Brendan Nelson, aka The Human Cockatoo, has adopted the radical policy of 'listening to the Australian people'. The first two manifestations of this are his approval of Rudd's lodging of ratification papers to the Kyoto Protocol and his declaration that workchoices is dead. These are fine words, although Nelson has also refused to guarantee fulsome support for the ratification legislation for Kyoto nor the repealing of workchoices. Until we see an unequivocal commitment to do so, doubts over the substance of these statements will remain.
Nelson has one small problem. He is the compromise candidate to keep both Abbott (unelectable) and Turnbull (unpalatable) out of the leadership. His leadership is underwritten by one Julie Bishop and her posse of WA MPs. They happen to believe workchoices was endorsed by their constitutents and that the eastern states failed to follow the one true path. Their zeal for the policy verges on the puritanical, and they have been beneficiaries of the Howard era purging of traditional liberal sentiment from the party. Most of them are of the less enlightened side of the party on climate change.
The Liberals have a real problem. In order to look even vaguely relevant, they have to junk their main planks of policy difference, which will also alienate the very people supporting the leadership. However, if they do not, they will fall further behind in the polls and run the risk of becoming a splintered conservative grouping rather than a coherent party. At some point, the Liberals will not be able to rely on voters who formed their opinions when either Chifley or Whitlam was in office.
Whether Nelson can keep a veneer of party solidarity on these issues remains to be seen. However, it is unlikely that the pro-Howard forces will go quietly into the centre. More likely, if concessions are made on workchoices and Kyoto, the Puritans will want some serious stands in return. This may explain the continued tough talking on refusing an apology for the Stolen Generation. It seems pretty clear that Nelson will have to try and capitalise on any disquiet caused by climate change policy purely to maintain the illusion of his own competitiveness.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Variety or venom: which would put you off your Christmas turkey?
Australia has again failed to resolve the question of its spinning department for the Boxing Day Test and following series against India. Since the retirement of Warne and the injury and slow recovery of the less than vintage Macgill, Australia is left facing a gaping chasm in the quality of its next line of tweakers. Australia have been reticent to call on Hogg's services unless the pitch shows obvious signs of turn, preferring a pyjama battery of assorted medium and fast bowlers. This reluctance has now led to the team having no clear understudy considered suited to the Test spinner role.
The question then boils down to a choice between Hogg as the next best spinner or Tait as the next best pace bowler. Given the record of frontline spinners such as Warne and Macgill is not great and the record of bit-part spinners, namely Hogg and Robertson in India is positively awful, the smart money must surely be on Tait. Having variety is great. The question is whether that variety offers a competitive advantage to a captain who can call on the extra option as a viable wicket-taking or run-slowing option.
If India play Hogg without fear, then Tait must surely play. Tait is a law of nature, a whirlwind that either blows fiercely levelling batsmen and wickets with equal regularity or continually misses the target and gets carted to all corners. This unpredictability means Tait will only be seen as understudy to Lee or a fiery fourth bowler to unleash on bouncy tracks. Unless he is the more dangerous option.
The other aspect is whether Australia feel they need Hogg as back-up for Macgill until the next tier of spinners emerge. The situation is bizarre. Contracted spinner Bailey is playing second XI for South Australia, Cullen is on his way back, NSW has so many spinners but none in the side at the moment and poor White was injured at the worst moment. As an allrounder, White would have been a decent chance of selection if he was in good form.
This surfeit of spin options is a major headache for Australia, whose stocks more resemble South Africa's at the present time. Hogg may well have deserved his chance to play Test cricket by being the last man standing.
The question then boils down to a choice between Hogg as the next best spinner or Tait as the next best pace bowler. Given the record of frontline spinners such as Warne and Macgill is not great and the record of bit-part spinners, namely Hogg and Robertson in India is positively awful, the smart money must surely be on Tait. Having variety is great. The question is whether that variety offers a competitive advantage to a captain who can call on the extra option as a viable wicket-taking or run-slowing option.
If India play Hogg without fear, then Tait must surely play. Tait is a law of nature, a whirlwind that either blows fiercely levelling batsmen and wickets with equal regularity or continually misses the target and gets carted to all corners. This unpredictability means Tait will only be seen as understudy to Lee or a fiery fourth bowler to unleash on bouncy tracks. Unless he is the more dangerous option.
