Hi ho, hi ho, it's to the polls we go
Labor has been ahead and steady in the polls for 13 months. Only now, 1 day out, is the media even tempted to suggest a Labor victory.
And not without a fight. The government gazette (The Australian) has suggested its latest NewsPoll offers considerable hope to Howard. Rather scurrilously, these results will not be published until tomorrow, when voters are en route to the polling stations: rather like advertising at the point of sale for maximum effect.
(However, it seems likely that this is just desperation advocacy from The Australian and there is nothing-at least for Howard- in the story anyway.)
Back in the real world, the latest AC Neilsen poll points to a massive Labor win (57:43 on preferences), with several Ministers loosing seats, including Howard. Galaxy puts it much, much closer (52:48), but that’s still enough for a Labor victory.
Where has it gone wrong? Howard’s great skill lay in his ability to speak the voice of the people: simple, rhetorical and pitched with the right level of parochial bigotry. This time round his ability should have been even more powerful, running against a measured technocrat like Rudd.
But latterly Howard’s rumbustiousness has transmogrified into shrill, implausible repetitiveness. The people became more discerning; Howard still thought he was talking to Pauline Hanson’s constituency.
If the Coalition goes down, it will go down in the midst of an economic boom; almost unheard of. And we haven’t been able to forget it. The Coalition campaign has not once strayed from “The Economy” : at risk from everyone’s nemesis “Union Bosses”. These scourges are invariably depicted as intimidating, ill-dressed nightclub bouncers, crashing through doors of some hapless small business.
The message is not very complicated. And herein lies Howard’s strategic error.
Most people’s experience of a trade union is that of a far more inclusive organisation that has fought a lengthy ideological battle that benefited virtually everyone in paid employment. Paid leave, occupational health and safety, maternity leave et al have transpired not through the benign goodwill of business, but as a result of the demands of organised labour. (“What have the unions done for us?).
The Coalition’s demonising and undermining (through WorkChoices legislation) of trade unions is seen as affront to the legendary “fair-minded” Australian. But if union bosses aren’t so scary in real life, why has The Economy not swung the voters around to the Coalition?
Most people don’t see their jobs at risk. For starters, we are continually told there is a skills shortage by the very people who say we are gambling with the economy with Labor. And besides, Australians don’t necessarily see the long period of economic expansion as:
(a) a result of this government’s policies; or
(b) Unambiguously a good thing.
The prolonged boom in minerals (driving much of the economic expansion) is not thanks to John Howard. It is a result of liberalising economies in South East Asia. Nor is the continuing surge in population. It would have occurred anyway.
In addition, GDP expansion has been accompanied with a virtual collapse in housing affordability, rising interest rates, inflation and an erosion in the quality of life (from congestion, pollution and crowded infrastructure).
Australia has also been afflicted with the “Dutch Disease”. The minerals boom has pushed the value of the Aussie dollar through the roof, devastating exporters of manufactures and produce and reducing the volume of tourist spending.
So with the Coalition’s trump card effectively negated, it had very little left to offer. Howard flailed about for policy issues to stake out a position for his government; his henchmen blithely assumed people would eventually wake up and go with Howard; key ministers were late for live TV interviews. We got left with ill-judged reactionary rhetoric and incoherent threats of centralisation.
Howard was beaten everywhere else.
Anyone that cares one iota about the environment has all but abandoned Howard. With his calculated sabotage of global action on climate change he has betrayed Australia, future generations and the natural environment.
On social issues, Howard is seen as a monster by (small-l) liberals; nothing less than the advanced guard of the radical religious right seeping in from the USA. The social divisiveness more or less openly advocated by the Howard government has even turned away the socially ambivalent heartland of Howard battlers.
And hanging over all this has been the leadership issue. No one likes Howard’s anointed successor, Peter Costello. Socially he his more part of the current century than the last, but his threats to take industrial relations reform to new ideological heights has been an easy target for opposition groups.
After 11 years in government, the dishonesty, erosion of government accountability, lies and spin Howard has presided over has caught-up. For years, Australians have been quite willing to ignore it and get on with buying another investment property or new lifestyle furniture during the good times. But slowly, surely the shit sticks too thick to survive.
Issues such as the war in Iraq, the lies over WMD, David Hicks, the Australian Wheat Board scandal, greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear ambitions, children overboard and treatment of refugees, unwavering support for GW Bush’s world missionary program, immigration department stuff-ups, the GST and Dr Haneef’s political imprisonment have all sapped at Howard’s credibility.
And it is these issues – rather than the economy – which have progressively turned people away. Howard is too deep in the filth of modern government to survive.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Springbrook
Haven't been around much in ages, weekends are just getting backed-up.
