Even so, some energy vectors can be traded as commodities, like gasoline or electricity. Vencit omnia veritas.
Even so, some energy vectors can be traded as commodities, like gasoline or electricity
Indeed.
And IMHO the future of the global financial system (at least for cross-border transactions - domestic trade is another issue) lies in the commoditisation - by the simple expedient of creating Units redeemable in energy - of such energy vectors, and thence to their "monetisation" through an International Energy Clearing Union.
Certainly the concept of a global "Petro" energy standard and the global monetisation of natural gas went down really well in Iran last week.
If I stay snowed in up here in Scotland, I might even complete that article for the Oil Drum you suggested I write ;-) "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Btw, do you know Andrew Mckillop and his latest ideas [pdf] ? Vencit omnia veritas.
But I don't think centralised institutions and architectures are optimal. McKillop seems to be looking at a centralised Keynesian International Clearing Union/ Bancor approach.
When I talk about "frameworks" I don't mean "Organisations" or "Institutions" but simply agreements or protocols with cross border application.
I think we need local solutions linking up regionally and globally to form a global network from the bottom up, rather than any more global organisations funding things "top down".
But it's really about "whatever works", isn't it? "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Energy at its genesis is neither a commodity or a service, it is the ability ...
I disagree. This language dissembles the tangible constituents (mechanical processes, equipment such as transmission lines, production inputs such as "natural" commodities and human labor) --"its genesis"-- that yield benefits, both tangible and intangible such as "ability."
"Vector" analyses are merely discursions about mathematical relationship(s) among terms of production, purportedly of economic interest to the owner of the means of production.
To ignore tangible goods and services that constitute "energy" benefits is perforce magical thinking about "energy" production of a calibre represented by political assumptions of this EU policy paper. That is the ownership interests in natural resources of peoples who are not EU beneficiaries of "its genesis." You note obliquely EU dependencies in North Africa to obtain EU energy production goals:
The major goal put forward by the Commission is the Trans-Sahara Gas Pipeline, that it pretends to secure with bilateral agreements using instruments such as European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, the European Development Fund and the European Investment Bank.
What is the purpose of deflecting ownership interest in and information about EU-located energy production or conservation for that matter? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
