The Rudd Government has released its CPRS White Paper which will form the basis of its emissions trading policy until 2020. The headline figure is the setting of an emissions reduction target of 5% (on 2000 levels) rising to an 'absolute maximum' of 15% if an international agreement is put in place.
Given the previous policy platform outlined on matters such as renewable energy, it is not surprising that the target ceiling has been set at 15%. The Garnaut Report stressed the significance of per capita emissions in setting targets and with Australia's population projected to grow considerably due to higher immigration and birth rates than European nations; it is not surprising that the Australian approach has been to adopt a markedly lower target range than Europe.
The revised CPRS design is reminiscent of the 'action target' approach that had previously been advocated by Argentina. The action target theory sets a target range which is varied based on economic activity, thus ensuring any cost burdens do not place an excessive lag on industry in vulnerable times. As the global economy has tracked downwards dramatically since the initial mooting of the CPRS, the ambition of the scheme has been scaled back to reflect the difficult economic position.
The difficulty in setting a target is demonstrated by the need to balance an existential threat of future damage from climate change against the immediate threat of the global economic downturn, particularly as the most trade-exposed industries that are in the vanguard of carbon emissions are the ones whose immediate prospects have been severely affected by reduced demand in places such as China. The need to maintain consensus is vital in this situation and keep the majority on board. This has led to the increased insulation of both businesses and households from price rises.
The unfortunate byproduct of this is a reduced emphasis on energy efficiency programs. Ideally, using energy efficiency as a means to both lower individual costs and streamline the economic structure to encourage more efficient use of energy would have both short-term cost saving and economic stimulus benefits and long-term restructuring advantages. It is important to note that during the Asian economic crisis, energy efficiency procedures actually broke down as lower demand reduced costs. The result was a Chinese industrial sector beset with out-of-control emissions growth. The introduction of the CPRS will not take place until 2010, so it is imperative that energy efficiency is promoted strongly for the next tweleve to eighteen months to prevent a massive shock when the carbon price signal takes effect.
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Don't let the economists get too close
Over at The Interpreter, there's an interesting dance going on vis-a-vis the merits of raising the price on carbon by schemes such as emissions trading and carbon taxes. In the red corner we have the 'rapidly evolving' views of the Lowy Institute's Sam Roggeveen and in the blue corner, East Asia Forum's Peter Drysdale.
Roggeveen appears to have taken on board the work of Warwick McKibbin, who noted that many early adopters of Kyoto targets have failed (in some cases absymally) to meet them. The argument is further supported by the comments of Ted Norhaus, who argues that the UK and Germany only reduced their emissions because of pre-Kyoto reforms. In this light, Roggeveen offers up the Cato Institute's Jim Manzi's paper for comment highlighting the following conclusions:
What Roggeveen has come across is the great paradox of the collision of economic instruments to manage environmental problems. While the tools of economics such as trading schemes are designed to increase efficiency in achieving environmental outcomes at least cost, the assumptions that economists apply to the world come into conflict when dealing with issues such as the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity.
Much of the economic commentary on climate change discounts the effect of the problem for two simple reasons. Firstly, economists discount the future interests of individuals compared to the present generation based on the fact that there is a 100%probability that the living exist, whereas there is a less than 100% chance of subsequent generations. Second, economics assumes a continuing narrative of economic expansion and hence discounts current estimates of the value of today's paper money. The Stern Review was praised in some quarters for using a very low discount factor to cost future damage from climate change. However the Productivity Commission took issue with its figure of 1% discount per annum over a hundred years for precisely this reason. The cited economist, Ted Norhaus, prefers to discount future impacts by 6% per annum. The net result is that while Stern costs climate damage in 2100 at 37% current value, Norhaus costs it at 0.0295%.
Conversely, when estimating the cost of climate policy, the tendency of anti-action economists is to count the carbon cost imposed by trading, exaggerate it out to a projected level of equality with renewables based on years of underfunding, factor in extra costs such as lost land usage for renewable plant and completely discount a commensurate surge in the renewable industry. One does not even need to include the ramifications of lost productivity through the risk of interruption to the mythical baseload power supply to see the carbon reduction ledger firmly in debit.
The piece de resistance of this argument is the 'best available models' line. Economics demands certainty, but we have very little when it comes to climate behaviour. We can only postulate about the speed and magnitude of changes caused by retention of increased heat in the atmosphere. When these figures are fed into economic theories of discount and growth, we get a series of statistical lies which speak to the Bjorn Lomborg school of climate change being an overhyped waste of resources.
What Norhaus, McKibbin et al fail to note in their critique of Kyoto targets is that Kyoto should be judged versus business as usual, not whether targets were met courtesy of Thatcher's coal mine closures or the fall of communism. It is painfully obvious that investment follows return, and that means that creating markets through the introduction of trading systems and renewable energy targets allied with clean energy funding is the way to go. Governments need to understand their role is to promote good policy and secure their nation's welfare into the future and not rely on the prejudices of the past.
The merits of climate change action will depend on the scope of that action and its capacity to reduce emissions while promoting sustainable development. Thus developing programmes that can gradually build from a national to regional to global level, buttressed by agreements ensuring common but differentiated responsibility is far more desirable than a 'do nothing', rely on technology alone approach.
Roggeveen appears to have taken on board the work of Warwick McKibbin, who noted that many early adopters of Kyoto targets have failed (in some cases absymally) to meet them. The argument is further supported by the comments of Ted Norhaus, who argues that the UK and Germany only reduced their emissions because of pre-Kyoto reforms. In this light, Roggeveen offers up the Cato Institute's Jim Manzi's paper for comment highlighting the following conclusions:
In summary, then, the best available models indicate that 1) global warming is a problem that is expected to have only a limited impact on the world economy and 2) it is economically rational only to reduce slightly this marginal impact through global carbon taxes. Further, practical knowledge of the world indicates that 1) such a global carbon-tax regime would be very unlikely ever to be implemented, and 2) even if it were implemented, the theoretical benefits it might create would almost certainly be more than offset by the economic drag such a regime would produce.
What Roggeveen has come across is the great paradox of the collision of economic instruments to manage environmental problems. While the tools of economics such as trading schemes are designed to increase efficiency in achieving environmental outcomes at least cost, the assumptions that economists apply to the world come into conflict when dealing with issues such as the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity.
