Yes, a new feature for this blog! (And easy to do too…) But really, do look. The screen shot is linked to this excellent site where you will find much more than just the bad news or the sensation of the day.
Category Archives: Australia and Australian
What a good name for some Gothic band to take!
I refer of course to Tony Abbott’s ghost cabinet — a cabinet of Dr Caligari.
An Abbott, two Bishops and Nick the Impaler
A Cadaver, a Barney and Kevin the Tailor
That refers to the famous couplet on Richard III:
A Cat, a Rat, and Lovell the Dog
All ruled England under the Hog
Yes, we have an alternative at last: the pit or the pendulum, the devil or the deep blue sea, Scylla or Charybdis, Hitler or Stalin… Of course the latter is particularly unsavoury, is it not? Unfair on both counts — but don’t blame me: I’m not the one who compared Copenhagen to Munich while fully aware of the spurious nature of the analogy but nonetheless knowing it would push the right buttons in punter-land. That was Tony yesterday to Alan Jones. And interviewed on Lateline last night the neuro-linguistic triggering got a typically Abbott overkill: he even underlines the cue words by raising the stress above the rest of the utterance, a kind of phonological CAPITAL LETTERS TRICK.
Peter Hartcher noted inThe Sydney Morning Herald:
…He has rejected the counsel of the Liberal Party’s founder, Robert Menzies, that ”the duty of an opposition is to oppose selectively”…
Abbott will not engage on Rudd’s terms. He will not mount an intellectual case. He will not present detailed policy alternatives.
He will circle Rudd, throwing jabs from all directions, never presenting a stationary target. He proposes deregulating the job market, for instance, but refuses to be specific: ”I am asking questions here,” he told Sky News yesterday, ”not making policy.”
”I want to make a fight of things,” he said. ”I think I have got the frontbench to do that.”
With the climate sceptic Nick Minchin in resources, the hardliner Eric Abetz in industrial relations, Barnaby Joyce free-ranging and veteran warriors like Bronwyn Bishop and Kevin Andrews on the front line, nobody would disagree with him.
Emissions trading schemes by country
The following table provides a summary of the countries that have an established or proposed emissions trading scheme.
|Country / Jurisdiction||Scheme name||Operating / In development|
|Australia||Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme||In development|
|Austria||European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System (EU ETS)||Operating|
|Czech Republic||EU ETS||Operating|
|United Kingdom||EU ETS||Operating|
|Norway||Linked to EU ETS||Operating|
|Iceland||Linked to EU ETS||Operating|
|Liechtenstein||Linked to EU ETS||Operating|
|Switzerland||Swiss Emissions Trading Scheme and CO2 Tax, planned link to ETS||Operating|
|New Zealand||New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme||Operating|
|Canada||Canadian Emissions Trading Scheme (Clean Air Act)||In development|
|Republic of Korea||Air Pollution Emissions Trading System||In development|
|Japan||Japanese Emissions Trading Scheme (has also trialled voluntary emissions trading schemes, including Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme)||In development|
|United States of America||United States Emissions Trading Scheme (American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009 (Waxman-Markey Bill); and Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (Kerry-Boxer Bill))||In development|
|Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maryland (All USA states)||Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)||Operating|
|Arizona (USA), California (USA), New Mexico (USA), Oregon(USA), Washington (USA), Utah (USA), Montana (USA), British Columbia (Can), Manitoba (Can), Ontario (Can), and Quebec (Can).||Western Climate Initiative (WCI)||In development|
|Iowa (USA), Illinois (USA), Kansas (USA), Michigan (USA), Minnesota (USA), Wisconsin (USA) and Manitoba (Can)||Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGA)||In development|
While all the above come from the Australian Department of Climate Change there is no doubt that much needs to be done to make these matters, especially those related to mitigation strategies, more accessible to the general public.
I need to pause before I attempt the summation I promised yesterday, so below I will list some additional resources.
But first some preliminary observations.
1. While “MAGIC PUDDING POLITICS” (Rudd on Brer Abbott) is not nearly as effective a mantra as “GREAT BIG TAX ON NEARLY EVERYTHING” (Brer Abbott on Rudd) the greater truth is in the Rudd mantra. The idea of a costless response to climate change is a sick joke. I do in fact believe that nuclear power should be in the mix, siding to that extent with Brer Abbott (and James Lovelock), but that has to be seen in a context too.
THE Opposition’s desire to embrace nuclear power in the absence of an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax would result in electricity price rises of between 10 per cent and 33 per cent, according to estimates by the Howard government’s nuclear energy expert, Ziggy Switkowski.
In a report for John Howard in 2006, Dr Switkowski found nuclear power would never be commercially viable unless fossil fuel-generated electricity was made more expensive using an ETS or carbon tax.