The other aspect is whether Australia feel they need Hogg as back-up for Macgill until the next tier of spinners emerge. The situation is bizarre. Contracted spinner Bailey is playing second XI for South Australia, Cullen is on his way back, NSW has so many spinners but none in the side at the moment and poor White was injured at the worst moment. As an allrounder, White would have been a decent chance of selection if he was in good form.
This surfeit of spin options is a major headache for Australia, whose stocks more resemble South Africa's at the present time. Hogg may well have deserved his chance to play Test cricket by being the last man standing.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Save the whales...from the international lawyers
Kevin Rudd made an audacious statement during the cut and thrust of the election campaign that he would be willing to take firm sction against Japanese whaling ships in the Southern Ocean. This promise got somewhat submerged under the other key election issues, but has now risen for air with the opening of the whaling (sorry, scientific research) season.
Rudd's position is that Australia needs to take firm action to gather evidence for presentation in a possible future action in the International Court of Justice. This is in line with his other policy promise to ask the ICJ to adjudicate on whether Iranian President Ahmenidjad's alleged statement that he would drive Israel into the Mediterranean amounted to genocide. Rudd clearly believes that international disputes should be subject to moral adjudication by international legal bodies.
The problem is that the situation vis-a-vis Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean is not clear cut. Japan claims a right to take whales for scienific purposes, conducting both lethal and non-lethal research to establish details about populations. Australia claims the right to intervene to protect the whales, for the purpose of preservation and conservation of living resources. Both claims derive from Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty.
It is arguable that Australia could employ military personnel and assets to further any peaceful purpose under the Treaty. Diplomatically it may not be terribly clever, given warships at ten paces is never the best basis for negotiation. However, the use of converted ships as coastguard patrols would arguably appear to come under actions allowable under the Treaty.
Domestically, one could see this, if one so chose, as a wedge issue. Nelson's Liberals are cautious in their support - opposition sets them against 90% of Ninemsn's readers. However, Peregrine does not believe that Rudd's aim is a Tampa-style conservation move, but genuine action to resolve a long-running international dispute. The other key point is that an Australian official presence will deter Greenpeace and other activists disabling Japanese whaling ships, actions that led Japan to warn it would seek Australia's cooperation to curb activists and even scramble Japanese police aircraft to protect whalers.
Rudd's position is that Australia needs to take firm action to gather evidence for presentation in a possible future action in the International Court of Justice. This is in line with his other policy promise to ask the ICJ to adjudicate on whether Iranian President Ahmenidjad's alleged statement that he would drive Israel into the Mediterranean amounted to genocide. Rudd clearly believes that international disputes should be subject to moral adjudication by international legal bodies.
The problem is that the situation vis-a-vis Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean is not clear cut. Japan claims a right to take whales for scienific purposes, conducting both lethal and non-lethal research to establish details about populations. Australia claims the right to intervene to protect the whales, for the purpose of preservation and conservation of living resources. Both claims derive from Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty.
It is arguable that Australia could employ military personnel and assets to further any peaceful purpose under the Treaty. Diplomatically it may not be terribly clever, given warships at ten paces is never the best basis for negotiation. However, the use of converted ships as coastguard patrols would arguably appear to come under actions allowable under the Treaty.
Domestically, one could see this, if one so chose, as a wedge issue. Nelson's Liberals are cautious in their support - opposition sets them against 90% of Ninemsn's readers. However, Peregrine does not believe that Rudd's aim is a Tampa-style conservation move, but genuine action to resolve a long-running international dispute. The other key point is that an Australian official presence will deter Greenpeace and other activists disabling Japanese whaling ships, actions that led Japan to warn it would seek Australia's cooperation to curb activists and even scramble Japanese police aircraft to protect whalers.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Hunt's frolic to outfox Rudd
During the Bali Conference, a rather extraordinary thing happened. The Greens' Christine Milne welcomed Greg Hunt, officially the shadow minister for the environment, appearing to accept the need to set 25-40% domestic binding emissions targets by 2020. Given until earlier this year it was not even certain his leader, the Colossus of Roads, John Howard, put climate change theory on a higher pedestal than the Easter Bunny and Santa, this would seem to be an almighty party conversion on the way to Damascus. Or Bali, which I presume some flights to Damascus have been known to stopover at.