So zoomed up to Springbrook National Park for some bush walking. First at Purlingbrook Falls, then at Twin Falls, which is part of the longer Warrie trail. This was spectacular; tons of wildlife, water, trees and beer at the end.
Photos at: http://www.panoramio.com/user/1090083/tags/Springbrook
Labels: photos, rainforest, springbrook
Australia leads the world.... again
The Australian men’s cricket team unequivocally leads the world. Backing them up, Australian women lead in world in netball and hockey and the Kangaroos are surely the top rugby league side in the world.
Australia is also a world leader in emitting greenhouse gases from electricity generation. And as with the cricket, it beats second-placed by a significant margin.
Newly reported statistics from Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) have demonstrated Australian power generation produces more CO2 per capita than any other nation. CARMA’s statistics come from a global inventory from 50,000 power stations around the world.
Australian power generators produce over 226 million tonnes of CO2 each year, around 10.7 tonnes for each person.
The USA came in a respectable 2nd place, with 9.2 tonnes per person, a good 15% behind.
And again, Australia has smashed the hapless Sri Lankans, who measure a mere 0.115 tonnes per person per year. A very poor showing, you’ll agree.
Australia’s poor record is a result of the confluence of a profligate use of electricity from both the residential and industrial sector, an extremely high reliance on coal for generation and a subsequently low proportion of energy generated from renewable sources.
Only now, in election year are carbon emissions being anything like suitably addresses by the politicians. Unfortunately the focus (and certainly the pork) is almost entirely concentrated on ‘end of pipe’ solutions, such as carbon sequestering and ‘clean coal’ technology.
Australia’s saving grace, is its future per capita emissions from energy generation are surprisingly set to not rise as fast as both the USA and the UK and definitely not as fast as Sri Lanka, which is expected to see a 692% growth in emissions from power generation. Australia would remain, however, head and shoulders above the rest.
Australia retards emissions agreements
In London, over 100 tourism ministers have met to discuss emissions as part of the World Tourism Marketing Summit.
Over 60 of the attendees pledged to tackle emissions from tourism and ratify a declaration thrashed out at the United Nations World Tourism Organisation meeting Davos in October.
CO2 emissions from tourism are becoming increasingly significant, due in large part to the massive growth in air travel and a rapidly expanding incomes around the globe. And there being no tax on aviation fuel.
Air travel from emissions are currently around 610 million tonnes. They are projected to rise to 776m tonnes in 2010 and 1228m tonnes in 2025. The global number of travellers is increasing by 5% per year, last year reaching 610 million people.
At the meeting, Sri Lanka’s representative remonstrated his country was fully committed to tackling the impact of tourism emissions, declaring Sri Lanka will become a “carbon clean” state.
True to form through the Howard years, Australia’s representative expressed doubt that Australia would be similarly committed. He simply warned glibly that we shouldn’t “demonise aviation”.
It is ironic that a poorer nation, not yet enjoying the benefits of mass-air travel should be taking such a progressive view, while at the same time, a country with an appalling emissions record is so uncompromising.
But still, just over one more week of a Coalition government left.
Labels: climate change
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
I love BNE
The CitySmart campaign will promote all of Council's sustainability initiatives and encourage people to get involved in use less power and water, recycling and reducing demand for motorised transport.
The campaign’s rallying call is a simple and powerful logo, design to instil pride in the city from its residents, featuring a green heart and the letters of Brisbane International Airport’s shorthand designation.
The green heart citysmart campaign has been accused of being a copy of New York City’s “I love NY” brand, which is specifically targeted at attracting tourists to the famous city.
Is the logo a copy? I dunno. I’ll leave that up to you:
Lawyers reckon it’s good to go.
There will soon also a website that may or may not be exactly the same as the Australian Conservation Foundation’s http://www.whoonearthcares.com.au/
All in all, I’m confused with the whole thing. I’m never quite sure whether I should be looking for my greenhouse information at ClimateSmart (Queensland government), ClimateClever (Commonwealth government) or CitySmart (Brisbane City Council).
Labels: Brisbane City Council, citysmart, climate change, global warming
Small difference with big impact
So far the 2007 federal election campaign has been dubbed ‘me too’ election. Labor leader Kevin Rudd is trying to present such a small target, it is become difficult to distinguish the policy difference.
As a result, there are few areas of public policy where the two major parties are more than a couple of billion apart. However, climate change is one issue where despite appearing shoulder to shoulder, the small policy differences could have huge implications.
The 2007 election is the first climate change election in Australia. In the last couple of years, we’ve had the Gore movie, the Stern report, a pretty sombre IPCC assessment and a raft of good books on global warming; it is firmly in the electorate’s mind.
And it is also one policy area that is getting media traction. Forget health, teh economy and national security; the political agenda persistently returns to climate change one way or another.