Much of the economic commentary on climate change discounts the effect of the problem for two simple reasons. Firstly, economists discount the future interests of individuals compared to the present generation based on the fact that there is a 100%probability that the living exist, whereas there is a less than 100% chance of subsequent generations. Second, economics assumes a continuing narrative of economic expansion and hence discounts current estimates of the value of today's paper money. The Stern Review was praised in some quarters for using a very low discount factor to cost future damage from climate change. However the Productivity Commission took issue with its figure of 1% discount per annum over a hundred years for precisely this reason. The cited economist, Ted Norhaus, prefers to discount future impacts by 6% per annum. The net result is that while Stern costs climate damage in 2100 at 37% current value, Norhaus costs it at 0.0295%.
Conversely, when estimating the cost of climate policy, the tendency of anti-action economists is to count the carbon cost imposed by trading, exaggerate it out to a projected level of equality with renewables based on years of underfunding, factor in extra costs such as lost land usage for renewable plant and completely discount a commensurate surge in the renewable industry. One does not even need to include the ramifications of lost productivity through the risk of interruption to the mythical baseload power supply to see the carbon reduction ledger firmly in debit.
The piece de resistance of this argument is the 'best available models' line. Economics demands certainty, but we have very little when it comes to climate behaviour. We can only postulate about the speed and magnitude of changes caused by retention of increased heat in the atmosphere. When these figures are fed into economic theories of discount and growth, we get a series of statistical lies which speak to the Bjorn Lomborg school of climate change being an overhyped waste of resources.
What Norhaus, McKibbin et al fail to note in their critique of Kyoto targets is that Kyoto should be judged versus business as usual, not whether targets were met courtesy of Thatcher's coal mine closures or the fall of communism. It is painfully obvious that investment follows return, and that means that creating markets through the introduction of trading systems and renewable energy targets allied with clean energy funding is the way to go. Governments need to understand their role is to promote good policy and secure their nation's welfare into the future and not rely on the prejudices of the past.
The merits of climate change action will depend on the scope of that action and its capacity to reduce emissions while promoting sustainable development. Thus developing programmes that can gradually build from a national to regional to global level, buttressed by agreements ensuring common but differentiated responsibility is far more desirable than a 'do nothing', rely on technology alone approach.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Perhaps these two gentlemen have explained climate change to Brendan Nelson
As part of its ongoing 'climate change is a myth perpetrated by green leftists' series, The Australian recently published the work of Messrs Evans and Jensen. Dr David Evans, a self-styled 'rocket scientist', is a former employee of the Australian Greenhouse Office. In hindsight, that appointment was probably as constructive as say, appointing Senor Fawkes pageboy for the House of Commons, for the good doctor appears to have had his head turned rather too swiftly for someone intimately involved in the climate modelling process. Dennis Jensen is one of the handful of Western Australian MPs who subscribe to the 'Howard as demigod' thesis, and are on the record as skeptical of the IPCC-inspired policies adopted by almost every social democratic party in the world.
Evans' piece, which has been dissected by Tim Lambert, boils down to three essential points. First, Evans does not give credence to the very modelling he was engaged to produce and hence will not accept any conclusions that either correlate observations with modelled outcomes, or predict the effect of various phenonmena on climate. This means Lambert's references to such visions of orbital forcing or carbon dioxide effects on temperature will fall on deaf ears.
On top of this rejection of modelling, Evans also rejects data showing temperature rises and adopts a very short-term view of climatic variability, suggesting the Earth is now cooling again. What makes me suspicious of such claims is the fact that climate skeptics do not suggest the Earth is reverting back to normal service but is in fact cooling (from the hottest part of the last several hundred years!).
Evans' third tenet is that the Vostok ice cores no longer support the C02-warming causal link as the warming follows the C02 by 800 years. This is widely accepted. He uses this fact as a stick to beat Al Gore as a misleading alarmist politician. Evans' problem lies in the second bit of data: for 800 years the temperature rises but C02 does not, then the two rise together for around 4200 years as the Earth emerges from an ice age. This supports the argument that increased sunlight raises temperature, gradually warms the earth and releases C02 and methane via melting permafrost. Has anyone spoken to Putin and Medvedev about the double-decker carbon sink they have in Siberia?
Basic common sense should cause someone with a scientific background to act cautiously and take appropriate precautions. Evans makes no mention of what will happen to the oceans absorbing ever larger concentrations of C02, nor the chemically proven fact that carbon dioxide is less soluble in warmer water. He ends his piece with the charge of 'criminal negligence and ideological stupidity' against the ALP. I would counter that by saying that if the ALP knew of both great environmental risk and the impending threat posed to our major coal and steel industries and did nothing to reposition the economy the charge would be made out.
Mr Jensen appears to be following Kipling's injunction to keep his head when all around him are losing theirs. His piece is basically a cry for nuclear power, regardless of climate change. It is also a cry for debate, although given those who seek that debate are largely disinterested in observations, conclusions, logical inferences and fair play, one does wonder what sort of debate the member for Tangney is advocating. Jensen believes that energy measures are tokenistic and that solar and wind are 'as yet unproved'. He implies climate advocates are today's flat-earthers, suggesting he subscribes to the Galileo Complex. Given most of Jensen's fellow-travellers would gladly locked Signor Galilei up for the term of his natural, it seems an odd piece of identification.
On the cost of emissions trading, Jensen states:
Firstly, the Rudd Government's Green Paper indicates that $20 per tonne is the starting carbon price. Australia is years behind the EU and the $50 per tonne mark is unlikely to be reached for some years. Jensen makes no allowance for increased use of gas or an escalation in renewables (Rudd's 20% 2020 target seems to have escaped his notice). If we use the average power bill of $1020 per annum, we get a $163 rise at $20 a tonne for carbon. This means a $50 per tonne price adds $407.50 to your average bill. Assuming no renewable uptake, this means $252.50 is the price rise from stationary energy usage alone by business. All of which is great, except Jensen fails to include the compensation payable for price increases: remember, it's supposed to be the polluter pays, not the consumer. Also Jensen needs to answer, if these businesses are unviable because of associated emissions costs, is that because they cannot pass them onto the consumer? In which case, his $252.50 per household secondary emissions costing is surely higher.
Being a nuclear advocate, Jensen does not include the transport sector in his calculations, and the imposts created by high oil prices on freight costs. The biggest threat to business at present comes from oil prices and interest rates, and it will only be businesses that do not reform their practices early that will be vulnerable to the degree Jensen postulates. Given nuclear will require tremendous government support, surely that would feed into major stationary energy price rises of the very ilk Jensen criticises.
It is these true believers in business as usual (with nuclear variations) that Nelson's policy seeks to placate. Rather than offering certainty, the central demand of business, these dictates would add great uncertainty: whether any action would be taken at all under a Coalition Government and indeed the very viability of an export sector propped up by extractive carbon-intensive industry.