Sensing a majoritarian issue, Hunt tried a remarkable piece of sophistry dressed up as environmental commitment. Rudd was welshing on his climate promises because he would not sign up for the 25-40% range. Hunt allegedly gave Rudd 'the green light' to sign up to a text stating a 25-40% negotiation range.
No he did not. Hunt got a licence from the party firm of Nelson, Turnbull and Downer to try and wedge Rudd. Nelson listed five criteria for the Bali text to meet the national interest:
So Hunt wanted to sign up to the text precisely because the targets were non-binding. Rudd firmly believes in a 60% binding target by 2050, regardless of the economic modelling. It is the interim that he seeks the modelling on, an approach which has drawn flak from both sides. The only modelling Brendan could conceivably do is either to find where in the 25-40% spectrum Australia could sit or to junk the Bali committment. The entire approach is either economically or diplomatically unsound.
A Liberal leadership constituted as a compromise to appease Howard loyalists and propped up by the kingmaker from WA, Julie Bishop's numbers is not going to take kindly to an emission reduction target set without any modelling. WA Liberals may behave something like their northern cousins in Alberta on such reductions and become positively mutinuous.
Greg Hunt clearly does believe that action is required on climate change. However he is constrained within a party where denial was de rigeur for the best part of a decade. Unfortunately, his attempts at autonomous policy are at best likely to be used as a good old Howardian wedge. At worst, they may have all the substance of a maringue - sugar-coated hot air. A serious Liberal climate conversion will not come until the party undergoes a major reexamination of its role in the new order.
Sensing a majoritarian issue, Hunt tried a remarkable piece of sophistry dressed up as environmental commitment. Rudd was welshing on his climate promises because he would not sign up for the 25-40% range. Hunt allegedly gave Rudd 'the green light' to sign up to a text stating a 25-40% negotiation range.
No he did not. Hunt got a licence from the party firm of Nelson, Turnbull and Downer to try and wedge Rudd. Nelson listed five criteria for the Bali text to meet the national interest:
The first was that no targets should be binding and the second that targets should not be set for each country. Dr Nelson also wanted to be able to have time to do economic modelling on any proposed targets.
So Hunt wanted to sign up to the text precisely because the targets were non-binding. Rudd firmly believes in a 60% binding target by 2050, regardless of the economic modelling. It is the interim that he seeks the modelling on, an approach which has drawn flak from both sides. The only modelling Brendan could conceivably do is either to find where in the 25-40% spectrum Australia could sit or to junk the Bali committment. The entire approach is either economically or diplomatically unsound.
A Liberal leadership constituted as a compromise to appease Howard loyalists and propped up by the kingmaker from WA, Julie Bishop's numbers is not going to take kindly to an emission reduction target set without any modelling. WA Liberals may behave something like their northern cousins in Alberta on such reductions and become positively mutinuous.
Greg Hunt clearly does believe that action is required on climate change. However he is constrained within a party where denial was de rigeur for the best part of a decade. Unfortunately, his attempts at autonomous policy are at best likely to be used as a good old Howardian wedge. At worst, they may have all the substance of a maringue - sugar-coated hot air. A serious Liberal climate conversion will not come until the party undergoes a major reexamination of its role in the new order.
US demonstrates why we need the UN to handle climate change
The Howard regime's constant refrain was that the best way to handle climate change discussions was through a series of regional pacts such as the Asia-Pacific Climate Partnership. Shadow Environment Minister Greg Hunt tried to attribute India and Indonesia's enthusiasm on climate change to another regional forum, the APEC talks. Perergine disagrees with Hunt's take as India's support is pretty lukewarm given its deep poverty below its still proportionally small middle class and Indonesia's support comes as much from the home-ground hero aura that comes over the host nation at such events. Hunt's clear import was that getting the big phase 1 emitters, the US, Australia and Japan around the table with the big phase 2 emitters, China, India and Indonesia would produce better results than the all-in environment of the UN.
The US position at Bali demonstrates the monumental flaw in this reasoning. The US has an imperial conviction in its own power and self interest. There is an abiding belief in the primacy of American values which principally include free enterprise and exploitation of resources. That said, the federal system of the US has worked to produce a gradual building of momentum towards an national environmental oonsensus. It may soon be impossible for a candidate to win enough electoral college votes for election without a clear vision on limiting the damage posed by climate change.
