To watch in 2010: Tony Abbott vs Tony Abbott

Happy New Decade to you all... let's hope it is the decade when the world finally takes man-made climate change by the horns, and soothes the savage beast. Science tells us that we don't have much option but to do so.

Anyway, I'm back from brief but restful holidays, so that also means I'm back to watching the big game in town. I am not talking about the cricketing carnage that Pakistan is putting a discombobulated Australian Eleven through, but Tony Abbott's 'cost-free' formulation to gazump global warming, which he promised for February.

Paul Daley pings Abbott's dilemma in today's SMH :

It seems most unlikely at this stage that the Government will win sufficient support for the legislation when it is again presented to Parliament next month.

Between now and then Abbott must formulate a policy to reduce Australia's carbon production that is not based on the emissions trading model he so opposes.

It's no easy task. He must convince voters that the Liberals under a big-C conservative leader such as himself can be genuine advocates for “green” measures to reduce our carbon output. Such green measures, of course, depend largely on heavy regulation – and government regulation is the enemy of both progressive and conservative Liberal-ism.

On human-made climate change – about which Abbott is something of an avowed sceptic – he is proposing what one Liberal colleague describes as “a type of progressive conservatism”. The Government will come out all guns blazing to discredit whatever policy he unveils as an alternative to the carbon reduction scheme come February.

Abbott's climate change policy will, however, be primarily about contrasting himself with both Rudd and the Government.

So we see here how Abbott is his own worst intellectual enemy, a conundrum of confused contradictions:

He belittles the government's proposed emission trading system by wrongfully calling the proposed free-market mechanism a "Great Big New Tax". Yet the only other effective way to conceivably achieve carbon emissions containment is via a Great Big New Tax of the kind proposed by NASA's James Hansen in his letter to the Obamas.

As the article states, Abbot would need to impose onerous legislation on business and the general population in order to achieve his cost-free containment, in contradiction to the stated principles of the party of small government. To draw up his scheme, People Skills has already hinted that he intends to pilfer the green ideas from Malcolm Turnbull, the man he deposed... for his green ideas. The man who once considered joining the priesthood now reduces peer-review science to a "green religion", and reckons his salvation will come from our farmers who are going to bio-sequester carbon in their soils.

I am so confused that I can't decide whether Anthony Abbott is a clod or a sod.

Perhaps the pathology of Abbot's illogic helps us explain how he has now painted himself into his colourful corner as he waits for February's bell: if, as he claims, "climate change is crap", then wtf is he doing coining a policy to combat it?

No explanation there, unless you now see that Abbott's famed grasp merely extends to media grabs; that our pugilistic Mad Monk is the Pontiff of Populism, not sound policy.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Who is who in the Coalition zoo

Further to my post below, you might like to know who supports the CPRS and negotiated amendments, and who doesn't. The never-learn-from-an-election Liberals/Nationals look like rabble:

Among the Coalition party room speakers in favour of the bill were Richard Colbeck, Judith Troeth, Andrew Laming, Simon Birmingham, Gary Humphries, Sue Boyce, Mal Washer, Bruce Billson, Barry Haase, Marise Payne, Scott Morrison, Judi Moylan, Don Randall, Jo Gash, Russell Trood and Steve Irons.

Those opposed included Alan Ferguson, Judith Adams, Brett Mason, Michaelia Cash, Matthias Cormann, Alan Eggleston, Alby Schultz, Cory Bernardi, Andrew Robb, Guy Barnett, Nola Marion and Luke Simpkins

If anyone of those is your senator, 'cos it's in the Senate where the rubber will hit the road, let them know where you stand, dear reader.

PS. Andrew Robb - what a clown. Anyway, Lateline Tonight should have the outcome.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

US Emissions Talks With China Hit Great Wall

Five months ahead of the Copenhagen talks, a round of climate talks between the world's two biggest polluters has stalled, reports the Financial Times:

Chinese officials maintained that the two countries should have a “common but differentiated approach” – code for Beijing’s reluctance to adopt a formal domestic mandate to reduce its carbon emissions. The US Congress is considering a bill that would reduce US emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. China wants the US to cut its emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 – a different order of magnitude. It also wants the US to pledge up to 1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pay for clean technology in China and elsewhere.