For the rest of us, we should learn some basic chemistry about carbon dioxide, keep a weather eye out to see if the birds are singing earlier this year and do what we can to make a difference, whether that be recycle, turn off the lights or push our politicians for action. Those are our best guides in sorting the climate fact from fiction.
Evans' piece, which has been dissected by Tim Lambert, boils down to three essential points. First, Evans does not give credence to the very modelling he was engaged to produce and hence will not accept any conclusions that either correlate observations with modelled outcomes, or predict the effect of various phenonmena on climate. This means Lambert's references to such visions of orbital forcing or carbon dioxide effects on temperature will fall on deaf ears.
On top of this rejection of modelling, Evans also rejects data showing temperature rises and adopts a very short-term view of climatic variability, suggesting the Earth is now cooling again. What makes me suspicious of such claims is the fact that climate skeptics do not suggest the Earth is reverting back to normal service but is in fact cooling (from the hottest part of the last several hundred years!).
Evans' third tenet is that the Vostok ice cores no longer support the C02-warming causal link as the warming follows the C02 by 800 years. This is widely accepted. He uses this fact as a stick to beat Al Gore as a misleading alarmist politician. Evans' problem lies in the second bit of data: for 800 years the temperature rises but C02 does not, then the two rise together for around 4200 years as the Earth emerges from an ice age. This supports the argument that increased sunlight raises temperature, gradually warms the earth and releases C02 and methane via melting permafrost. Has anyone spoken to Putin and Medvedev about the double-decker carbon sink they have in Siberia?
Basic common sense should cause someone with a scientific background to act cautiously and take appropriate precautions. Evans makes no mention of what will happen to the oceans absorbing ever larger concentrations of C02, nor the chemically proven fact that carbon dioxide is less soluble in warmer water. He ends his piece with the charge of 'criminal negligence and ideological stupidity' against the ALP. I would counter that by saying that if the ALP knew of both great environmental risk and the impending threat posed to our major coal and steel industries and did nothing to reposition the economy the charge would be made out.
Mr Jensen appears to be following Kipling's injunction to keep his head when all around him are losing theirs. His piece is basically a cry for nuclear power, regardless of climate change. It is also a cry for debate, although given those who seek that debate are largely disinterested in observations, conclusions, logical inferences and fair play, one does wonder what sort of debate the member for Tangney is advocating. Jensen believes that energy measures are tokenistic and that solar and wind are 'as yet unproved'. He implies climate advocates are today's flat-earthers, suggesting he subscribes to the Galileo Complex. Given most of Jensen's fellow-travellers would gladly locked Signor Galilei up for the term of his natural, it seems an odd piece of identification.
On the cost of emissions trading, Jensen states:
If all carbon in the stationary power sector were to have a $50-a-tonne price of carbon dioxide imposed (as is the case for the European price for CO2), it would mean a cost burden of $660 a year for every Australian, or more than $2500 per household, according to data I have received. These would not all be direct costs from the emissions-trading scheme, but also from higher prices of products that would flow through as a result of increased production costs. Those higher costs would make some businesses unviable, and they would have to close or move offshore.
Firstly, the Rudd Government's Green Paper indicates that $20 per tonne is the starting carbon price. Australia is years behind the EU and the $50 per tonne mark is unlikely to be reached for some years. Jensen makes no allowance for increased use of gas or an escalation in renewables (Rudd's 20% 2020 target seems to have escaped his notice). If we use the average power bill of $1020 per annum, we get a $163 rise at $20 a tonne for carbon. This means a $50 per tonne price adds $407.50 to your average bill. Assuming no renewable uptake, this means $252.50 is the price rise from stationary energy usage alone by business. All of which is great, except Jensen fails to include the compensation payable for price increases: remember, it's supposed to be the polluter pays, not the consumer. Also Jensen needs to answer, if these businesses are unviable because of associated emissions costs, is that because they cannot pass them onto the consumer? In which case, his $252.50 per household secondary emissions costing is surely higher.
Being a nuclear advocate, Jensen does not include the transport sector in his calculations, and the imposts created by high oil prices on freight costs. The biggest threat to business at present comes from oil prices and interest rates, and it will only be businesses that do not reform their practices early that will be vulnerable to the degree Jensen postulates. Given nuclear will require tremendous government support, surely that would feed into major stationary energy price rises of the very ilk Jensen criticises.
It is these true believers in business as usual (with nuclear variations) that Nelson's policy seeks to placate. Rather than offering certainty, the central demand of business, these dictates would add great uncertainty: whether any action would be taken at all under a Coalition Government and indeed the very viability of an export sector propped up by extractive carbon-intensive industry.
For the rest of us, we should learn some basic chemistry about carbon dioxide, keep a weather eye out to see if the birds are singing earlier this year and do what we can to make a difference, whether that be recycle, turn off the lights or push our politicians for action. Those are our best guides in sorting the climate fact from fiction.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Another global warming challenge
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Rudd's political honeytrap
The Rudd Government's Green Paper will no doubt earn the ire of some climate and environmental organisations for its gradualist approach to emission reduction.
Petrol is in the scheme but compensated by 'cent-for-cent' excise reductions until 2013. Agriculture is out until further notice (possibly starting in 2015) and coal power generators will receive government assistance. The Government appears to be easing voters into copping nanoeconomic pain, by hitting them first with upfront power bills (softened to an extent by increased government payments). This suggests that fast tracking renewable energy - as indicated by the proposed 20% national renewable energy target by 2020, is seen as a more palatable and effective option for achieving emission reductions. If stationary energy emissions make up 50% of all emissions, rising to close to 60% by 2020, a 20% rise in renewable market share would achieve between 10-12% emission reductions. That would suggest that Rudd's interim emissions target cannot be much higher than about 15% by 2020 from the current nominated suite of abatement options. Even to achieve these savings will require a considerable improvement in fuel efficiency and or energy efficiency at the current target levels. Such a target looks low by world standards and will barely be in the pack once developed nations crunch the carbon numbers.
This may well be the genius of Rudd's plan. The bar is so low that it reflects a pragmatic Liberal policy wish list. So low that in one sentence Nelson chastisted Rudd for lifting their excise-permit neutral idea and in the next called it a petrol tax. The end result of Labor's policy is that it puts the onus on the people to push it to take more action. It is almost the minimal possible response without jeopardising the integrity of action altogether. Rudd has effectively offered an election year handout with the electricity rebates and absolved the government of responsibility for excessive petrol hikes.
Nelson is left in nanoeconomic limbo. He has to either junk the scheme entirely or have a technical debate over the merits of 2012 action. Nelson has flirted with a faux policy debate about the hybrid model but if anything has smacked of 'The Hollowmen' in national politics, that search for an alternative was it. Possibly locking Turnbull, Hunt and Bishop into his Central Coast caravan for a weekend and designing a proper policy alternative would be more beneficial both to the debate and the long-term coherency of his party.