Which makes for cagey campaigning for both major political parties, as both are uncomfortable talking about it; torn between diametrically opposed interests within their core constituencies.
Howard is a long time climate change sceptic and Kyoto-basher. Only now, facing electoral defeat has he acknowledged it. However, the Coalition is doing its best to fudge, obfuscate and make up ground with mere rhetoric. Howard apparently now accepts that there needs to be deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, and soon, but just not in Australia.
But Howard needs to pay at least lip service to climate change to maintain the support of his beloved battlers, farmers and those who have raked it in during the current property and population boom. They now sense there is something in this climate change thing after all and need reassurance that Howard has it covered. Howard also needs to please the sceptics, free market think tanks and the conservative punditry. However, with no where else to go, it is unlikely they will significantly punish Howard.
For Rudd, climate change announcements have to steer a course between the new left and the old left.
The new left is the lumpenbourgeoisie, the latte drinkers, if you like. Though I don’t drink coffee with milk, this group probably includes me. This constituency is largely urban, small ‘l’ liberal and hate Howard for all his racist, populist and selfish propaganda with a vengeance. Ex-Midnight Oil front man and environmental activist Peter Garret was recruited by Labor just to win my vote. We demand action now and we don’t mind suffering. Rudd has to offer enough to stop us voting Green.
But Rudd also has to corral the old left: the staunchly conservative unions employed in highly polluting industries like mining, logging and power generation. This was the group that broke ranks with Labor in 2004 and shafted Mark Latham in Tasmania for his forestry policy. A day later John Howard rode into town with his plan for chopping down more old growth forest, thus inaugurating a conservative alliance between Tories and trades union.
Competing climate change interests within the established parties is pulling both towards the middle on climate change. In effect, neither party is offering anything other than the prosaic.
The big issues, such as accelerating energy and transport consumption, or whether an emissions-intensive economy like Australia geared towards coal and minerals export has a future, are simply ignored.
For example, both parties are pork barrelling regions with road funding. Worse, both are relying on ‘clean coal technology’ (CCT) coming to the rescue. Clean coal technology is a bit like ‘coal technology’, only with the word ‘clean’ attached at the front, for effect.
Labor and Coalition are banking their economic and greenhouse future on CCT. That way, it’s business as usual for coal miners, electricity generators and all the multi-nationals who export coal, minerals and metals. We can carry on consuming vast amounts of energy for each unit of output. We can even sell CCT technology to the rest of the world. Everyone’s a winner, especially the coal industry. It is the recipient of $500m in subsidies to help it develop CCT.
Analysts don’t necessarily share the optimism that clean coal will be either feasible or operational in time to make the significant cuts in emissions demanded by climate scientists.
Despite there being not much light between the main parties, there is an important distinction when it comes to the Kyoto Protocol.
Howard is committed to meeting the Australian target [108% of 1990 levels] but will not ratify Kyoto. He will not enter a future binding agreement unless big emitting developing countries are similarly bound.
Likewise, Rudd will only enter a future binding agreement if big emitting developing nations are also bound. But importantly, a Rudd Labor government would ratify the Kyoto Protocol [and presumably meet the Australian target].
Most big emitting developing countries are already signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. However, the first commitment period [2008-2012] did not bind them to emissions reductions. Instead it allowed them to be recipients of offset investments from developed countries through the clean development mechanism.
This arrangement enabled developing nations to expand energy use and raise living standards with lower emissions than what would otherwise occurred.
Meanwhile, industrialised nations would take a lead on emissions reductions. Historically, they had been responsible for most of the increase in CO2, therefore, they would be the first to cut. Following this example of global leadership, developing nations would then agree to binding emissions reductions in subsequent commitment periods.
However, Howard never saw a leadership role for Australia. Kyoto discussions were viewed as some kind of trade negotiation, where Australia would seek to extract the maximum concession that it could.
Further subsequent Australian hardening against Kyoto and a shared antagonism with the US has now created a Catch-22, crying out for leadership.
The developing world will [rightly] not budge on emissions reductions until industrialised nations demonstrate leadership. Australia and the US – two of the biggest per capita emitters – refuse to take action unless some of the poorest people in the world cut their emissions.
This leadership vacuum seems all the more ironic in light of the vigour these two nations have assumed the mantle of global leaders in prosecuting the so-called war on terror.
It is easy to overstate Australia’s influence on global climate change (though it was the 10th biggest contributor to growth in greenhouse gases over the last 10 years). But Australian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would place significant pressure on the USA to follow suit. Howard and Bush have been as thick as thieves on this issue for too long.
Australian intransigence has lent political support to US stonewalling, allowing it instead to following the appearance of action through the less-significant Australian-led initiatives, such as AP6 and the Sydney Declaration.
