Garnaut throws down the climate gauntlet

Professor Garnaut's interim report on Australia's climate change position contains some stark assessments of our situation. The news is not good: in our fossil fuel-reliant global economy, economic growth is intrinsically linked to emissions growth. The explosion of activity in China and India has acclerated emissions onto a dangerous trajectory.

Garnaut's final report will deal with mitigation and burden sharing strategies for Australia but his message is clear. In order to avoid the climate roulette wheel, we must find a way to uncouple growth in the economy with growth in emissions. This means that the relatively low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency and conservation must be picked as a matter of urgency, and interim targets set to begin the task of reining in the runaway pollution rate.

It is equally clear that the Rudd Government professed benchmark of 60% emission reductions on 2000 levels will be barely adequate, and will undoubtedly have to be extended on the negotiating table. The little-known fact that Rudd's methodology stabilises emission levels at 550 ppm of carbon dioxide is apparent when one crunches Garnaut's numbers. Garnaut favours the EU and IPCC recommended figure of 450ppm, but acknowledges that this will be politically onerous.

Back of an envelope calculations equate the 450 ppm target with an Australian emissions reduction of 55-80% by 2050, depending on global factors. Clearly, given the angst this will provoke in some quarters, such cuts cannot be embarked upon without the full cooperation of the new emitting nations. The successor to Kyoto then, will have to contain a table of targets for developed nations, intense research and development for renewable energy and implementation in nations, particularly China and India, and an accompanying table of targets for developing nations. Australia may well need to sign up to at least a 15% reduction target by 2020 to highlight the urgency of the emission reduction project to the developing world.

In search of the next compromise candidate?

The Federal Liberal party is in a mess. Howard's failure to adhere to his own formula for departing, 'so long as it is in the best interests of the party', saw his leadership explode in the mighty supernova that was the 2007 election. Like many supernovae, the remnants of Howard's pull on the party have become a black hole, tearing the tenuous strands holding it together. Howard's legacy was to leave the party reliant on a motley brew of wedge politics and social conservatism. He ran hard lines on issues such as immigration, national security, climate change and reconciliation. His biggest problem was that he could parry Costello's fractionally less aggressive approach, but not his deputy's sense of entitlement. Costello did not have time to become Howard's slightly more innovative clone.

The result was a thrashing and a leadership no one either the electorate or the party could tolerate. Turnbull, the people's choice, has a Whitlamesque streak which gets straight up the nose of Howard's guardians. His style is pugnacious but his politics is dubious to the conservatives, being the former champion of Keating's republic. Abbott, the hardliners' choice, is nicknamed 'People Skills' in the same manner that redheads earn the moniker 'Bluey'. He is the perfect choice to lead a right-wing band straight into the wilderness and become the Iain Duncan Smith of Australian politics. As neither had the numbers and Julie Bishop's Liberal-model Julia Gillard was still in Frankstein's workshop, the hapless Brendan Nelson was drafted into the leadership.

In picking Nelson, the Liberals must have hoped for a concillator capable of ameliorating the harshness of Howard's legacy. Instead, they got a weak leader being killed by the kindness of Kevin. Nelson has been asked to join a war cabinet on indigenous health and take part in the great apology ceremonies. Nelson's speech was somewhere between a brave attempt at policy on the run and an absymal disaster. He tried to strike a Crean-like mood of supporting the people, but not the policy, imitating the former Labor leader's take on farewelling troops for Iraq. The audience got a mishmash of homily and 'rose coloured history' which was difficult to follow and even harder to swallow. The latest poll figures render Nelson the political equivalent of camomile tea, weak, soothing and of little consequence.

After Friday's farce, seemingly led by Joe Hockey rather than the morose Nelson, the Liberal leader seems well on his way to becoming an ex-parrot. The question remains do any of the contenders want the job. Turnbull is gaining traction against Labor's trainee Treasurer, Wayne Swan, and might want extra time to increase his stocks. Abbott still remains unelectable, but is running hard on the Burke links to Rudd to improve his profile as arch headkicker. Both may want to keep their powder dry behind a more moderately inclined leader. Bishop is still building her experience and profile, and has had to capitulate over AWAs, so she is not in favour.