At the minute his argument boils down to 'there's a right way to do it (mine) and a wrong way (Rudd's)'. If the excise cut is my idea it's good policy and if it's his policy it is bad. The fact that all this operates in the future - i.e. after the battle has been won at the polls, makes Nelson's 'Rudd's 2013 review is Rudd-speak for ending the excise cut' ring hollow. If Rudd is to pay for injudicious action it will be in 2010. If he is to pay for inaction it will be 2013.
The scheme offers so much to the vulnerable polluters and the kind of targeted compensation scheme now becoming the Rudd trademark that it is highly unlikely the final draft will be any weaker. If anything, the challenge is being thrown down to voters to tell the government they want action and are prepared to pay for it.
Watching Penny Wong at the Press Club demonstrated a player in control of her material, confident in the merits of the argument and open to being pushed to further action. Watching Greg Hunt on Lateline demonstrated a puppet forced to parrot a line he did not believe in, wishing he had something coherent if not constructive to say. Only when Hunt got onto his pet subject of solar panel rebates did he seem to have conviction. Perhaps he should show some boldness and adopt the German bipartisan solar feed-in tariff where homeowners get four times the price for their surplus solar energy fed into the grid.
The danger with Rudd's policy is that in forcing the Liberals over the climate cliff, it will force a very swift acceleration of targets in the medium term. But by then Greg Hunt might be PM.
Petrol is in the scheme but compensated by 'cent-for-cent' excise reductions until 2013. Agriculture is out until further notice (possibly starting in 2015) and coal power generators will receive government assistance. The Government appears to be easing voters into copping nanoeconomic pain, by hitting them first with upfront power bills (softened to an extent by increased government payments). This suggests that fast tracking renewable energy - as indicated by the proposed 20% national renewable energy target by 2020, is seen as a more palatable and effective option for achieving emission reductions. If stationary energy emissions make up 50% of all emissions, rising to close to 60% by 2020, a 20% rise in renewable market share would achieve between 10-12% emission reductions. That would suggest that Rudd's interim emissions target cannot be much higher than about 15% by 2020 from the current nominated suite of abatement options. Even to achieve these savings will require a considerable improvement in fuel efficiency and or energy efficiency at the current target levels. Such a target looks low by world standards and will barely be in the pack once developed nations crunch the carbon numbers.
This may well be the genius of Rudd's plan. The bar is so low that it reflects a pragmatic Liberal policy wish list. So low that in one sentence Nelson chastisted Rudd for lifting their excise-permit neutral idea and in the next called it a petrol tax. The end result of Labor's policy is that it puts the onus on the people to push it to take more action. It is almost the minimal possible response without jeopardising the integrity of action altogether. Rudd has effectively offered an election year handout with the electricity rebates and absolved the government of responsibility for excessive petrol hikes.
Nelson is left in nanoeconomic limbo. He has to either junk the scheme entirely or have a technical debate over the merits of 2012 action. Nelson has flirted with a faux policy debate about the hybrid model but if anything has smacked of 'The Hollowmen' in national politics, that search for an alternative was it. Possibly locking Turnbull, Hunt and Bishop into his Central Coast caravan for a weekend and designing a proper policy alternative would be more beneficial both to the debate and the long-term coherency of his party.
At the minute his argument boils down to 'there's a right way to do it (mine) and a wrong way (Rudd's)'. If the excise cut is my idea it's good policy and if it's his policy it is bad. The fact that all this operates in the future - i.e. after the battle has been won at the polls, makes Nelson's 'Rudd's 2013 review is Rudd-speak for ending the excise cut' ring hollow. If Rudd is to pay for injudicious action it will be in 2010. If he is to pay for inaction it will be 2013.
The scheme offers so much to the vulnerable polluters and the kind of targeted compensation scheme now becoming the Rudd trademark that it is highly unlikely the final draft will be any weaker. If anything, the challenge is being thrown down to voters to tell the government they want action and are prepared to pay for it.
Watching Penny Wong at the Press Club demonstrated a player in control of her material, confident in the merits of the argument and open to being pushed to further action. Watching Greg Hunt on Lateline demonstrated a puppet forced to parrot a line he did not believe in, wishing he had something coherent if not constructive to say. Only when Hunt got onto his pet subject of solar panel rebates did he seem to have conviction. Perhaps he should show some boldness and adopt the German bipartisan solar feed-in tariff where homeowners get four times the price for their surplus solar energy fed into the grid.
The danger with Rudd's policy is that in forcing the Liberals over the climate cliff, it will force a very swift acceleration of targets in the medium term. But by then Greg Hunt might be PM.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Pop goes the alcopop proxy
It is undeniable that there has been an increase in alcohol-related harm in recent years, whether this be measured by hospital admissions, police reports or sheer anecdotal evidence. It seems that the latest generation of teenagers to run the gauntlet of adolescence have taken to drinking (more) early and (more) often. In response to this, the Rudd government took the most immediate policy action at its disposal, imposing by regulation the same tax scheme to pre-mixed drinks as conventional spirits. The uncharitable have criticised Rudd's move as 'spin and symbols', yet the problems raised by alcohol are so complex that the alcopop tax served as a proxy for real action while that massive effort was weighed, planned and negotiated.
The alcopop tax loophole was created when for reasons best known to itself, the former government chose not to adjust the excise rate charged on alcopops to match conventional spirits. This created a very slippery pathway for young teenagers to move from soft drinks into spirits while not experiencing the paint-stripper style symptoms associated with higher alcohol drinks. While teenagers have always taken up drinking through the high school party scene, the government's tax policy should have assisted in them choosing something other than sugar-coated rum as their poison. The spike in the ready-mixed drink share of the alcohol market, from 3% to nearly 12%, points to a very substantial increase in alcohol consumption through this fiscal misadventure.
However the alcopop debacle is only part of the problem. Greater disposal income, more stress being felt by adolescents in a world of unstable employment prospects and the collateral effect of older siblings' own drinking habits have caused the problem to snowball. The ridiculous hours clubs are open to, coupled with the relaxation of planning provisions and the introduction of mega venues where responsible service of alcohol is not in management's interests create a cocktail of potential violence, drunken behaviour and potential major health ramifications.
