There’s already been a fair bit of commentary on the carbon emissions White Paper here at LP. Bernard Keane sums up the substance accurately and concisely:
The surrender is virtually complete. Our biggest polluters have won, and the rest of us will be paying for it under a joke of an emissions trading scheme that encompasses a significant transfer of wealth to our largest polluters.
Also writing in Crikey, Mungo McCallum acerbically targets Rudd’s mantra of “balance”:
The search for balance is in essence a policy of appeasement, an attempt to please everyone and avoid making a hard decision. In the short term this may appear to be good politics, but in the end the balancer is revealed as an equivocator, someone with out the courage of his convictions — if indeed he has any real convictions. But worse still, attempts at balance at the expense of genuine commitment almost invariable lead to bad policy.
Kevin Rudd has shown his true colours with the White Paper. We’re seeing a combination of the tawdry managerialism of the public policy wonk – split the difference and get the most ostensibly powerful actors onside – with Rudd’s own desire to rub the Liberals’ nose in their poor standing. As far as the politics goes, that’s about it.
What we’re not seeing is the other side of Rudd’s dialectic – the supposed attacks from the right. Rather, industry and polluters have had their wildest fantasies fulfilled while right wing bloggers are delighted that the left are unhappy. Reading between the lines, the fiction of denialism stands exposed, ideological bollocks which itself masks uncritical worship of big business.
It may well be the government’s view that those opposed to the targets set have nowhere else to go. All the silly rhetoric about “the latte left” ignores two political realities. First, as with the increasing salience of climate change itself, it’s mistaken to imagine that a public campaign for a stronger target won’t get traction beyond “inner city lefties”. Secondly, by demonstrating a failure to show political courage, Rudd’s laid the foundations of a broader disappointment which may well arise about his unwillingness to spend political capital and his inability to take “decisive action” or “hard decisions”.
Elsewhere: John Quiggin on the “balance” thing.
Good post, Mark. Ridout could barely hide her glee today. The statement:
“What we’re not seeing is the other side of Rudd’s dialectic – the supposed attacks from the right.”
Well, right on cue to fulfill Kev’s self justifying prediction that there will be someone to the right of him, we have the Queensland Resources Council coming up with: This will cost jobs. It would be hard to find a worse eco-exploiter than the peak body for queensland coal, except possibly their familiar, the qALP, so if they didn’t complain that 5% was too much, no-one would, and that would be very surprising.
“It may well be the government’s view that those opposed to the targets set have nowhere else to go. ”
Sadly for our favourite Mandarin, Rudd – they do have somewhere else to go. Expect a massive spike in the Green vote in 2010. Real talent like Tanner losing his seat, and the Greens holding BOP.
See how smart Rudd looks then. Young people voted in droves for the real deal, ALP – not some adenoidal ALP State Premier act.
Here’s yer basic problem: 5% doesn’t look REMOTELY like ‘balance’ to the Kevin 07 crowd. And that comes on top of a truly woeful set of other policy responses on climate – like the policy joke that is pretending solar panel access is a welfare issue.
It is interesting that the PM has commissioned over 100 reviews on different things, but at the same time, government policy turns out to be worse that what the reviews will recommend, presumably because of a higher power — Kevin. It was fairly obvious which bits of the Green paper were from a higher power: the part to do with petrol prices; the part where they decided that all funds from auctioning permits would be used to compensate households and business — thus ruling out Garnaut’s recommendation that there is substantial investment in technology, or addressing market failures.
When Garnaut released his interim report and recommended greater reductions than 60% by 2050, Penny Wong immediately came down on the review, reiterated the 60% target, and sidelined Garnaut as “just an input”. I’m sure a higher power than Penny Wong was involved in this. I have very strong reason to believe that this was a big factor in why the targets released by Garnaut in Targets and Trajectories were also weak. The 5% and 15% targets modeled in Treasury’s modeling do not take into account Australia’s high per-capita emissions — if they did, they wouldn’t be able to end up at a 60% reduction by 2050.
Then there was the review on the NT intervention, which recommended that compulsory income management be ended, especially in communities that didn’t want it. The minister went against this, on the basis of anecdotal evidence, or was a higher power involved?
Despite his wonkish image, when the PM gets involved in policy himself, it is politics that matters, rather than good policy. When it comes to politics, the PM has demonstrated himself to be very cautious. The PM is risk averse when it comes to politics, but not risk averse when it comes to the safety of the planet. Kevin Rudd has not demonstrated that he has the courage to make the right decisions — despite all of his talk about being ‘decisive’.
To support Lefty E’s point, the latest Essential Media poll shows a full quarter of Australians want targets higher than 25%. Clearly for them it’s an extremely important issue.
Let’s say 10% of them are already Greens voters. If even a third of the remaining 15% swing to The Greens next election that’s some spike.
Yeah, its his first major squib – and it doesn’t even have the advantage of getting the politics right. Wake up Kev, ya drongo – if people want a climate squib, they will vote coalition. Thats the real deal: guaranteed, rock-solid squibbage. The populace will wear a hit for real cuts – but you just made every buck in increased costs hurt through pointlessness. Tighten their belts for a pissweak transfer of wealth to polluters scheme? Who’s advising you, and what are they on? Is it because they havent slept since November 07?
There ain’t 10 votes in this for the ALP – and there’s 1000s to lose on their left flank.
If I were Rudd’s staff, I’d be calling up the carbon lobby and telling them “you’re not complaining loud enough”. If the plan was to piss off everyone equally, they got it wrong.
Maybe its time for Kevin to get a new focus group.
The plan was not to piss off everyone equally.
Business groups were well prepared for the announcement and are savvy enough to know when to keep their mouths closed.
While not ruling out supporting the government, the coalition have already said that they think the government’s approach risks jobs. That, and the evident dissatisfaction of the greens is all the government needs to demonstrate to those that matter in our electoral system – voters in marginal electorates – that only the ALP can be trusted to steer a sensible middle course in the climate change debate.
That 25% of the electorate want cuts greater than 25% is a meaningless statistic unless you can answer the following questions:
- what proportion of those 25% are swinging voters?
- what proportio live in marginal electorates?
- of the sub-set that are swinging voters, what proportion will change their vote because of the government’s decision?
- of the sub-set that are prepared to change their vote, what proportion of those will not preference the ALP over the coalition?
- which marginal seats do you see the ALP losing as a result of this decision?
As hard as it is for some of you to believe, I suspect that Kevin knows exactly how to manage the politics of the issue.
He knows that the only long-term threat to him remaining PM is a resurgent coalition. In terms of winning/losing elections, the greens are a non-issue.
His strategy leaves the coalition nowhere to go on this issue.
His strategy means that he won’t have to spend much political capital on an issue that, earlier rhetoric aside, he cares very little about.
While the financial crisis is irrelevent from the perspective of the eventual impact of the ETS, the point is that Rudd will have to steer this package through the Senate during a period in which Australia may well be in recession. Please don’t kid yourself that if unemployment rises significantly in 2009 that this will alter the way this issue is framed politically.
The fall-out seems pretty obvious to me. The ALP will lose some support on the left. That may be enough to unseat one of Tanner, Plibersek or Alabanese. Then again, it might not. In the electorates that matter, the ALP will get back what it loses in primary votes in preferences. By giving the coalition little room for manouver, the ALP will ensure further internal squabbles amongst the coalition, reinforcing the current perception that they are not fit to govern. The ALP will win the next election with an increased majority in the lower house. They will also pick-up seats in the Senate from the coalition, but the balance of power may fall to the Greens. That of course will have implications for future ALP policy, but the ALP will worry about that later.
Mark has a more substantive point about the possibility that a perception will develop that Rudd doesn’t care enough about anything to expend political capital on it. My suspicion is that Rudd’s aim right now is to increase the ALP majority significantly at the next election. Nothing will be allowed to endanger that goal.
Once the larger margin is secured, he will be in a position to be bolder. That will be in the area of tax reform, health care and education – NOT climate change.
Before I get jumped on, my comment relates to the POLTICS of the government’s decision – NOT the rightness of the POLICY itself.
There, many of the LP contributors are on much safer ground.
Labor Outsider, what is being focused on and completely negates your issues about marginal seats etc. is the Senate. There is an extremely likely chance the the Greens will have at least 8 Senators at the next election.
Labor’s been able to ignore them so far, I don’t know how long that will continue to be the case.
Check the polls at the end of next year. There will be a great many fearful in a deepening recession and a little concerned about a Greens that doesn’t seem to have the slightest interest in the people of the current generation.
Economics will decide who wins the next election, no other issue will come close. Every decision the government makes now has to have its economic implications interrogated in depth. The government comes out with a range, removing some of the economic debating points away from Turnbull keeping himself in control of the economic debate and credentials.
Nothing would lose the Government votes faster than a gratifying but economically threatening target. Just see how quickly Brown recovered in the polls in the UK because of economic management issues.
It upsets those who want a self gratifying feeling in their loins but Labor has taken a more strategic long term approach to the issue. Whilst everyone here is on board for strong targets the masses have other pressing issues and can be easily lost if it all appears as a competition between their jobs and a higher target.
It is not a matter of courage. No point at all in having courage if you end up whining on the sidelines. I guess many people have forgotten the frustration of crying out about Howard for a decade.
He knows that the only long-term threat to him remaining PM is a resurgent coalition. In terms of winning/losing elections, the greens are a non-issue.
Only because Australia has an unfair electoral system.
You should really do something about that.
Oz – the ALP understands that the only way to prevent the Greens from increasing their numbers in the Senate, would be to take a position on climate change that would significantly increase the probability of losing marginal seats in the lower house to the coalition. The latter would imply losing government. The former just makes it much harder to pass some types of legislation. Perhaps you believe that there is a way for the ALP to satisfy both constituencies? I suspect where you and I differ is on what we think that marginal voters will cop on this issue. Only time will tell on that…..
The GFC has killed off any chance that the ALP would take CC seriously for all the reasons Labor Outsider and Th. Paine put above.
Climate Change is still a green issue – it is not a mainstream issue. Rudd merely managed to catch a ride on it at the last election due to Howard’s complete and permanent miss on the environment.
I had hoped of course, too audaciously as it turns out, that the ALP might have changed it spots, but this is the reality check we had to have.