“It is going to be really tough to get the Chinese to make significant concessions by Copenhagen,” said Bruce Braine, a board member of the International Emissions Trading Association. “There seems to be a lack of realism in ... the developing world about what the US can achieve at home.”

It can be argued that there seems to be a lack of realism in the developed world about who has emitted most of the greenhouse gasses that have created the global warming we have consequently experienced to date. Nevertheless, the US and China are in this together, as we all are. The more united we are, the better off we will be; just as, the sooner we move, the better off we will be.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Climate change tougher than Sydney roofs

Great!

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) called on the Federal and State governments to toughen the Building Code of Australia and address the problem of "brittle buildings".

It seems research conducted by Professor Alan Jeary, a structural design specialist from the University of Western Sydney's school of engineering, concludes that roofs tiles will not withstand the onslaught of a summer storm season. Sydney's present roofing materials - up to 75 per cent ceramic tile and 10 per cent slate - were easily damaged by relatively minor hail storms.

In the past 20 years, Sydney has been hit by five significant hailstorms, which have caused more than $6 billion damage. Climate change research indicates that the problems could get much worse.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Obama wins the US elocution

I'm sure I am not the only one outside the US who has become fixated on US President-elect Barrack Hussain Obama. I was one of the lucky few who survived the long, long US election media flood by simply ignoring it all. But tuning into the thrilling finish has wet my appetite for more about Obama. The confluence of an historic presidential choice by the US electorate, a global financial crisis of historic proportions, and unprecedented climate change, is a compelling backdrop for a man who comfortably shoulders an aura of history-in-the-making.

And, apart from enjoying his obvious magnetism, it's refreshing to hear a US President-elect speak in complete sentences, let alone grammatically correct ones. It's a big addition to their international relations skill-set. Having your subjects and verbs in agreement is a must-have in a multilateral world.

But, it is Obama's vision to tackle the economic crisis by investing in projects for decarbonising their economy that is disarming the cynic in me. If there is any up-side to the world economic down-side currently being experienced, it is that this crisis represents our best opportunity to make the transition to a carbon-neutral world. It is serendipitous that those from the biggest economy are finally making noises about taking up a leadership role the rest of the world has been crying out for. Given the immensity of the task ahead, and the fact that we have to make the transition at some point, there is no better financial climate than now.

Reassuringly, Obama confirmed that he gets it by using his second Internet address as President-elect to outline his vision of rescuing the economy by rebuilding it.

Jan 20. Bring it on!

UPDATE
In a piece for posterity, just recorded for the library of the Congress and a Bush Presidency museum, lies the mangled wreckage of President Bush's construction, poignantly mirroring his record: "I'd like to be a president, as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace,".

Two unfinished wars, one financial crisis, one world's largest government-subsidised housing-project, eight years of US paralysis on global warming agreement, and a hanging clause later we have this plaintiff outro.

Readers will think I hate the guy. I don't. I'm sure I would respond warmly in his presence, he seems like that kind of guy.

But presidential material? In the old days the head nodding refrain would have been 'only in America', but these are newer, hopeful days.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

EPA ruling gives Obama clean slate to build the clean economy

Breaking news at Desmogblog. Kevin Grandia is as surprised as I:

Wow. A decision by the Environmental Protection Agency today has ruled that all new and proposed coal-fired power plants must have their carbon dioxide emissions regulated.

The implications are very opportune, according to John Spalding, attorney of the Sierra Club, who successfully prosecuted the case:

Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.

How very opportune. What a gift for the Obama Administration. The times, they are a changing.

 Global Warning Climate Change Energy

The Foole is Dead. Long live the King!

Barrack Hussein Obama delivered a fine acceptance speech on becoming President Elect. So said my goosebumps. Very powerful stuff.