Clearly, to address all these problems will require a coordinated effort between local, state and federal government, alcohol manufacturers and club management. The accessibility of alcohol, the concentration of venues and the attractiveness of excessive drinking need to be considered carefully. The idea that it is acceptable to consume twenty drinks a weekend for ten to fifteen years is unsustainable. Yet that kind of intake is more norm than exception. The assumption appears to be that consistent drinking through the week is bad, a sign of alcoholism, but the weekend binge is culturally acceptable. This assumption needs to be examined and researchers must develop responsible guidelines that speak to the long-term effects of 'the binge', rather than just the per diem intake.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon seems intent at present to cover the time lag in taking tough action with party politics against the former government's inaction. The former government's actions in allowing the pre-mixed drink preferential tax treatment and failure to develop any response beyond the obligatory alcohol campaign are worthy of censure. However Roxon would be better served not battering her audience into submission but laying the groundwork for a major social overhaul - one that may eventually see the weekend binge as unwise a social choice as the pack a day cigarette habit.
The alcopop tax loophole was created when for reasons best known to itself, the former government chose not to adjust the excise rate charged on alcopops to match conventional spirits. This created a very slippery pathway for young teenagers to move from soft drinks into spirits while not experiencing the paint-stripper style symptoms associated with higher alcohol drinks. While teenagers have always taken up drinking through the high school party scene, the government's tax policy should have assisted in them choosing something other than sugar-coated rum as their poison. The spike in the ready-mixed drink share of the alcohol market, from 3% to nearly 12%, points to a very substantial increase in alcohol consumption through this fiscal misadventure.
However the alcopop debacle is only part of the problem. Greater disposal income, more stress being felt by adolescents in a world of unstable employment prospects and the collateral effect of older siblings' own drinking habits have caused the problem to snowball. The ridiculous hours clubs are open to, coupled with the relaxation of planning provisions and the introduction of mega venues where responsible service of alcohol is not in management's interests create a cocktail of potential violence, drunken behaviour and potential major health ramifications.
Clearly, to address all these problems will require a coordinated effort between local, state and federal government, alcohol manufacturers and club management. The accessibility of alcohol, the concentration of venues and the attractiveness of excessive drinking need to be considered carefully. The idea that it is acceptable to consume twenty drinks a weekend for ten to fifteen years is unsustainable. Yet that kind of intake is more norm than exception. The assumption appears to be that consistent drinking through the week is bad, a sign of alcoholism, but the weekend binge is culturally acceptable. This assumption needs to be examined and researchers must develop responsible guidelines that speak to the long-term effects of 'the binge', rather than just the per diem intake.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon seems intent at present to cover the time lag in taking tough action with party politics against the former government's inaction. The former government's actions in allowing the pre-mixed drink preferential tax treatment and failure to develop any response beyond the obligatory alcohol campaign are worthy of censure. However Roxon would be better served not battering her audience into submission but laying the groundwork for a major social overhaul - one that may eventually see the weekend binge as unwise a social choice as the pack a day cigarette habit.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Setting liberal democratic parameters for free speech
It is interesting to note the minor blogging brushfire breaking out over the prosecution of the Canadian neo-conservative columnist, Mark Steyn, for alleged hate speech comments under British Columbia's anti-vilification laws. The problem anti-vilification laws are bound to run into is the issue of free speech - the purported essence of democratic society. The introduction of anti-vilification law - legislation specifically designed to change behaviour through language and attitude -raises questions as to how to set the boundaries of free speech.
Anti-vilification laws represent a laudable attempt to protect minorities from abuse and work towards a harmonious multicultural society. However, they have failed to address the philosophical challenge posed by an insurgency of conservative commentators. Progressive thought is constantly under attack from those who oppose it. Anti-vilification law, with its focus on behaviour change and centralised control, is tarnished with images of Maoist-Soviet re-education. The sanctions offered by the laws are weak, yet the challenge remains strong. The result is a hatred of the laws, rather than the behaviour, and the false assumption that other cultures are 'protected species'. Anti-vilification laws are seen as a dangerous fetter on free speech, rather than valid laws which should be upheld by the archetypical law abiding citizen.
The idea of anti-vilification is to set parameters for what is and what is not acceptable conduct in society in line with internationally recognised human rights principles. In other words, it goes to fundamental questions of humanity. Rather than being seen, however, as 'behaviour change', instead it should be recast as 'the law of the land'. This is particularly important in the post-terrorism era, where aggrieved persons are easy prey for fundamentalists of all persuasions, and a 'free speech incident' such as an ill-advised cartoon in one country can lead to bombings in another. Failing to bridge the divides between communities, and worse, reinforcing the prejudices as justified resistance to 'political correctness' makes all of us vulnerable to bad neoconservative foreign policy adventures in Iraq, Iran (or insert Muslim country of their choice) and increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks in all corners of the world.
There is a loud chorus of concern that moderate Muslims do not take action to rein in their extremist counterparts. Yet that chorus also sings loudest about the evils of political correctness and refuses to accept that the crude remarks of Jones and his acolytes also demand action. This lack of a causal link speaks to a deeper and perhaps wilful misunderstanding of both other cultures and the nature of terrorist outrages.
Australian speech is partially protected by the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication. That guarantee means that any law that is not appropriate and adapted to preventing obscenity, libel or incitement to violence and restricts the ability to criticise government policy or access to media during political campaigns is likely to be unconstitutional. It is arguable that in the present climate, a strong anti-vilification law which inteprets say, Jones' laissez-faire response to the Cronulla text messages as worthy of sanction may meet this test for incitement, but it is a grey area.
To play their role to best advantage in the Australian polity, anti-vilification laws need to be remodelled in consultation with those very players who are at the pivot point of the problem. Conservatives and cultural representatives should be brought together for a thorough-going summit on social inclusion, freedom of speech and incitement to acts of violence, vandalism and discrimination. This would be an act of true national leadership and may provide an environment of goodwill and understanding, where issues can be rationally debated. This summit should then lay out a nonpartisan programme for uniform anti-vilification legislation, allowing for strong sanctions such as suspension of broadcasters and ultimately broadcast licences for repeat offenders. This would give the conservatives (and their media masters) most likely to be affected by law changes a hearing in the process and mitigate their concern about the threat to free speech.
The continued attack by conservatives such as Steyn on anti-vilification and other similar laws is neither liberal or democratic. However, without consultation with such parties, the resentment and martyr mentality of the 'political correctness' mindset will continue to thrive and plague our supposedly liberal, democratic and mature society.
Anti-vilification laws represent a laudable attempt to protect minorities from abuse and work towards a harmonious multicultural society. However, they have failed to address the philosophical challenge posed by an insurgency of conservative commentators. Progressive thought is constantly under attack from those who oppose it. Anti-vilification law, with its focus on behaviour change and centralised control, is tarnished with images of Maoist-Soviet re-education. The sanctions offered by the laws are weak, yet the challenge remains strong. The result is a hatred of the laws, rather than the behaviour, and the false assumption that other cultures are 'protected species'. Anti-vilification laws are seen as a dangerous fetter on free speech, rather than valid laws which should be upheld by the archetypical law abiding citizen.
