In the spirit of that fabled freedom of speech, Tim Dunlop has issued an invitation for any unpublished scientist whose (scientific) views are contrary to the global warming orthodoxy to send him a thousand word dissertation. Tree of Knowledge ups the ante to include explanations of why they differ from their fellow contrarians.
Global warming denial is both an inherently frustrating and fascinating phenomenon. Fascinating because of the psychological history, the experiences and influences that shape the views of the individuals that hold them. Frustrating for the standard political reasons. A level of intransigence by scientists and commentators either genuinely convinces politicians and the public the problem lacks urgency or provides a convenient excuse for inaction. It is not helpful in the modern massaged world of mass politics to be presented with the need to instigate a revolution across the economy and stimulate a domino-like consensus of opinion across both the developed and developing world.
It is understandable that conservatives in all walks of life, be they businessmen, unionists, politicians or commentators do not want to see the certainties of the modernity turned on their heads. Some see global warming belief as a triumph of faith over reason, others see it as an admission that the technologies of modernity cannot overcome the trials of nature. Both of these impulses have been criticial to the development of modern capitalism. Dependency on oil and baseload power are ciphers for an ideological conviction of humanity's inevitable progress. A narrative that despite the occasional conflagration has moved on apace since the medieval era.
The problem with this view is it ignores the inescapable facts that the oil reserves we rely on are finite and that it is simply unsustainable for the entire world's population to have the ecological footprint demanded by the modern western lifestyle. By definition, there are limits that constrain our access to resources. Hence in order to grow our way economically out of trouble, either we will have to find more arable and exploitable land or make our resource usage (across the whole gamut from food to metal production to energy itself) progressively more renewable. In short, while dealing with an exponential culture of achievement we will have to rediscover the cyclical resource use culture of our forebears.
As interesting in a 'angels dancing on a head of a pin' way as the global warming denial debate is, it does nothing to explain how proving the non-existence of anthropogenic global warming will solve humanity's forthcoming problems. It offers no solutions towards sustainable development and appears to buttress an ethic of land use and interaction which may be out of date and is certainly counterproductive.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for those poring over statistics, dissecting graphs and drawing conspiratorial conclusions is how are those intellectual endeavours going to secure the health, wealth and happiness of your grandchildren and their grandchildren. When the oil runs out and every nation from Guyana to Nepal demands a McDonalds on every street corner.
Showing posts with label new ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new ideas. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
2020 Summit Part II - The Final Wash-up
This is a very belated post completing this blog's evaluation of the 2020 Summit, now fading into the rear view mirror of history. The Summit represents something of a lost opportunity, with dark suggestions that ideas were planted to endorse government proposals and that many of the ideas were not especially revolutionary. The whole thing in hindsight looks like a bunch of high-powered minds locked in a gilded cage, constrained by the tight timeframe and need to fit the results of their labours into the pre-packed report summaries. It is hard to see how the Summit could have operated differently, as alloting more than a weekend risked reinforcing the idea of it being a think tank rather than a symposium. Perhaps cutting the numbers to 500, removing the government co-chairs and allowing a staged reporting of group conclusions might have been a less political approach.
On the ideas front, the main runner to date is the HECS-for-volunteering scheme which appears to be an adaptation of the Clinton (I) AmeriCorps program. Macquarie University has already mooted a compulsory community scheme for students from 2010. This idea looks useful for closing the gap between students from our various social and cultural backgrounds. One big negative of the Summit was the treatment of climate change. The recommendations of the climate change group are about as strong as miso soup. Green protests suggest that Rudd's hands were tied by virtue of the coal industry's efforts. More on this position in further posts.
The range of taxes suggested by most groups to fund particular initiatives such as preventative health centres was predictably attacked by the don't-tax-me-I-didn't use it crowd. Interestingly the much-maligned Cate Blanchett-steered Arts group did not propose any additional taxation, even offering a suggestion that the arts be directly financed by every other government department.
Curiously it was the economists who came up with some of the more innovative ideas such as the business-schools support program and the Golden Guru program to use the skills of older Australians. The governance stream produced the usual menu of republican sympathy and international institution building without providing clear pathways on solving the issues of governance and increasing the quality of democracy.