It was the first time I had seen and heard more than a soundbite of Obama's famed oratory — two avoidance years plus eighteen listening minutes, and I then knew why he has this reputation. Compelling cadence, great words, good looks, and authoritative body language make him a gifted messenger with a welcomed message.

His message was simple: CHANGE. Delivered with pathos, and ethos, in clear English, President Elect Obama's fine words made for a heady brew after all the dissembling, and disemvoweling of the drawled-out, last, eight, years. At last a man of stature, not swagger, to represent the US to the outside world.

Yet the flip side of getting carried away with Obama is just as good... George Bush and his neocon, crony-capitalist climate-wrecking, with-us-or-against-us, terror-obsessed, bellicose, pugilistic agenda... are all gone come Jan 20. As the Dog's Bollocks kindly puts it, "Bye Bye Bushites!"

Praise the Lord and pass the whiskey! The election of Barrack Obama to President of the United States marks the end of the toxic neocon dream - we don’t react to reality – we create reality. The Bush Administration has been the most grotesque in US history. The foxes had finally taken over the hen-house. It was bound to end in tears, and so it has. To use some Bushite vernacular – it has been the mother of all clusterfucks.

I cannot recall a single redeeming feature of the Bush Administration, let alone three. The littany of policy disasters is mind boggling both in extent and all-encompassing range. Begun by stealing the 2000 election, to the cronyism of putting Monsanto in charge of the EPA and Halliburton in charge of the administration. Deficit creating tax cuts for the uber-wealthy – the golden boys and girls of the ponzi financial schemes and scams. Two ill-advised and botched invasions which have done nothing but breed support for Al Q’aida and run up trillion dollar budget deficits. Hurricane Katrina. The failure to plan for energy efficiency, preferring instead to wage war on oil rich dictatorships under the guise of spreading democracy and liberation, all the while enriching the coffers of Halliburton and Bush’s oil cronies. The cultivation of Christian Fundamentalists within the Administration and lobby industry while undermining the fundamental principles of the US constitution in the name of an apocalyptic Never-Ending War on Terror.

All finished off with the mother of all financial distasters when the ponzi schemes collapsed – products of the great freemarket experiment allowing the proliferation of unregulated financial systems that no-one really understood. The undoing of which almost resulted in a global meltdown, narrowly averted only by massive injections of liquidity from the public purse.

To be fair, GWB's focus on Africa is a bit redeeming, and Iraq might limp home to proper democracy in 20 years. But Jesus, what a way to do it. Worst of all is his war on climate science, and his fossil fuel agenda. You fuck with reality, and it will come back and bite you hard on the arse.

Nah, there's nothing much redeeming about Bush, unless you do comedy for a living.

Two unfinished wars, two bubbles, and two recessions. Bye bye Bushites. History will, like the world did, just shake it's head at how a hegemon handed over it's moral authority for the next contender to step-up. For the last eight years we've been head-shaking. Is US democracy that malign?

Now here's Obama, American dream incarnate, stepping up to reclaim that moral authority by hitting all the right notes about embracing the global challenges that befall us, including climate change.

Even his name, Barrack, Blessed; What a fabulous story so far. We have yet to see how he goes, but right now I am hooked. I have hope. It's Mandela all over again, this time it's not my old country, but the world that needs to be brought back from the precipice.

Australians would dig deep to fight climate change

Good news for the government implementing an ETS. We won't stand in your way (but woe betide it turns out trust is misplaced).

A MAJOR survey of Australians' views on climate change has found an overwhelming majority think it is happening and they're prepared to pay to address it.

The study by University of Technology Sydney found Australians wanted to see cuts in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions irrespective of the actions of other countries.

The key findings include that 83.7 per cent believed global warming was occurring and, of those, 84.9 per cent said Australia should proceed with an emissions trading scheme (ETS) regardless of the international response. "The bottom line from this study is that Australians think now is the time to adopt a climate change program that has some real teeth," visiting economics professor at UTS Richard Carson said.

"They believe that climate change will cause serious problems in Australia and elsewhere in the world, and they understand there will be sizeable cost going along with it."