The idea of anti-vilification is to set parameters for what is and what is not acceptable conduct in society in line with internationally recognised human rights principles. In other words, it goes to fundamental questions of humanity. Rather than being seen, however, as 'behaviour change', instead it should be recast as 'the law of the land'. This is particularly important in the post-terrorism era, where aggrieved persons are easy prey for fundamentalists of all persuasions, and a 'free speech incident' such as an ill-advised cartoon in one country can lead to bombings in another. Failing to bridge the divides between communities, and worse, reinforcing the prejudices as justified resistance to 'political correctness' makes all of us vulnerable to bad neoconservative foreign policy adventures in Iraq, Iran (or insert Muslim country of their choice) and increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks in all corners of the world.
There is a loud chorus of concern that moderate Muslims do not take action to rein in their extremist counterparts. Yet that chorus also sings loudest about the evils of political correctness and refuses to accept that the crude remarks of Jones and his acolytes also demand action. This lack of a causal link speaks to a deeper and perhaps wilful misunderstanding of both other cultures and the nature of terrorist outrages.
Australian speech is partially protected by the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication. That guarantee means that any law that is not appropriate and adapted to preventing obscenity, libel or incitement to violence and restricts the ability to criticise government policy or access to media during political campaigns is likely to be unconstitutional. It is arguable that in the present climate, a strong anti-vilification law which inteprets say, Jones' laissez-faire response to the Cronulla text messages as worthy of sanction may meet this test for incitement, but it is a grey area.
To play their role to best advantage in the Australian polity, anti-vilification laws need to be remodelled in consultation with those very players who are at the pivot point of the problem. Conservatives and cultural representatives should be brought together for a thorough-going summit on social inclusion, freedom of speech and incitement to acts of violence, vandalism and discrimination. This would be an act of true national leadership and may provide an environment of goodwill and understanding, where issues can be rationally debated. This summit should then lay out a nonpartisan programme for uniform anti-vilification legislation, allowing for strong sanctions such as suspension of broadcasters and ultimately broadcast licences for repeat offenders. This would give the conservatives (and their media masters) most likely to be affected by law changes a hearing in the process and mitigate their concern about the threat to free speech.
The continued attack by conservatives such as Steyn on anti-vilification and other similar laws is neither liberal or democratic. However, without consultation with such parties, the resentment and martyr mentality of the 'political correctness' mindset will continue to thrive and plague our supposedly liberal, democratic and mature society.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Fuel poverty and the emissions trading debate
Much as I hate cheap jargon, expect to hear a lot more of the phrase 'fuel poverty'. Basically it means paying a high percentage of your income in fuel costs (whether that be electricity or even petrol). Given high interest rates, rising inflation particularly in essentials such as food and constrained wages, the usual fury over fuel prices has been exacerbated as people actually start to feel like they are impoverished, not just inconvenienced by petrol prices. The potential for political trouble with the impending emissions trading scheme is palpable. Peter Garrett getting into contortions about including petrol into the emissions trading scheme demonstrates this clearly.
A major problem with emissions trading is the impetus for power companies to pass on the permit costs to their customers, namely the 90+ percent of them who have not taken up Greenpower schemes. The obvious solution is to redistribute the permit costs back to consumers. It seems likely this will be done by a tax credit system, which will probably have to pay credits quarterly in line with utility bills. The system would then be revenue neutral, provide almost no cash-flow issues for ordinary people and achieve carbon reduction targets by the government's overall cap on tradeable permits. The ACCC would have a key role in preventing price gouging by power companies inflating their carbon abatement costs.
However energy usage does not necessarily equate with income either, so government, in conjunction with power companies, will have to even out the discrepancies by commissioning large scale insulation and energy efficient appliance roll-outs to retrofit existing homes in line with new standards. Water companies are currently using similar tactics to improve water usage habits. Another option may be to commission a buyback of inefficient appliances and vehicles, an idea that Tim Flannery has recently floated. For those still under grave threat, short term payments could be made to top up tax credits for excess bills. A further key part of the puzzle lies in switching new power plants to gas co-generation or renewable sources. Government could mandate all new vehicles be run on either LPG or hybrid technology systems.
Running some decent advertising equating energy usage (or abuse) to extra power costs would create more of a sense of personal responsibility rather than government-imposed tax grabs.
The main challenges needing action are to compensate people affected by higher prices, spread the risk from energy bills more evenly across the population and most importantly, educate the people to understand how they can help with climate change and how the government is not committing daylight robbery.
A possible related reform could be brought into business taxation. Business could sign up for an eco-charter where they pay a reduced tax rate in exchange for signing up to stricter environmental standards and responsibilities. This could be particularly useful for corporations in counteracting the 'only duty is to shareholders' mantra, which has left corporate social responsibility aspirational at best. This would eliminate the need for onerous carbon input systems or providing wholesale tax credits for business.
Emissions trading is not a panacea but a market correction mechanism that allows lower emission fuels such as gas, renewables such as solar, wind and tidal and higher emission fuels such as coal to compete on an environmentally level playing field. Designed appropriately, it could potentially restructure our economic foundations in a way that promotes sustainable growth well into the future.
A major problem with emissions trading is the impetus for power companies to pass on the permit costs to their customers, namely the 90+ percent of them who have not taken up Greenpower schemes. The obvious solution is to redistribute the permit costs back to consumers. It seems likely this will be done by a tax credit system, which will probably have to pay credits quarterly in line with utility bills. The system would then be revenue neutral, provide almost no cash-flow issues for ordinary people and achieve carbon reduction targets by the government's overall cap on tradeable permits. The ACCC would have a key role in preventing price gouging by power companies inflating their carbon abatement costs.
However energy usage does not necessarily equate with income either, so government, in conjunction with power companies, will have to even out the discrepancies by commissioning large scale insulation and energy efficient appliance roll-outs to retrofit existing homes in line with new standards. Water companies are currently using similar tactics to improve water usage habits. Another option may be to commission a buyback of inefficient appliances and vehicles, an idea that Tim Flannery has recently floated. For those still under grave threat, short term payments could be made to top up tax credits for excess bills. A further key part of the puzzle lies in switching new power plants to gas co-generation or renewable sources. Government could mandate all new vehicles be run on either LPG or hybrid technology systems.
Running some decent advertising equating energy usage (or abuse) to extra power costs would create more of a sense of personal responsibility rather than government-imposed tax grabs.
