Guy Beres

I have not had the opportunity as yet to completely digest the draft Garnaut Report [PDF from SMH], although I have had time to be annoyed that the government feels comfortable basing decisions on predictions of the distant future when it seemingly does not have the ability to predict the demand for downloading a report from its website now. As I type the Garnaut Review website is completely out of commission and seemingly accepting no traffic. One wonders if the entire domain is being relocated to a different network or provider. Whatever is going on, it is a hardly acceptable level of service. People should not be prevented from viewing information disseminated by the government because it did not adequately predict demand for that information.

But on to more material matters. What I have read of the report so far certainly provides food for thought, and by the looks of things, there are quite insightful nuggets of wisdom embedded throughout. What I appreciate about Garnaut’s analysis is his intellectual pragmatism. I have little doubt that his blue-blooded contrarian streak questions whether the devastating potential consequences of climate change will come to fruition. I have little doubt that the imposition of government controls that could serve to damage the economy in the short-term run counter to his natural intuition. Despite all of this, like most of the rest of us who do not immerse themselves in the climate change science literature full-time, Garnaut knows that he has little recourse given the available evidence but to presume that the scientific mainstream is right, or in the very least, not far from. He therefore respects the need for potential short-term pain in order to reduce the likelihood of severe long-term pain. This is an entirely rational approach under the circumstances.This characterisation of the political problem facing the nations of the world from the draft report sums things up fairly well (pp. 12-13):

Effective international action is necessary if the risks of dangerous climate change are to be held to acceptable levels, but deeply problematic. International cooperation is essential for a solution to a global problem. However, such a solution requires the resolution of a genuine prisoners’ dilemma. Each country benefits from a national point of view if it does less of the mitigation itself, and others do more. If all countries act on this basis, without forethought and cooperation, there will be no resolution of the dilemma. We will all judge the outcome, in the fullness of time, to be insufficient and unsatisfactory.

Resolution of the international prisoner’s dilemma takes time—possibly more time than we have. The world has squandered the time that it did have in the 1990s to experiment with various approaches to mitigation.

Climate change is a diabolical policy problem. It is harder than any other issue of high importance that has come before our polity in living memory.

The prisoners’ dilemma, of course, is a well known logical problem that has important applications in mathematics, economics, computing and psychology. In raw economic terms, Australia would be best served in the short-term if all other nations on the planet cut emissions multilaterally, and we were allowed to continue emitting as much carbon as we pleased. Of course, this is not a tack that every nation can afford to take with respect to climate change. If all other nations decide to cut emissions only when the largest polluters except them cut emissions, the world will remain in a state of emission cut deadlock perpetually. This is a scenario that calls out for leaders; for a few select nations to put their hands up and show the rest of the world how it is done.

Brendan Nelson’s populist response to the draft report indicates that he either does not understand this point, does not really accept mainstream scientific opinion, or otherwise (most probably) has decided that there is more to gain politically from opposing any climate change policy that might involve short-term economic pain:

“It will be an act of environmental suicide, an act of economic suicide, if Australia were to be so far in front of the world implementing an ill-considered, not yet properly developed and tested emissions trading scheme if we haven’t got a genuinely global response,” he [Nelson] told journalists.

It would seem that the leader of the Opposition, cast as prisoner in the apocryphal dilemma, would rat on his fellow prisoner in an instant in a ruthless and foolish attempt to try and stay ahead of the pack. Given what we know about the mainstream climate science, Nelson seems to be risking a lot more than five years imprisonment by refusing to give an inch until some of the other nations of the world give a mile. This approach is a continuation of the willingly ignorant purposelessness that characterised the Howard Government’s approach to environmental issues, and I think that most people who give a fig about what is going to happen on this planet over the next few decades will see that.

One thing I have pondered from time to time whilst living in London is to how the air quality compares to that back in Australia. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the situation might be worse over here, but it is only anecdotal. While obviously London is a much larger and busier city than the likes of either Sydney or Melbourne, it’s probably arguable that the major cities in Australia have much more of a car-centric transport culture than the British capital. During his eight year reign as Mayor for London (which only ended a few months ago), Ken Livingstone made a political point of discouraging commuters from driving their cars into the city, most famously and controversially through the introduction of the London congestion charge.

Mercer Human Resource Consulting have recently released their 2007 Quality of Life Report, which if you are feeling extraordinarily affluent and interested you can purchase for $USD 390. The report compares and ranks 380 cities worldwide with respect to 39 separate criteria across 10 categories. Setting aside for a moment the issues associated with having valuable data like this only available to those willing or able to pay, this seems like a report well worth digesting. Fortunately for freeloaders some high-level summary statistics from the report are available free of charge (including the “Top 50″), from which we can glean the following interesting tidbits in relation to health and sanitation rankings:

• The top ranked Australian city for health and sanitation for 2007 was Adelaide at 35th.
• Melbourne and Perth tied for 43rd place, with Brisbane coming in at 47th.
• Sydney came in at 62nd with London following marginally at 63rd.
• All Canadian cities part of the survey featured in the top 25.
• Seven cities in the United States were ranked higher than Australia’s highest rating city.
• Auckland and Wellington came in ahead of any Australian city in joint 18th place.
• Glasgow is the only city in the United Kingdom to have made the top 50.