By the way Oz, do you really think that when Rudd and his team make decisions on these types of issues that they don’t consider the implications for BOTH the Reps and the Senate? There would have been a ferocious internal debate on this issue. Yours and many other views will have been presented. Rudd has made a pragmatic political decision. Given the contents of the earlier Green Paper there was never any doubt that his decision would be pragmatic. As I said, time will tell whether they miscalculated the depth of the electorate’s support for deeper cuts….
I still have much to learn about the details of what has gone down today but I think I can probably forego the incisive 19th century opining of Mungo MacCallum–but this from John Quiggin’s gut-level response really does gives me pause:
Yes, Barack was a community organiser when Kev was an old boy diplomat but don’t let us fool ourselves about Obama’s team (the U.S. senate, anyone?) somehow being the people to make Wong and Garrett blush with shame (if they have anything to be ashamed of, that is.)
No Melbourne ALP Reps seat is going Green anytime soon–besides Green numbers never quite being as good on election day as they are in the Newspoll, and the need for Lib preferences, there’s the fact that demographics are just not enough to displace someone like Tanner. The Greens would need a serious Leftwing backlash–a backlash centred on more than just one issue. Granted it looks like it’s been a good day to recruit single issue GW voters for the senate ticket, Lindsay shouldn’t be too concerned about 2010.
Unless the ALP brand is as on the nose as it was in ‘96 (something the Keating loyalists here would dispute) the only hope for the Greens to displace Labor anywhere is most likely another Cunningham bye election.
Though I do wonder if either Tanya Plibersek or Michael Danby has it in them to stuff-up majorly and create a serious opening for the Greens in either Sydney or Melbourne Ports–if your looking for a Green upset they’re the kinds of Labor MHRs who’d go down, not Tanner.
The public will be satisfied that the government has now addressed climate change and will instead continue to worry about job security and mortgage repayments. Arcane disputes about 5% or 15% mean nothing. In 2020 when one of Rudd’s successor’s gets elected on a promise to address climate change, the public will buy the same pup again. Climate Change is not only a catastrophic market failure – but also an issue way too hard to be solved by popular vote.
It requires massive and rare leadership from someone who actually understands climate change. We need the next Bob Brown real quick.
(A better informed Obama will be marginally better than Rudd on this issue – but not a heap. He’s another Christian optimist, unfortunately.)
I think the reaction here today shows intelligent people can offer pricipled opposition to bad policy…
While being quietly pleased that they have their barricades to fall back on.
(I was a bit creeped out to see on the news how Bob Brown smiled, grabbed Rudd’s hand and said, “FAILURE.” Wouldn’t refusing to stand anywhere near Kevin be the dignified thing to do?)
I’ll just comment quickly that some on this thread are showing a tendency to regard the political situation as static rather than dynamic. It’s by no means predestined that a worsening economy will crowd out climate change as an issue. That may be conventional wisdom in politics, but conventional wisdom is wrong a lot of the time. A lot depends on both the nature of the public campaign for stronger targets and also the degree to which Rudd does deplete his political capital – ironically by refusing to spend it.
The political thinking of the Rudd mob does take the electorate for granted. The economic downturn could make many people stop and think about things differently, especially if there are higher levels of unemployment. We will have to wait and see whether President-Elect Obama and his Administration will actually take up the issue of climate change, energy efficiency and renewable energy. If they do, this move by the Rudd Government will put Australia at a serious disadvantage. We will be left behind if we stick with coal and low tech power.
Whitlam spent up big when he was PM. He had lofty ideals like free tertiary education and he was going to make those ideals a reality. Rudd is spending up big too, but I don’t see any ideals apart from keeping the Rudd PPM rating at a permanent high. He’s like a rich uncle who is always giving money away and wants to be adored for it. We’ll see how long it will last. I suspect that Rudd’s response to a steep fall in the polls would be a turn towards authoritarianism. Its still all sweetness and sugar and the moment though.
The real issue, Mark, is seen in the rhetoric. rud has repeatedly emphasised that there will be clean coal, CCS,…and some renewables thrown in for decoration. Or put another way there will something that won’t be available for many years (if it does indeed work), there will lso be its essential partner that also won’t be available for many years and is highly doubtful,…..and some of what is available now, does work, and becomes more cost competitive every year, thrown in for decoration.
If rud cannot see the flaw in that approach then he is not paying attention. Furthermore rud is playing the very dangerous game of stringing this process of assessment out to suit a political timetable. We had to wait for Garnaut, then we had to wait for the white paper, next we have to wait for the start of the failed before it begins ETS, which brings up to the next election where doubless there is planned a flurry of flag waving vote sucking renewables projects to win the election and buy another three years in which time it is desperately hoped that there will be good news from the clean coal people.
Call me cynical if you like, but that is how it looks to me.
The tendency is not to regard the political situation as static, but to disagree that the dynamics of the climate change debate represent a danger to Rudd. IMHO there is a tendency on this blog for commentators to regard what they think as the “right” policy response as the most sensible political strategy. It will be quite straighforward for Rudd to ignore the public campaign for stronger unconditional targets. I also suspect that he will be quite successful, politically, in convincing marginal voters that the implied size of the unconditional per-capita reductions represents a meaningful reduction. He certainly won’t lose any sleep over the prospect of the Europeans criticising the target. As for the political capital argument – at some stage he will spend it – it just won’t be on climate change!!
I came first to L.P. trusting that most opinions, which I usually respect enormously, would confirm my own that Kevin Rudd is indeed intent on delivering an ETS which could be implemented in 2010, however modestly at 5% target or even upgraded to 15% once the U.S. and others showed their hands, plus a real commitment to seeking a mandate to go even further at the next election. Isn’t this a lot more than nothing? I suspect that Bob Brown knows that and will play his part in Rudd’s elaborately staged play on the outraged left. As well, isn’t there still room for legislation on more support for renewables, which I imagine will come once he’s bagged the Coalition and got this ETS legislation through.
Some of the commentary here is almost hysterical, rather like the young woman throwing herself around at the ETS press presentation. I understand it comes from people very well informed on the environmental science and much as I respect that what good does it do to be so knowledgeable and yet lack simple political and common sense. How much further along are we now to Australia actually doing something about this issue than this time last year? Once the ETS is in future debate will not be about whether to jump, but how high. Unlike Howard with the GST Rudd has built in plenty of opportunity for moving to higher targets, but he knows he will need a mandate, and he won’t get that without pulling the teeth from the Opposition very thoroughly.
As well, it’s ridiculous to talk about Green voters putting sane people like Lindsay Tanner out and replacing them with – who? If the Greens want to spoil ALP electoral chances with that sort of politicking then they will be shooting down their only hope of real change. Much as I love Bob Brown I can’t see him carrying the country through this sort of change. Thank you, Labour Outsider, for encouraging me to think I might be thinking straight, after all.
I don’t think that’s right, Labor Outsider. I think there’s a tendency on this blog to believe that good policy can be good political strategy. That’s, after all, what Kevin Rudd is supposed to believe.
I don’t see that the ETS in this form brings Rudd any meaningful support (and it certainly loses him support) – and to the degree that upsetting big biz would bring on his head claims about dangers to jobs etc. – it would be quite possible to make an argument against this claim. The trouble with Rudd is that his instinct is to avoid political arguments most of the time, except his hobby of beating the supine Liberals about.
As to whether he’ll ever spend that political capital, I beg to doubt it. Tony Blair supposedly did the cautious thing in his first term to entrench Labor in office, and then wasted the subsequent second term mandate, as he himself concedes. What’s Rudd’s long term goal for the country? What platform will he take to the next election?
Mark – I have read your response to Labour Outsider carefully and I still feel there is a mis-reading of Rudd and Labour here, coloured by your strong commitment to the environment – not irrational or hysterical perhaps – sorry about that – but still not pragmatic. I have never felt that Rudd misled or prevaricated, although I agree with you he avoids political arguments. Might that not be the secret of his extraordinary popularity? It’s also part of his diplomatic training, I imagine, and it does seem to work much of the time. Nor does that mean he lacks courage or convictions.
Lets agree to disagree Mark….Rudd doesn’t need new support, he needs to retain as much of his existing support as possible….On cue, the coalition will tear themselves to shreds arguing about whether to support or oppose the ALP policy. The Greens, as ever will do a great job of appealing to their base, but few people otherwise….Contrary to what Robert said earlier, the ACCI and the Minerals Councill have already issued statements implying that the government has gone too far…..
Meanwhile, Kyoto has been ratified, Australia will cut by 5% unconditionally by 2020, more if a good international agreement is negotiated, the 20% MRET still stands, and there is considerable scope for the 2050 target to be lowered significantly over time.
If Howard had still been in power: Australia would still remain outside the Kyoto framework; the start date would be 2012 at the earliest; the MRET would be no larger than 10% and probably abolished; preparations for a domestic nuclear industry would be underway; and giveaways to large emitters would have been even greater.
Its fair enough that you think that the ALP could have constructed a successful political strategy around much larger cuts. Personally I doubt it. But surely you can at least admit that things would be worse under the alternative?
“What’s Rudd’s long term goal for the country? What platform will he take to the next election?”
.
Me in charge and steady as she goes.
All those “pragmatics” out there – here’s a question for you.
What do you think happens if there’s no agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s argued it’s because the developed countries didn’t live up to their initial commitments in Bali?
Kevin’s claims to have “done something” about climate change would be hanging round his trousers, to a point where even the classic “low information voter” gets it.
Finally, might I suggest to you that Labor didn’t win on the economy last time, and that the Tories are always going to be regarded as being competent on that topic (even when they aren’t).
Vote green in 2010. It really is that simple.
“What do you think happens if there’s no agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s argued it’s because the developed countries didn’t live up to their initial commitments in Bali?”
A load of Sir Humphrey style answers which bore and dull the perceptions of the voters.
“Kevin’s claims to have “done something” about climate change would be hanging round his trousers, to a point where even the classic “low information voter” gets it. ”
Don’t insult the voters – we are all equal with a ballot in front of us. The information I priviledge is my conscious choice and may vary from the choices you make .The fact is the Government is moving towards implementing a progressive goal.
Absence of a strong position doesn’t negate all other positions and the focus groups chosen from among the electorate will sort of the details of where concerns lie.
