Having Kevin Rudd as a Prime Minister has meant an era of management rather than leadership. Evidence is the revised but still tragic climate change policy: the Emission Trading Scheme is being delayed past the next election, emission prices are to be set at a low $10 per tonne, and industrial polluters are compensated even more.
Activist organisation GetUp! has the facts of the new policy. The Sydney Morning Herald gave an environment perspective and a political perspective on this change, which has been variously characterised as a backflip or a watering down of action over climate change.
The original plans were fundamentally flawed from an environmental perspective, such that Ross Garnaut, author of the government-commissioned report on the subject, said it might be better to hold off on implementation - in the hope that public pressure will yield better policy. Be careful what you wish for, Ross. Public opinion has had a long tradition of clamouring for contradictory outcomes, effectively leaving key issues up to those they vote for.
Rudd was juggling a number of balls over the issue: industry concerns (peak bodies had been holding the previous labour government to ransom on this specific issue, even before Kyoto), economic crisis, and pressure from environmental voices. That last was the weakest pressure, because traditionally the ALP has the environment vote in the bag (would you rather vote for something even more conservative, hey?). They also figured that the buildup of pressure on climate change remained weak despite the mammoth publicity over the last three years. Some justification for this view exists in the voting record at the last election, where green votes did not surge to reflect the apparent level of interest. Again, the public agrees there is a problem, but want "someone else" to do "something". How to break this toxic nexus? Same as ever, I guess: hope for good leadership, participate in public pressure (via GetUp!'s campaign, for example), and vote right. Political vision entails hard choices for the right reasons, and persuading the electorate to follow. Rudd was elected for a raft of reasons other than that, unfortunately. I have little confidence in anyone on Australia's political horizon (whilst holding judgment on Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett, who may well be hamstrung); fortunately, there remains hope in Obama.
06-Sep-09 Update: Two important points I mention in a later post:
1) There is a truly evil effect of the government's plan: any attempts by individuals to reduce their carbon emissions is used to offset the burden of the large corporate polluters, thus rendering individual action worse than useless.
2) The original bill for the Emission Trading Scheme was knocked back by the Senate; to date the government intends re-introducing it with little substantive change.
Showing posts with label Garnaut. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Garnaut. Show all posts
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Stern, Obama, Wong on climate change
Overnight on BBC radio, I heard an interview with Nicholas Stern, author of the landmark report on the economic ramifications on climate change (the programme, One Planet, can be listened to here).
Stern was discussing in a less formal sense the outlook for climate change. What he had to say was little different to the thoughts expressed here. The situation is urgent but the outlook somewhat pessimistic; and it's in the hands of people to take action and world leaders to show leadership. The interviewer then asked opinions of his son (about 10 years old, from memory) and from a taxi driver. The responses were not entirely surprising. The boy was aware that everyone wasn't looking to the long term, and that people may care about their own kids, but don't see much beyond that. The taxi driver professed to be a global warming skeptic, but said he put energy efficient lights in the house (why? to do his part). On the one hand the problem was in his mind enough to do something simple, but on the other hand, it was too big for him to feel empowered to do more than that.
The answer is to vote, and to vote for someone sufficiently visionary.
In the same broadcast, I heard President Obama had announced plans to develop 100 very fast train links in the US. I didn't appreciate the import until I heard him speak, holding up European examples such as a train link between Madrid and Seville that was so good that more people travelled between those cities by train than by car and plane combined.
That is what I mean by visionary. Obama has the will and capacity to reshape the global political landscape.
Meanwhile in Australia, the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is forced to defend the planned emission trading system from attacks from all quarters, right left and centre. The Senate inquiry also drew comment from Ross Garnault, who had been commissioned by the government to report on the issue and options for action. Even he said it was touch and go whether it was worth entirely scrapping the current plan - and incurring the consequent period of inaction while a new proposal was formulated. The present scheme is so hopelessly flawed that none of the non-government senators will support it - so it is doomed in its current incarnation. In any case, it sounds like government backbenchers are pressing for change, such that the efforts of individuals aren't co-opted by corresponding rewards to large industry. That is the least that could be changed. But it is unlikely to be enough to save it, and something better is needed.
Stern was discussing in a less formal sense the outlook for climate change. What he had to say was little different to the thoughts expressed here. The situation is urgent but the outlook somewhat pessimistic; and it's in the hands of people to take action and world leaders to show leadership. The interviewer then asked opinions of his son (about 10 years old, from memory) and from a taxi driver. The responses were not entirely surprising. The boy was aware that everyone wasn't looking to the long term, and that people may care about their own kids, but don't see much beyond that. The taxi driver professed to be a global warming skeptic, but said he put energy efficient lights in the house (why? to do his part). On the one hand the problem was in his mind enough to do something simple, but on the other hand, it was too big for him to feel empowered to do more than that.
