Step up Greens

The Australian Greens Party has finally made some noise in the Emissions Trading Scheme debate by unveiling 22 amendments to the Rudd Government’s ETS legislation. Proposals from the Greens are typically derided as being extremist and unrealistic, yet the Greens are firmly rooted in mainstream economic and scientific orthodoxy on climate change. Their proposed 25 per cent emissions cut for example, is not a number chosen simply because it is more ambitious then the Government’s. It is the minimum cut in emissions as recommended by the best available scientific data to keep the climate “safe” stabilizing under a Co2 concentration of 450 ppm. As well as keeping in line with the science, the Greens’ proposed amendments burrow heavily from the Garnaut report (the Government commissioned economic study into an ETS). In particular the proposals to limit compensation for the big polluters, to require greater transparency in carbon accounting and to remove the ridiculously low $10 carbon permit price cap. Furthermore the Greens try and address some of the fundamental problems in the scheme, such as the fact that voluntary emissions reductions by individuals and small businesses only serve to subsidise the big polluters. They propose to appoint an expert body “to estimate the level of additional abatement for a year” from these individuals and then require the Climate Change minister to reduce the national emissions cap by that amount each year. While this would be difficult to practically administer, it at least shows that one political party is trying to solve these fundamental flaws in emissions trading schemes. Most cogently, the Greens argue that the Productivity Commission should play a key role in regulating and reviewing the scheme when passed into law, particularly in relation to industry assistance and the actual rate of “carbon leakage” or job losses. Strong collaboration with the Productivity Commission in the running of the ETS would make it much harder for the big polluters to make unqualified claims about potential job losses and present dodgy economic modelling.

Unfortunately, despite the quality and economic rationality of these amendments, they are nothing more than political stunts. The Government will never negotiate with the Greens because, as Ben Eltham succinctly puts it in the New Matilda today “why would Kevin Rudd negotiate with the Greens, when merely threatening a double-dissolution election on climate change is just about tearing the Liberal Party apart? Or to put it another way, why let the little matter of the future climate of the planet get in the way of party political advantage?”( http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/13/last-some-realistic-climate-policy-ideas). Indeed while there is the prospect that the Greens could get Independent senator Nick Xenaphon on board, but they would in addition require the vote of either Steve Fielding (a proudly self-described “climate change sceptic) or the vote of a Coalition senator which just doesn’t seem realistic at all.

This doesn’t render the Greens’ contribution irrelevant however. What is important is that they are out there in the news-cycle hammering home their talking points and discrediting the positions of the other parties. Since their proposed scheme is demonstrably more efficient as proven by the Government’s own economic modelling in the Garnaut Report, the Greens have an ideal platform with which to display their economic credentials to the public and with which they can simultaneously to criticize the major parties for handing out compensation to big polluters. When Parliament returns next Monday, the Greens need to focus heavily on the issue of compensation for big polluters because it has the potential to be a really sensitive issue for the Government. Giving taxpayer money to big polluters is never going to be popular in the electorate, especially when the Garnaut Report recommended against it. The Greens can criticize the cosy relationship between Government and the big polluters in a populist manner and have the economic evidence to back it up with. Raising the issue so that Government ministers are forced to justify the compensation in interviews will be enough to make their strategists nervous.

The Greens’ amendments will sadly never be passed but arguably that is not the point of releasing them. The reason for releasing them is to provide an authorities platform with which to expose the potential political weaknesses of the Government’s ETS in particular the free compensation for big polluters. The Greens need to make it very clear to the public that the scheme the Government proposes is both economically inefficient and beholden to vested interest groups as the evidence clearly shows. The Greens must also make clear that their amendments are not the result of a quasi-religious environmentalist stance but rather the product of the best available economic and scientific data. After all, people expect the Greens to call for tougher measures, what they don’t usually expect is for those measures to be economically responsible. In short, the Greens through their amendments, have earned the right to describe their climate change policy as the most economically rational and efficient of all the parties. They now need to make sure everyone knows it.