The main challenges needing action are to compensate people affected by higher prices, spread the risk from energy bills more evenly across the population and most importantly, educate the people to understand how they can help with climate change and how the government is not committing daylight robbery.
A possible related reform could be brought into business taxation. Business could sign up for an eco-charter where they pay a reduced tax rate in exchange for signing up to stricter environmental standards and responsibilities. This could be particularly useful for corporations in counteracting the 'only duty is to shareholders' mantra, which has left corporate social responsibility aspirational at best. This would eliminate the need for onerous carbon input systems or providing wholesale tax credits for business.
Emissions trading is not a panacea but a market correction mechanism that allows lower emission fuels such as gas, renewables such as solar, wind and tidal and higher emission fuels such as coal to compete on an environmentally level playing field. Designed appropriately, it could potentially restructure our economic foundations in a way that promotes sustainable growth well into the future.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Some Climate Change Parameters
Two debates have cropped up in the last week or so which touch upon resolving some of the hairy issues raised by climate change. The first is the global disaster unfolding that is the food crisis. Like the oil crisis, the food crisis has shown what happens when globalisation goes bad and instability in supply collides with growing demand. The second is the national issue of the Rudd Government's carbon capture and storage (CCS) dalliance. Both demonstrate the need to have a clear set of parameters in mind when considering how best to tackle climate change and produce a sustainable transition away from carbon-based fuels while maintaining standards of living and in turn the economic engine that supports them.
The food crisis has in part been exacerbated by the combined turnover of both beef pasture and wheat and maize crops to ethanol production. Like the Iraq debacle on oil, it is debatable precisely how great the effect on wheat and grain prices the ethanol trade is but it is inarguably contributing to global speculation in grain prices.
Ethanol and other biofuels may be a good option for climate mitigation, but they must be produced in a manner that does not compromise food security or worse become a climate fools' paradise by destroying rainforests to plant a crop. The turnover of corn crops in the US and Argentina to ethanol is akin to the Greek Titan Cronus eating his own children. If efforts to encourage climate change reform are to be successful in both developed and developing countries, a latter-day Zeus must step in and end this madness by penalising emission savings made at the cost of food crop production. Ethanol must therefore only be accepted from either non-edible sources (such as algae) or waste produce after the main food crop has been harvested. The US has shown that ethanol production can be rorted into a subsidy-driven carousel, compromising both food and climate security. This mistake must not be repeatedly globally.
CCS represents a tempting solution for coal-rich nations to have their climate cake and eat it. However it represents a tremendous gamble in unproven technology. The other point that CCS fails to deal with is its effect on developing other technology to cater for ultimately diminishing coal and oil supplies. This technology should receive some support to at least test its viability, but it should come within the existing subsidy structure for the fossil fuel industry and the accompanied by a considerable acceleration in renewable funding. Similarly, any CCS program must not be in conjunction with nuclear as this would greatly increase the problems associated with capture and disposal of carbon waste. Remember that CCS pipelines will be pumping noxious gases which in turn must represent a security threat if they can be breached. An excessive emphasis on extractive technology also reduces the prospects of creating innovative products that can be exported and installed in a variety of climates, not requiring access to the kind of fissures and chambers needed to store carbon or nuclear waste.
The food crisis has in part been exacerbated by the combined turnover of both beef pasture and wheat and maize crops to ethanol production. Like the Iraq debacle on oil, it is debatable precisely how great the effect on wheat and grain prices the ethanol trade is but it is inarguably contributing to global speculation in grain prices.
Ethanol and other biofuels may be a good option for climate mitigation, but they must be produced in a manner that does not compromise food security or worse become a climate fools' paradise by destroying rainforests to plant a crop. The turnover of corn crops in the US and Argentina to ethanol is akin to the Greek Titan Cronus eating his own children. If efforts to encourage climate change reform are to be successful in both developed and developing countries, a latter-day Zeus must step in and end this madness by penalising emission savings made at the cost of food crop production. Ethanol must therefore only be accepted from either non-edible sources (such as algae) or waste produce after the main food crop has been harvested. The US has shown that ethanol production can be rorted into a subsidy-driven carousel, compromising both food and climate security. This mistake must not be repeatedly globally.
CCS represents a tempting solution for coal-rich nations to have their climate cake and eat it. However it represents a tremendous gamble in unproven technology. The other point that CCS fails to deal with is its effect on developing other technology to cater for ultimately diminishing coal and oil supplies. This technology should receive some support to at least test its viability, but it should come within the existing subsidy structure for the fossil fuel industry and the accompanied by a considerable acceleration in renewable funding. Similarly, any CCS program must not be in conjunction with nuclear as this would greatly increase the problems associated with capture and disposal of carbon waste. Remember that CCS pipelines will be pumping noxious gases which in turn must represent a security threat if they can be breached. An excessive emphasis on extractive technology also reduces the prospects of creating innovative products that can be exported and installed in a variety of climates, not requiring access to the kind of fissures and chambers needed to store carbon or nuclear waste.
Monday, February 4, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Ghost of Coonan past afflicts Conroy's filter plan
It is truth universally acknowledged that Helen Coonan was not a terribly progressive Communications minister. During her tenure, cross-media ownership laws were diluted under the principle of not making existing media owners cross via the figleaf of 'increased outlets of new media'. Negotiations to build a high speed national broadband network went precisely nowhere and open warfare was declared by Telstra's head honcho, Sol Trujilo.
Coonan had one other vaunted policy, the NetAlert campaign. NetAlert was conceived to appeal to the 'Christian Right' and poach traditional Catholic 'values voters' (to use despised American political jargon) from Labor, possibly via the agency of Family First. The original centrepiece was an audacious plan to filter undesirable content, primarily porn, from impressionable eyes. If that was the aim, then they would have been better off leaning on the moguls running the media, with platforms such as ninemsn frequently making available images of not especially clothed celebrities.
To Coonan's credit, the final mailout became a self-help guide to educating parents on the dangers of the internet and advised supervision. The plan to filter the net was deemed a quixotic quest when logic took hold. The thing could only be done by using a list of undesirable sites and checking the site requested against the list, a slow and cumbersome process reducing processing speed by between 16 and 78% for ISPs.
Enter Stephen Conroy. Conroy is the man charged with bringing Rudd's fabled fibre-to-the-node broadband network into reality. He also has carriage of the Beazley-era acquiescence on Coonan's NetAlert scheme. This contradiction should have been immediately obvious to someone of Rudd's intellect and logical thinking capability. However it has been retained presumably to protect against a Coalition scare campaign.
As Rudd is now ascendant, good policy dictates that he abandon this bizarre nanny-state filtering scheme. Government - corporate filtering of the internet has much the same connotations these days as imprisonment without trial or taxation without representation once did. It is a sign of intrusion and unfettered exercise of power which people simply do not like.
