At the risk of overdosing on JW Howard Ego Legacy watching, here’s a follow up to Mark’s post about the weird power vacuum.
Barnaby’s come out swinging against an ETS this morning replete with IRC Troll-esque talking points: Our Barnaby won’t be ‘goose-stepping’ along with the ‘eco-totalitarians‘ because ‘the climate is always changing’ and ‘the ETS would do nothing to counter climate change’ he told AM this morning (audio starts at 17:20). (Update: Here’s a statement he made back in December)
At first glance, it seems pointless to compare a spray like this to the actual policy intent of the White Paper, which was so brilliantly wedges the very position Barnaby now eschews (‘oh noes! people will lose their jobs and houses!’ etc.) with its feather-soft start. But on closer inspection, it suggests that the Howardian ‘battler’ response to Climate Change has now comes full circle – from Kyoto and climate science recalcitrant to reluctant ETS initiator under the gaze of Peter Shergold and back again; as the Man of Steel reasserts skepticism about mainstream climate change projections.
The irony is that as several commenters astutely pointed out in the heat of the White Paper discussions back in December, the proposed ETS is (with a few notable exceptions like support for Nuclear instead of coal) so doggedly, frustratingly, pointlessly conservative in its ambitions, so uselessly blunt in its equity, efficacy of any other measure you’d care to throw at it that it’s probably the same as the one we would’ve seen had Howard been reelected because, well, the same actual bureaucrats crafted it.
Two things to draw from this: Firstly, and most obviously, beware any messages targetted at figureheads such as those of Guy Pearse, whose ‘High & Dry’ was subtitled “John Howard, climate change and the selling of Australia’s future.” The modern state, as radical critics from the right and left have emphasised, rests on an essentially arbitrary expression of collective will (eg. subsidise Coal, implement the Pacific Solution) aimed not at preventing crises but keeping them within acceptable bounds. I predict 2009 will see increasing awareness of younger people to this point. The proportion of voters who will directly experience the worst effects of climate change in their lifetime increases, we’ll see a greater definition of where those bounds are.
Secondly, Joyce’s rhetoric is classic emo, but it’s also a measure of the political attractiveness of what John Quiggin has usefully referred to as ‘the litterbug argument’:
this is the claim that since Australia contributes only a small portion of emissions, it does not matter whether or not we do anything to reduce them. This is much the same as a litterbug saying that their beercan or chip packet is not going to make any difference, so they may as well dump it.
To take this argument more credibly than it deserves, Australia currently generates about 2 per cent of global emissions of greenhouse gases. That’s comparable to Britain or France. The fact that these countries have several times our population is cancelled out by our much higher emissions per person.
Of course, countries like the US and China with a population much larger than ours, have higher emissions. But there’s no obvious reason why this should be relevant. The 20 million residents of Southern California might reasonably say that, if Australia’s emissions make no difference, neither do theirs. And the 100 million people of Henan province in China, whose total emissions are about equal to ours, could make the same claim with even more justice.
Fwiw, Obama’s new chief science advisor has made noises about ‘picking a fight on global warming’, will press for Cap and Trade and undoubtedly pursue biofuels. Should be an interesting year in climate policy.
Update: Crikey republishes a statement he made on the Agmates Agricultural and Rural News forum back in December
dk,
As far as the mainstream public who haven’t quite yet been convinced of the situation are concerned, hopefully it won’t be like the boiling frog – by the time it finds out, it too late!
If it wasn’t so serious, watching the conservatives tie themselves in knots on this issue would be fun to watch.
But, given the stakes, it’s frightening just how crazy most of the Coalition are on this issue.
To be fair to Barnaby, as I was saying, he’s crazy on most issues.
Barnaby is doing what Barnaby does best – playing politics. I estimate over half the coalition and a third of the governmen would probably (quietly) agree with him. This is lunatic fringe stuff from Canberra’s mandarin class. They have good aircon in their parliamentary offices.
The bigger issue is that the Government has set a manifestly inadequate emission reduction target of 5% (rather than 40%), which both major parties (and industry) are basically comfortable with.
They are all ignoring the clear and emphatic science that indicates this will have extreme effects on Australia (no snow, Great Barrier Reef gone, Kakadu gone, chronic low rainfall on Eastern seaboard with Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane all on target to run out of water).
We need to climate change policy and response out of the hands of industry and politicians (who are joined at the hip) and managed by an independent science-based taskforce.
Nationalising energy and water production and supply would remove the current huge financial interests that are driving us relentlessly to higher consumption and increasing emissions.