This leads us back to Joe Hockey, who seems to have the appropriate taste for absurdity to take on the job. Anyone who declares Rudd to be lazy with a straight face has gumption. Whereas Nelson was the compromise for Abbott, Hockey would be the paler version of Turnbull.

Kentucky Fried Cricket's great leap into the unknown

The curious beast known as the Indian Premier League (IPL), or according to the ICC, the 'good' barbarians, has entered a new stage. Its grand auction of talent has taken place and Mahendra Singh Dhoni has garnered top dollar, with Andrew Symonds a close second. The teams have faced a fascinating mix of imperatives, trying to build commercial franchises from scratch, with players having to provide all-round ability both on and off the field. It seems that the Monkeygate affair has no effect on Symonds' popularity in India, and his earnings were further boosted by his serious equivocation over the ill-advised tour of Pakistan. Precisely why anyone thinks it is a good idea to send Australia into the lion's den of extremism for an entire month, given the white hot atmosphere over Iraq and Afghanistan, has clearly replaced their brain with dollar signs. Rudd and his foreign affairs team should effectively ban the team from travelling for the tour unless a suitable surrogate option such as Sharjah, Sri Lanka (mmm, maybe not on second thoughts) or even a late-season Australian tour can be arranged.

Those issues aside, the IPL represents a grand attempt to reshape cricket in the Indian marketing image. Utilising the wondrous pulling power of Twenty20, the BCCI aims to redefine the parameters of world cricket. Instead of Indian one-day tournaments being sandwiched around other tours, with the Australia summer programme sacrosanct, the world will schedule the entire Future Tours Program, that much vaunted instrument that gave us a diet of constant floggings of Bangladesh, around the IPL kernel.

The colonel's secret recipe is to model a league on a truncated version of the English Premier League, with players playing for around six weeks of the year. An interesting development is the use of a salary cap and a restriction imposed by Cricket Australia that only two Australians can play in each team. These teams are geographically based franchises, with six of them hosting a local hero known as an icon. The icon commands megabucks - at least 15% more than their franchise's next highest earner. On top of this, the teams must include four players under twenty-two and can select players from within an international pool of contracted players. In effect, it is close to the AFL draft system but with each selection made on an auction basis.

Whether this will work remains to be seen. The question is will it turn out like an exhibition series and hence be a very expensive non-event, such as the unloved ICC Superseries or will it resemble a long-established marquee competition such as the Premier League or the World Series. It remains to be seen, however we should see some exciting cricket and intriguing captaincy as players learn a new game and have to deal with the specific strategy set by the team management, not just the teams offered up by selectors.

Stolen story sorry business for Nelson's character

It is rather ironic that the Liberals have chosen to reheat the alleged links between Kevin Rudd and Brian Burke to assail the character of the PM. After much morning media theatre, Rudd's office released the full exchange. The worst one can say about it is that Rudd considered Burke's proposal for a dinner in his honour and then recanted on further reflection. This blog suspects that Rudd may have canvassed the idea of using Burke's influence among the Western Australian Labor party to turn members against Beazley. Beazley has spoken out strongly against Burke and hence those still aligned to Burke would naturally be less sympathetic to the former leader. Better judgment ultimately prevailed and Rudd cancelled the dinner. In contrast to former PM John Howard's dealings with the Exclusive Brethren and the government's general approach to such matters as the AWB affair, the degree of candour Rudd has demonstrated is quite extraordinary. Rudd is not, in his own words, 'Captain Perfect', but he does seem to acknowledge his mistakes and considers his actions before he behaves in a manner which may compromise his integrity.