A New PR Strategy for Environmental Groups

In the lead up to the Copenhagen climate conference, it has been customary for green groups and environmentalists to pin all hope on the possibility that President Obama will suddenly provide strong leadership and strike an historic climate deal with China. This isn’t going to happen. We have already seen the farcical scenes in the US where Obama can’t even convince his Congress and Senate to support universal healthcare, why should we think they would support strong cuts on emissions? The influence of the fossil fuel lobbies in developed economies at this current time is just too strong. The developing economies such as India’s will continue to argue that developed economies should take the initiative, even though India must surely realize that they won’t. The only realistic avenue we have for convincing world leaders to reduce emissions is to increase the public pressure on them. After all, the only people Western politicians really pay attention to are opinion pollsters, and it is only when politicians start regarding their climate change inertia as an electoral liability will they be motivated to act.

When examining the opinion polls on climate change in Western nations such as Australia, the UK and the US it is clear that people are aware of climate change. It is evident that the majority in these countries regard climate change as a real issue and not as part of a left wing conspiracy. Based on this one might conclude that scientists and green groups have been successful in spreading the message that climate change is real. This is true. However, despite the belief in climate change it is not regarded as a high priority issue. In the US for example, only 7% regarded climate change as one of the most important issues that will affect their 2010 Congress vote. This is where we lose it, the science is telling us we need dramatic cuts in order to keep the temperature increase under two degrees. The only way this is realistically possible now is by making a pledge similar in size to the bank-bailout last October. Unfortunately a pledge of that size would not be electorally popular. For too long the public have been hammered with the message that dramatic action to cut emissions would be “economically irresponsible”. This charge is quite ridiculous for the reason that delaying action on climate change causes our environmental and agricultural assets to devalue dramatically so delaying action is far more economically irresponsible. This is the debate that fossil fuel lobbies have been allowed to win though; they have quite successfully cast themselves in the media as the economically responsible whilst green groups are more often regarded as idealistic and unrealistic economic vandals.

A recent report by the British Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) reveals the true extent of the image problem green groups suffer. The IPPR’s research involving talking to what their analyst Simon Retallack described as “society’s trendsetters. They tend to have a high level of motivation to consume, and their prominent position within social circles makes them a driver of fashions and trends, meaning that they are a particularly powerful subsection of the population when it comes to determining consumption-related behaviors”. When asked their views on climate change one participant in the IPPR’s workshops apparently regarded climate change as “one of those things you think about for a few minutes, get depressed, and move on to the next thing”. Another prevalent attitude among IPPR’s participants was a sense of resentfulness at being made to feel guilty about their lifestyles. Environmentalists as a whole were regarded by this group as “smug” and “self righteous”. Environmentalists are the most common messengers for climate change and their low esteem in the community redoubtably has a lot to do with so much of the public has been so slow to warm to the notion of climate change.

This example demonstrates quite clearly that while people believe in climate change they are also quite apathetic or ignorant towards its consequences. What green groups need to do is find an argument that challenges that apathy, by linking climate change to bread and buter issues; weekly incomes, financial security and the price of food. Green groups will be listened by many more people (particularly by those with lower incomes) if they incorporate these concerns into their message.

Fossil fuel lobbies currently have the upper hand in the economic side of the climate change debate, due to their claims that changing the current system will have a disastrous impact on jobs and prevent economic growth. Green groups need to show that the opposite is true; the cost of doing nothing will ensure an even greater financial burden as environmental degradation begins to affect economic output. Few individuals seem more suited to articulating this style of argument that Ben McNeil, author of the recently published “The Clean Industrial Revolution”. In an interview with New Matilda’s Ben Eltham he observes that “every single economic reform that’s happened in the country, whether it be occupational health and safety in the 80s or lowering tariffs, there was always this massive scare campaign from particular industry groups. But in the end it turned out that both those things were actually good things for Australia”. This is a good example of the sort of argument that needs to be made against the carbon lobbies. In this narrative, protecting the fossil fuel industry is like protecting the typewriter in the age of the computer. Economic advantage is to be gained from investing in new sectors such as renewable energy and economic change is necessary to keep our economy strong. If we simply maintain the status quo then food and energy prices will inevitably rise anyway.