Overall, the Summit got the headlines, but hamstrung by offering few concrete solutions on either governance reform or carbon transition of the economy, it was left to the little nuggets to carry the day. The use of so many stars in the arts group risked turning the coverage into a branch meeting of the Hollywood Democrats and probably did not help public respect for the project.
High degree of difficulty but relatively modest success. 6/10.
On the ideas front, the main runner to date is the HECS-for-volunteering scheme which appears to be an adaptation of the Clinton (I) AmeriCorps program. Macquarie University has already mooted a compulsory community scheme for students from 2010. This idea looks useful for closing the gap between students from our various social and cultural backgrounds. One big negative of the Summit was the treatment of climate change. The recommendations of the climate change group are about as strong as miso soup. Green protests suggest that Rudd's hands were tied by virtue of the coal industry's efforts. More on this position in further posts.
The range of taxes suggested by most groups to fund particular initiatives such as preventative health centres was predictably attacked by the don't-tax-me-I-didn't use it crowd. Interestingly the much-maligned Cate Blanchett-steered Arts group did not propose any additional taxation, even offering a suggestion that the arts be directly financed by every other government department.
Curiously it was the economists who came up with some of the more innovative ideas such as the business-schools support program and the Golden Guru program to use the skills of older Australians. The governance stream produced the usual menu of republican sympathy and international institution building without providing clear pathways on solving the issues of governance and increasing the quality of democracy.
Overall, the Summit got the headlines, but hamstrung by offering few concrete solutions on either governance reform or carbon transition of the economy, it was left to the little nuggets to carry the day. The use of so many stars in the arts group risked turning the coverage into a branch meeting of the Hollywood Democrats and probably did not help public respect for the project.
High degree of difficulty but relatively modest success. 6/10.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Evaluating 2020: Part I - Perspectives
Evaluating the 2020 Summit is a massive task which the Great Kevin has rightly decided cannot be guaranteed until the end of the year. It remains to be seen whether this is a Pizza Hut style deal where failure to deliver hot reasons will result in the delegates receiving their money back. Accordingly, Peregrine will devote two posts to the Summit. For openers, a brief look at perspectives of the Summit.
What you make of the Summit depends largely on your perspective. Conservatives largely consider it a contemptuous revival of Keating-era elitism, journalists a cynical political exercise in ideological suffocation, attendees a robust exchange of ideas and ultimate settlement on a surprising number of themes. Bloggers (of the idea-based rather than ideology-based kind) are divided between those who consider it the start of a new Rudd post-politics order, a stupendously unoriginal recycling of ideas and a wasted opportunity. Poor old Brendan Nelson does not seem to know what he thinks of it and appears to be still reeling from his encounter with the representative of the Sex Workers Union.
The Summit has again highlighted the discomfort Australians have with the idea of an elite group of intellectuals showing their faces in public, however it also offers the encouraging idea that we do not mind big thinking and ideas themselves. Nelson's political response could have been stronger, or at least coherent, if he had complimented the idea of the Summit but criticised the lack of ordinary Australians, or in the alternative, announced his own counter-summit, or some such gathering beyond his nebulous listening tour. The Summit's profile, focus, purpose and relevance stand in stark contrast to Brendan's aimless tour lacking both form and substance. If the good ship Nelson comes any further onto the reefs of irrelevance, he will be donning a black wig and taking up resident on Lygon Street.
In short, we like ideas, but as an egalitarian nation, we like our share in the conversation. The lesson from this weekend, a reiteration of Malcolm's Republic referendum, is talk down to the people at your peril. It will be very interesting to see how Liberal resident intellectual Malcolm Turnbull responds to the new climate of big thinking and government recasting given his form as head of the elitist vanguard.
What you make of the Summit depends largely on your perspective. Conservatives largely consider it a contemptuous revival of Keating-era elitism, journalists a cynical political exercise in ideological suffocation, attendees a robust exchange of ideas and ultimate settlement on a surprising number of themes. Bloggers (of the idea-based rather than ideology-based kind) are divided between those who consider it the start of a new Rudd post-politics order, a stupendously unoriginal recycling of ideas and a wasted opportunity. Poor old Brendan Nelson does not seem to know what he thinks of it and appears to be still reeling from his encounter with the representative of the Sex Workers Union.