Labor should win this election. Therefore Australia should soon be bound by the emissions reductions in the Kyoto Protocol. This in turn could create enough pressure to bring about force US ratification.
Once the developed world are finally on board, China, India and other burgeoning modernising nations may accept that the developed world has finally taken the lead on emissions reductions, compelling them to do the same.
Ratifying Kyoto would also benefit Australia in other ways. It would certainly improve its international environmental standing, currently in the dirt. It would also send a signal to the renewable energy industry to stop deserting our shores. And importantly, by ratifying Kyoto, Australia would have a seat at the negotiating table for subsequent commitment regimes, soon to take place in Bali.
Currently, Australia has mere ‘observer status’ and will be sat at the back with the scruffy crew from Greenpeace. And you can imagine the urgency that an Australian delegation led by Peter Garret would bring to the occasion.
Benefits would also accrue in weening the nation off the subsidy-rich quarry-vision that is current conflated with ‘economic policy’. Australia should be well placed to move to a low carbon-economy.
Without Kyoto, Australia’s only other options lie with piss-weak regional agreements, such as the AP6 and the Sydney Declaration. Both regimes give parties a free ride on emissions and the funds invested through the various mechanisms are dwarfed by what’s on offer through Kyoto.
Both talk merely of aspirational targets, for reductions in emissions intensity only, rather than in absolute terms. The Sydney Declaration, for example, would see a 250% increase in APEC emissions to 2025 [assuming a 5% GDP growth rate]. This is so far removed from what scientists say we need to do its not funny. With global neighbours like Australia, I’m just glad I don’t live in Bangladesh.
However, an incoming Labor government will have a rough trot, such is the state of emissions growth they will inherit. It will be akin to trying turn around an oil tanker.
Already, it is probable that Australia will miss its Kyoto non-target. Environment Minister Turnbull recently admitted we might miss it by “1 or 2 percent”. Another way of putting it is that we will miss it by 25% of the room we had to manoeuvre [8%].
Australian emissions plunged in the early 1990s, thanks to a slowing of the massive land clearing rates of the late 1980s. [The peak year for land clearing was 1990.] Since then, emissions growth has been on a steep upward trajectory.
With no future emissions reductions possible from reduced land clearing, slowing emissions growth will not be easy and no longer the outcome of a single policy issue, such as slowing clearing [which was implemented by State Labor governments anyway].
A more concerted effort is required. This is politically tough and will affect pretty much the entire economic ‘superstructure’. Does Labor have the will to challenge this? I doubt it. But ratification of Kyoto would at least be a decent start.
Labels: climate change, election, global warming, John Howard, Kevin Rudd
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Now I know why it's called football
What a cracking game of rugby at the weekend. Flowing, aggressive, end to end stuff, with great handling, direct running and a just result.
Of course, I'm talking about the third place play-off between Argentina and France.
The Rugby World Cup final was a different matter: a dour affair of ping-pong kicking, collapsed scrums and the most unimaginative rugby you can imagine. Even as a final it failed to be exciting.
Though hoping for a Springbok win, I almost wish Cueto's nearly-try (after a great break from Tait) had stood, if only to demonstrate to the teams the value of scoring tries.
It was a World Cup Final, so it was bound to be tense. More a game of chess than rugby, with the result more dependent on someone doing something wrong, rather than doing something right.
Tait, Crazy Horse and Easter (twice) dutifully obliged, giving the Saffers the penalties they needed to win the game.
It was ironic that England came closest to scoring a try. It would have their first "worked" try for them in around 3 and a half hours of rugby. (The gift against France doesn't count.)
So when they needed to score a 5-pointer - in the last 10 minutes - it was brutally clear that the England midfield had no idea of how to bring one about.
Wilkinson in particular showed a valiant refusal to take the ball to the line and deliver any sort of pass that would get the Bokke defence guessing.
He passed it too deep and too early and too slowly, making his team mates obvious targets for a patient defence.
Eventually, it would get kicked back to South Africa, almost out of boredom.
For their part, South Africa seem prepared to do just enough to get them over the line.
Both teams seemed to be content without the ball. Kicking it back to their opponents, feeding on scraps and waiting for the mistakes and penalties.
This is not how the game should be played.
Presumably even England fans (once of their rightful surprise and elation to have made the final) would like to see teams actively go out and "win" a game, rather not come second by default.
Think of the England team of 2003. It was almost the complete side: immense pack, great midfield, flying wingers and an almost perfect penalty kicker. No one begrudged its World Cup win.
How have we got from that to the absolutely risk-averse territorial and mistake-based rugby we have today?
Hopefully Stellenbosch might make a difference. Either that or the entry of Argentina and Fiji to regular international competition.
Labels: rugby, rugby world cup
| I am employed by Brisbane City Council. All views expressed in this blog are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer. |
From WeaselWords.com.au