Green groups should also dedicate more time to trashing the fossil fuel lobby’s credibility. The horrifying job numbers that the big mining companies produce in their dodgy economic modeling are obviously flawed yet they allowed to fester in the news cycle and gain traction in the electorate. Green groups must respond with the message that energy companies aren’t concerned about jobs, only profits. Books such as Clive Hamilton’s “Scorcher” shed light on the insidious and uncomfortably close relationship between government ministers and the resources lobby in Australia, yet these associations are never widely publicized in the media. If green groups spent more time in the news cycle bemoaning the closeness between vested interests and politicians, it would undoubtedly make the likes of Kevin Rudd hesitant to deal with the resources lobbies for fear of electoral disapproval. The way things currently are, the carbon lobbies have a key role in the writing of the actual carbon Emissions Trading Scheme legislation. The fact that the big fossil fuel lobbies are not regarded with suspicion by the general public is one of the greatest failings of the environmental movement. When one considers the ease with which Israel is able to demonize human rights groups and the ease with which Republican election campaigners demonize just about anyone who stands in their way I find it incredible that green groups have not been able to demonize fossil fuel lobbies despite the amount of material they have to work with. Even if we can’t convince Average Joe to trust environmentalists, we should sure as hell be able to make him distrust energy companies.

To summarize; in 2009 the objective of green groups must change from simply raising awareness of the problem of climate change, to emphasizing the economic importance of taking urgent action. Environmentalists need to start talking like economists and less like social campaigners. Green groups also need to work much harder to trash the carbon lobbies and their cosy relationships with politicians. The day when politicians regard associating with heavy polluters as an electoral liability will be a good day for climate politics.

Reality as percieved by the right wing

“With this decision, now, I will be able to fight even harder for you, for what is right, and for truth.” This is what Sarah Palin had to say during her resignation speech from the governership of Alaska. You could be forgiven for asking how by resigning as Governer she could possibly be in a position to fight “even harder for you”, but then one must recognize that logic and reason don’t really apply to Palin. She lives in a strange reality where knowing stuff is bad and detailed policy stances are distractions from “straight talk” and the real business of helping Joe the Plumber realise his dream of owning his own business. Just recently she extolled the virtues of a free press “first, some straight talk for some, just some in the media, because another right protected for all of us is freedom of the press, and you have such important jobs, reporting facts and informing the electorate and exerting power to influence. You represent what could and should be a respected, honest profession that could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy. Democracy depends on you. And that’s why our troops are willing to die for you, so how about in honor of the American soldier, you quit making things up.” – Speaks for itself doesn’t it?

The fact that Palin enjoys so much success within the conservative establishment is indicative of a broader trend within the political right wing towards a rather barmy view of reality. In the eyes of most US Republicans and throughout the right wing blogosphere Obama is a liberal faccist, a socialist and a communist all in one. They make the claim that Obama wasn’t even born on US soil and the birth certificate he provided to quash the myth is (obviously) forged. His part ownership of the auto industry is part of a secret plan of mass socialisation of America’s companies, healthcare for all is derided as “socialist medicine”. Climate change is a giant hoax perpertrated by “extreme” environmentalists… I am sure you can think of another twenty issues wherein the conservative (particuarly the Republican) perspective isn’t grounded in reality. It is perfectly legitimate for a conservative politician to believe that there is a world wide chai-latte-drinking-elitist conspiracy to set up an environmentalist-totalatarian state and of course they never need to provide actual evidence of this. If you think I’m exaagerating, listen to Rush Limbaugh (surely the most powerful person in the Republican establishment right now) and weep with laughter.