Unfortunately for the current global position, the last throes of the Bush administration, the most-pro capitalist government yet seen, coincide with the most urgent stage in climate negotiations. Bush is an oil man who does not comprehend curtailing either personal wealth or development or the conservation of resources, choosing to support the mining of Alaska for oil rather than renewable resources.
It is no surprise that the other northern oil mining nation, Canada, is supporting Bush to the hilt.
The US had consistently opposed binding targets in the Bali Conference communique, saying this 'prejudged' the outcome of two years of talks. Unfortunately for its credibility, it dropped support for non-binding targets appearing in the final draft. Worse, it did not like the reference to green energy aid to developing countries. This led to a chorus of boos, so much so that one suspected Bali had turned into an international pantomine.
Then the PNG delegate decided he had had enough and told the US if it could not lead, it should get out of the way. Within minutes, the US agreed to non-binding targets being mentioned in the final text. Under the US preferred system, PNG would not even have a seat at the table, and the views of the Alliance of Small States would have been relegated to the pages of the Green Left Weekly rather than the mainstream media.
In order to solve the problem of climate change, we must all accept the need to be efficient in our use of resources, explore different energy options and make a paradigm shift away from an economy reliant on excessive use of carbon-based fuels. Under its traditional philsophical outlook, the US, global superpower and master of most of the world financial, trade and military markets is ill-suited to playing the lead role in negotiations. Until we see such a paradigm shift in the US, it will still be playing the pantomine villain.
The US position at Bali demonstrates the monumental flaw in this reasoning. The US has an imperial conviction in its own power and self interest. There is an abiding belief in the primacy of American values which principally include free enterprise and exploitation of resources. That said, the federal system of the US has worked to produce a gradual building of momentum towards an national environmental oonsensus. It may soon be impossible for a candidate to win enough electoral college votes for election without a clear vision on limiting the damage posed by climate change.
Unfortunately for the current global position, the last throes of the Bush administration, the most-pro capitalist government yet seen, coincide with the most urgent stage in climate negotiations. Bush is an oil man who does not comprehend curtailing either personal wealth or development or the conservation of resources, choosing to support the mining of Alaska for oil rather than renewable resources.
It is no surprise that the other northern oil mining nation, Canada, is supporting Bush to the hilt.
The US had consistently opposed binding targets in the Bali Conference communique, saying this 'prejudged' the outcome of two years of talks. Unfortunately for its credibility, it dropped support for non-binding targets appearing in the final draft. Worse, it did not like the reference to green energy aid to developing countries. This led to a chorus of boos, so much so that one suspected Bali had turned into an international pantomine.
Then the PNG delegate decided he had had enough and told the US if it could not lead, it should get out of the way. Within minutes, the US agreed to non-binding targets being mentioned in the final text. Under the US preferred system, PNG would not even have a seat at the table, and the views of the Alliance of Small States would have been relegated to the pages of the Green Left Weekly rather than the mainstream media.
In order to solve the problem of climate change, we must all accept the need to be efficient in our use of resources, explore different energy options and make a paradigm shift away from an economy reliant on excessive use of carbon-based fuels. Under its traditional philsophical outlook, the US, global superpower and master of most of the world financial, trade and military markets is ill-suited to playing the lead role in negotiations. Until we see such a paradigm shift in the US, it will still be playing the pantomine villain.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Strengthening the weakest link in the climate chain
The Bali Conference is intended to produce a road map for negotiations to prevent the planet falling off a carbon emission-created cliff. It is about navigating through a minefield of national interest issues, innate political caution and diplomatic obfuscation in search of the common goal.
The recalcitrant parties here are the developed nations of the US, Japan and Canada. They are engaged in a game of me-first you-first with developing nations such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa which at first sight looks vaguely ridiculous. It threatens to stall progress as none of this alliance of inconvenience will accept the negotiation range of 25-40% targets for developed countries to be set as the parameters for negotiation without developing country committment.
Then one considers the Canadian predicament. Canada is the silver medallist behind tiny Austria for Kyoto non-compliance, a staggering 34% above its emissions target (6% reduction on 1990). Amazingly, given Howard's constant refrain of how Kyoto would damage industry, Australia would not even be in the same weight division as its northern cousin. Herein lies the root of the problem. Canada is actually being sued
by its own Friends of the Earth NGO for breach of its Kyoto committments. Interestingly, New Zealand is almost as lagging in its targets, having paid a rather large fine for its breaches. This has not deterred Helen Clark's push for binding targets.
