The Nancy Pelosi speech that made the Republicans cry:
Context in this post about the Congressional rejection of TARP.
Archive for the 'Policy' Category
If this is true, we’re in even deeper climate trouble than we thought:
The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.
The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.
As the Wikipedia explains, there is a lot of methane locked up as frozen methane clathrate under the arctic ocean. Methane is a short-lived, but very potent greenhouse gas. If the clathrates are warmed up enough, they will release that methane, and possibly quite quickly. The upshot? Global warming going a lot faster and further than the IPCC models.
This is far scarier than a little trouble with the LIBOR…
Australia’s total greenhouse emissions, assuming a 450ppm target and “backstop technology”. Source: Garnaut Review Final Report, Figure 23.6
Vote count:
Democrats: 141 Yea, 94 Nay
Republican: 66 Yea, 132 Nay
The Times - Analysis: bailout vote calls Hank Paulson’s bluff
Negotiators had worked all weekend to accommodate some of the doubts of conservative Republicans who objected to such a massive outlay of taxpayer funds on the financial sector. But in the end the largely superficial changes made to the original plan were not enough and more than three-quarters of Republicans voted against. Worse, perhaps, more than a third of Democrats also opposed the measure, which they saw as a handout to rich bankers on Wall Street.
Now, in effect, the politicians have called the bluff of Hank Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary. Since he first proposed the plan ten days ago he has repeatedly warned that its passage was absolutely essential to avoid a complete freezing-up of the US financial system.
It’s out today. LP bloggers will have more during the day as it’s digested, but here’s an open thread for instant analysis and commentary. Please also feel free to link in comments to other posts or articles.
By way of preview, a number of climate scientists have released an open letter to Kevin Rudd (text here):
The Garnaut Review concluded that an emission reduction target for Australia of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 would be an equitable contribution to the international effort required to achieving this outcome. As a group of Australia’s leading climate change scientists, we urge you to adopt this target as the minimum requirement for Australia’s contribution to an effective global climate agreement.
In Crikey yesterday, Bernard Keane contrasted the apocalyptic prophesies of doom emanating from business with the rather lame reality of the government’s proposals to date.
Nightmare stuff. Imagine how bad it would be the Government had actually proposed a serious effort to reduce our carbon emissions?
As Keane notes in another article, the release of the Treasury modelling today:
should provide a welcome corrective to much of the hysteria generated by modelling commissioned by rentseeking industry groups.
Keane also observes that Garnaut will be talking about adaptation strategies and costs in this report as well.
Note: Related post from dk.au on public opinion, polls and climate change.
Update: The report has now been released and can be downloaded from here.
Update: From Crikey, Bernard Keane on Garnaut at a glance and Clive Hamilton on politics trumping science.
Elsewhere [dk.au]: Barry Brooks is also running an open thread at his blog Climate Dilemma [ht: Peter Wood in comments]
Joshua Gans comments on Chapter 14 (TEEIIs) which he argues is “dramatically superior” to the Green Paper solution of free permits. He also renews his call for border adjustment taxes:
In my opinion, it would be better to bite the bullet and, at least for imports, assess the carbon cost of those imports and tax them. This will get the price signals right and also put pressure on trading partners to put in their own emissions trading schemes so as to avoid that tax.
I discussed some of the issues around paid parental leave in an earlier post. The Productivity Commission has now released its interim report, recommending a model which would see the government pay for 18 weeks of parental leave at the level of the federal minimum wage (with 2 weeks for partners, and with employers only contributing compulsory super). Some criticism has revolved around the failure to mandate payment by employers of current salary levels as a top up, but it’s likely that this would occur anyway for skilled workers, and the whole point of the scheme is to extend rights that skilled workers already enjoy or have the bargaining power to access to all.
The baby bonus would be abolished and replaced with a $5000 parental allowance.
Social scientists can be a weird lot sometimes. The latest round of weirdness comes from the Lowy Institute, whose 2008 poll was released today, 8 weeks after the polling concluded. The official line on the climate change questions is that, “Economic considerations overtook tackling climate change as the most important foreign policy goal, but climate-related issues topped the list of threats to Australia”.
But you’d have to be employed at the Opposition Organ to take that kind of analysis at face value Continue reading ‘Lowy Poll 06 Redux?’
The obvious retort to John McCain’s faux suspension of his campaign last week was that Presidents should be able to deal with more than one issue at the same time. That’s obviously true, but it’s also a truism which disguises something - politicians think that the public want their focus predominantly on the crucial issue of the moment (and the media reinforces this with its “narrative” obsession).
It might not have escaped folks’ attention that Kevin Rudd minimised his focus on climate change at the UN in favour of the plan he and Gordon Brown cooked up for saving the world’s finances. Rudd himself mentioned that it would be difficult to concentrate world leaders’ attention on climate change. This rhetoric also provided him with some convenient cover for disguising the switch in focus for the justification of his trip as it came under opposition attack. But it does raise the broader question of which way Kevin Rudd will jump on climate change and emissions trading - perhaps more in terms of the international negotiations (which however can’t be separated from the domestic politics, with the whole question of the significance and timing of Australia’s ETS being crucial to the “argy bargy”).
The Lowy Institute Poll being released today might pose some dangers ahead. Continue reading ‘Can politicians walk and chew gum at the same time?’
The details are a bit sketchy but it appears that agreement has been reached on some version of the Paulson bailout plan. Ian Welsh at Firedoglake, whose coverage of all these shenanigans has been first rate, has the lowdown on what it probably means.