“Finally, might I suggest to you that Labor didn’t win on the economy last time, and that the Tories are always going to be regarded as being competent on that topic (even when they aren’t).”
Maybe this is correct but they can sure lose because of perceptions they have stuffed it .
Instead we’re within the Kyoto framework whose targets we would have allegedly met anyway, are waiting for
GodotCOAG on the MRET, but that’s irrelevant in economic terms because BP Solar’s gone and Keppel are on the skids, and I completely disagree that large emitters would have been given more permits. They’re absolutely delighted with the outcome.There are some positives to the scheme- such as a move towards 100% auctioning, but the pathetic governance arrangements make the likelihood of ever reaching them seem pretty slim at best. I also note with some apprehension that you’ve distanced the politics from the policy on this issue. I doubt your condemnation of our ‘hysteria’ helped this much.
Between the targets and the governance proposals, this is appalling policy and even riskier politics.
I dispute the Greens are irrelevant – because I can very much see Turnbull negotiating a preference deal with the Greens if Turnbull commits to tougher targets than the ALP has.
The ALP would have no hope if it knew that even 50% of Greens voters were serious about preferencing the Libs over the ALP.
L.O. – sure, Howard would have been worse. But I’m not so sure that Turnbull would be, at this point. If I were Turnbull I’d be looking to head into the next election with, say, a 25% target for 2025 (something that would be easily achievable if the government simply bought up all the coal-fired power stations and forcibly converted them to low CO2 generation sources, potentially including nuclear), and a Greens preferences deal.
Incidentally, I’d trade off pretty much all of those to get better targets. Once the targets are in place the start of actual trading is pretty much irrelevant (provided it’s some time in the next few years). The MRET is unnecessary once the targets are set, quite frankly; it’s a sop to people who like windmills and hate coal for the sake of liking windmills and hating coal. As for giveaways to large emitters, I don’t really care all that much. They’re a massive transfer of wealth from us to Big Carbon, but they don’t actually affect emissions levels. As for nukes, when you actually poke down into the supposed health risks that nuke plants pose, it’s up there with greenhouse denialism in its scientific credibility. If that’s what it takes to fix greenhouse, nuke on.
Maybe people should throw thongs at him the next time he has a press conference. After all nothing is more hurtful than ridicule politically. Remember Emo Man?
I object to that label. I am a fatalist, a doomer if you like.
Well there won’t be. Not in the dire economic environment that will exist in 2009.
The big problem worldwide is politicians are not prepared to punish people for emitting carbon. If they’re not prepared to use sticks then the carrots have to be made irresistible. i.e. Outrageous tax concessions, rebates, subsidies etc to a point where the economy is totally distorted.
They need to engineer a clean tech bubble. I see no other way forward.
People get the government they vote for.
True Howard, but in this case, it’s not us that are primarily affected by the government’s actions – it’s our grand-kids and their kids and their kids…
As wizfaus notes, and and as several LPers have noted earlier, there is a political factor Rudd’s ignoring here. People all over the world want something very serious to be done to curtail climate change. Its one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason Rudd got in here, and I would suggest why Obama and the Democrats did so well in the last US election. We want something done because we’re worried what will happen to our kids and grandkids if we don’t. That’s an immensely powerful motivation that has persisted throughout history, a motivator for some wars, especially in the early modern and modern period (note I said some) and, I would suggest all revolutions from the American Revolution onward. Its a motivator for most of our major industrial and technological changes. Its why politicians got together after WW2 and tried to ensure world peace and make sure the Great Depression never happened again.To make a better world for our kids. And we know if we don’t do something really serious about climate change/global warming we will arguably be the firsat generation that DIDN’T do that. Rudd seems to have forgotten that and gone with the money-men – the stinking capitalists, if you like.
The vast majority of people don’t want this done for themselvesa. They want it done for their kids. Rudd forgets that at his peril.
I favour throwing lumps of coal.
I think Rudd reckons he can shaft the Australian public who voted for him to take action on climate change now and do some pork barrelling closer to 2010, working on the political maxim that people have short memories.
Why is he doing this? Well, who benefits? The coal industry, big business, the polluting big end of town. Democracy is failing. We are not represented. We vote for idiots who say they will do things, who then ignore us and look after the big end of town.
Don’t forget, Rudd isn’t just directing billions at the coal industry – he is propping up the recalcitrant car industry with billions of greenwash too.
The system is a failure. There is no “balance”. The failure will cost us the planet. By the time conventional politics smacks into the metaphorical brick wall, it will be too late.
I would like to know if any of the European countries or Canada achieved their Kyoto levels.
I seem to remember that Canada didn’t reach their agreed levels. My point is what is the use of setting targets that are impossible to reach. The European and English targets are admirable, but will they actually reach them.
Yes, this target is really small, but very do-able. I also suspect if their wasn’t a global crisis it would be higher.
I don’t understand why the government hasn’t given more time to a consumer information ad which gives information on what we can do immediately. All the people here would know this info, but the everday person has some info but not alot.
A Qld electricity company recently sent out a pamplet which gave the costings on Solar panels and solar hot water systems.
Why doesn’t the govt, colate all this info and set it out in a new ad. People building a new house would be able to utilise this info in the planning stages.
aj, providing info to households on how to reduce household emissions is something I’ve been waiting to see for a long time.
Just a list of the top 10 most effective tips & tricks, whether it’s composting or driving more efficiently or switching the washing machine to “cold” would surely be a good start, though I’d like to see them re-sent every 6 months with new ideas, and to keep them in the public consciousness.
aj, the Canadian government has turned its back on its Kyoto committments by expending vast resources on tar sands exploitation. This was a deliberate strategy by the Harper Government.
Assuming a textbook version of market competition, that may be true of the MRET. But the market is lumpy, investment times are long and require broad normative support. The Electricity Commission became so extraordinarily successful in building coal fired power stations because it was effectively a taxation scheme without representation – they attracted government financial support without any formal democratic oversight. You can’t just pretend this doesn’t matter and the market will sort it out now – there’s a huge historical assymmetry to deal with.
As for the massive transfer of wealth, why stand idly by while you get your pockets picked???? Even assuming for a moment that, yes, this is a pragmatic necessity, the Parliament will be setting the cap effectively providing no certainty at all. Renewables investment will not come without an MRET. Garnaut’s dealt with the interaction between MRET and a carbon price very well.
We are supposed to be aiming for something like a 60% reduction on emissions by 2050, to “avoid dangerous climate change”.
The 5-15% range in 2020 is fully in accordance with this longer term target. Given that we are starting off at 110% in 2010, these targets are a 15-25% reduction relative to 2000 levels in 10 years to 2020. Extrapolate that to 2050 and you get 50%-90% reduction on 2000 emissions. If that is not a completely appropriate range for medium term emissions reductions for Australia, then I don’t know what is.
—
There is an argument that since the global target is around 60% by 2050, Australia should aim higher to meet our responsibilities, since we have higher per capita emissions. I agree fully with that, but don’t think a measured start in line with the global target is incompatible with that long term goal. Indeed, the 15% reduction target, if extrapolated, would see us make a 90% reduction by 2050, which I think is close to meeting our responsibilities.
I respectfully disagree with those who say that Rudd has been gutless. It would have been very easy in the current economic circumstances for him to put it all off for a couple of years. That he has done anything at all, sticking with his original timetable, is actually quite impressive.
Rudd is obsessive about keeping specific promises, such as starting up an ETS in 2010, and offsetting the effect on petrol prices (even though the promise was made when they were headed for $2 a litre and they are now $1 a litre.) He is doing what he said he would so. Rudd never made any promises about specific targets, and through the whole process went out of his way not to make any such promises. This is the essence of Rudd. If he says he’s going to do something specific, he does it, for good or ill. That is his political strategy for building a long term relationship with the electorate. Time will tell whether the strategy works.
Of course the policy itself is excessively generous to the carbon polluters, which is very galling to many people, including me. But the hysterical tone of the comments here – “The failure will cost us the planet” is completely over the top. Nothing Australia does will have any bearing on the planet, except inasmuch as what we do influences the countries who really matter — the US, China and India.
People get the government they vote for.
Not in Australia, you don’t.
PV is better than FPP, but its still no way to run a democracy.
Steve, AIUI, a gradual stepping down of emissions from 110% of 2000 levels now to 60% of 2000 levels by 2050 will not even come close to keeping CO2 under 450ppm. There are scientists now suggesting even sustaining current levels for much longer is going to have huge negative impacts.
Further, let’s be realisitic – levels for 2010 are still going to be ~110% of 2000 levels. So let’s say we achieve the following:
2010 110% of 2000 levels
2020 95% ”
2030 80% ”
2040 65% ”
2050 50% ”
a) that’s not nearly enough – if Australia, one of the richest countries in the world – can only achieve 50% cut by 2050, then what does that say for likely global levels?
b) it means that the decade between 2040 and 2050 will have to see a 25% cut in emissions. If we can do a 25% cut in 10 years then, then we should be able to manage better than a 13% cut between 2010 and 2020, given that we’ll have all the low-hanging fruit to go for in that period (accepting that by 2040 we’ll have better techology).
aj,
I would like to know if any of the European countries or Canada achieved their Kyoto levels.
perhaps you should do your own very simple research, however, yes, several european countries have made genuine inroads and cuts to emissions, and are on track to meet their far less generous Kyoto targets. The UK and Germany, amongst the EU large economies, have done actual real work on this. Spain, on the other hand, is worse than Aus (despite being even worse affected by climate change in the long run).
I must be getting old and cynical. I love it on how certain threads a whole bunch of “long-time readers, first-time commenters” pop up with a convenient bag of party talking points.
Rudd is undefendable on this. Your arguments about something being better than nothing (debatable), and the shrewd politics of the move demonstrate the same idiotic short term thinking that is selling my nascent grandchildren’s world down the river.
Rudd is about as popular as jesus at the moment. He could have set a 25% target, told the carbon industry to bugger off and continue making its billions on exporting, and if there were any shenanigans from the hopeless opposition, called an early election and absolutely destroyed his opponents.
He didn’t do any of this. Instead he gives away billions of dollars to what amount to some of the most profitable companies in Australia, ignores the need for research in the green sector (so much for all that innovation cant), and plays a dangerous game of jeopardising _any_ action at a global level, by the ridiculous assumption that developing countries will be prepared to cut the same percentages, when per capita they are so low, there is simply nothing to cut.