We want the revenue an ETS will earn, to help low-income earners cope with the changes, and middle income earners want the GST reduced. Will it be an unnecessary tax, after the cost of pollution becomes a production input?

An interesting question about the role of government arises. Is it more efficient to tax consumption, or 'externalities', that is, the social cost of pollution.

And most want 20 percent of the ETS revenue to be dedicated to climate change R&D.

Professor Carson said 58.7 per cent of participants supported spending 20 per cent of ETS revenues on R & D, in keeping with a recommendation of the Rudd Government-commissioned Garnaut Review.

"The public clearly favours spending 20 per cent of the money on R & D … even though we told them that if they did that they would redistribute less money to the public," he said.

"That shows the Australians are very forward-looking, they see it as a long-term problem and the R & D efforts will help them get over the hump."

Survey participants' views were also sought on the different government plans and opposition policies to tackle climate change.

A majority (57.1 per cent) supported the government's plan to begin emissions trading from 2010 over the Liberals' later 2012 start date.

Participants were quizzed on their political leanings and Professor Carson said Green and Labor voters were more likely to favour the government's plan.

Interestingly, more than half (53 per cent) of Liberal-aligned survey participants also favoured the earlier 2010 ETS start date instead of official policy held by the Federal Opposition.

Views were split on whether transport should be exempt for the first three years of the ETS - with just over half (50.6 per cent) for the move to temporarily delay price increases at the petrol bowser.

The study, entitled Survey on Controlling Greenhouse Gases, was conducted by the UTS Centre for the Study of Choice.

Professor Carson is a Professor of Economics at the University of California and is a Visiting Distinguished Professor at the UTS.

These figures are consistent with other surveys. If this survey gets media traction, it's the death-knell for the AGW denial industry.

Sydney seeks to be carbon trading hub

Verity Firth, the NSW State Government Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, is sticking her hand up to have Sydney house the National Carbon Market.

Absolutely.

"Not a lot of people are aware but the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, which was introduced in 2003, was one of the world's first mandatory greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes," she said.

"It was run in NSW, has been running for the last four or five years and means that we now have a significant cluster of energy companies, financial service providers, law firms."

Ms Firth says she will be lobbying for NSW to be the base and regulator of the industry.

"We are establishing a taskforce in NSW and we'll be including representatives of the business community, who have a strong interest in the new carbon economy," she said.

"They'll be advising us on what we can do to help secure the hub for Sydney.

"I mean naturally we do believe that Sydney has the natural advantages. We have a well established finance sector and experience in carbon trading."

Well put. But I'm not biased.

AGL green paper briefing notes

The Rudd Green Paper Carbon Policy Briefing Note of the first Australian company to trade on the Chicago Climate Exchange, AGL, is accessible from their website.

Carbon Policy Briefing Note

Date: 16 July 2008
Subject: Commonwealth Green Paper
The Commonwealth Government has released a Green Paper outlining preferred positions for the introduction of an emissions trading scheme called the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.

Key Considerations for your Business
› Are you a liable party under the scheme (do you emit more than 25,000 tonnes)?
› If you are trade exposed, are you likely to be compensated?
› Will your energy bill increase?
› What can you do to reduce emissions and take advantage of
opportunities under the scheme?
› Are there cashflow issues associated with your participation in this scheme?
› What are the taxation implications of this scheme for your business?

So, what are the key considerations for your business?

People to Rudd: Grow spine, show climate leadership

Yes.

Australia said it when we recently voted, and we are saying it now in response to the opposition abandoning bipartisanship on climate change, and the government politically neutralising the issue by adopting Howard's old Shergold Report recommendations.

Reproduced in full. Phillp Coorey reports:

Don't fiddle a world burns

AN OVERWHELMING majority of voters support Kevin Rudd's drive to tackle climate change and 77 per cent believe Australia should press ahead and cut its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do.

The latest Herald/Nielsen poll, the first since last week's green paper on a proposed emissions trading scheme, finds that Australians are willing to pay the price for cutting carbon emissions, even though most do not understanding how the scheme
will work.

When informed that greenhouse gas abatement would cause the price of goods and services to increase, 68 per cent said they were prepared to pay more while 24 per cent were opposed.