The answer is to vote, and to vote for someone sufficiently visionary.
In the same broadcast, I heard President Obama had announced plans to develop 100 very fast train links in the US. I didn't appreciate the import until I heard him speak, holding up European examples such as a train link between Madrid and Seville that was so good that more people travelled between those cities by train than by car and plane combined.
That is what I mean by visionary. Obama has the will and capacity to reshape the global political landscape.
Meanwhile in Australia, the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is forced to defend the planned emission trading system from attacks from all quarters, right left and centre. The Senate inquiry also drew comment from Ross Garnault, who had been commissioned by the government to report on the issue and options for action. Even he said it was touch and go whether it was worth entirely scrapping the current plan - and incurring the consequent period of inaction while a new proposal was formulated. The present scheme is so hopelessly flawed that none of the non-government senators will support it - so it is doomed in its current incarnation. In any case, it sounds like government backbenchers are pressing for change, such that the efforts of individuals aren't co-opted by corresponding rewards to large industry. That is the least that could be changed. But it is unlikely to be enough to save it, and something better is needed.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Climate Change Australia: 450 ppm?
A ray of hope in a recent comment from the Prime Minister.
Kevin Rudd said 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide is a "necessary" goal. This contrasts with the recent government commissioned Garnaut report, which posited 550 ppm, which would likely lead to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, as well as the critical Greenland ice shelf.
A good signal, although it would still face a rough ride implementing in practice, especially with an obstructionist Senate.
Kevin Rudd said 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide is a "necessary" goal. This contrasts with the recent government commissioned Garnaut report, which posited 550 ppm, which would likely lead to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, as well as the critical Greenland ice shelf.
A good signal, although it would still face a rough ride implementing in practice, especially with an obstructionist Senate.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Garnaut report: action, reaction
Garnaut's latest report, accepting of climate change disaster, induced s ome strong reactions from the Herald's economics editor, Ross Gittens. He calls it "the most disheartening government report I've read".
Gittens' view: "aim high and let others beat us down from there rather than aim low and end up lower". Full report here, with details of Garnaut's conclusions and why Gittens disagrees.
Unsurprisingly, activists GetUp! have a similar reaction. They've put up a summary of the Garnaut report; they're also running a campaign to encourage key members of the Business Council of Australia to reiterate their earlier commitment to tackling climate change, and to disavow the BCA's stance. From GetUp!'s front page, you can send message to one of those ten companies.
Gittens' view: "aim high and let others beat us down from there rather than aim low and end up lower". Full report here, with details of Garnaut's conclusions and why Gittens disagrees.
Unsurprisingly, activists GetUp! have a similar reaction. They've put up a summary of the Garnaut report; they're also running a campaign to encourage key members of the Business Council of Australia to reiterate their earlier commitment to tackling climate change, and to disavow the BCA's stance. From GetUp!'s front page, you can send message to one of those ten companies.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Garnaut climate report a recipe for disaster
Ross Garnaut's latest climate change report, commissioned by the Australian Government, has recommended low carbon emission targets that would mean the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, a World Heritage area.
Now, a group of Australian scientists, members of the UN climate change panel, have condemned Garnaut for advising the government to accept "social and environmental disaster".
Garnaut had recommended a 10% cut from 2000 levels by 2020. The scientists have called for a 25 to 40% reduction in that time. And you could hardly call them radical environmental activists. More like... scientists, professors, doctors.
Professor David Karoly said Australia would abandon any claim to international leadership if it adopted the Garnaut position.
And Professor Amanda Lynch said Australia needed a strong carbon price to help discourage coal-fired power.
Dr Bill Hare: "Ross Garnaut's report is effectively putting off the cost of climate change to another generation, who will have to deal with a 3-degree rise in temperature".
News report here.
Now, a group of Australian scientists, members of the UN climate change panel, have condemned Garnaut for advising the government to accept "social and environmental disaster".
Garnaut had recommended a 10% cut from 2000 levels by 2020. The scientists have called for a 25 to 40% reduction in that time. And you could hardly call them radical environmental activists. More like... scientists, professors, doctors.
Professor David Karoly said Australia would abandon any claim to international leadership if it adopted the Garnaut position.
And Professor Amanda Lynch said Australia needed a strong carbon price to help discourage coal-fired power.
Dr Bill Hare: "Ross Garnaut's report is effectively putting off the cost of climate change to another generation, who will have to deal with a 3-degree rise in temperature".
News report here.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Australia to remain a climate change laggard
Ross Garnault, who the Prime Minister has tasked with delivery of a series of reports mapping out Australia's climate change response, has delivered his latest, and the news is not good.