The Summit has again highlighted the discomfort Australians have with the idea of an elite group of intellectuals showing their faces in public, however it also offers the encouraging idea that we do not mind big thinking and ideas themselves. Nelson's political response could have been stronger, or at least coherent, if he had complimented the idea of the Summit but criticised the lack of ordinary Australians, or in the alternative, announced his own counter-summit, or some such gathering beyond his nebulous listening tour. The Summit's profile, focus, purpose and relevance stand in stark contrast to Brendan's aimless tour lacking both form and substance. If the good ship Nelson comes any further onto the reefs of irrelevance, he will be donning a black wig and taking up resident on Lygon Street.
In short, we like ideas, but as an egalitarian nation, we like our share in the conversation. The lesson from this weekend, a reiteration of Malcolm's Republic referendum, is talk down to the people at your peril. It will be very interesting to see how Liberal resident intellectual Malcolm Turnbull responds to the new climate of big thinking and government recasting given his form as head of the elitist vanguard.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Are we allergic to ideas?
There seems to be a strange disconnect in the political psyche: journalists and the people alike keep asking for policy, something to be done about the big issues of our time, whether that be climate change, the health system or education. Yet the most public attempt to gather these ideas and have a conversation about them, the upcoming 2020 Summit has been largely derided as a stunt, a cynical 'rubber-stamping' exercise and a replacement for the ordinary political process.
These comments seem premised on the idea that while our politicians may have muddled along to the point of near-crisis in many of our institutions and industries, somehow they will right the ship without any assistance from the outside world. Worse, any such body chosen to assist them amounts to some kind of intellectual quisling regime, not really contributing anything and only granting legitimacy to the preconceived policies of the government.
So either Rudd and the ALP have no ideas at all, or they have plenty and just want the imprimatur of the 'best and brightest' to put them beyond political reproach. This amounts to a vote of no confidence that either Rudd is incompetent and merely a master manipulator or that he is a fascist of high order. Both conclusions seem wide of the mark. The mere act of calling the Summit suggests a willingness to listen to the ideas of others, whereas former PM Howard would be lucky to listen to his own deputy, let alone those outside his ideological echo-chamber. At least two of the co-chairs have had successful careers on the other side of politics. Before anyone trawls up Howard's bipartisan Constitutional Convention, remember that he was forced into the republican debate by his predecessor's enthusiasm, and he became increasingly enthusiastic to scuttle the whole thing by supporting the 'No' case.
There is another possibility that Rudd actually believes that community elders can prove a source of wise counsel and ideas for the future. We hear a lot about intellectual capital and the like, so what on earth is wrong with actually using it? The normal policy making channels favoured by the political process include a lot of party hacks of limiting degrees of intellectual skill and life experience. Calling on the thoughts of such a diverse range of people from a multitude of perspectives can only add to the cross-pollination of ideas.
It seems strange that Rudd's policies on indigenous health and education and climate change have met with suspicion, long -term targets in search of a strategy. Yet at the same time, the implicit aim of the Summit is to produce possible intermediate steps to reach these and other long term goals. To criticise one of these arms in isolation is fair, to criticise both is verging on the cynical.
The Summit is not being set up as some permanent vehicle of policy development but as a mega-symposium, with participants sharing their somewhat abbreviated pitches, the distillation of a great deal of research, reflection and thinking. The entire exercise will cost the taxpayer next to nothing and could produce all sorts of ideas to throw into the future policy mix. The expectations of the Summit should be proportionately low, and then we may be astonished at what may flow from it. We may find out then whether we are in fact allergic to ideas and having to think for ourselves rather than delegating the task to our assorted politicians.
These comments seem premised on the idea that while our politicians may have muddled along to the point of near-crisis in many of our institutions and industries, somehow they will right the ship without any assistance from the outside world. Worse, any such body chosen to assist them amounts to some kind of intellectual quisling regime, not really contributing anything and only granting legitimacy to the preconceived policies of the government.