And you have the gall to call this smart??? To call it long term thinking??
This may shock you party hacks, but some things are actually bigger than politics. This is the single most significant issue the government, the world, every one of us will face this century, and they flubbed it. And we’re meant to applaud the fact he played good politics with it? Don’t be sickening.
Steve, yes the trend line is on track, however it’s already been pointed out how piss weakly this will fly internationally. Furthermore, what Rudd essentially said yesterday is, “I don’t want to think about it. What a headache. We’ll let the kids worry about it when things start looking really dire.”
Yes hurrah. That’s leadership.
Steve: According to the science, the appropriate target for Australia in 2050 is negative net emissions.
That is, we should be sucking more CO2 out of the air than we put in.
Patricia WA makes a lot of sense. Perhaps patience is required here. Rudd may be delivering carbon pollution reduction one sensible political step at a time.
I’m undecided. I know enough of the ALP to doubt they have had up til now any real belief in Climate Change – and yet slowly they increase their commitment.
A year ago the debate was about the science – now it is about levels. It’s a step.
BTW, does the 5% by 2020 target include any emissions reductions that we buy from overseas? In other words, Australia’s actual emissions could be higher than today by 2020, but we’d still make that target?
Because while I agree that it doesn’t really matter where the emissions are coming from, that 5% target is beyond a joke if we can achieve it simply by paying other countries not to emit (which we could easily afford).
wiz: it’s a unilateral commitment. However, I think that the White paper allows us to buy carbon credits under the Kyoto CDM.
Furthermore – and this is a massive crock – permits are not allowed to be exported. So if permits are cheaper elsewhere in the world, companies can buy them to avoid making cuts here, but we’re not prepared to let other countries take advantage of lower-cost emissions reduction opportunities here if they emerge.
Pathetic.
wizofaus @ 42 – agreed – we’re so obsessed with the supply side, the much cheaper and easier side to address demand side of energy efficiency is being ignored.
Chris (a.d.o) – don’t think it’s being ignored, but it’s surprisingly how little has been visible on that front.
We should have mandatory minimum efficiency standards for all household applicances by now too – and certainly mandatory ratings – in fact what I’d like to see is mandatory display of estimated running costs for all devices – i.e. when I’m choosing between the 42″ Plasma and the 40″ LCD, I can see that the former will cost me $100 a year to run and the latter $50 (or whatever). Same for cars etc.
I’ll admit to not looking at the ‘avoid dangerous climate change’ thinking for a couple of years. Last I looked it was 60% by 2050, but a quick google and it seems as though current thinking is a 25-40% reduction by 2020 for the developed world, and 80-95% reduction for the developed world by 2050 to limit to 450ppm:
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=39:media-releases&id=129:bali-a-mandate-to-avoid-dangerous-climate-change
wizofaus – Not only appliances, but energy efficiency of houses. I’m currently trying to build a house and its proving quite difficult to find a builder who is willing and knowledgeable about building energy efficient houses and at the same time not a high end really expensive custom builder. In our experience the project home builders who advertise their green credentials in reality don’t offer much at all and are quite surprised when someone starts asking for things like extra insulation or grey water systems.
In a way houses much more important than appliances – people will turn over appliances every few years, houses are going to stick around for at least 30-50 years and are quite expensive to retrofit.
Chris, sure, in fact I’d like to see mandatory insulation standards for *existing* houses.
This is a Potempkin Village (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village) ETS.
Set up to dupe local useful idiots, gullible visiting dignataries and tick the box for outer suburban voters who are sensitive to rising energy prices.
The McMansion vote is always up for grabs. The ALP has wrested it off the LN/P after Howard milked it for all it was worth.
So what if the inner city latte-Left desert to the Greens. Since they were never in danger of deserting to the LN/P their preferences have no place to go but into Rudd’s bag.
Mr “20-20 conference” saw you coming. You’ve been had.
“…certainly mandatory ratings…”
It’s already mandatory to give average (active and standby) power consumption, isn’t it?
If there is no world wide agreement at Copenhagen then 5% in the face of increasing population will be a courageous decision. If there is 15% is even more so.
45% more people would normally involve about 45% more emissions, instead this will be cut by 5 or 15%–people above are dishonest only mentioning the 5%
And there is a GFC happening, remember that confidence is important uber alles ATM? This will not disturb that confidence.
Not happy with all of it, the free permits, handout to big polluters are crap.
Once the ETS is in place it can be stepped up. Nope. Don’t have time for that, we could have done that if we hadn’t had the wasted Howard years, i.e. if this were 1996 or ‘98. So the ETS won’t be increased, any improvements will come from spending on alternatives and increasing efficiencies and that sort of spending is what Keynes would approve of.
Could Kevin have been braver? Probably
FDB @ 60 – I think it would really help to extend the star rating system to pretty much all appliances, not just tvs, a/c etc. And make shops publish the ratings in all the advertisements. I think the compulsory rating system they have energy efficiency of houses in the ACT is also a good start, though I think the system itself needs a bit of a look at.
wizofaus @ 59 – yes, like pool fences you could mandate standards when a property is sold. Its possible for houses, but maybe not for appartments where its a lot more difficult to retrofit changes.
Perhaps, buried somewhere in the product specs, or printed on the box in Megawatts to make it sound meaninglessly small.
What we need is a simple colour scheme: green for “this thing cleans the air while it runs”, blue for “alright, it pollutes, but nobody will notice”, purple for “just like every other sucker screwing up the atmosphere” and red for “so you want to personally destroy the great barrier reef”?
Chris – I actually think the star rating system could really use the addition you suggested – quoting power consumption in dollar terms. $ per load of washing, hour of TV, litre of water heated etc
It would be hard to mandate, as prices will fluctuate, but I reckon the first big chain store to start doing it (and make a big song and dance in their ads) would see increased sales to more than cover it.
$ per hour of TV is too small to notice though. $ per year of typical viewing makes more sense.
Why is it hard to mandate?
PatriciaWA@25:
Oh, no doubt. But that’s what’s at issue here, surely. The ALP spent a lot of last year defending a polling lead. That was probably necessary to win the election, but I’m not sure “courage” and “conviction” are demonstrated when Rudd feels that he needs to do the same in government.
And Labor Outsider @ 26 – I doubt that counterfactuals are all that useful in this instance. Had the Liberals been re-elected, John Howard may not have even been PM by this stage.
But I think that those who think that Malcolm Turnbull will sign up to something better in order to attract preferences are barking up the wrong tree. Whether or not Turnbull personally gets climate change, it’s clear as day that a lot of Coalition MPs are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to vote for this ETS, let alone something better.
Which raises an interesting question, Mark: how much further are Labor prepared to water the ETS down to get a deal with the Coalition?
“Why is it hard to mandate?”
It imposes a burden on the retailer rather than the manufacturer, due to the need for regular updating as prices change.
FDB, sure, but a pretty tiny one in the scheme of things. And it can 100% subsidised if needed.
Mark, pretty much only me barking up that tree at the moment – and you’re assuming that those Coalition types that would object to anything other than a plan to deliberately increase emissions by 2050 will still be relevant in 2010.
Oh and Mark, ultimately it comes down to whether Turnbull is any more or less gutless than Rudd! Something tells me when it comes to the crunch, he’ll actually be prepared to display a bit of leadership on the issue, but we won’t know until 2010.
wizofaus, a lot of the Coalition’s MPs are denialists and “skeptics”, including Andrew Robb who has significant portfolio responsibilities in this area (assigned by Turnbull). Turnbull will be seen to have had something of a win if he can get the Nats and the Liberal right to vote for anything.
Indeed, Rob. The Libs are currently sticking with “starting too early” as cover to try to reach an agreed position. Rudd will hope to bludgeon them into agreement by painting them as the right side of his little triangulation, and expose as much division as he can. But I’m sure he’ll deal if he has to.
Come on guys, cheer up! Global CO2 emissions will be down sharply in 2009-2010.
Incredible to think a few hundred dodgy mortgage brokers have achieved in one year what the political leaders of the world couldn’t make happen in a decade.
Mark, you’re assuming their denialism is more important to them than their desire to be back in power.
If come 2010 the only way the Libs can get into power is to get in bed with the Greens, they will. Failing that, they’ll gett in bed with greens voters who think that getting emissions policy right matters more than the various other areas in which such voters would take a dim view of Coalition policy.
And if the Libs could take a commit to reduce greenhouse gases by 20% in 10 years to the electorate in 1990, then Turnbull can surely do even better in 2010.
wizofaus, you’ve got far too much confidence in the rationality of the Liberal party, I fear!
Assuming that climate change becomes a hot political issue by 2010, the ALP will already be in that bed first.
Turnbull and the Coalition aren’t going to do a deal with the Greens involving tougher targets. If Turnbull tried there would be no Coalition left. As Mark said Robb and others in the Libs are denialists and as for Barnaby and his Nats they’d just walk
Labor can’t get anything through the Senate with only just Green support and I don’t think Rudd is up for a double dissolution. This package will likely get through the Senate with some more Coalition discomfiture. Come next election Rudd can say he kept his promises and that the Coalition are a dog’s breakfast. Steve Fielding will be gone. Greens possibly increase their numbers and Steve Fielding gone. I can’t see Labor getting a Senate majority ever but it may be a more workable Senate
Perhaps too any Coaltion shambles over this next year might have beneficial flow ons for Labor in Qld in an election year for Bligh
I’ve never had high expectations of Rudd and I don’t see him as anything more than pragmatic. I suspect, too, Labor is haunted by memories of the double dissolution politics of the Whitlam years. I know on election night I was really worried, almost depressed at the thought of ongoing Coalition control of the Senate and a reprise of the Whitlam years. And of course we also have a global financial crisis. I’m sure Rudd and Labor want to take the Liberals crown (unearned IMO) of being the good economic managers
I say this not to justify Rudd but to simply as how I see him operating. It was weird yesteday I had an email from Get Up asking me to indicate whether I would change my vote next election over this. I couldn’t respond because, well, there’s no way under heaven I’d ever vote for Coalition, and in Qld at any rate I have no confidence in the Greens here. Last election I voted 1 Democrats in the Senate. Next election I’d probably vote Socialist but my preferececs will still go back to Labor. In the Reps, unless there is a good 3rd party candidate, I would probably go 1 Labor. So I couldn’t honestly say I would change my vote (unless switching from Dems to Socialists in the Senate counts)
“Next election I’d probably vote Socialist but my preferececs will still go back to Labor.”