Rob – knots ahoy!
Robert, the ALP should be able to do to the Libs what the Libs did to Labor over Communism – keep them out of office until they make their minds up. Betcha they can’t.
“To be fair to Barnaby, as I was saying, he’s crazy on most issues.
”
To use Qld vernacular: “And just who the [eff] are you when you’re at home?”
What makes your opinion worth any more than that of Mr. Joyce? Why is it he who is crazy on most issues? Equally as plausibly it is Mark who is crazy on most issues. It is merely a matter of opinion separating the two ends of that spectrum.
(Say) Mr. Joyce opines that most every commenter on this site is a “waste of space” (deservedly or not). How much more is his opinion worth than that of any one of the contributors to this site? Is his opinion wrong?
“No goose stepping with eco totalitarians.”
Well at least he avoids the odious company and ideas of the remarkable Peter C – please all remember it was this contributor who said that democracy had failed and politicians weren’t to be left to handle this issue.
No doubt unself interested NGOs are the right agencies to handle this problem – the voters, the media ( all those over paid MSM goons ), politicians , grass roots activists all get shafted in the Glorious New Order of the “independent science-based taskforce.”
Hey this bizarre rant from Peter C is here on this blog but obviously doesn’t represent anything at all. No just another crazy I suppose.
“Why is it he who is crazy on most issues?”
Because, objectively, he is.
Actually, it’s worth (at some point) picking apart what we mean when we call Barnaby Joyce “crazy”.
# 10 Spiros Jan 14th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Yeah I agree calling Joyce crazy isn’t helpful. I’m diametrically opposed to most everything the guy has to say but I admire his chutzpah! That said: calling greenies eco-totalitarians isn’t helpful either. That comes courtesy of Andrew Bolt with his “Hitler was an environmentalist’ schpiel. True. But perhaps might care to look at the Nazi’s cultural agenda and attitudes to the arts and curricula. Methinks he’d be surprised to learn that it bears similarities to his own discourse.
.
Still I wonder. Joyce represents the rural folk who are the first hit by the environmental shit hitting the fan. Yet he’s denying it?
.
Maybe he is crazy!
Jack: he represents (to some extent) what his constituents think would benefit them.
Trouble is, oftentimes his constituents are dead-flat wrong.
His economic policies represent a milder form of Hansonism.
Gee, that Barn a would be makes me so happy when he opens his mouth,, A QLD joke (right)?
Well, perhaps “crazy” is a bit harsh. But contra Jack with his disdain for “cushy white collar jobs”, Barnaby’s an accountant, for goodness’ sakes. And I don’t think that he forms his views on the basis of any particular reasoning, but off the top of his head. It’s pretty clear from the way he expresses his thought processes in statements and interviews.
Elsewhere, Tim Hollo:
http://greensmps.org.au/blog/joyce-nationals-and-climate-change
(Inspired by Crikey : Hasn’t Barnaby heard of Godwin’s Law. He’s lost the argument.
‘the ETS would do nothing to counter climate change’
Oh sh*t, now I know I’m doomed. I actually agree with a right wing nutter (ie Barnaby).
# 14 Robert Merkel Jan 14th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
The median voter’s preferences, outside the inner-city, are probably not far off “a milder form of Hansonism”. She was the decisive politician of the past decade. That is where Joyce’s constituency lives.
I dont doubt that Joyce’s views on the ecological problem are wrong-headed, short-sighted and somewhat ill-willed. More or less reflecting the “dead flat wrong” views of the average punter, never mind the sinister interests of the shadowy “Greenhouse Mafia”.
In Australia we have an uneasy democratic equilibrium where Left-leaning politics of popular opinion are more or less balanced by Right-leaning policies of elite interests. (Excepting cultural policy where the populace lean to the Right on immigration and education.)
I dont have much of a solution for the problem of poor leadership in democracy. Besides observing that the world, let alone Australia, has yet to throw up an statesman on the ecological threat. (Al Gore you say? I’m sorry but he had his chance and blew it.)
So perhaps we are facing a constitutional problem with our elites. Not only are they not as good as their spin cracks them up to be, they are not much good at all.
Think of the intellectual midgets who seem to get all the press in the intellectual world, the Gladwells, Leavitts or even Krugmans. Compare them to the giants of yesteryear like Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek et al. No contest. Ditto businessmen: compare Twiggy Forrest to Essington Lewis. And politicians: compare Rudd to Whitlam, Obama to King, Bush to Nixon or Reagan. ANd oont start me on rivals to the de Gaulles, Churchills and Roosevelts.