So either Rudd and the ALP have no ideas at all, or they have plenty and just want the imprimatur of the 'best and brightest' to put them beyond political reproach. This amounts to a vote of no confidence that either Rudd is incompetent and merely a master manipulator or that he is a fascist of high order. Both conclusions seem wide of the mark. The mere act of calling the Summit suggests a willingness to listen to the ideas of others, whereas former PM Howard would be lucky to listen to his own deputy, let alone those outside his ideological echo-chamber. At least two of the co-chairs have had successful careers on the other side of politics. Before anyone trawls up Howard's bipartisan Constitutional Convention, remember that he was forced into the republican debate by his predecessor's enthusiasm, and he became increasingly enthusiastic to scuttle the whole thing by supporting the 'No' case.
There is another possibility that Rudd actually believes that community elders can prove a source of wise counsel and ideas for the future. We hear a lot about intellectual capital and the like, so what on earth is wrong with actually using it? The normal policy making channels favoured by the political process include a lot of party hacks of limiting degrees of intellectual skill and life experience. Calling on the thoughts of such a diverse range of people from a multitude of perspectives can only add to the cross-pollination of ideas.
It seems strange that Rudd's policies on indigenous health and education and climate change have met with suspicion, long -term targets in search of a strategy. Yet at the same time, the implicit aim of the Summit is to produce possible intermediate steps to reach these and other long term goals. To criticise one of these arms in isolation is fair, to criticise both is verging on the cynical.
The Summit is not being set up as some permanent vehicle of policy development but as a mega-symposium, with participants sharing their somewhat abbreviated pitches, the distillation of a great deal of research, reflection and thinking. The entire exercise will cost the taxpayer next to nothing and could produce all sorts of ideas to throw into the future policy mix. The expectations of the Summit should be proportionately low, and then we may be astonished at what may flow from it. We may find out then whether we are in fact allergic to ideas and having to think for ourselves rather than delegating the task to our assorted politicians.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Drafting the Bali Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol was intended to be a test drive of applying market mechanisms to achieving environmental policy objectives. In addition to this, it has proven what happens when skeptical neoconservatives interfere in a process they never understood nor were party to in the first place. Given the Peugeot model neoconservative, Nicolas Sarkozy, is a firm believer in the need for climate action, there is hope this nonsensical stalemate will not detract from the main game.
The Bali Protocol is the main game. The IPCC's warnings on climate peril are now becoming so strong that it would be a monumental disaster to not at the very least get underlying agreement on a timetable for binding targets for all countries. The question remains how should this be done.
The crux of climate negotiations is how to accommodate both the need to cut greenhouse emissions and the right of countries to develop their economies. The fundamental principle here is that targets must be equitable both on an intergenerational and intragenerational level. Kyoto operated on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which in short means coal-fired Australia got a small increase entitlement on 1990 emission levels while hydro NZ got a small decrease.
Taking this principle up collectively, what the international community should do is divide the emission share of the developed world and the share of the developing world. The first step is to construct a business as usual baseline (BAU) for emissions by say 2100. Then using the IPCC science, establish a desired stabilisation level (DSL). The period during which greenhouse emissions have been sent into the atmosphere could then be broken up into a past and future industrialisation phase, representing the two ages of industrialisation, one for the developed and one for the developing world. The phase change could be the year 2000.
The past and future industrialisation phases can then be calculated by seeing when the DSL will be reached. Say the DSL is 500 ppm and this will be reached by 2050 on BAU. Developed nations could take targets based on both phases, while developing nations could take targets for only 2000 onwards. Developed nation targets could be effective immediately, while developing nations could be deferred until a phase-in date, such as 2020. In the interim, developing nations could sign up for a range of preliminary programmes such as renewable energy targets, afforestation targets or energy efficiency standards.
This would mean that developing countries would have probably met sizable targets during the non-binding period, giving them plenty of scope and development capacity to handle targets once the phase-in date was reached.
The Bali Protocol is the main game. The IPCC's warnings on climate peril are now becoming so strong that it would be a monumental disaster to not at the very least get underlying agreement on a timetable for binding targets for all countries. The question remains how should this be done.
The crux of climate negotiations is how to accommodate both the need to cut greenhouse emissions and the right of countries to develop their economies. The fundamental principle here is that targets must be equitable both on an intergenerational and intragenerational level. Kyoto operated on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which in short means coal-fired Australia got a small increase entitlement on 1990 emission levels while hydro NZ got a small decrease.