Leaving aside the philosphical issues, the hindrance of broadband speed makes a mockery of Rudd's vaunted vehicle to prosperity. The worst part of the filter plan is that the biggest delay happens to fast stream connections. A filter system does not appear compatible with a high speed network, particularly when that network will already be compromised by transmission loss over large areas. Rudd's best course is to first delay the implementation of the policy and then make it very, very clear that there are no feasible options for filtering.
Coonan had one other vaunted policy, the NetAlert campaign. NetAlert was conceived to appeal to the 'Christian Right' and poach traditional Catholic 'values voters' (to use despised American political jargon) from Labor, possibly via the agency of Family First. The original centrepiece was an audacious plan to filter undesirable content, primarily porn, from impressionable eyes. If that was the aim, then they would have been better off leaning on the moguls running the media, with platforms such as ninemsn frequently making available images of not especially clothed celebrities.
To Coonan's credit, the final mailout became a self-help guide to educating parents on the dangers of the internet and advised supervision. The plan to filter the net was deemed a quixotic quest when logic took hold. The thing could only be done by using a list of undesirable sites and checking the site requested against the list, a slow and cumbersome process reducing processing speed by between 16 and 78% for ISPs.
Enter Stephen Conroy. Conroy is the man charged with bringing Rudd's fabled fibre-to-the-node broadband network into reality. He also has carriage of the Beazley-era acquiescence on Coonan's NetAlert scheme. This contradiction should have been immediately obvious to someone of Rudd's intellect and logical thinking capability. However it has been retained presumably to protect against a Coalition scare campaign.
As Rudd is now ascendant, good policy dictates that he abandon this bizarre nanny-state filtering scheme. Government - corporate filtering of the internet has much the same connotations these days as imprisonment without trial or taxation without representation once did. It is a sign of intrusion and unfettered exercise of power which people simply do not like.
Leaving aside the philosphical issues, the hindrance of broadband speed makes a mockery of Rudd's vaunted vehicle to prosperity. The worst part of the filter plan is that the biggest delay happens to fast stream connections. A filter system does not appear compatible with a high speed network, particularly when that network will already be compromised by transmission loss over large areas. Rudd's best course is to first delay the implementation of the policy and then make it very, very clear that there are no feasible options for filtering.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Does the present justify the past of monarchy?
UK historian David Starkey's incendiary remarks vis-a-vis Elizabeth II's cultural sophistication seem a timely segue into the republican debate. According to the Constitution, Australia's Head of State is Queen Victoria and her heirs and successors. This presupposes that the monarch continues to play a fundamental role in the governance of the nation.
The traditional purpose of monarchs was very clear. They were the apex of a feudal system, ultimate holder of all lands that were then effectively leased back to the various ranks. The monarch coordinated territorial relations and allowed a group of diverse regions to work together. The monarch thus played a major role in government, and in deed embodied the nation as a whole. However, as power gradually devolved to advisors and then to elected parliamentarians, the position became more ceremonial.
The purpose of a ceremonial monarch is to attend numerous functions and act as a symbol of continuity. Thus they are a living embodiment of both the present nation and its history. The question then becomes whether in a country like Australia whether the long tradition of English history is something we want to be tied to ad infinitum through our machinery of government.
In the current environment, a monarch represents the nation both on a ceremonial and economic level. This raises not just questions of identity but conflict of interest. Our constitution was written in the 1890s, as a cooperative agreement between a remote group of colonies. Over the last fifty years, the system has become inherently unbalanced, with the partner states being subordinated to the federal sphere. At the same time, the UK has become closely aligned to the EU rather than the old links of Empire.
In this climate, it is clear that the current arrangements are no longer suited to our present circumstances. On the domestic level, federal-state relations are imbalanced. States have responsibility for funding public health and education, massive systems to maintain and develop. The Commonwealth has control over the vast majority of the tax base. The GST transformed the state's residue independent tax collection into the benevolent grant of the federal government. The Commonwealth's chief sources of power are the external affairs power (implementing international conventions) and the corporations power. These two powers give a near total jurisdiction over most areas.
On the international level, it is hard to see a UK trade delegation actively pushing the claims of the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand exporter. As a matter of identity it seems disingenous for Australia to be represented by a largish power on the other side of the world.
Clearly the system needs renovation. Either the States need some form of guaranteed funding to justify their continued responsibilities or another method of delivery must be developed. On the national level, the monarchy does seem something of an anachronistic tie. A presidency based on a short-listing and direct election process, something like an elected Australian of the Year position, may deal with the partisan difficulties plus mass expenditure campaigning for the post.
The traditional purpose of monarchs was very clear. They were the apex of a feudal system, ultimate holder of all lands that were then effectively leased back to the various ranks. The monarch coordinated territorial relations and allowed a group of diverse regions to work together. The monarch thus played a major role in government, and in deed embodied the nation as a whole. However, as power gradually devolved to advisors and then to elected parliamentarians, the position became more ceremonial.
The purpose of a ceremonial monarch is to attend numerous functions and act as a symbol of continuity. Thus they are a living embodiment of both the present nation and its history. The question then becomes whether in a country like Australia whether the long tradition of English history is something we want to be tied to ad infinitum through our machinery of government.
In the current environment, a monarch represents the nation both on a ceremonial and economic level. This raises not just questions of identity but conflict of interest. Our constitution was written in the 1890s, as a cooperative agreement between a remote group of colonies. Over the last fifty years, the system has become inherently unbalanced, with the partner states being subordinated to the federal sphere. At the same time, the UK has become closely aligned to the EU rather than the old links of Empire.
In this climate, it is clear that the current arrangements are no longer suited to our present circumstances. On the domestic level, federal-state relations are imbalanced. States have responsibility for funding public health and education, massive systems to maintain and develop. The Commonwealth has control over the vast majority of the tax base. The GST transformed the state's residue independent tax collection into the benevolent grant of the federal government. The Commonwealth's chief sources of power are the external affairs power (implementing international conventions) and the corporations power. These two powers give a near total jurisdiction over most areas.
On the international level, it is hard to see a UK trade delegation actively pushing the claims of the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand exporter. As a matter of identity it seems disingenous for Australia to be represented by a largish power on the other side of the world.
Clearly the system needs renovation. Either the States need some form of guaranteed funding to justify their continued responsibilities or another method of delivery must be developed. On the national level, the monarchy does seem something of an anachronistic tie. A presidency based on a short-listing and direct election process, something like an elected Australian of the Year position, may deal with the partisan difficulties plus mass expenditure campaigning for the post.
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)