Perhaps Canada may need to be bailed out - it is now so manifestly out of whack with developed country emissions it should almost be treated as a special case for the sake of getting a viable agreement. Canada could argue that countries like Spain got cover for their Kyoto sins from emissions being calculated under the EU umbrella. Canada has no friends to help it out here.
Compunding the difficulties is the fact that Canada has two provincial delegations, Ontario and Quebec, which are at Bali and embarrassed by Ottawa's position. What's more, they represent two-thirds of the population, namely the ones not directly responsible for most of the greenhouse pollution.
Canada's former Liberal government clearly took its eye off the ball and has committed the environmental equivalent of letting the chip fat skip out of the deep fryer. Instead of trying to quell the flames, the Tories have tried to evacuate the building and wait to collect on the fire insurance.
A target of 25%, the minimum demanded by the negotiation range, amounts to a 53% cut in emissions (on a severe upward trajectory) within thirteen years. Ouch. Methinks this seriously constitutes some recognition, albeit through gritted teeth, that Canada be allowed to chart a course towards a long term goal rather than the 25% range.
In an earlier post, Peregrine proposed that a successor instrument to Kyoto should include differed emissions targets for developing countries and a package of preliminary measures for developing countries. Canada should be read the Riot Act vis-a-vis its non-compliance and forced to sign up for afforestation, renewable energy and energy efficiency targets. It should also make a hefty contribution to the fund to cover the costs of climate amelioration in the developing world. Only then should the international community agree to place it in its own special box, with differed targets. Chastened by being put back on its international training wheels, it should be offered an incentive for participation towards binding targets in the near future.
The recalcitrant parties here are the developed nations of the US, Japan and Canada. They are engaged in a game of me-first you-first with developing nations such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa which at first sight looks vaguely ridiculous. It threatens to stall progress as none of this alliance of inconvenience will accept the negotiation range of 25-40% targets for developed countries to be set as the parameters for negotiation without developing country committment.
Then one considers the Canadian predicament. Canada is the silver medallist behind tiny Austria for Kyoto non-compliance, a staggering 34% above its emissions target (6% reduction on 1990). Amazingly, given Howard's constant refrain of how Kyoto would damage industry, Australia would not even be in the same weight division as its northern cousin. Herein lies the root of the problem. Canada is actually being sued
by its own Friends of the Earth NGO for breach of its Kyoto committments. Interestingly, New Zealand is almost as lagging in its targets, having paid a rather large fine for its breaches. This has not deterred Helen Clark's push for binding targets.
Perhaps Canada may need to be bailed out - it is now so manifestly out of whack with developed country emissions it should almost be treated as a special case for the sake of getting a viable agreement. Canada could argue that countries like Spain got cover for their Kyoto sins from emissions being calculated under the EU umbrella. Canada has no friends to help it out here.
Compunding the difficulties is the fact that Canada has two provincial delegations, Ontario and Quebec, which are at Bali and embarrassed by Ottawa's position. What's more, they represent two-thirds of the population, namely the ones not directly responsible for most of the greenhouse pollution.
Canada's former Liberal government clearly took its eye off the ball and has committed the environmental equivalent of letting the chip fat skip out of the deep fryer. Instead of trying to quell the flames, the Tories have tried to evacuate the building and wait to collect on the fire insurance.
A target of 25%, the minimum demanded by the negotiation range, amounts to a 53% cut in emissions (on a severe upward trajectory) within thirteen years. Ouch. Methinks this seriously constitutes some recognition, albeit through gritted teeth, that Canada be allowed to chart a course towards a long term goal rather than the 25% range.
In an earlier post, Peregrine proposed that a successor instrument to Kyoto should include differed emissions targets for developing countries and a package of preliminary measures for developing countries. Canada should be read the Riot Act vis-a-vis its non-compliance and forced to sign up for afforestation, renewable energy and energy efficiency targets. It should also make a hefty contribution to the fund to cover the costs of climate amelioration in the developing world. Only then should the international community agree to place it in its own special box, with differed targets. Chastened by being put back on its international training wheels, it should be offered an incentive for participation towards binding targets in the near future.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Defending the pass at Thermopylae
Kevin Rudd's debut on the world stage must be perplexing to his global audience. On the one hand, he has speedily entered the ratification papers for the Kyoto Protocol and made a number of statements which come straight from the Al Gore playbook. On the other, reports filter through from the negotiations that Australia is either 'not being as forceful as it might' or is actively watering down the text of the Conference communique to remove references to 2020 targets. In some quarters, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is seen as spokesperson for the recalcitrants.