Most elites are just interested in making the Big Score as quickly as possible and then retiring with “f*ck you” money to some safely insulated abode. Politicians do not seem immune to this temptation.
Never in the course of human history have elites promised so much and delivered so little.
More here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/01/14/barnabys-choice-ets-ramifications-edition/
“Jack: he represents (to some extent) what his constituents think would benefit them.
Trouble is, oftentimes his constituents are dead-flat wrong.”
Something his constituents share in equal measure with the constituents with every other elected politician. i.e. often dead wrong in what they think would benefit them.
Except Mr. Joyce’s constituents have elected someone who will vote how they wish him to, not how a caucus tells him. Quite refreshing. Sort of reminds one of a representative democracy.
Jack @ 19.
I agree with most of what you say.
Except that I think you are a little free and easy with the word ‘elite’.
In the example pairs you gave, I think the first deserve that title. The second of each pair are those who think they are elite but are not. This assumption of a title that they are not worthy of devalues the word. Sort of what Terry Lewis did for Knighthoods.
Barnaby is easily ‘elite’ by this reckoning.
I still think carbon trading markets are the best way to handle this.
We could have one right here. I hereby pledge $200 to be paid to the person or persons unknown that most closely predicts the exact date and time of Lord Haw Haw’s permanent retirement from politics.
The net will save us – so long as we have a free internet.
No goose stepping with eco totalitarians – just goose stepping with politicians playing a game of russian roulette with the planet, including the Great Barrier Reef, snow in Australia, Kakadu, St Kilda and Albert Park.
Democracy is failing us. We vote for politicians who are supposed to represent us. When we ask our local MPs to do something about climate change they say “talk to Penny Wong”, or “its in Kevin’s hands”.
Kevin Howard’s 5% target is a complete joke, on us. This target puts us on increased emissions by 2020. This target suits the fossil fuel industry and our factories of death – coal fired power stations. [link] =
The NGOs are not going to solve this either – they have diluted their asks and targets to fit within the current political paradigm – which has contributed to John Rudd to delivering his lame 5%.
The MSM are part of this silly game too.
The question is: how to get an effective and transparent process in place to deal with climate change? Grass roots engagement must be part of this. We need 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020 and to stabilise C02 at 350ppm or less.
In the words of Seal: “But were never gonna survive, unless… We get a little crazy”
Barnaby is just crazy in the other direction.
Besides observing that the world, let alone Australia, has yet to throw up an statesman on the ecological threat.
.
Not sure about that:
We’ll see. 5 days. He’s the only politician who seems to actually get it. And yes I mean Bob Brown too.
.
All Gore gets it. To him it’s a job opportunity. I reckon his flick was a big PR campaign to get the Prez job. But then he realized he couldn’t compete against Obama and Hillary. Obama woulda wiped the floor with him. Anyway how can you trust a dude spruiks for the environment, but drives mega-SUVs, has a billion plasma screens in his office and whose neck looks in danger of swallowing his head any day now.
.
Go on neck – eat!
Murph @ 9
I well remember that contribution of a month or so ago. While many others have been throwing their hands up in the air with plenty of ‘we’ll arll be rooned!!’ (and its completely warranted) peterc is one who is looking the situation squarely in the face. As much as I’m a fan of democracy (the least worst form government, to quote Churchill) I’m afraid he’s completely on the money. Governments actually are part of the problem. Rudd is shifting from where Howard was – that’s good – but its still completely inadequate. Obama looks like he’ll have a go, but his greenhouse mafia in the States is just like ours, only bigger and uglier.
As Brian has documented in detail here at LP, the Arctic ice may well be gone within 5 years, opening up the possibility of the release of methane from the Siberian permafrost thereafter – and this is largely from the effect of CO2 & equivalents already in the atmosphere.
Can anyone name one government on the planet that is acting with the urgency this situation requires?
I think Peterc is right to say
and he’s at one with Ian Lowe and others who have been calling for a ‘mutiny’.
One doesn’t have to be a totalitarian to subscribe to this, merely be able to imagine a government that acts in the interests of the people.
dk.au says
Joyce is most likely right that an “ETS would do nothing to counter climate change”. If the scientists bleaker scenarios are right then the only policies that will make any difference will be fairly intrusive and coercive carbon controls. That means “goose-stepping” along with “eco-totalitarians”.
The ETS has evolved as an unsatisfactory democratic compromise between a populace with Left-leaning political opinions who favour carbon constraint and elites whose Right-leaning policy interests are aimed at stalling and rorting carbon constraint.