Unfortunately, this blog has doubts the same words could be applied to his opposite number. Brendan Nelson was always going to be on the back foot in responding to Rudd's sorry speech. If he had demonstrated a tin ear by both apologising (thus alienating some in his party) and sounding churlish with his dirge of a sermon on Australia's history since white settlement (thus causing the indigenous viewers and their supporters considerable insult), he compounded this by his appalling misappropriation of the words of Faye Lyman. Ms Lyman is a Victorian woman whom Nelson claimed to be quoting in his speech.

The text of the speech includes this excerpt from Ms Lyman's story, credited as part of the Many Voices project at the National Library:

“Personally I don’t want people to say, ‘I’m sorry Faye’, I just want them to understand.
It was very hurtful to leave Dad. Oh it broke my heart. Dad said to me, ‘It’s hard for daddy and the authorities won’t let you stay with me in a tent on the riverbank. You’re a little girl and you need someone to look after you.’ I remember him telling us that, and I cried. I said, ‘No, but Dad, you look after us’ … But they kept telling us it wasn’t the right thing. I don’t want people to say sorry. I just want them to understand the hurt, what happened when we were initially separated, and just understand the society, what they’ve done….You don’t belong in either world. I can’t explain it. It hurts so much.”

The words were followed in Dr Nelson's speech by the phrase 'there is no compensation fund. Nor should there be'. Ms Lyman now feels 'stolen all over again'. Not only had Nelson used her words without consulting her, he had implied her father had approved of her removal. Dr Nelson rang her to apologise, which Ms Lyman recounted as him saying 'I just wanted them to know your story', When Ms Lyman asked why did he not call her first, he could not answer.

Dr Nelson may have been attempting to bridge the gaping chasm between the progressive and ultra-conservative wings of his fracturing party. He may have been trying to bring some belated understanding to the feelings of indigenous people. However, by treating the speech as just another departmental research exercise, amiable to anonymous googling, he revealed a lack of grasp of moment and the sensibilities of the vulnerable. Whereas Rudd reconsidered meeting Burke once he realised it was the wrong thing to do, Nelson did not even think to contact Ms Lyman, let alone advise her that he would use her words in contravention of her own suffering. To use a person's words without permission is unwise, to use them out of context, and in such an emotionally charged situation, shows a fault of character and bad judgment.

Rest Ponting and change the dynamics

The Indian cricket team has done something remarkable. It has rendered Ricky Ponting irrelevant from the batting landscape. With the exception of his century in the Adelaide Test, Ponting has not registered a significant contribution in over two months, and the situation is starting to expose the weaknesses in the Australian team. Labouring under a back injury cannot be good for either his movement or his captaincy, and through the agency of Ishant Sharma and the ubiquitious Harbhajan Singh, India are exposing the lack of all-round contributors and defiant middle order batsmen. With Andrew Symonds hampered by his dubious ankle, threatening to become a problem of Flintoff-like proportions, the middle order is effectively carrying two less than fit players.

What Australia needs is new energy and to seize the initiative back from their subcontinental tormenters. Clarke's 20/20 captaincy was attacking and inspired and he showed a measure of responsibility sometimes lacking in his batting. He should be given the chance to match tactical wits with the all-out approach favoured by Mahendera Singh Dhoni, who seems to have channelled his batting aggression into his field placements. Resting Ponting would also allow the promotion of Victoria's prolific other Hussey, David. David Hussey is a hard hitting batsman and spinner who could compensate for Symonds' restricted state. It would certainly take the pressure off Ponting whom Sharma and his spinning mate are causing nightmares.

Why Hillary must get a tap on the shoulder

The Democratic race has produced an extraordinary phenomenon. It effectively has two front runners in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both splitting roughly equal portions of the vote. Aided by the proportional distribution of most of the delegates, neither candidate has made a decisive break. The Republicans have helped too, by closing many of their primaries to independent voters. These independents largely throw in their lot to the inclusive candidacy of Obama.