This resulted in Mr Howard embracing an emissions trading scheme as a way to reduce greenhouse gases while keeping open the nuclear option for the future.
In a dramatic departure from policy, the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has abandoned support for any market-based mechanism, such as an ETS or a carbon tax, as part of the Coalition’s greenhouse strategy…
2. It is such a shame the whole issue has become politicised, but I suppose that is inevitable in a democracy. Fact is, however, that there are limits to what “debate” can actually achieve in the face of phenomena that really do not depend, in the long run, on our ideological positions or the wheelbarrows we choose to push. Dithering is one of the less savoury outcomes of a democratic process, not that I prefer the alternative really – but a country like China is actually better placed to act decisively, for good or ill. Such a shame we are mere humans and not gods, isn’t it?
3. Given the abysmal level of much of our dithering both here and overseas, and given the importance of the issue, nothing is to be gained by censorship of the kind that apparently has happened at the CSIRO or by fudging data, as apparently happened at the East Anglia CRU. While we would all do well to forget unlikely scenarios like the movie The Day After Tomorrow and must all concede that Al Gore oversimplified in An Inconvenient Truth, we should also realise that what happened at the CSIRO or East Anglia does not invalidate the overall truth of the IPCC reports. The IPCC does not engage in research; all it does is weigh the research and gather together the implications of that research for our consideration. There was much more input to its reports than East Anglia.
Hence comments like this on the latest offering (for climate change action I hasten to add) of Sojourners, a “left evangelical” site, really are tragic.
I think it is useing a lie to push their ideas. there is no man made global warming. yes take care of the environment, being a christian this should be second nature, shouldnt need to push for eco-prophets. nature changes all the time. thats life. honesty is important and there isnt much of that in this environment "emergency" that is being pushed. The other point is that the UN has no concern for the poor. they people they have chosen to make us believe in global warming are liars. and the proposals they want to accomplish will Not help the poor but make it harder for them. If you cant see that then you have blinders on.
There are so many prejudices running through that comment one hardly knows where to start.
4. Check some recent stories in the Sydney Morning Herald.
- Global warming ‘godfather’ goes cold on Copenhagen
- Cold comfort: the psychology of climate denial
- At a glance: guide to climate change and ETS
5. Realise that there are left as well as right-wing critiques of “market strategies” like cap and trade or carbon tax.
- Carbon Trading – How it works and why it fails
- Contours of Climate Justice
- New Internationalist Climate Justice issue. From that issue:
The Same Boat
Imagine 10 rabbits lost at sea, in a boat carved out of a giant carrot.
The carrot is their only source of food, so they all keep nibbling at it. The boat is shrinking rapidly – but none of them wants to be the first to stop, because then they’ll be the first to starve. There’s no point in any of them stopping unless everyone stops – if even one rabbit carries on eating, the boat will sink.
This is the international climate crisis in a (Beatrix Potter-flavoured) nutshell: action by individual nations achieves little unless we all act together. Of course, reality is a little more complex. While it’s easy to imagine the rabbits reaching a simple agreement where they all learn to dredge for seaweed instead, our situation involves massive global inequalities, differing levels of responsibility, and a history of exploitation and broken international promises.
Perhaps, then, we shouldn’t be too surprised that the international climate negotiations – which began in earnest in 1990 with the talks that created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – have not yet got us a workable global solution. The best we’ve managed so far has been the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized nations (known as ‘Annex 1’ countries) pledged to cut their CO emissions by a completely inadequate 5.2 per cent by 2012. The US famously pulled out of the deal, and most of those who remained in are unlikely to achieve even these small cuts…
Down with Kyoto
We shouldn’t get too hung up on Copenhagen – we’re far more likely to create lasting change by building powerful national and international movements than by pouring all our energy into specific summit meetings. But it’s hard to deny that we need some sort of international framework for tackling this global issue. Despite its flaws, the UNFCCC is the only one we’ve got, and the urgency of the climate issue requires us to work with it.
However, the Kyoto Protocol has been a dismal failure. Should we demand that governments scrap it completely and start again from scratch? It’s tempting, but would be unlikely to gain the crucial support of Southern negotiators, who fear that a brand new deal would see them lose their hard-won ‘differentiated responsibility’.
A better approach might be to create space within the existing talks for alternative, fairer systems and ideas – such as GDRs, Kyoto2, community-led solutions, indigenous rights, strings-free clean development assistance, patent-free technology transfer – to get a hearing. Currently emissions trading, private financing and market-based mechanisms are seen as the only route to greenhouse gas reductions, and are crowding everything else out of the debate.