The poll coincides with another bleak assessment of the Murray-Darling River system, handed to federal and state ministers, saying there may not be enough water to guarantee supply to regional towns by 2010. It recommends that available water be used only for human consumption in towns of the lower Murray-Darling.

As the Government started a multimillion-dollar "awareness" campaign on its climate action last night, the poll found six of every 10 voters either slightly understood or had no understanding at all of the emissions trading scheme. However, two-thirds still supported introducing a scheme.

The poll of 1400 voters was taken from Thursday to Saturday. On Wednesday, the Government released its green paper outlining how a domestic emissions trading scheme would work.

In the preceding week, the Coalition was split over climate change. Its leader, Brendan Nelson, contradicted senior colleagues by saying Australia should do nothing until other big polluting countries acted. Only 19 per cent of respondents to the poll agreed with this course of action.

The poll finds the Government about as popular now as it was at the election. On a two-party-preferred basis, Labor leads by 54 to46 per cent and, on primary votes, by 43 to 40 per cent. Both show small shifts to the Opposition since last month's poll but the movements are within the margin of error and not enough to give the Opposition great heart.

Mr Rudd's approval rating remains relatively unchanged at 66 per cent compared with 36 per cent for Dr Nelson. Mr Rudd leads Dr Nelson as preferred prime minister by 65 to 20 per cent, a 3-percentage point drop.

With climate change policy full of political risk, 54 per cent are satisfied with the way Mr Rudd is handling the matter while 38 per cent are unhappy. The Government will welcome the findings as it is battling an increasingly hostile Opposition and corporate
sector.

"These findings suggest clear support for the Government's climate change policy," the Nielsen research director, John Stirton, said. However, last month's poll showed 78 per cent wanted the Government to intervene over petrol prices and Mr Stirton said this gave "food for thought about the real depth of support for a
tough policy on climate change".

Last night the Government launched its taxpayer-funded advertising campaign to promote awareness of the proposed trading scheme. Labor had been critical of the Howard government's political advertising but the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, said this campaign would adhere to new guidelines that require the
auditor-general's approval.

The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said: "We want to have a very mature conversation with the Australian people about this because big economic reforms like this are not cost-free."

The shadow treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull, said Labor was rushing when "great care and deliberation" were needed to protect industry and households. He suggested the Coalition would oppose gradually reducing total emissions allowed under the scheme until other countries cut theirs.

I'd love to have a beer with Brendan...

...'cos Brendan's me local member; leader of the opposition; he replied to my email; .... and he is working up a lovely line on climate change:

Climate change is one of the most significant moral, political and economic challenges that will face our generation.

Ok, that's Kev07, and Blair05, and Gore06. But the next line is Brendan's. You read it here first.

As Australians, it is time for us to start living on environmental interests, rather than just capital interests.

That's a lovely, sweeping sentiment. My guess is, it is an understanding that the economy, and all that sail upon her, is but a subset of the environment.

Bit of a head-turner, given the stance of the previous Federal Liberal leader and the early rumble for leadership after Howard lost Bennelong. I had the impression Turnbull self-servingly leaked the revelation that he had earlier told the party room they had to promise to sign Kyoto to win. And this played out in the Liberal party machine as engendering disunity. So Brendo, more moderate on Kyoto, got the numbers.

That's history; Kyoto is ratified, and that bipartisan act came into effect last month. The rest of the letter from Brendan's office in response to me expressing my concerns about the need for political action, gives a clear acknowledgement of the problem, and the need to...

...focus on practical effort and initiatives that will ensure responsible environmental behaviour and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So I guess their policies are nascent. The letter goes on to confirm this, say Brendan is listening to ordinary Australians, consulting widely and will consider many opinions in developing their policies, including... what for it... Global Warming Watch.