In an outcome that can only be described as strongly politically influenced, Garnault has re-claimed Australia's status as a special case amongst developed nations, and posited only a 10% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Unsurprisingly, industry groups have railed against even this low figure, with one of them wailing that this was equivalent to Australia's entire electricity generation industry. Well boo hoo. That industry could do with radical overhaul anyway, since most of it is coal-fired and so quite carbon-dirty. Unfortunately there are no signs such an overhaul will happen.
The 10% figure could have meaninful context in the Government's lack of control of the Senate, with timing perhaps also being an influencer, as implementation of carbon cap-and-trading was flagged for close to the next election (2010). Rudd doesn't seem to be the kind to relish a head-on stoush, possibly a relic of the nature of Labor's election loss at the hands of Keating, and the subsequent decade in the wilderness.
If John Howard had not been booted out of office, Australia's position would have been even worse - but not by an awful lot, at this rate. PM Rudd has consistently retained climate change high on his list of pressing issues, but that does not seem to guarantee optimal outcomes.
In an outcome that can only be described as strongly politically influenced, Garnault has re-claimed Australia's status as a special case amongst developed nations, and posited only a 10% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Unsurprisingly, industry groups have railed against even this low figure, with one of them wailing that this was equivalent to Australia's entire electricity generation industry. Well boo hoo. That industry could do with radical overhaul anyway, since most of it is coal-fired and so quite carbon-dirty. Unfortunately there are no signs such an overhaul will happen.
The 10% figure could have meaninful context in the Government's lack of control of the Senate, with timing perhaps also being an influencer, as implementation of carbon cap-and-trading was flagged for close to the next election (2010). Rudd doesn't seem to be the kind to relish a head-on stoush, possibly a relic of the nature of Labor's election loss at the hands of Keating, and the subsequent decade in the wilderness.
If John Howard had not been booted out of office, Australia's position would have been even worse - but not by an awful lot, at this rate. PM Rudd has consistently retained climate change high on his list of pressing issues, but that does not seem to guarantee optimal outcomes.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Climate change: Rudd is not buckling - and nor is Garnaut
In the leadup to today's release of the Garnaut report, PM Kevin Rudd talked to Kerry O'Brien on The 7.30 Report (here) last night.
O'Brien tried hard to pin down Rudd on the issues. Action is urgently needed, yet the voting public is clamouring for an easy way out on petrol prices. They don't want more pain instigated by climate change action.
Rudd came out of the election with a sizable mandate, particularly in terms of his popularity level, which has remained high. That political capital can be used to invest in longterm vision, yet to date, Rudd has largely avoided the harder calls.
However, he came to the party last night: for every point pressed by O'Brien, he showed he was going to do the hard yards. And coming out of the Howard era, where misleading and lying was the order of the day, Rudd has shown himself to be scrupulously honest.
This is the best hope so far that Australia will indeed act on climate change.
(my take is that the only viable course is to trade carbon emissions, cap the totals, and then reduce allocations over time - focusing on the biggest emitters first. This will force industry adjustments; they don't have to be that painful if the industries know what's coming, so it needs to be announced soon.)
Postscript: The report is out now - available here. The language is strong and impressive, about the need to act. Emission trading is, of course, a central plank. Rudd has hitched his future on this report, and it looks good.
O'Brien tried hard to pin down Rudd on the issues. Action is urgently needed, yet the voting public is clamouring for an easy way out on petrol prices. They don't want more pain instigated by climate change action.
Rudd came out of the election with a sizable mandate, particularly in terms of his popularity level, which has remained high. That political capital can be used to invest in longterm vision, yet to date, Rudd has largely avoided the harder calls.
However, he came to the party last night: for every point pressed by O'Brien, he showed he was going to do the hard yards. And coming out of the Howard era, where misleading and lying was the order of the day, Rudd has shown himself to be scrupulously honest.
This is the best hope so far that Australia will indeed act on climate change.
(my take is that the only viable course is to trade carbon emissions, cap the totals, and then reduce allocations over time - focusing on the biggest emitters first. This will force industry adjustments; they don't have to be that painful if the industries know what's coming, so it needs to be announced soon.)
Postscript: The report is out now - available here. The language is strong and impressive, about the need to act. Emission trading is, of course, a central plank. Rudd has hitched his future on this report, and it looks good.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Garnaut on emission changes: too late?
In commenting on the Garnaut report, the Herald's Ross Gittens points to the obvious elephants in the room: the economic growth of India and China.
Yes, we knew this. But he also provides an breakdown of carbon emissions increase.
Garnaut notes that global carbon emissions grew at an average rate of 1.1% per year through the 1990s. This would have been what was taken into the 1997 Kyoto talks.
However, from 2000 to 2006, the rate of increase surged to 3.1% per year.