This suggests a simple, effective starting point for developing a successful – and just – global agreement: we need to get rid of carbon trading…
Confused yet? One tip though: if anyone has all their ideas on the subject from Quadrant or Ms Devine or Mr Bolt they aren’t worth taking too seriously. The entries immediately above, on the other hand, are predicated on an anti “free market” perspective. They are putting their faith in sustainables as the answer. I don’t really see either as being much practical help, though more is to be said for the New Internationalist stance than Quadrant’s.
OK, I’ll try again later on…
See also: entries here tagged “environment".
A couple of days ago Jim Belshaw noted:
… In choosing Mr Abbott, the Liberal Party has taken a step into the unknown. The Coalition now presents a clear alternative position to Labor. Mr Abbott is a very intelligent man, but he has also been a polarising figure with somewhat of a tendency to put his foot in his mouth, boot and all. Dull he is not.
The reactions to Mr Abbott among the party faithful on both sides can be largely predicted. What is less clear is just how he might appeal to the people in the middle.
From performance thus far I doubt very much that Tony Abbott will win over people in the middle. Rather what we are seeing is a rush towards what I regard as the worst excesses of the post-Fraser Liberal Party. It certainly isn’t the Liberal Party I at one time long ago used to support.
Though they all do it, Tony Abbott has already displayed the mind-numbing NLP propaganda technique so loved by some politicians. He is good at it and, sadly, it can often work. Let this BNP person explain:
DEVELOPING RAPPORT: According to this theory of communication, even the most fundamental truth will have little effect unless it is presented in a manner which, by developing a substantial amount of natural rapport with the targeted audience, is capable of achieving effective persuasion. Such persuasion, moreover, is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which a sophisticated tactical flexibility is employed by the communicator to enable him to establish the necessary ‘agreement frame’ with the particular audience he wants to persuade.
How to produce this ‘agreement frame’ most effectively forms the underlying basis of the NLP philosophy. The proposed method has been aptly described by Anthony Robbins, author of Unlimited Power, as ‘Aikido politics’, whereby the communicator seeks to produce the least possible resistance in his targeted audience. The idea behind this theory is that, rather than pushing aggressively or trying to bludgeon an acceptance of an argument, a successful communication is best achieved through gently ‘aligning’ an opposing viewpoint with that of your own by finding points of agreement, and then gradually ‘leading’ the other viewpoint around to your position. By this method, it is argued, an ‘avenue of redirection’ can be created which can often adroitly sidestep any possible or expected hostile response.
By disingenuously linking the snarl-words “BIG NEW TAX ON EVERYTHING” to emissions trading and/or carbon taxes Abbott short-circuits our brains and achieves his ‘agreement frame’. He knows exactly what he is doing, even if he and most of his party actually agreed with emissions trading in some form or other just last week, and had done for several years.
Such a shame, but not surprising, that the 9-12 Liberals who would have voted FOR the emissions trading scheme in the Senate reduced in the event to TWO brave principled souls.
Sydney Morning Herald – linked to story
One of them had this to say on the 7.30 Report last night:
KERRY O’BRIEN: Now, initially there were up to 12 of you in the Senate who believed very strongly – in the way that you have – but only two of you in the end crossed the floor. Why do you think the others waivered?
JUDITH TROETH: Well, up til yesterday Kerry, this was of course, or the day that we changed the leader from Malcolm Turnbull to Tony Abbott, this was of course Coalition policy that we supported the Government’s legislation. And there were other senators in my party who didn’t agree with that, and so they would have been the ones crossing the floor, as I believe many intended to do. But having taken the decision to back the legislation, I saw no reason to change my mind. If it was good enough to do it one day, in my view it was good enough to do it the next day.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Now once upon a time, you were not a believer in climate change science. Why are you now so convinced about the climate change science?
JUDITH TROETH: I have read widely and I have made my own conclusions. I lived in the country for a long time, as you know, and saw many long droughts. And by, probably about two years ago, having observed what was a very long drought, and noticed other things happening and reading widely, I decided that climate change was happening and that we should factor it into any government action…
KERRY O’BRIEN: Do you think it is too simplistic to simply summarise the whole ETS package as nothing more than a great big tax?
JUDITH TROETH: That’s a very simplistic way of putting it and it is also obviously designed to scare people. And that’s largely what the anti -campaign has been, a scare campaign. When you think of the business investment decisions that have to be made if this legislation goes through, when you think of the way in which people need to look at climate change, we’re all going to have to pay for climate change in some way or another and this will be a feature of the future world that we look at. So we had better get used to it…
Truth-tellers are rare in politics, even if there were unusual moments of candour in the last week. Now the Libs have a virtual unity – whether real or not time will tell.
Meantime we have the “new” – Kevin Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop…
Pardon me while I get up off the floor!
Tomorrow I will do a rundown, based on my recent reading, of the probable effectiveness of climate change mitigation strategies. The only thing I have in common with Mr A is that (unlike Labor at the moment or the Greens) I would factor in nuclear energy.