Is it any wonder that oil companies and the finance industry have accepted ETS with suspicious haste. It seems designed to fail gracefully in a way that satisfies people so they can say “at least we tried”.
Even as we speak the USE’s gold standard ETS is barely keeping a lid on their carbon emissions. I dont see the PRC, IND or USA lifting their game.
Humans dont do anything much unless they get a sufficient prod from either greed, fear or love. Love of nature is relatively weak. Green consciousness only took off when fuel prices went north of $1.50. CLimate change policy will only get serious when storm surges swamp the lower part of Manhattan.
The obvious consequence to the probable failure of the liberal (ETS) method of carbon constraint is the subsequent forced acceptance of an illiberal (“corporal” in Strocchi-speak) regime of carbon constraint. Most likely regulation by regimentation and rationing ie eco-totalitarianism.
In the last world crisis the Allied powers had no difficulty in striking a deal with Stalin to save our skins. Eventually most people will vote for giving up alot of freedom in return for a quieter, easier life.
Benign dictatorship doesn’t work, guys, and rarely remains benign for long.
# 28 Robert Merkel Jan 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Yeah, thats why the PRC’s liberalised economy, done whilst maintaining CCP dictatorial control over the polity, turned into such an ungodly mess over the past generation. Why those poor Chinese coolies are hardly better off now than they were under Mao.
Unlike the democratising CIS which just went from strength to strength with its thriving two-party system, incorruptible press and surprisingly resilient welfare system.
We all remember how the PRC was wracked with civil war and sectarian conflict throughout the nineties, especially after Chinese triads took over the former state run enterprises. And who can forget how the PRC launched an unprovoked attack on oil rich Vietnam, ostensibly to promote democracy there.
And thank god the CCP wasnt prevented from enforcing its dastardly one-child policy. Otherwise the Antarctic would still be covered with ice and we wouldnt be able to drill for oil on it.
Oh wait a minute, all that happened in bizarro parallel universe where all our democratic dreams come true. And it is not very nice of me to pile onto Robert Merkel, who is an ornament to the blogosphere. But he needs to shed some liberal illusions.
In reality it is often a banal people, rather than evil politicians, who can cause democracy to fall short of our moral ideals. A too-rapid progress towards representative rule (Iraq) or representative rule that reflects our baser instincts (Germany) is nothing for populists to brag about.
Democracy properly evolves from the ground up, propelled by self-governing tendencies passed from the personal through professional to the political. The PRC appears to be following that path.
One day the PRC may be able to strike a deal with the RoW to constrain global carbon emissions, probably in return for a Marshall plan to refit its power generators. It will have to do so in a hurry. Efficient dictatorships have their advantages in this respect.
See Jack, once you ditch all that that weird wets vs dries pyscho-social shit, you can make clear and sharp points about dealing with stuff that really matters for the future. Like:
“The ETS has evolved as an unsatisfactory democratic compromise between a populace with Left-leaning political opinions who favour carbon constraint and elites whose Right-leaning policy interests are aimed at stalling and rorting carbon constraint.”
Then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like
“Efficient dictatorships have their advantages in this respect.”
Dictatorships by their very nature are never efficient at anything. They have no effective feedback loops. Who’s gonna tell the supreme boss he fucked up?
Also, you really think the Middle Kingdom is one monolithic bloc, matching in happy lockstep to the PRC’s tune?
But cheer up Jack, the way the world’s going, I’m sure you’ll find some new opportunities to have a stab at setting up your own authouritain little commune. No wets, sodomites or practicers of liberal bohemian lifestyles. No hard drugs allowed – unless you’re one of Jack’s heros. Beautiful losers welcome though.
30 Nabakov Jan 17th, 2009 at 1:09 am
That is silly. Most dynastic families, private companys, established churchs, and famous orchestras are all dictatorships. Thats why they call the head dude “boss”. They seem to develop “effective” enough “feedback loops” to get their job efficiently done. So long as the boss and sons stay on the ball and the team stays loyal.
Of course “regression to the mean” and institutional entropy may get them in the end. But that may only open the door to another aggressive uber-aller.
BTW, our democratic media’s ability claim act as an effective feedback loop is looking more threadbare by the day. Celebrity-obsessed, politically correct and written on the back of a public relations press release. Nothing to write home about.