Taking this principle up collectively, what the international community should do is divide the emission share of the developed world and the share of the developing world. The first step is to construct a business as usual baseline (BAU) for emissions by say 2100. Then using the IPCC science, establish a desired stabilisation level (DSL). The period during which greenhouse emissions have been sent into the atmosphere could then be broken up into a past and future industrialisation phase, representing the two ages of industrialisation, one for the developed and one for the developing world. The phase change could be the year 2000.
The past and future industrialisation phases can then be calculated by seeing when the DSL will be reached. Say the DSL is 500 ppm and this will be reached by 2050 on BAU. Developed nations could take targets based on both phases, while developing nations could take targets for only 2000 onwards. Developed nation targets could be effective immediately, while developing nations could be deferred until a phase-in date, such as 2020. In the interim, developing nations could sign up for a range of preliminary programmes such as renewable energy targets, afforestation targets or energy efficiency standards.
This would mean that developing countries would have probably met sizable targets during the non-binding period, giving them plenty of scope and development capacity to handle targets once the phase-in date was reached.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
King Canute and the Lucky Country
Our language is peppered with unique phrases harking back to other times. Fossilised imprints of ideas remain in the collective mind long after the actual knowledge they represent has died away. Often the intent of the phrase is ironic. Language is a subtle creature where the merest tilt of a word can provide sufficient wiggle room to squirm out of most predicaments.
The caretaker (or possibly undertaker PM judging by the tenor of the anti-union scare campaign) PM has attained the status of a Jedi knight for his use of lexiconic gymnastics. As a tribute to this virtuosity, I offer two such allusions which demonstrate the fragile nature of meaning: King Canute and the Lucky Country.
King Canute was a Danish king of England during the 11th century. He is best remembered for attempting to hold back the tide. The tide was not so obliging. A Canute in common parlance is one who resists the bleeding obvious to no avail, possibly involving a spectacularly conceited act of hubris. Only it does not really mean that at all. The whole point of Canute's placing his throne on the beach was to demonstrate to his sycophantic courtiers that there were limits to the king's power. The real cautionary tale is lost by losing the edge of meaning. It is a lesson that rulers of whatever colour forget at their peril. This is clearly the case with the aforementioned PM's contemptous treatment of workchoices and climate change.
The expression 'the lucky country' was popularised after the historian Donald Horne's book of the same name was released in the 1960s. Horne warned that an Australia blessed with agricultural riches should not be complacent and rely on utopian (or perhaps for Kevin Rudd, brutopian) abundance. The warning tone of the message seems to go missing at times, the title seen as a note of thanks or an observation that 'she'll be right' on a national level.
The current context of the 'lucky country' phrase relates to economic prosperity, particularly in relation to securing the future post the China/India boom. The binary opposite popularised in the 1980s was that Australia should become the clever country, an idea that seems to have collapsed on the Howard watch. Clearly a student of Horne's true meaning would advocate upskilling our students to function in an information economy and have a forward planning approach to issues such as climate change.
When next you hear one of those obscure allusions like Canute and his penchant for paddling consider the true meaning behind the easy phrase. It will surely be more enlightening than listening to 'working families' and 'union bosses' repeated five hundred times.
The caretaker (or possibly undertaker PM judging by the tenor of the anti-union scare campaign) PM has attained the status of a Jedi knight for his use of lexiconic gymnastics. As a tribute to this virtuosity, I offer two such allusions which demonstrate the fragile nature of meaning: King Canute and the Lucky Country.
King Canute was a Danish king of England during the 11th century. He is best remembered for attempting to hold back the tide. The tide was not so obliging. A Canute in common parlance is one who resists the bleeding obvious to no avail, possibly involving a spectacularly conceited act of hubris. Only it does not really mean that at all. The whole point of Canute's placing his throne on the beach was to demonstrate to his sycophantic courtiers that there were limits to the king's power. The real cautionary tale is lost by losing the edge of meaning. It is a lesson that rulers of whatever colour forget at their peril. This is clearly the case with the aforementioned PM's contemptous treatment of workchoices and climate change.
