a friend and I was working on some business ideas. We were thinking through scenarios where smart people come up with great business ideas or business models that can generate impressive returns but require capital to do. If the capital markets work perfectly for the specific risk profile of the business (assume that it can be assessed correctly), then all capital should only be able to demand the market rate of return on capital.

We ran some simulations on this. To simplify the whole business and risk, we assume it is a very low-risk infrastructure project that returns constant cashflow across 10 years, one year after the initial cash injection. A project that can bring in >27%, when raising all of its funds from a capital owner, should be split 60-40 if the market hurdle rate is at ~12% for that risk and tenure. This means that though the capital holder is financing 100% of the project, he needs to give up 40% share of the returns to the ones who structured and pulled the project together.

Now, when the project returns rises to 33% over 10 years; and the market hurdle rate remains at 12%, then the capital holder needs to give up 49% share. This means that if the project that the smart guys are able to put together can return more than 33%, then the capital owner needs to give up more than 50% of the returns even though he is contributing 100% of the upfront capital. This is a hard bargain for the ‘entrepreneurs’ organising the resources to strike with capital holders.

This is perhaps how the Thomas Piketty argument about the relative bargaining power of capital gets played out. At the same time, capital can afford to be more patient because the cost of upkeeping capital isn’t as high as trying to upkeep a living person with the wits and capabilities to develop all the ideas and organise the resources. And because capital is more ‘tangible’ and ‘calculative’, it can keep forcing all kinds of cost upon labour side of the equation. In this blog post, labour basically includes the ‘entrepreneurial’ elements as well that is typically somewhat associated with capital.

This is where debt comes in. Instead of getting a co-investor, the project entrepreneur should be able to borrow to finance the project. And the debt tenure can be shorter. A simple solution could be to take out a 4-year debt at 7% interest; this would require the entrepreneur to sacrifice 85% of the project cashflow for the first 4 years, in exchange for the rest of the project’s cashflow. Technically, when structured as a debt, the market interest rate should be lower than the market hurdle rate. Yet because the ‘project’ is new and may not have a sufficient track record, financiers may demand collateral and other risk-management tools to enhance the credit standing. Technically, when structured as a debt, the market interest rate should be lower than the market hurdle rate. Yet because the ‘project’ is new and may not have a sufficient track record, financiers may demand collateral and other risk-management tools to enhance the credit standing. This means that the entrepreneur would have to give out more than he needs to reduce the risks of the capital holder further despite the risk profile of the project.

So, the entrepreneur who does not have any capital to contribute will be seen as having a mouth-watering return since there isn’t any ‘capital at risk’ for the entrepreneur, but the reality is that there is some opportunity cost. Yet if the entrepreneur’s salary is built into the project returns, then he doesn’t have the ‘opportunity cost’. The extra upside would be his ‘supernormal return’.

Fast followers

Being a fast follower is a good strategy; it allows you to take in the lessons from those who have tried and failed first. It is even a strategy that enables you to become a leader from public’s eyes.

But the challenge for the fast follower who gained leadership status is falling into the trap of thinking they are the leader. Their skills in curating what they learnt from the mavericks, scaling what was small and bringing things to market fast, are not going to be suited for what is required to take real leadership: influencing the market, uncovering innovation from their own values and principles.

They may have to pivot at some point when they’ve outcompeted all those whom they were fast-following.

Waiting for standards

There are lots of excuses to choose from for a business to avoid the sustainability pressures upon them. Especially those who doesn’t want to have anything to do with activities that are not geared towards generating profits. One of them is the lack of standards in terms of what constitutes being sustainable.

And so the wheel turns and regulators churn out a whole bunch of different kinds of standards: CSRD, TCFD, GRI, CDP, SASB, UN SDGs – and all of them are basically reporting standards.

Technically they don’t tell you exactly what being a sustainable business is about; but they do emphasize some aspects and bring to fore different aspects of the business that may not be captured in more traditional business disclosures.