Because of Clinton's ability to hang on in the key states of California and New York, on the back of her position as junior New York senator and a large swag of Hispanic voters, she has held the tide against Obama's guerilla strategy, targeting caucases, individual voting districts and smaller, less-Clinton friendly states in the south and mid-west. The closeness of the race means it may be decided by the super-delegates, aka party bosses from each state, on the Democratic Convention floor. However, with the Republican nomination all but settled in favour of the combative John McCain, it is in the Democrats' interests to line up behind their best contender and begin the general election campaign in earnest. Otherwise, the Democrats will be like triathletes stuck in the transition zone while the Republicans have swept away in the next leg. The man best equipped to pilot them to victory is Obama.

On paper, Clinton may appear the stronger candidate, but those strengths are either ephemeral or negated by the dynamics of the electoral system. She has won in New York, California and Florida, although New York and California are solidly Democratic while Florida was not contested by Obama. Her core constituency is women and blue-collar Democrats, although none of these groups has delivered her victory in the south against Obama's black voting bloc. It would be even less likely to make a difference against the Republican evangelicals. Whereas Hillary would maintain the base, she has the major drawback of appearing toxic to independents and a motivating force for the Republican machine.

Obama by contrast, inspires large numbers of additional black and young voters to the polls. He does well in the middle ground with independents and may even turn the odd Republican. His victories have come in mainly Republican states, and he may spring surprises in states like Kansas, South Carolina and Louisiana if given the nomination. His big drawback is with the Hispanic vote, which delivered a number of delegates to Clinton in Nevada and California. A ticket with the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, may cure this defect to some extent. Richardson also has gubernatorial, government and foreign affairs experience, having been Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary and Ambassador to the UN.

Such a ticket would give the Democrats a powerful team, free from the Clinton acrimony of the past yet benefitting from its experience. It would be well-placed to win in Florida, for instance, and encourage a high turnout of blacks throughout the largely Republican-held south and mid-west. With doubtful evangelicals and conservatives offering lukewarm support to McCain, the Democrats have an opportunity to break back in to their old heartland and weave a new coalition between the progressive north and west and the religious south.

Rudd's 2020 vision highlights his approach

Kevin Rudd's proposed Australia 2020 Summit has variously been described as a great innovation, yet another glorified talk fest and the ultimate in PR flummery. Which description one favours is as much about one's own personal prejudices as the exercise itself. The clear message from Rudd's symposium on the Australian condition is that unlike his predecessor, the new PM is willing to at least listen to alternative ideas and engage in reasoned debate.

John Howard's prime ministerial tenure was marked with a determined effort to remake Australia in his own image. The 'white picket fence' became a metaphor for the restoration of an Anglo-dominant culture where immigrants from Asian backgrounds strove to fit into that dominant culture. Consequently, universalist notions such as human rights, multiculturalism and indigenous self-determination were dismissed and a conservative bulwark of commentators cultivated to conduct a culture war with so-called 'elites'. The goal was to support an existing world view rather than seek new ideas and perspectives. Howard was a man with a legalistic grasp of language, aiming to control every ounce of meaning his words carried. His allies had a ready supply of labels to dismiss arguments contrary to their common project.

Kevin Rudd's background and general manner both in opposition and on the Treasury benches reveal a totally different approach. While Howard's view saw the world as malleable to his own design, Rudd's aim is to solve the problems that world presents. It is a utilitarian vision, with the common good firmly in the centre. Rudd's philosophical background is not the Methodist preacher or the Republican push-poller, but the Chinese cultural tradition. Rudd is known in China as Lu Kewen, 'the hard-working and enduring one'. As his many colleagues seem to frequently anonymously admit to newspaper columnists, these traits describe him aptly. Another principle advocated since the days of Confucius is to listen to elders and to value intelligence. Rudd's 2020 vision exemplifies such a belief that people of intelligence beyond the party machinery and political apparatchiks have some value to add to our major policy challenges.