This is the brutal reality.
Voting is compulsory; the voting method for the Reps is preferential; therefore everyone on the Left who thinks Rudd has betrayed them, sold out, etc will either vote Labor or Coalition.
In two or three inner city seats there is an outside chance of a Greens candidate beating the Labor incumbent, but unless Labor gets back with a majority of one or two and must rely on the hypothetical Greens Reps member(s) to form government, that won’t matter even if it happens.
The Left has nowhere else to go, unless Turnbull moves to the left of Rudd on climate. And the chances of that happening are nil.
wbb, but the ALP thinks it is already in bed with the Greens.
And Rudd has put down his target – he’s going to look foolish trying to adjust it dramatically upwards in 2 years’ time.
Anyway, it’s all pretty idle speculation. But the Liberal Party in 2010 will look a lot different to what it does now (think how much it’s already changed in the last 12 or so months). No reason to assume trying to get Greens preferences is going to threaten the Lib-Nat coalition – indeed, several here and elsewhere have proposed that the Nats & Greens are much closer together on the issues that actually matter than one would first assume (though I still struggle with idea they could actually work together).
Into a rabble plagued by division and constant leadership speculation? Turnbull has and will be unable to impose much of a direction on the Liberal Party – the reversion to a hardline anti-refugee position (among other things) indicates that he’s unable to make over the party into a more moderate posture (if indeed that’s his goal – as opposed to pure opportunism and lust for power). I’m just not seeing it, wizofaus.
As to the Nats and the Greens, have a look at the Queensland Senators. Ron Boswell is worried about “global cooling”. Barnaby represents a constituency that are the prime target of the “radical Green” propaganda.
I don’t see any possible extrapolation of the current political conjuncture which sees the Liberals taking a stronger line on climate change than Labor come the next election.
Well you probably would have thought the same in 1988, and you’d've been wrong
I’ll rephrase my prediction: if the Libs win in 2010, it will be because they’ve got enough green voters on board.
I’m certainly not suggesting the likelihood of that actually happening is particularly high.
Oh, and would you have expected Barack Obama to win the U.S. presidency 2 years ago?
It was more of a forseeable possibility than a Liberal party which was structurally reshaped along right wing lines by Howard over many years turning green, wizofaus!
The salience of the issue in the late 80s and early 90s and the composition and electoral position of the Libs were both very different.
Well Wizofaus and Mark must be really delighted to see the populists of the Left and the Right (Bob Brown and Barnaby Joyce) agreeing to hold a Senate inquiry on the carbon pollution reduction scheme. All their dreams of tough emission targets for Australia now await only the results of this inquiry.
No! But surely when the Senate hears the evidence it will immediately recognise the wisdom of 25 per cent emission cuts by 2020 (an effective 33 per cent between 2012 and 2020 for Australia).
Reality has this unfortunate habit of intruding,a s can be seen by the fact that the Liberal climate change denier Andrew Robb has already said the Coalition will back the motion for a Senate inquiry.
What is clear is that Bob Brown has been played for a sucker in his haste to agree to a Senate inquiry. The Liberals and the Nationals get another chance to parade a succession of business “leaders” to say how even the Government’s modest emission targets will ruin the economy.
Waiting in the wings will be the climate change denial “experts” from the Lavoisier Group, recent columnists in The Australian such as Brendan O’Neill, Bjorn Lomborg and “rocket scientist” David Evans.
Oh, it will be fun and games for the climate change deniers. Well done Bob!
And who will Bob Brown call as witnesses? Well, probably an assortment of University professors to say how the world will be ruined if the Government’s targets are adopted.
Guess which views are likely to get the most attention in the mainstream media.
The Senate inquiry presents an ideal opportunity for the Liberals and Nationals to combine to string it out long enough to prevent the Government’s scheme becoming a reality.
Maybe the ALP will win in 2010 without a carbon pollution reduction scheme being in place.
Then again, maybe the electorate will be so influenced by the problems besetting the economy that a majority will decide to return power to the Coalition, which will not have to worry about any action on climate change.
After all, thanks to the good Senator Bob, the Coalition will be able to quote the Senate inquiry evidence of all the business “experts”, plus the views of Lomborg et al that drastic action is not needed, to prevent any worthwhile action in its first term, at least.
I can almost hear Turnbull parroting the Lomborg view that AIDS and hunger are more important world problems than climate change.
And Wizofaus and Mark, I look forward to your condemnation of United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer saying Australia should be applauded for entering the carbon market.
“Australia’s now put a figure on the table, something countries have been calling for for a long time,” ABC Radio’s AM program quoted him as saying.
He went on to say different countries had different circumstances. US President-elect Barack Obama had committed to return emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The US was 17 per cent above 1990 levels and had a strongly growing population.
Yvo de Boer went on: “Compare that to Europe, which is pretty much on target and does not have a growing population. Within Europe there are countries that have growth targets, countries that have reduction targets, countries that rely a lot on nuclear energy, countries that rely on coal, so the same figure doesn’t automatically mean the same thing for every country.”
Don’t you think he’s perilously close to supporting the population line the Australian Government used in its White Paper?
JohnL, I’m unsure why you’re addressing that comment to me.
Bob Brown is a poseur who hasn’t achieved anything for the environment since the Franklin Dam, and that was a long, long time ago.
If the Turnbull-Brown odd couple decide to stall, Rudd can put his scheme to the Senate, get it defeated twice, call an early DD election, and run on his scheme. He will win easily, and the Greens could well lose Senate seats, the way the senate voting method goes.
Mark, I gathered from the tenor of your original post and subsequent comments that you believe that Rudd should have set higher targets, even though I maintain the reality is that he could not get public acceptance at a time of a global finance crisis and with the stated views of the Senate “Independents”. I interpreted your remarks as putting commitment to high targets ahead of achieving what may be practical, rather than lose everything.
I don’t know what “lose everything” means in this context, JohnL – the architecture and governance of the scheme’s design are so bad it’s difficult to see it having enough flexibility to ever become meaningful – and were it to be improved, the argument with the polluters would have to be restaged – and that would be very difficult given that the government caved in at this point. So I just don’t know that what is being contemplated is “practical” – unless the aim is to further encourage polluters.
I think Rudd had enough political cover to go for 25%.
“I think Rudd had enough political cover to go for 25%.”
He did, but Rudd would prefer to spend his political capital on where he can be attacked from the Right, for it is the Right which will provide the existential threat to his government.
Well 15% should have been the “we’ll do this no matter what” target. Naming a figure in the case of a global agreement seems indefensible – how would it look if the main players at Copenhagen all sat down and said, alright, we’re agreed at a 25% cut by 2020 for all developed nations, and 20% for China and India – sorry, what was that Australia, you can only do 15%?
“the Greens could well lose Senate seats [at a DD election], the way the senate voting method goes.”
No. The second WA seat would be dicey, but based on the 2007 senate results they would get one in every state (except maybe SA) and two in Tas (with an outside shot at three).
d
Sorry Spiros, but doesn’t the ETS represent for Rudd a golden opportunity to “spend his political capital on where he can be attacked from the Right, for it is the Right which will provide the existential threat to his government.” Or did you mean can’t be attacked…?
That’s how I’ve read it too, Darryl.
The other thing to consider about any potential DD election is that Steve Fielding would be up for election in it. He’s fox-crazy enough to realise how limited are his chances of re-election.
FDB, what I meant is that Rudd will want to stop attacks from the Right, and he won’t care about attacks from the Left.
Darryl, if Rudd chose to run a DD on climate change, it would be because he thinks his version of what to do about it would be a vote winner. He’d be after votes from left and right, and could well get them.
Liam, Fielding is dead under a DD or normal election (unless the ALP decides to preference him again — to paraphrase Obama, “Could they be that stupid? Yes they could!) Fielding is also irrelevant to Senate voting if the Greens side with the coalition. (“Could they be that stupid? Yes they could!)
You all talk about “Rudd had enough political capital to go for higher”.
Well yeah, except he didn’t want to go higher. I’ve accepted Rudd never gave a stuff about climate change and used it to milk the electorate. I think it’s time some of you did so as well.
W
Well in the sense that the point of “political capital” is that it allows politicals to do things that are likely to lose them support, then I would think that Rudd is indeed spending political capital by supporting such a small emissions target. Which strongly implies to me that he believes it is “the right thing to do”. Which implies, as others have suggested, that he thinks he knows better than 1000’s of the world’s best scientists and economic advisers.
Spiros, if an unwillingness to spend political capital is what Rudd meant by calling himself an economic conservative, a lot of folks wouldn’t have given him that capital in the first place.
When they can’t get a luxury car tax through this Senate, an ETS with high targets, come on. You can’t spend political capital you don’t actually own.
wizofaus, I don’t see how this is going to negatively affect Rudd in political terms.
jo, you say that as if Rudd consulted with the minors as opposed to shafting them and spending months running around appeasing carbon intensive industries.
Oz, oh it will…just not very much, unless it forms part of pattern of similar decisions.
If you only look to 2010 this may be a smart political move. But if Rudd wants to win the 2013 election as well its not necessarily such a good move. By 2010 I agree with Mark the Libs will still be well to the right on this issue, and the Greens are only in a position to pick up three lower house seats at most.
But by 2013 this will clearly be the dog that it is. The Libs may have found a way to outflank Labor on the green side by then. Alternatively, if the Greens do pick up those 2-3 lower house seats in 2010 and their people do a good job they may be looking at ripping a much larger slab off the ALP in 2013.
But Rudd is clearly incapable of looking that far ahead (a lack he appears to share with some people on this thread).
“Bob Brown is a poseur who hasn’t achieved anything for the environment since the Franklin Dam, and that was a long, long time ago.”