There is no Law of History that mandates the perpetual prevalence of democracy. Its institutional viability depends upon a free and fair balance of (intellectual and instrumental) power between the centre and periphery. The advent of expensive super-computers or some such mad scientist device capable of solving complex social problems could well tip the balance in favour of the boss.
Democracy is clearly the more satisfactory (thorough sampling) form of institutional arrangement. Especially when there is a fairly uniform and normalised distribution of human powers (mass-educated middle class plus Messres Smith & Wesson the equalisers).
But democracy walks an ideological tightrope, depending on the dialectical evolution of self-serving individualism and self-sacrificing institutionalism. People must be capable of doing their own thing but also able to work in teams. Not an easy trick to pull off, although Anglicans gave it a pretty good shot.
The theoretical question of the optimum size of the (dictatorial) firm was addressed by both Coase and Hayek in the thirties. They couldnt put a specific figure on it. But, depending on the costs of co-ordinating within and transacting without, the establishment value of a Command Economy seemed to range from 1 < CE < ?. Eventually they settled on an optimum firm roughly no smaller than a milk bar and no bigger than GM. Alot of bloody help that theory.
The empirical answer to whether efficient dictatorship is possible is now given by the performance of the post-Maoist PRC. Results speak for themselves. It has done more to raise the living standards of more people to a greater level in a shorter time than any other organization in history. All this whilst maintaining law and order, keeping to its own military backyard and gradually increasing the scope and diversity of civil society.
And it has constrained the growth of carbon-emitting population, so far the only effective method of limiting global warming. Back on Thread – the only way that the concert of nations can stave off global meltdown is to hammer out some kind of deal b.w the Occidental democratic capitalists and Oriental dictatorial statists. Perhaps the former paying off the latter to refit their coal generators. It needs to be done fast or else we coastal dwellers will be heading for the hills in our retirement.
One day the PRC will no doubt evolve towards a more representative democratic govt. But this requires a nation-wide solid middle class base. So dictatorship is perfectly adequate form of govt whilst bottom-uppers and top-downers reach an easier compromise. No reason to jump to democratic glory, ala the French and Russians.
Nabakov says:
Dont you mean the other way round? Surely the Middle King-domained dictatorial CCP dog wags the PRC tail. Last time I was there they looked to have their sh*t wired together pretty tight.
So far the Red Emperors have hammered together a fair degree of consensus by relying on a totally engineer-staffed Politburo. This nerdy crew seems to engender consensus because they look for technical solutions rather than indulging in alot of windy ideological grandstanding (in the Occident this kind of talk is invariably a smokescreen for rip-offs by special interests.)
In any case, any hasty moves towards democracy by the CCP would probably amplify social divisions in the PRC and lead to exploitation of the subsequent chaos by Triads and the like. As happened to the USSR. One post-communist superpower disaster per generation is enough, thanks all the same.
No doubt the CCP’s technocratic dictatorship is greatly facilitated by the PRC’s largely smart-IQ and nice-EQ population. Smooth co-operation and savvy cognition are characteristics we do well to maintain if we want to keep our place at the High Table of nations.
“Dont get married to a position.”
Traders Trad.
“The creative scientist must seem to the systematic epistemologist to be an unscrupulous opportunist.”
Einstein
Thanks Robert – but just to clarify things, I wasn’t advocating dictatorships in benign or any other form.
For the most part, Australians think climate change is important but not a vote-changing showstopper at this stage. While as a body, we think this way we’ll continue to get governments who won’t make the massive changes required to confront the enormity of the problem. While I’m going with the cliches, we’ve got the government we deserve.
I reckon the grassroots action Peter C mentions is what’s required – before the next election really…..
Tens of thousands of Australians are extremely dissappointed with the Rudd Government’s 5% 2020 emission reduction target – which taking into account the Kyoto “Australia Clause” actually translates to an net increase in emissions by 2020.
For a good grassroots action everyone interested could attend Australia’s Climate Action Summit Jan 31 – Feb 3 2009.
A human chain around Parliament in Canberra will be formed on Tuesday 3/2 to demonstrate to our politicians and the goverment that we want real action on climate change, not surrender to coal and other heavy emissions industries.
Hello Barnaby,
I’m totally with you in regards to the ETS. It will cost Australia billions and we are controlled by an overseas mob we probably do not want to have anything to do with. This is just another of the globetrotting Rudd’s grandstanding, ego fulfilling as well as his inflated feeling of “self-importance. I have read a lot what it means if Australia signs this Copenhagen treaty, and it is frightening. I just hope that we are not signing it. Barnaby keep up the good work, most Queenslander are behind you.
Werner Schmidlin