It is notable that most of the criticism for Rudd's plan comes from the old Howard support group. The idea that strong policy outcomes could come other than through the echo chamber of the Parliament, a Parliament which Howard essentially exercised an iron grip over, is an affront to these stagers. Rudd has promised to consider suggestions he considers to have merit, while offering reasoned explanations for rejecting alternative options. Such a return to a civilised political debate is a refreshing change from the Keating - Howard years of polarisation and dismissal.

Warning! Emissions trading bogeyman approaching

The casual reader of yesterday's Australian might be alarmed to see that power costs are set to double under an emissions trading scheme. This is reminiscent of the same logic that the McCain - Lieberman energy bill co-sponsored by the perennial Republican candidate is set to cost American consumers several trillion dollars.

The statement comes from the National Generators Forum prognosticating that a global carbon price of $80 per ton would effectively double the Australian retail electricity price. It is unclear whether this is Australian or US dollars, given that global estimates are usually given in the latter. That figure is at the upper end of predictions by European banks, estimating a price of $60-80 per ton. Interestingly, an EU Impact Summary Working Document noted that cuts of 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2030 would necessitate a carbon price of $60 per ton - in 2020. The price would not reach $80 until 2025, even allowing for the kind of deep cuts even the climate change champion Rudd will not counternance. By the way, those figures are in Australian dollars, based on the current exchange rate to the Euro.

In other words, even if Rudd signed up for a 50% global reduction on GHGs by 2030, the electricity price is not going to double until 2025. Given I would wager my electricity bill would be at least twice its face value as compared to 1991, this increase may well have been the natural course of utility price inflation. Rudd's target is for a total cut of 60% by 2050, which means he is unlikely to sign up, and nor is anyone else, to anything like this level of price increase. Further, markets are generally skeptical that these projections will prove correct and that energy improvements and efficiency increases will mean the market sets an ultimate lower price.

The headline of the article is thus little more than an idle speculation based on a straw-man worst case scenario. By making it the headline, a subeditor has promoted it to the status of fact. Expect to see a lot more of this given slow-to-move conservatives' have the perverse incentive to stir up community suspicion and discontent for short-term electoral gain.

Win California, win the Presidency?

California is perhaps the one last key contest of the primary season. Merged into the hyperbolically renamed 'super duper Tuesday', where twenty-two states pledge their delegates, it remains a pivotal state in determining the outcome of the race, particularly on the Democratic side.

Since Bill Clinton's election in 1992, California has moved from swing-state to firmly Democratic. Two factors have produced this change. Firstly, demographic change in the form of a massive rise in the Latino population, who predominantly vote Democrat. This has been butressed by the centralisation of the party under Clinton and Gore. However, the picture is complicated by the trend away from registration among many on the left of the party and by the election of the popular Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, taking votes from the right. Even though 85% of voters in the San Francisco area voted for Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004, only 50% of voters were registered Democrats.

Conventional wisdom says that California should be a Clinton walkover. The big question is will those disenchanted leftists turn out for her, or will they favour Obama. Obama faces a similar quandary as he needs a decent swag of the 35% Latino vote to get elected, and be competitive in the New York primary. Even union endorsement in Nevada did not get Obama over the line as many Latinos broke ranks on racial lines and supported Clinton. Even if Obama can pick up white voters here, his problems with the other, largely unreported racial clash of American society make capturing the nomination difficult.

McCain's libertarian streak and opposition to illegal immigration reform make him a chance to pick up significant crossover support in the general election. However, Republicans will not permit independents to vote in the Republican primary which means this effect will remain camouflaged until November. He will also have Governor Schwarzenegger in his camp, which must surely increase his chances on capitalising on any resentment either across race lines with Obama or party lines with Clinton. This prohibition will increase Obama's vote, but it will probably not be sufficient to carry the day.

Based on a cursory reading of the demographic and political trends in California, this blog suspects that Clinton will win a reasonably close contest, with Obama's support assisted by a large swag of independents. McCain should win the Republican primary with Huckabee splitting the small conservative bloc from Romney. As for November, an early prediction is that Clinton will hold the party numbers, but California will be a closer contest than in the past few elections.