Nevertheless, no one is going to be able to tell you what is the ‘sustainability standard’ threshold that marks your business as being sustainable. There are ways to look good in each of those disclosure standards of course – and businesses sure knows how to cherry-pick the ones. The whole industry could even gear up to pander to that kind of work.

Yet at the heart of building a sustainable business is really considering the relationship of the business with everything else other than profits. And only you as the leader, the business owner, the manager, the employee can make decisions that determine how sustainable the business it. The metrics that you care about will naturally be tailored to your business.

You don’t have to wait for some regulators or the ‘market’ to make up their mind.

Waste management complexities

Since starting my career in the environmental sector more than 10 years ago, I’ve been dealing with waste management issues. Frankly, the circular economy wasn’t spoken of yet. And in any case, a lot of the waste generated cannot be recycled. The fact is that we never even quite gone into the first ‘R’ of the three ‘R’s yet.

Singapore waste disposal figures
Total waste generated and disposed in Singapore (tonnes per annum), Source: NEA Statistics

The thing is, as the country’s population grew and economic activities multiplied, waste growth continued. There was probably a dip in terms of per capita waste generation, but the overall amount of waste we were disposing of grew even if the gross waste generation didn’t quite reach the ‘peak’ we had in 2017.

Our ability to manage this waste is important and it is largely because we’ve been able to get rid of them and maintain the cleanliness of our city, and not burden our businesses with the excessive waste that we have been able to keep up with our economic growth and remained an attractive destination for business, and economic activities. These are, of course, the positive externalities of having a robust waste management programme.

Yet waste is a complicated matter; the fact that waste management produces a positive externality doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to have more of it because that is usually based on the amount of waste that needs to be managed. On the other hand, when you subsidise the management activity, there is a risk that you’re undercharging the people generating the waste, which is the source of the problem in the first place. That brings us beyond the territories of your traditional economic externality analysis.

So, it becomes a political issue. And there’s even a question of willingness to pay, not in the traditional sense that people will not do it anymore. It is about how much you can keep charging the people without losing political support and risking losing votes. This is why public policy surrounding waste is complex, and you can’t leave it to a technocratic government to solve such a problem. You can employ some of the technocratic arguments to help you get some buy-in, but you’d likely need to deploy more tactics than that.

Analysing externalities

In public finance, there are multiple approaches to determining how to use the public budget. There will always be the standard expenditures that will have to be costed in, the overheads to cover the public service.

Then there are past liabilities that will need to be paid for. But then, each time, the government can make a decision whether those liabilities are still worth their while to continue financing.

After which, we determine the infrastructure and other investments essential for development of the society. When it comes to investing into infrastructure, the government will definitely need to meet needs, but they might have to ask themselves what kind of social benefits are generated in order to work out whether the price tag for fulfilling those needs make sense.

This is the realm of externalities. And the reason we care about that is because the free market would not. If private benefits exceed private costs, then the free market will find its own means of fulfilling those needs. When there are externalities, the government has to step in. From a business point of view, where there are negative externalities, it is a revenue-opportunity for the government. And where there are positive externalities, the ruling political party can get some political mileage out of it.

Such is the interaction across politics and economics that is worth a bit more attention.

Feature or bug

The only time you have to say something is a feature, not a bug, is when it appears to be a flaw. The notion behind this idea is that there was an intention. That aspect of a software, or product design, or service experience was not supposed to be a flaw but an intentional part of the design. It assumes there was an intention, some objective being served.

The reason people might think it was a bug could be because:

  • They had different objectives from that of the way the product designer had imagined the objectives of their users to be
  • They were not the target audience of the product/service
  • They were forcefully making a product fit their needs
  • They did not know how to use the product – which could reflect badly on the UI design or the UI of whatever instructions needed
  • The product had a poor product-market fit
  • The product designers were giving excuses for themselves

There isn’t supposed to be a debate whether something is a feature or a bug. It should always be resolved by the one who had designed the product/service. If it was a result of something being overlooked, it is a bug, and pointing out that it could be a feature is just an excuse.