The expression 'the lucky country' was popularised after the historian Donald Horne's book of the same name was released in the 1960s. Horne warned that an Australia blessed with agricultural riches should not be complacent and rely on utopian (or perhaps for Kevin Rudd, brutopian) abundance. The warning tone of the message seems to go missing at times, the title seen as a note of thanks or an observation that 'she'll be right' on a national level.
The current context of the 'lucky country' phrase relates to economic prosperity, particularly in relation to securing the future post the China/India boom. The binary opposite popularised in the 1980s was that Australia should become the clever country, an idea that seems to have collapsed on the Howard watch. Clearly a student of Horne's true meaning would advocate upskilling our students to function in an information economy and have a forward planning approach to issues such as climate change.
When next you hear one of those obscure allusions like Canute and his penchant for paddling consider the true meaning behind the easy phrase. It will surely be more enlightening than listening to 'working families' and 'union bosses' repeated five hundred times.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The Debates Rudd should be asking for
There was muted reaction to the theatre of the ALP's director, Tim Gartrell, prematurely requesting three election debates, one of which to be held in the cyber confines of Youtube. Rather than discuss the merits of such setpieces, here are some of the issues that should be the subject of sustained debate and each party should, in the democratic tradition, present us with some form of policy alternative to resolve.
1. Climate change - carbon transition of the economy and impact management. Climate change covers the full ambit from renewable energy and power supply, state/federal management of the electricity grid, pricing and fairness to the poor who will struggle with bill increases, international diplomacy and regional assistance in the setting and maintenance of targets, not to mention defence of cities and coastlines from rising sea levels and storms. We need serious plans now, showing the favoured approaches in terms of necessary reductions in emissions, technologies and timelines for their achievement and how these approaches will be implemented.
2. Low-tax, low service or high-tax, high service economies - do we follow the US-based private ownership model or adopt a more Scandanavian strategy and accept higher taxes in exchange for better services.
3. Economic development - exploitation of resources or intellectual capital - the choice between traditional industry such as mining or development of an economy of ideas with maximum investment in education and training throughout the workforce.
4. Sustainable agriculture - do we let the market decide which land should be farmed and for what purpose or do we implement restrictions on water-guzzling crops such as cotton.
5. Commercial sponsorship - what degree of commercial involvement are we prepared to accept in exchange for more money for services such as education and health. Are we willing to accept gambling and tax revenue from tobacco and alcohol as a necessary evil?
6. Service delivery - do we need the states or is centralising services the best way to go? is regional government better?
7. Democratic reform - do we need a Bill of Rights to prevent abuse of power? Proportional representation or non-compulsory voting?
Enough of blank-cheque mandate government. Parties should present at least the core principles of their policy platform that will guide their decisions on issues such as these to allow voters an informed choice on their future.
1. Climate change - carbon transition of the economy and impact management. Climate change covers the full ambit from renewable energy and power supply, state/federal management of the electricity grid, pricing and fairness to the poor who will struggle with bill increases, international diplomacy and regional assistance in the setting and maintenance of targets, not to mention defence of cities and coastlines from rising sea levels and storms. We need serious plans now, showing the favoured approaches in terms of necessary reductions in emissions, technologies and timelines for their achievement and how these approaches will be implemented.
2. Low-tax, low service or high-tax, high service economies - do we follow the US-based private ownership model or adopt a more Scandanavian strategy and accept higher taxes in exchange for better services.
3. Economic development - exploitation of resources or intellectual capital - the choice between traditional industry such as mining or development of an economy of ideas with maximum investment in education and training throughout the workforce.
4. Sustainable agriculture - do we let the market decide which land should be farmed and for what purpose or do we implement restrictions on water-guzzling crops such as cotton.
5. Commercial sponsorship - what degree of commercial involvement are we prepared to accept in exchange for more money for services such as education and health. Are we willing to accept gambling and tax revenue from tobacco and alcohol as a necessary evil?
6. Service delivery - do we need the states or is centralising services the best way to go? is regional government better?
7. Democratic reform - do we need a Bill of Rights to prevent abuse of power? Proportional representation or non-compulsory voting?
Enough of blank-cheque mandate government. Parties should present at least the core principles of their policy platform that will guide their decisions on issues such as these to allow voters an informed choice on their future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)