Unless of course you include single handedly founding an organisation that is protecting and restoring almost a million hectares of bush.
http://www.bushheritage.org.au
Not to mention the parts of the 1989 Labor Greens accord that Labor actually stuck to, winning the Goldman Prize, forcing the rewriting of the Regional Forests agreements through the Weitangara Court Case…
Mark, What I mean by losing everything is having no carbon pollution reduction scheme in place by mid-2010 and the possibility of having none for some considerable time after that if the Liberals won in 2010.
I consider a 5 per cent reduction by 2020 (which is 13 per cent less than Australia’s Kyoto target for 2012 – i.e. 108 per cent of the 1990 level) is about all that has any chance of getting through the Senate – and that only with Liberal support. Note than Barack Obama’s policy is to have US emissions at 1990 levels by 2020.
You may think Australia’s targets too low, you may not like the details, but it is a start by 2010.
What you seem to be saying is that nothing is better than 5 per cent, which represents a definite quarter, a possible half with 10 per cent and maybe two-thirds with 15 per cent of the 20 per cent targets for many EU nations).
As mentioned, the 5 per cent is really a 13 per cent reduction in Australia’s emissions from 2012 (on the assumption that Australia will meet its target of 108 per cent of 1990 emissions by then).
I consider that once a scheme is operating it will be easier to amend and, unlike the projections by Wizofaus up to 2050, I think there will be a marked acceleration in emission reductions by Australia from around 2015. This acceleration will result from people becoming more comfortable with the concept and technology changes (such as hybrid cars, more solar power, greater use of renewables).
However, if Malcolm Turnbull or some other Liberal won in 2010 any carbon reduction scheme would not be in place before 2012. And there’s a big “if” on whether there would ever be one.
So when there’s a policy the Rudd government actually believes in, they’ll start off high, put it through the Senate and then negotiate.
But in this case the apologists come out and say “Oh well it never would’ve gotten through so no point trying”.
Has there been a memo put out stating that the Labor Party will only introduce legislation that has a 90% chance of Liberal support in the Senate?
JohnL, I don’t believe there’s any realistic chance the Liberals will win power in 2010 at this stage of the game, so I’d exclude that possibility from any counter-factuals which are actually relevant to how the government should act now.
My argument has also been that it would be possible for the government to argue the merits of a 25% target without suffering undue political fallout.
Laura Tingle in the Fin today confirmed that Cabinet gave serious consideration to such a target.
Incidentally, this White Paper is also a win for the industry shills and “skeptics” within Labor’s own ranks.
Mark: Thank you for your reply. I admire your optimism about a 25 per cent target, but don’t think it is realistic. On this issue, to each his own views. But I always do like your posts.
A few more points here.
- just because some people commenting on this post think the ALP got the politics right with this decesion doesn’t mean that they are ALP hacks. And it is unfair to criticise those separating the politics of the decision from the policy itself, given that the title of the post invited us to do just that. My understanding is that there are other threads on this site for arguing over the rights and wrongs of the policy.
- the 25% cut was “considered” by cabinet because some cabinet members from the left have been pushing for deep cuts for some time. They were never going to win the debate inside cabinet. Never. Nobody senior on Rudd’s staff would even have argued for it. Why do you think Garrett was moved away from the main game on this issue after the election? The PM’s office knew that there was no way Garrett could be convincing in arguing for this sort of target, or free permits to polluters.
- the shock of some people commenting here is a little strange, given that Rudd has been sending signals for at least a year that the start would be very slow. Look at the Green Paper. Look at the decision to exclude petrol. None of this is a surprise.
- Because of the problems in the Senate, the only way for Rudd to have spent his political capital on this issue would have been to introduce legislation for a tougher target (lets say 25%), have it knocked back – and then had a double dissolution election. All this in the middle of what may turn out to be a deep recession. Sure he may have been successful. But surely you must also acknowledge it would have been a high risk strategy.
- which brings me to my next point. Rudd will not spend much political capital on this issue because it is not a priority for him. Do you know what car Rudd drove until his staff pointed out that there was a disconnect between the political rhetoric and his own actions? Rudd picked up climate change as an issue in opposition because he sensed that Howard had miscalculated. He was never committed to deep cuts in emissions or staking his prime ministership on the issue.
- now that we have seen how an ETS can be distorted by lobbying from business interest groups, perhaps there will now be wider acknowledgement of the benefits of a carbon tax.
- there is no way that the Coalition will move to the left of the ALP on this issue. None. It would split the party immediately.
- the idea that Australia being prepared to only go to 15% will be enough to ruin the Copenhagen meeting is ridiculous. To get Australia on board at Kyoto, other countries allowed land use and land use change that had already been done to be included, as well as an increase in emissions from 1990 levels. Australia will argue that the cuts it is prepared to take, when compared to the baseline path, are just as significant as what the European are committing to. And 15% will not be the final negotiating position – it is what the government will hope to get away with. They will go higher if it is the difference between a good agreement that minimises carbon leakage and no agreement at all.
- the upshot of all this is that there will be more analysis of Rudd as he is, rather than what some activists had hoped he would be. Evidence based policy was a political gimmick. Sure, Rudd is wonkish, and is interested in ideas, but he likes to win more. In practice, evidence based means that Rudd works out what he wants to do, and then gets staff and departments to find the evidence that supports that position. Rhetoric aside, that has been obvious in every decision he has made as opposition leader and PM.
I agree entirely. Watching cognitive dissonance unfold is a fascinating, if unnerving process. What has surprised people, I think, is what ‘taking action on climate change’ would actually look like – a massive, pointless swirl of bean counting rather than a commitment to structural changes in the economy. The governance challenge is expectation management, and at the moment, we require a very different kind of leadership than the major parties are offering if we’re going to have any hope of ‘turning the Queen Mary around’. Tradeable permit schemes have a very mixed record depending on the governance regimes that accompany them, but they all have one thing in common – the economics was battered around by the political process.
Maybe. But the differences are basically semantic (though, of course, significant). If the current parliament would only accept climate action on the basis of ‘free permits’ to the ETS, why wouldn’t they just grant tax exemptions to the very same polluters?
Who says that arguing for a bigger target is “going to the left”? Since when is doing what’s necessary to ensure our grandkids and great-grandkids grow up in a stable environment a left-wing goal?
There’s lots of ways Turnbull can push for a bigger target but still adopt a more right-wing stance.
It’s certain possible that aiming for a bigger target will, as you say, “split the party”, but in what way would it split them any further than they are already are? They already have policy on the table (the fuel excise cut) that the leader doesn’t support. Ultimately the Libs are going to do what they need to do to give themselves an electoral chance at the next election. If that means shedding a few “recalcitrant” ministers, then so be it. The alternative is another 3 or 6 years in opposition. I’m baffled that anyone would think that preferable.
You’re absolutely right that there’s no evidence Rudd genuinely cared about emissions reductions until he saw there was a vote to be got from it. So what’s hard about believing that the Liberal party will take the same road? (especially given that there is actually some evidence Turnbull does care about environmental issues)
Almost exactly a year ago, Kruddles became seriously [b]hot [/b]in Bob Brown’s eyes by supporting cutting CO2 emissions by 25 to 40%:
Bob Brown and his collection of lunatics want a 100% reduction, even though this would have zero impact on biosphere temperatures, due to CO2 energy absorption being all but maxed out at less than 100ppm. But nobody ever accused Greenies of being more intelligent than a cactus. Which is also green.
The large Australian delegation that flew, in [i]evil [/i]carbon dioxide belching jet aircraft to the UN climate talks in Poznan stated it “fully supports” the proposal that developed countries need to cut their greenhouse gas emission by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020.
Then Kruddles announced a 5% reduction is his plan on cutting the deadly evil plant food type gas by 2020. But just what does 5% actually mean?
Well Australia’s [i]evil [/i]and [b]bad [/b]CO2 emissions are currently at 326,000,000 tonnes per annum. This is about 1.2% of the global man-made emissions (natural emissions are higher, of course, but these are [i]good [/i]human-cooties-free emissions by holy gaia herself!).
If we assume that CO2 has caused 100% of the 0.7 degree increase that we have seen over the past 100 years (absolutely false, but we’ll get to that later) then Australia cutting CO2 by 5% will result in a decrease of the following:
0.00042 degrees per 100 years, this being
0.0000042 degree decrease per year.
But wait, there’s more!
Water vapour provides about 95% of the greenhouse effect, so that means it is responsible for 95% of our 0.0000042 degrees a year of delectable heatyness, meaning that big, bad homo sapiens and weak, whiffy homo greenietofu is responsible for:
0.00000021 degree decrease per year
But it gets better.
Of the rest (Source: US Dept Energy Oct 2000 ‘The Important Greenhouse gases [except water vapour] Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000) Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
In 2000, 288,000ppb were from the pre-industrial baseline, 68,520ppb were natural additions and 11,880ppb were man-made additions.
That’s 3.27% of CO2 concentration being man-made.
Meaning that Kruddles has delivered a whopping great cut – which will [i]Save The World!![/i], of:
0.000000006867 degree decrease pa.
What can anyone say except ‘YAY for Kruddles!’ A theoretical 6.867 billionths of a degree decrease per year! Obviously, 50% would have been better, with a gargantuan 68.67 billionths of a degree decrease.
No [i]wonder [/i]Bob’s all in a tizz.
That is, if they were even right and CO2 had anything to do with the climatic changes which are actually driven by the sun.
And for this, working families only have to pay $208 a year, on average. Each. Surely they could afford $2080, and their jobs? For gaia and bob?
You just have to laugh at such hubris, and insanity.
MarkL
Canberra
I hope all you posters are using green computers… or do you upgrade them every few years along with your mobile phones etc… If the Gov believes that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will prevent the climate from warming above natural variation, then why did it pump 10bn to kick-start consumption? Consumption = CO2.
Surely they could have even presented exactly the same deal with the reverse orientation: we’ll design and implement a 15% reduction scheme, but reserve the right to issue new permits/rebates later to bring it to a 5% scheme if global negotiation breaks down.
wiz…you are right….a stable environment does not have to be a goal that is the preserve of the left…..but I don’t think it is a controversial thing to say that those we associate with the politcal left are more likely to support deep cuts than those on the political right….whether the left/right spectrum is a good way of describing political views or not is another issue that we can debate elsewhere!