These crazy attitudes aren’t limited to the US because, as Wilson Tuckey revealed last week, the Australian Liberal and National parties are full of utter nutcases. It’s as if Wilson Tuckey doesn’t care that his party would be annihlated at the next election for denying the scientific basis for climate change. Tuckey, like so many other self styled defenders of “Howard’s legacy” within the party simply refuse to face facts (both of a scientific and a electoral nature) that spell out in black and white that the great majority of the public do not agree with him. I always thought that one of the professed virtues of conservatism as a political philosophy was that it was more a realistic way of looking at the world as it is as opposed to how it ought to be, but what are we to make of these American and Australian conservatives who prefer the set of facts produced by fossil fuel lobbies over the opinions of peer reviewed scientific bodies. One possible explanation for this slide towards insanity is that the recent American and Australian elections saw many of the marginal seats go to the Democrats and Labor respectively so that the smaller right wing caucus is made up primarily with those members who serve particuarly conservative electrates. Thus an increasing proportion of the decreasing conservsative base are idealogically extreme.

One should watch Palin’s progress in the 2011 Republican primaries closely, her success or failure will be determined largely by whether the conservatives want to face reality, or continue to live in their own dystopia of elitist conspiracy theorists and liberal fascism(whatever that actually means).

The Folly of Pointless Optimism

2008 hasn’t really been a year for good news. Economies have taken a battering, foreign crises have multiplied and have been met with equally woeful responses. Perhaps the greatest tragedy however, has been that all these crisis’ have distracted attention from the greatest crisis of all, the failure of world leaders to effectively combat climate change.  It’s almost surreal listening to expert after expert articulating the terrible situation we have got ourselves into, and exclaim that it is of course still possible that we can avoid climate change, as if these scientists are afraid of appearing pessimistic. Any close observer of the current national and international climate change debates can see that the sluggish political processes to slowly tackle environmental problems are woefully inadequate and even if such low emissions targets were met they would fail to stop runaway climate change.

Put in simpler terms, general scientific consensus is that capping emissions at 450ppm of Co2 in the atmosphere is necessary in order to avoid dangerous climate change. What is conspicuously under-reported however, is that this figure only provides us with a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. The target that most governments realistically aspire to now is 550ppm. This concentration would guarantee mass migration, far less food production and the extreme likelihood of a range of natural disasters across the globe. Yet many experts such as Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University have pointed out that most that carbon emissions since 2000 have risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world. So much extra pollution is being pumped out that most of the climate targets debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and “dangerously misguided” at worst.The 4c degree rise that inevitably would come with a 650ppm concentration seems more and more likely with every passing day.

Yet Shyam Saran has delivered the unsurprising if not devastating news in an interview with the Guardian newspaper that India would “not volunteer to take on responsibilities that would see it accept legally binding limits”. As India and Pakistan’s water supply is largely derived from the seasonal thawing of alpine reigons, India’s decision effectively sabotages the reigon’s water supply and confines the next generation to chaos and famine.

The causes of this disaster are complex and widespread. Partly a result of the inertia of our unsustainable consumption based societies, partly a failure or inability of the media to effectively communicate the severity of the problem. No single blog entry could even begin to explain the many problems that have doomed the next generation to enduring the consequences and failures of the current generation of leaders. All this entry aspires to do, is to encourage people to face reality and to stop debating climate change with a fake optimism that suggests that we are still in a position to prevent it happening at all. It is not a question of climate change or no climate change, but rather between dangerous climate change and even worse climate change.  Perhaps debating the issue in these more realistic terms may wake our politicians up from their unacceptable slumber. I wouldn’t bet on this happening any time soon however, no matter how much scientific evidence is presented, it will for the moment lose out to the corporate lobbyist who screams job losses and so wins the ear of all politicians who are terrified of being blamed for further economic woe.

In thirty years time, our children and grandchildren will be studying history books and and the heading for the section that describes our current crop of political leaders will undoubtably read “The ones who saved the banks and let the planet die.”