Rudd is in a bind to act responsibly. To act responsibly on climate change and stave off the eternal skepticism about Labor's economic management he needs to have the Garnaut report to hand to buttress its credentials domestically. This is basically what Rudd told the assembly yesterday.
Rudd's posse of ministers and diplomats is playing the role of the three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae. They are desperately defending the pass that links the global goodwill shown to Australia on ratifying Kyoto and condemnation for inaction on climate change. Like the Spartans, they are waiting for the token Athenian response, i.e. the Garnaut Report, to sweep in and save the day.
It is not clear how much carriage Rudd has of the negotiation strategy, but it appears that Australia is attempting to use the lag required between Bali and the Garnaut Report to strengthen its influence over the recalcitrant countries, namely the US, Japan and Canada. Rudd is clearly building on Australia's Howard-era tardiness alliance with the US (and latterly Canada) to build bridges towards a tenable agreement.
The federal system in the US is working well to counteract Bush's inertia, with a network of Pacific and Atlantic states developing a domestic emissions trading scheme and legislating mandatory targets. This has created a groundswell of opinion in favour of climate action by the next administration. At a Republican presidential debate, candidates were asked whether they agree with global warming - it is now an ethical issue relevant to candidates' credentials.
In Canada, the federal system is under pressure from the massive divergence between the eastern provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec which favour climate action and the vulnerable western (and very affluent courtesy of the mining and oil boom) provinces of Alberta and British Columbia which do not. Harper's climate-skeptic government is entirely composed of the western mindset, making it seriously unrepresentative in the international forum.
Peregrine suspects that the role of countries such as Australia and the US will be vital in getting any agreement. The key issue is going to be whether Canada can be dragged to the table. That in turn will require heavy influence from the US. Given Canada's outlier position, it does not seem likely that a text demanding immediate agreement to a 25-40% negotiation range will pass.
Rudd is attempting to use the same strategy on the world scale that he has to win domestic election. He is making a promise to sign up to 25-40% targets once the economic impact is in. It remains to be seen whether the UN will accept credit for its climate measures.
Rudd is in a bind to act responsibly. To act responsibly on climate change and stave off the eternal skepticism about Labor's economic management he needs to have the Garnaut report to hand to buttress its credentials domestically. This is basically what Rudd told the assembly yesterday.
Rudd's posse of ministers and diplomats is playing the role of the three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae. They are desperately defending the pass that links the global goodwill shown to Australia on ratifying Kyoto and condemnation for inaction on climate change. Like the Spartans, they are waiting for the token Athenian response, i.e. the Garnaut Report, to sweep in and save the day.
It is not clear how much carriage Rudd has of the negotiation strategy, but it appears that Australia is attempting to use the lag required between Bali and the Garnaut Report to strengthen its influence over the recalcitrant countries, namely the US, Japan and Canada. Rudd is clearly building on Australia's Howard-era tardiness alliance with the US (and latterly Canada) to build bridges towards a tenable agreement.
The federal system in the US is working well to counteract Bush's inertia, with a network of Pacific and Atlantic states developing a domestic emissions trading scheme and legislating mandatory targets. This has created a groundswell of opinion in favour of climate action by the next administration. At a Republican presidential debate, candidates were asked whether they agree with global warming - it is now an ethical issue relevant to candidates' credentials.
In Canada, the federal system is under pressure from the massive divergence between the eastern provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec which favour climate action and the vulnerable western (and very affluent courtesy of the mining and oil boom) provinces of Alberta and British Columbia which do not. Harper's climate-skeptic government is entirely composed of the western mindset, making it seriously unrepresentative in the international forum.
Peregrine suspects that the role of countries such as Australia and the US will be vital in getting any agreement. The key issue is going to be whether Canada can be dragged to the table. That in turn will require heavy influence from the US. Given Canada's outlier position, it does not seem likely that a text demanding immediate agreement to a 25-40% negotiation range will pass.
Rudd is attempting to use the same strategy on the world scale that he has to win domestic election. He is making a promise to sign up to 25-40% targets once the economic impact is in. It remains to be seen whether the UN will accept credit for its climate measures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)