On the libs, I think you will be sadly disappointed. Political parties often depart from the centre ground on particular issues for long periods – especially when those that hold the real power have strong non-centrist views on that issue. Turnbull would be dumped if he attempted to push coalition policy closer to the greens than the ALP. Those ministers you talk about dumping hold more sway within the Coalition than Turnbull does.
DK – you are right that if you want to distort an ETS you can also distort a tax – but the tax would still be a lot simpler than an ETS and more transparent – you wait until you see the tax code that has to be drawn up to deal with the treatment of permits – and don’t even get me started on the regulations that will be needed to make sure that the secondary market for permits operates properly….
JohnL @ 107 – thanks!
Elsewhere: John Quiggin on the “balance” thing.
This isn’t the place to debate the science of the issue; you really should take these discussions elsewhere. But briefly:
Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing. Because the Earth is covered with large bodies of water, water vapour in the atmosphere very quickly comes into equilibrium. Thus while water vapour is certainly a major greenhouse gas, it is not responsible for driving changes in the system: when it is out of balance it either rains out of the atmosphere or evaporates out of the oceans.
Your numbers are wrong. Current CO2 concentrations are 380ppm so for a sart you are missing a big chunk. Secondly almost all of the increase is due to fossil fuels and land-use changes. The 68,520ppb is not credible. I don’t know what the CDIAC used to say but it certainly doesn’t say that now.
Note also for reference that the ‘natural’ pre industrial greenhouse effect is over 30˚, (although things don’t scale linearly).
Every climate model includes the effects of the Sun. None are able to explain the recent warming from solar activity (although early 20th century warming had significant solar contribution.
It’s well acknowledged that the Sun is going through the coller part of its cycle right now. Yet temperatures remain at near-record highs. Why?
I wouldn’t be citing Quiggin in a discussion about balance. Most people have a tendency to think of their own position on political/policy issues as closer to the centre than they actually are. And Quiggin’s view that it is not possible to both care about the environment and think that the Government’s targets are sensible is downright offensive. Of course, just because a policy position steers a middle ground doesn’t mean it is the correct policy, or a just policy – but Rudd is crafting a political message here and the nature of the reaction so far from those poeple/groups that supported more stringent targets will help him sell it. Rudd is not dumping his own supporters. His supporters hold a wide range of views on this issue. Also, we live in a country where voting is compulsory – and hence politicians have to focus on a lot more than motivating their bases. And, in our system of government, the governing party often does not hold the balance of power in the Senate. Perhaps Quiggin thinks you have to go along way to the right to find a dissenting voice, but I suspect that those of a different political persuasion might find the journey a bit shorter.
That’s a rather odd statement, with respect.
What does the word care about mean in this context? It is not a nuanced statement at all. One could care about the environment and think:
- that the best way to support the environment is to choose an initial target that has the best chance of securing passage through the parliament.
- that the 450ppm is the appropriate long-term goal but that optimal way of getting to that long-term target is to stabilise emissions in the short-term and make deeper cuts later on.
- that when translated into the deviation from baseline emissions, the 15% offer represents a larger reduction from the baseline than what any other country has put on the table and thus represents a fair distribution of the short-term burden of emission reductions.
All the statements above are debatable. However, the proposition that anyone holding them cannot care about the environment IS offensive and IS wrong. It is also the sort of view that will put many of the regular people that have to be convinced of the need for deeper cuts offside.
Perhaps a sporting analogy would be appropriate here – attack the ball, not the man….
Let’s see where MarkL got all his zeroes from:
(Total warming per year) x (Australian fraction) x (Rudd emission cuts) x (Fraction of warming due to CO2) x (Fraction of CO2 that is manmade)
.007 x .012 x .05 x .05 x .0327
Since the projected warming for this century is several degrees, not 0.7 of a degree, the first number is out by a bit. The last two numbers are seriously wrong, however, as Martin B explains; in both cases “CO2″ should be “extra CO2″, and in both cases they should be replaced with about 1. If we also go with 3 degrees warming in this century, how do the numbers come out?
.03 x .012 x .05 x 1 x 1 = .000018 degrees annual mitigation from a 5% cut
which over a century would come to
100 x .000018 = .0018 degrees out of a 3 degree increase
.0018 / 3 = .06%, which is 5% of 1.2%. So MarkL could have saved himself the calculation by simply saying that 5% of 1.2% is .06% of the problem solved.
Martin’s right – this discussion (initiated by MarkL) really isn’t on topic for this thread. Please take it to another one if anyone wants to continue it.
Labor Outsider, I see where you are coming from; your arguments are engaging and very eloquent. However, staffer or no, you are clearly more of an insider than an outsider.
And accordingly I do feel that, like a lot insiders – and no judgment, we’ve all been there – you have forgotten that there is an outside, and that indeed not everything runs back to the politics of a given situation, Kevin Bacon style.
Many people here feel that the responsible thing to do is stake some political capital on this, because it’s an issue that is bigger than politics. You might counter that nothing is, then let me rephrase: Politics should be subservient to the urgency and danger of this situation. When true disasters are occur, true leaders don’t pause to lick their fingers in the wind. Global warming is a disaster – a slow motion disaster, certainly, but that makes no real difference.
Your quiet confidence in the capacity of future generations to deal with this problem – and its daily-growing scope – is optimistic to say the least. Who do you think will be governing when the time to make those deeper cuts arrives? It won’t be Kevin Rudd, and post-2015 it’s pretty unlikely to be Labor, unless he pulls some kind of Menzies stunt.
I think everyone reading understands, quite clearly, that reducing carbon isn’t a priority for Rudd. You’ve outlined that brilliantly, and like a lot of others I’m kicking myself for listening to the rhetoric and symbolism, not the positioning that accompanied it.
But that doesn’t excuse the rhetoric. Whether Rudd thinks it’s vital for his – or Labor’s – political future, is immaterial. This is so much more crucial than either of those things, frankly.
And he indulges in this sophistry and flea circus acrobatics for what?? Study after study has demonstrated that the economic costs of actually doing something are paltry; negligible in isolation, let alone compared to the potential dangers of doing nothing.
For the sake of a few rich industries we have bastardised our first chance to set an example, replicating the same flaws we have already seen in Europe with a similar result sure to follow: unbridled cynicism and wasted time & money.
I feel you are creating a false dichotomy here, where the costs doing a shit job and doing a good one are of an equivalence. But they are not, not at all.
Patrickg
Let me clarify a couple of things.
I can assure you that I don’t think that everything runs back to the politics of a given situation.
I engaged in this debate on the terms that were made clear by Mark at the beginning. My understanding of his post, and I apologise if I got this wrong, was that it was his view that the government had made a political mistake as well as a policy mistake.
I think there are legitimate reasons to believe that the policy we have before us is the wrong one. But I don’t think it will cause him much political trouble.
Believe me, I could write for hours about all the aspects of current Labor policy that I think are wrong-headed. And it often depresses me when I experience the sharp realisation of how many of my own policy priorities are unlikely to be championed by any of the political parties in Australia – especially the one I have been a member of since I was 18.
I do think political capital is worth spending – and the politicians I admire most in Australian history – Hawke and Keating – both spent plenty on a raft of reforms that I believe made Australia a better place. I was simply explaining why climate change was not going to be the issue that this government staked its capital on. Who knows what they will decide to take a stand on – perhaps there won’t be anything – that wouldn’t surprise me as it isn’t exactly the most talented cabinet Australia has ever had.
If you knew my background you’d understand where I am coming from better, but revealing that would limit my ability to post comments on these threads.
Labor Outsider, that’s more or less a correct understanding of the purpose of the thread, but I guess it’s impossible to separate analytically policy and politics. The distinction is worth making, and it’s useful to do so, but there’s an inevitable tendency for the two lenses of analytical sight to blur.
Understood Labor Outsider, and please don’t jeopardise your commenting ability, I am enjoying them a lot.
You’re also right in that I am still letting my own emotions run away with this situation, so I’m not fairly engaging with the terms of reference (ha ha!).
Time will tell about political liability. I do suspect you’re right however; at least in regards to the house of reps. Senate may be another story, but I guess Labor feel it couldn’t get much worse in that quarter. Bugger me, I wish the Dems still had balance of power.
The whole thing is so damned Howardian, though; beautiful wedge of the Liberal party,and lib party supporters, painting opposition as deranged/demented and most of all extreme. I sound like someone jilted on their first date I know, but I really did think (and damn it, thought I saw some signs), that things would be different, you know? Policy-based, consultative. Smarter. What’s the point of consultation if you don’t take it on though? Sigh.
Interesting posts, Labor outsider, but I retain my view that this is a gross political misjudgment on Rudd’s part. That is is poor policy is self-evident. I accept many in the upper echelon ALP will only care about the somestic implications, but nonetheless:
All the guff about Australia’s emission being a small % of global matters nothing if we’re instrumental in canning a decent international target. Howard provided cover for Bush, now Rudd sets the benchmark low in the lead up. What happens if US/ UK go high, as indicated? What if he emerges one of bad guys? What if China say “are you kidding, look at Australia, why would we?”. Its a real possibility. How will that play at home with the Kevin 07 crowd? Like a lead balloon, Id suggest.
A genuine leader like Keating wuld be looking to play the main game – the economic reform angle. This IS economic reform – its called who invests first wins. Is the any doubt at all that sustainable tech will be a hi-value export in the coming years? Not much. But no, all we get is business as usual – at the very time our reliance on primary exports is looking a dubious earner. Where do these guys get off calling this stagnation economic common sense? Its simply conservatism. There’s no energy, no foresight. It will lead to lower incomes, not higher.
And finally, a lot of ALP heads live in this dream land in which the Greens are some bunch of ratbags forever destined to pull between 5 and 10%. In fact, there’s another group – probably as large, who are progressive, but wedded to the ALP through habit rather than conviction. A minor revelation, a moment of genuine disillusion will push them over. This is, potentially, that moment. And when the Greens starts getting 25%+ primary votes, lower house seats will fall to them.
As for the senate – forget it, thats probably already over. If Rudd sticks at 5%, the Greens will hold the coming BOP next time sure as night follows day.
And that, in turn, is an interesting point, Lefty E, and gets close to what I was talking about before in terms of a dynamic rather than a static analysis of the political situation.
There are those within Labor who believe that there is an irreconcilable gulf between “hard hats”/”jobs” and “Greenies”. This sort of policy direction is supposed to keep the former happy while giving the latter a rhetorical sop, while arguments about “radicalism” and the “lesser of two evils” are ramped up.