There’s an extraordinary rant from Christopher Pearson in today’s Opposition Organ, beginning with a big spray against Quentin Bryce. Let me just observe that her opinion that the reserve powers can be codified is a respectable one, and that Pearson is committing a significant fallacy when he conflates that opinion with the analytically separate question of the political feasibility of such a change to the Constitution.
The actual occasion for his condescending twaddle seems to be a lamentation about the ideological unsoundness of the Liberal Party leadership:
Until recently, it would have been hard to imagine a candidate with Bryce’s limitations and ideological baggage winning the level of broad acceptance within the conservative wing of the political class necessary for her to function as governor-general. Indeed, since Brendan Nelson, Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull could not be described plausibly as conservatives, it may not be safe to assume that Bryce does enjoy that kind of acceptance. In less than a year, the values for which John Howard, Peter Costello and Alexander Downer provided so formidable a bulwark are no longer taken for granted in the Liberal Party room.
More power to Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott appears to be the suggestion. Yep, they’re electoral gold. Attack Rudd from the hard right, urges Pearson.
Continue reading ‘Governor-General “not especially bright”, columnist claims’
The Australian government is going to start buying mortgage-backed securities:
Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan says he has directed the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM) to invest in residential mortgages.
The decision follows the chaos in the United States housing market, but Mr Swan says it is a good news announcement because it will increase competition in the mortgage market.
Continue reading ‘Oz government gets back into the mortgage business’
It only gets more surreal.
You can read about the latest at Crooks & Liars and Firedoglake.
None of this is about the economy. It’s about rescuing McCain’s campaign, not Wall Street. But reportedly McCain’s “help” comes down to supporting a proposal by House Republican Leader John Boehner:
That proposal reportedly includes even more deregulation and further tax breaks to the financial sector, plus a prayer that Wall Street can rescue itself if the restraints are removed.
The $700 billion bail out is wildly unpopular in the States, to put it mildly. But not because the American people are taking a stand against regulation.
Update: Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings on how the deal was scuttled. McCain’s lying about his part in it, as is now routine.
George W. Bush - or whomever is actually running the shop - is a rather busy lame duck. As well as the credit crunch, there’s there are all manner of foreign policy challenges which at any other time would be making headlines.
Number 1 cab off the rank is North Korea, who seem to be planning to fire up their nuclear infrastructure again. The Arms Control Wonk seems to think it’s because they’re peeved they haven’t been taken off the list of states that sponsor terrorism. Meanwhile, the US-led, NATO-labelled occupation of Afghanistan is sailing into rather interesting times. The pursuit of militants near - and possibly over - the Afghanistan-Pakistan border isn’t exactly thrilling the Pakistani government or the army. So much so, in fact, that they’ve started firing on NATO (which I assume means American) helicopters.
Whomever wins the US Presidency in November is going to have a pretty full slate.
UPDATE: I can has good grammar when I wantz… 
To the best of my knowledge, there have been fewer pro-choice interventions in Australian State and Federal elections than there have been “pro-life” ones. The last one I recall (largely because I letterboxed for it) was Dr. Bertram Wainer’s candidacy for a Federal seat in Melbourne’s outer eastern suburbs in 1980. On that occasion there was a head to head contest in the seat on the issue of abortion rights between Dr. Wainer and a “pro-life” candidate, and the pro-choice side won out by a factor of 3 to 1, although it’s less clear what impact this had on the Labor/Liberal contest for the seat itself.
Since then there have been a couple of high-profile “pro-life” interventions in Federal elections, on both occasions aimed at removing right-wing Labor members (Michael Maher, Barry Cunningham) who were personally anti-abortion but who had displeased the “pro-life” crew by not being sufficiently rabid about it. The demise of Maher and Cunningham has, I believe, been a factor in the growth of the myth, in certain Labor circles, of the anti-abortion lobby as a terribly powerful electoral force.
The probable outcome of the current Parliamentary debate on Victoria’s abortion laws suggests that the myth is losing its sting. The bullying and vindictive behaviour by “pro-life” forces in connection with this debate suggests the possibility that, if the vote goes as we hope and expect it will, there may be punitive electoral interventions in the next Victorian State poll with the aim of removing supporters of the bill from State Parliament and restoring the intimidatory power of the myth. I believe pro-choice people could profitably consider how to organise to meet - indeed, to pre-empt - this threat, and destroy the myth for all time.
Continue reading ‘A pro-choice electoral intervention in the next Victorian State election?’
Recent comments
Don Wigan, Nabakov, Katz, Down and Out of Sài Gòn, Nanuestalker, wizofaus [...]
Helen, steve at the pub, Huh, paul walter, Helen, Liam [...]
danny, danny, Down and Out of Sài Gòn, wilful, Fine, Robert Merkel [...]
Paul Burns, Ambigulous, myriad, Ambigulous, Emma, j. [...]
steve at the pub, Fine, steve at the pub, Robert Merkel, paul walter, FDB [...]
Fine, Ambigulous, Katz, Jenny, Su, Fine [...]
danny, Peterc, Mark, darryl rosin, Liam, Sam Clifford [...]
Ambigulous, Paulus, Mercurius, Possum Comitatus, Kim, Possum Comitatus [...]
Megan, paul walter, Mark, Fine, Paul Norton, Mark [...]
Helen, Ambigulous, Adrien, Ambigulous, Ambigulous, Ambigulous [...]
Graham Bell, Paul Burns, Mark, Graham Bell, Pavlov's Cat, Adrien [...]
Chris, ken, Lefty E, ken, Jacques Chester, Adrien [...]