This change has been attributed to the following:
Yes, we knew this. But he also provides an breakdown of carbon emissions increase.
Garnaut notes that global carbon emissions grew at an average rate of 1.1% per year through the 1990s. This would have been what was taken into the 1997 Kyoto talks.
However, from 2000 to 2006, the rate of increase surged to 3.1% per year.
This change has been attributed to the following:
- Global economic growth was 5% per year rather than the anticipated 3.3%
- Growth became more energy intensive. In the 1990s, the "energy intensity" of global gross domestic product fell (improved) by 1.4% per year; however this decade, the energy intensity has been falling by only 0.2%
- Energy use became more emission-intensive. Through the 1990s, cleaner fuels were used and the emission-intensity of energy use dropped 0.2% per year; however this emission-intensity increased by 0.4% per year this decade.
And all of this is said to be due to India and China coming on-stream in the economic world.
It remains difficult to begrudge those countries their due, although it makes the job that much harder.
Simulations run for Garnauts team require global emissions to peak by 2010 if atmospheric carbon is to stabilise at 450ppm.
Unlikely? It needs leadership from the developed world: to cut emissions by example, and to forge partnerships with those emerging nations to tip the balance in the right direction.
Two years is too short. Ten years might have done it. And that's what we lost with George Bush being declared winner in the 2000 presidential election. And officially, that's 537 Florida votes.
You couldn't write fiction like this.
Mass extinctions in earth's past, when due to climate change, have taken much longer than we're taking.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Garnaut's climate change report IS the hard call.
Written Thursday 21-Feb-08:
The interim Garnaut report was released today. Ross Garnaut spoke to it, and said all the right words: climate change is happening faster than had been envisaged; the cost of doing nothing is more expensive than the cost of doing nothing; emission cuts have to be bigger; and solar is the way to go.
And he warned that low incomes households would be hit worst as electricity supply costs inevitably rose.
Therein lies the rub for the Rudd government. They had hidden behind the writing of that report, saying they wouldn't act until released. Sounded to me like they knew the outcome, but they didn't. So far (today Thursday), they said it would be business as usual for emission cuts, which meant sticking to a 60% reduction by 2050. Yet Garnault had said it needed to be more.
No problem for those of us who are already on 100% solar-sourced electricity? Think again - of the flow-on costs from other goods and services: the inflation costs. This when inflation is the thorniest issue this year as far as the government is concerned.
Lateline tonight: it was announced they could not get a government minister to interview, which is highly unusual. They must be hunkering down. They could have foreseen this, but that doesn't mean they have the answers.
It's going to take imagination and radical action on the part of any government. I'd like to be optimistic, but I'm not. Worst case scenario: policy that causes pain but doesn't achieve the climate change objectives.
Update: Greg Hunt, opposition environment spokesman, was on Lateline just now. It's easier to be in opposition and support doing the right thing, but Hunt did come across as a sincere believer in the urgency of the issue facing us. If nothing else, that will help keep the blowtorch on the government's response. (Gosh, I never thought I'd be barracking for the Liberals to press Labor to act on climate change!)
Update 22-Feb-08: According to one report, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says she is now deferring action until the release of Treasury modelling in June.
The interim Garnaut report was released today. Ross Garnaut spoke to it, and said all the right words: climate change is happening faster than had been envisaged; the cost of doing nothing is more expensive than the cost of doing nothing; emission cuts have to be bigger; and solar is the way to go.
And he warned that low incomes households would be hit worst as electricity supply costs inevitably rose.
Therein lies the rub for the Rudd government. They had hidden behind the writing of that report, saying they wouldn't act until released. Sounded to me like they knew the outcome, but they didn't. So far (today Thursday), they said it would be business as usual for emission cuts, which meant sticking to a 60% reduction by 2050. Yet Garnault had said it needed to be more.
No problem for those of us who are already on 100% solar-sourced electricity? Think again - of the flow-on costs from other goods and services: the inflation costs. This when inflation is the thorniest issue this year as far as the government is concerned.
Lateline tonight: it was announced they could not get a government minister to interview, which is highly unusual. They must be hunkering down. They could have foreseen this, but that doesn't mean they have the answers.
It's going to take imagination and radical action on the part of any government. I'd like to be optimistic, but I'm not. Worst case scenario: policy that causes pain but doesn't achieve the climate change objectives.
Update: Greg Hunt, opposition environment spokesman, was on Lateline just now. It's easier to be in opposition and support doing the right thing, but Hunt did come across as a sincere believer in the urgency of the issue facing us. If nothing else, that will help keep the blowtorch on the government's response. (Gosh, I never thought I'd be barracking for the Liberals to press Labor to act on climate change!)
Update 22-Feb-08: According to one report, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says she is now deferring action until the release of Treasury modelling in June.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)