There might be a lot of people around our age with a long history of voting Labor, who do have ties of sentiment and association. Certainly I would never vote for the Tories.
But what you’re calling the Kevin07 crowd? The large majority Rudd got in the youngest demographics – they don’t have any sentimentality about the Labor Party at all for the most part. Electorally, WorkChoices was one driver of the big swing here to Rudd – but because of its pragmatic effects, not because of the principles of unionism that are important to us (and the unions know that). The big symbolic issue which helped swing that vote was climate change.
I’m also not convinced that there’s a floor above which the Green vote won’t rise, and if there’s not, then all the calculations about “having nowhere else to go” will be junk. There are people in the Queensland Labor party who are well aware of not just the potential danger here for them at state level with optional preferential, but also of the threat at federal level if Labor primaries start radically falling in some seats.
And, btw, there’s a clue here to how Rudd could have sold a higher target politically if he was serious about “beyond left and right”, “the reforming centre”, etc.
Except the ALP is roughly where mainstream opinion is on Climate Change. We should do something but not so much that it will actually interfere with our existing plans.
As mainstream thought progresss along the curve of understnding the reality of Climate Change so will the ALP’s position inch along. Always both a couple of steps behind the game. Why? Because it is damn inconvenient to find that, no, we can’t get what we want anymore. The percentage of people who are psychologically equipped for self-denial (aka Green voters) will always be too small to matter. The ALP is a party of self-interest. Workers looking out for themselves. A philosophy that worked a treat when the enemy was only the bosses.
It’s only when catastrophic events start to come too thick and fast to forget – like a Katrina every other month – that we will finally make a rush for the exits. And scientists insist that that will be way too late.
That’s where, again, I think there’s too much of a static perspective. What constitutes “mainstream thought”? If the ALP’s thinking of electoral calculation, then this isn’t sufficient. I’d refer again to what I said above about the youth demographic, and I’d also observer that opinion generally on climate change crystallised very rapidly over a short period of time, after a long build up. It’s quite possible to foresee events – either political or climatic – which would see that opinion re-intensify and grow.
All this goes to the very short term thinking Rudd has applied to a long term problem. I wouldn’t be anywhere near as sanguine as some that there won’t be a political cost to pay.
Indeed Mark, and thats exactly who I was getting at with the K07 moniker – Gen Y’s who voted for Kev and change, but would dump ‘the ALP’ without thinking twice. For me, it hurt to go Green. I actually jeopardised some older, ‘redder’ friendships by doing so! I bet I’m not alone there. It still doesn’t feel exactly right, doesnt quite fit – but I see environment as the threshold issue for everything else now. For those Gen Y/ K07 crowd, it wont matter a toss.
And frankly, I could wear 5% for now if I was seeing some ground-shifting rhetoric of the sort you note: the ‘economy versus the environment’ is a dunce-hat-wearing cliche of the lowest order. An out-of-date, three card trick, invented by shysters like Gunns and QLD developers – and K07 just played it as well.
Im not suggesting Keating would have done otherwise – but a leader/reformer for the times we’re now in would have. Shoft the whole debate. WE will invent this shit, and WE will flog it to coal-assed losers who didnt, and WE will retire down the coast having helped saved yer global butts!! But…. no. A boring fart-whimper instead. Frankly, I dont even see the consolation of good economic times in this equation. The whole thing’s a vote for soon to be redundant old-tech, a soon-to-be redundant old economy. Its just a complete failure all round.
I think we’re largely agreed on this, LE.
Wrt to Keating, I suspect he himself is probably closer to “let the polluters rip” Labourism. Although it’s hard to know, because he was certainly behind the “narrative” and “economic reform” push wrt this. But that’s not the point, as you note. His perspective may have been different if he were still in power, but it’s the style of leadership that Keating and Whitlam both exemplified – sharpening rather than obscuring differences and political choices, and laying down long term markers, rather than some combo of messy state Labor-esque compromise pap combined with impenetrably confusing policy wonkiness.
Right Mark – and it equally highlights what Id call one trick pony-ness on strategy. He was great at neutralising Howard by cosying up where Howard could hurt him, and then sending the flares up where he could make him look out of date.
It seems to me he’s still doing the same now: except the opposition are a pack of disorganised losers, who don’t warrant the time of day, who’d need a chop round their neck to get 25% approval among canine voters – and still, this sort of uber-cautious ‘neutralising’ shit. Compounded, as you say, but not even being good policy.
“who’d need a chop round their neck to get 25% approval among canine voters”
Well guys, the next few years will provide a neat little test of our respective political arguments. I wager that the ALP will significantly increase both its primary and 2pp vote at the next election. The Greens will take the balance of power in the Senate – but would have done so anyway. When the ALP 2pp vote eventually falls back to earth, I doubt it will have anything to do with not setting a strong enough emissions reduction target.
Indeed, Labor Outsider. We’ll see.
At the end of the day, the crucial issue is legislating the amount of CO2 any one person of the entire 6 or 7 billion people on earth may produce. The who and how of enforcement must be answered. Anything less is a fool’s errand.
The only issue that will matter at the next election is the economy. Anything that is perceived as hurting the economy (such as the ETS) will be a negative for the government. This won’t hurt Rudd however, because the economic situation will be so dire Australians will rally behind their leadership.
Open your eyes people. America is a basketcase, China is crashing fast, Europe is in a deep hole and Japan has been in an on/off recession for more than a decade. We are not going to escape this.
Global CO2 emissions will fall sharply next year, regardless of what the politicians do. Climate change will rapidly become a non-issue in this (political) environment.
As I said above, the only way forward is to engineer a cleantech bubble.
This thread turned out quite good towards the end. Labor Outsider, I fully share your views, though I don’t expect a major increase by the ALP at the next election, only a small one.
I wonder what the long-term damage caused by the ‘Mark Latham election’ is? If the Greens had a simple BoP this time around I wonder if the game would be quite different?
“As I said above, the only way forward is to engineer a cleantech bubble.”
How does a government do that?
Steve @ 141: Outrageous tax concessions, obscene subsidies for industry, super generous rebates for consumers … Make it a total no-brainer for consumers to insulate their house, buy a fuel-efficient car, put solar hot water on their roof, and make it a total no-brainer to invest in clean energy. There’s a lot of money on the sidelines at the moment looking for a home.
“There is not a contradiction between economic growth and sound environmental practices.”
That’s the key message Obama is out stating, again and again, as he positions for a massive injection of funds to rebuild the American economy around a clean green model, using the current recession to cast a Green New Deal.
Labor Outsider has eloquently laid out a case for the politics of Rudd’s decision. But the truth is it wasn’t his only choice that would have delivered good political capital.
Rudd could have gone a harder target, a much stronger regime of auction permit, larger stimulus to new energy & energy efficiency (especially for low income households for the latter), still compensated some industries, and been hailed as a visionary leader and enjoyed an even higher approval rating.
The politics (ie popularity), the economics and the environmental gains were all aligned in a magic moment, and he treated it like a pit toilet by going the political wedge. It’s both a failure of leadership as patrickg has described, a failure of imagination, and a failure to capitalise on a massive political opportunity.
So frickin’ sad.
myriad! Your opinion wanted here.
That’s http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/11/26/blighs-big-water-backdown/#comment-568334
It’s always interesting to see factual statements denounced as “offensive”, as in “Labor” “Outsider” at 118. To recap, Rudd had stated that his policy would be attacked by green “extremists”. I said, on the contrary that it had been criticised by just about everyone who cared about the environment.
LO could have refuted this statement by pointing to people with a well-established track record of concern for the environment and climate change in particular who had endorsed the White Paper, if any such people existed. Instead s/he gets on the high horse about a statement that is extremely mild relative to Rudd’s pre-emptive denunciation of opponents (presumably endorsed by LO).
I understand that Obama is promising to put $270 billion into green technology. This is the dimension that is so noticeably lacking in Rudd’s approach.
I’m wondering whether his desire not to purge the bureaucracy has left the greenhouse mafia well and truly in charge. The scheme they’ve come up with seems to be designed to preserve the privileged place of the polluters.
The developing countries have four advanced countries on watch – the US, Canada, Japan and Australia. The effect of the white paper will be to ensure that Australia stays on the list.
Any thoughts on Obama’s 0% target for 2020?
wbb: if that’s what they end up, inadequate, obviously.
But the situation for the USA is a lot different than in Australia. For one thing, it may well be Congress that makes the running on a cap and trade bill.
For another, the USA is in a position to do a bilateral deal with China that might significantly alter China’s emissions trajectory.
And a bilateral deal with China might alter the US targets.
Sorry, the amount to be spent on green technology is $150 billion, not 270, but the point remains. My source is Brian Toohey’s article in the weekend Fin Review, who thought the white paper could scarcely be worse.
Garnaut has attacked the whitepaper’s free permits and 4b cash giveaways to the worst polluters – which replicates the causes of the failure of the European ETS to reduce emissions. He said there is no policy basis for the giveaways – its just political.
Wong responded to this on TV and said the policy basis “is jobs”.
Which jobs Penny, and how many? What about the clean green jobs we are foregoing while sending $billions to the worst polluters? Do the Australian people really support this? How about a referendum to test this?
So it seems that Labor is:
* captured by industry and giving them exactly what they want in terms of (our) cash and free permits, and a high emissions cap. All this equates to no emission reductions.
* captured by unions who support old dirty 19th century employment (not that there is really much left of this) in the coal industry.
* playing politics by wedging the Liberals/Coalition -just look at how Wong put the acid on Turnbull “he will have to support our weak and ineffective 5% target”.
* ignoring the last 5 years of science that shows are in the midst of dangerous climate change.
I really can’t see our current political system doing much other than rearranging deckchairs and pandering to corporate power and providing them with corporate welfare.
Here is a real policy for them to consider:
Nationalise the entire energy industry with $5b, rather than just gifting them the money. Get rid of power retailers and wholesalers – buy them out. Then set yearly energy use reduction targets, along with a carbon rationing system.
While corporate interests continue to make big profits selling power we won’t see any political or policy steps toward better efficiency and/or emission reductions – they are too busy making money, and trashing the planet in the process.