Good. I'll be suggesting how he needs to hold Labor to account.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Vote 1 — responsible approach to climate change

The main question for me in the Australian Federal Election, with three weeks to go (thank god) is, "who now has the best climate change policy?" Of course the economy is important, but how can anyone not see that the economy is but a sub-system within a larger environment? A failing environment will ultimately cause a failing economy. Health, education — they are all up there for me — but they will nay amount to a hill-o-beans for our kids and grandkids, if we don't arrest the development of more extreme scenarios modelled in IPCC 4.

I predicted that this would be a green election, and thus it has turned out.

It's the 2020 emissions reductions targets, stupid.

John Howard has set targets for 2050, and so has Rudd. Only the Greens have set intermediary targets for 2020.

• reduce greenhouse emissions by 30% by 2020 (80% by 2050)

Life is a long game. I see a big future for the Greens with policies like that. Howard still hasn't got it. Labor lost my interest when they re-nuanced Garrett's declaration that Labor would not wait for China to sign the Kyoto Protocol before signing.

I have a lot of respect for Garrett, politically, and as the activist musician of yesteryear — it's his call to diverge from his stated principles and stick to Labor's changing party line — but they lose my confidence. I'm pleased that The Greens and Labor have agreed to swap preferences.

Vote 1 The Greens in the Senate

The ideal outcome for me would be to see Labor throw this deceitful government out, with the help of the Greens, who go on to secure the balance of power in the Senate. The preference swap is one step towards this. Don't know who I'll vote for in the house, but it won't be Barry O'Farrell, not that I will make a dent in Bradfield. Wish I still lived in Wentworth, what with all that barristerial battering of the current member. I do like Turnbull for the most part, though, he just picked the wrong party, and approved the wrong pulp-mill in the wrong way.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

GetUp! gets $250K to put down Government climate campaign

Story so far ... John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, still hasn't made that trip to the Governor General to call the election date. That's because he is so far behind in the polls that he is foisting every bit of taxpayer funded pro-Government advertising he legitimately can while the election hasn't been called. Kevin Rudd, leader of the Labor opposition, is saying the Liberal's spend is $1 million a day.

But, the air-time assault is annoying audiences, to the tune of $243,900. That's how much money Australians have given GetUp! Sydney at time of writing, to run the anti-ad below, pointing out that the Government's greenwash media blitz amounts to advertising puffery.



GetUp! bought the following media time during the AFL Grandfinal, smack bang in the ground zero of the Liberal's saturation advertising. It's a goal.

Good on everyone who dipped into their pockets to counteract the misappropriation of their own taxes. It's eye-opening for normally politically-relaxed Australians to see how powerful organised, grass-roots, community activism can be. Here is the time GetUp! bought:

These are the spots GetUp has purchased to show the ad on Saturday's AFL

AFL Grand Final in Melbourne - 15.08pm
AFL Grand Final in Sydney - 14.16pm
Pre-game in Brisbane - 12.07pm
Pre-game in Adelaide - 11.08pm

Based on the overwhelming response we have purchased a further 50 ad slots in Newcastle, Tamworth, the Gold Coast, Lismore, Taree, Coffs Harbour, Canberra, Wollongong, Albury, Shepparton, Ballarat, Bendigo, Gippsland, the Sunshine Coast, Rockhampton, Toowomba, Cairns, Bundaberg, Townsville, Mackay, Darwin, Launceston and Hobart. There are none left in WA.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Climate Change in Australia

The CSIRO and the BOM put their heads together to work out what the findings of the 2007 IPCC Report means to Australia.

In a nutshell, we have to dramatically reduce emissions to keep Australia's average temperature from increasing more than the 1% that is already programmed into the system.

If this is a Government agency report, then how can any self-respecting Government ignore the implications.

clipped from www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fourth assessment report, concluding that: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal Humans are very likely to be causing most of the warming that has been experienced since 1950 It is very likely that changes in the global climate system will continue well into the future, and that they will be larger than those seen in the recent past. These changes have the potential to have a major impact on human and natural systems throughout the world including Australia. The IPCC reports provide limited detail on Australian climate change, particularly when it comes to regional climate change projections. For this reason the Australian Greenhouse Office, through the Australian Climate Change Science Programme, engaged CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to develop climate change projections for Australia.