Of course these rankings are apparently calculated from a variety of metrics relating to health and sanitation (e.g. hospital and medical services, water and air quality, etc), and not just air pollution, but these comparative rankings are quite interesting regardless. Also of interest is Mercer’s “quality of living” rankings, where patriotically speaking, we must note, Australia performs significantly better.

ELSEWHERE: More in this story from Forbes, which also has an exposè-style photo from each of the worst 25 ranked cities for health and sanitation. Unsurprisingly, most of the worst 25 cities are from third-world nations without strong public health infrastructure or investment patterns.

The Rudd Government’s foray into the car manufacturing industry looks set to divide expert commentators. The Australian is already running what seems to be a fairly strong editorial line in opposition to the $35m subsidy granted by the federal government to Toyota towards the development of a hybrid Camry, on the grounds that Toyota was going to fund the development regardless. It goes without saying that your average economist is probably going to be very sceptical that such a grant amounts to much more than rank economic protectionism; an approach that should have been buried last century. On the other hand, one would imagine that the average environmentalist is going to feel generally positive about the grant, which has been matched with another $35m from the Victorian Government.

Philip King’s observations in The Australian exemplify the orthodox economic argument:

There’s only one winner out of the announcement that $35 million will be handed to Toyota to produce a hybrid Camry in Melbourne. It isn’t the Government, the car workers, the environment or the Australian consumer.

It’s Toyota.

…

It means threats by a senior executive last year that Toyota might quit Australian manufacturing can now be put on hold, for a few years at least.

Beyond that, the dividends look dubious in the extreme. Toyota was on track to make the announcement in a few months anyway and claims it already had the business case sewn up.

I am neither an economist nor an environmentalist in the formal sense, but I am a little sceptical about the real benefit that this grant will bring. By the sounds of things this grant has been made to Toyota effectively as a kind of reward for exhibiting willingness to pursue the development of hybrid technology. It does not seem that Toyota’s work on a hybrid Camry was contingent on receiving the subsidy; it was going to happen anyway. However, now that the company is to receive the subsidy, it has also been burdened with a greater degree of public responsibility with respect to green car development. Toyota is directly receiving funds from taxpayers, and I am sure that the Rudd Government and indeed taxpayers will make it clear that they want something in return for their investment.

This first grant from the Rudd Government’s $500 million Green Car Innovation Fund does represent something of a watershed, and it does fly in the face of the established economic orthodoxy. It will make the usual suspects angry as a result, but I am not sure we can seriously expect a workable alliance to be built on climate change issues without some give from both industry and the taxpayer. That this grant also represents a pork barrel salve for Australia’s slowly dying car manufacturing industry is perhaps too politically convenient for Federal Labor for comfort, but the mere fact that this is an economically unorthodox step does not mean it is a misstep. Over the coming days, I expect that we will see a number of conservative economic pundits make the mistake of rebutting the rationale for the grant based on a dogmatic argument rather than a reality-based argument.

I have to admit that while I think the humble guestbook is a neat way of annotating the worth of a museum or gallery exhibition to its visitors, for whatever reason I very rarely leave a comment when I visit one. Perhaps part of the reason why is that when it comes to summarising my thoughts, I am simply unable to reduce what I think and feel to a single sentence or two. I am not sure if that is more a failing or more a virtue. It is a failing, of course, because a certain crucial aspect of the skill of using language is being succinct. The writing of folks like who make a virtue of their prolixity aside (e.g. take for example Marcel Proust), it is usually better to use ten good words rather than one-hundred sloppy words to get across what you are trying to say. On the other hand, it is a virtue, because I am sceptical of the notion that your average guestbook comment provides anything more than a virtually content-free expression of either “it was good” or “it was bad”.

It is with these thoughts in mind that as someone who writes and is a bit of an armchair student of language in public life, I thought that this comment left by Kevin Rudd in the guestbook of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park was beautifully phrased:

“Let the world resolve afresh, from the ashes of this city - to work together for a common mission of peace for this Asia-Pacific century and for a world where one day nuclear weapons are no more.”

Not only does this single sentence express a clear abhorrence for nuclear weapons, but it also gracefully alludes to a point often implied but rarely talked about explicitly in the mainstream media: the spheres of power in the global political economy are set to shift quite dramatically in the coming decades. Thanks to the growing might of China and India and also the importance of Indonesia, Asia is indeed looking set to be the most dynamic and influential arena for political and economic debate amongst the nations of the world in the 21st century. The era when Europe and the United States dominated the political and economic affairs of the globe is not precisely over, but it does look set to ebb.

The statement also ties in neatly with the Prime Minister’s bold announcement for a new International Commission of Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. Although the government has been criticised in the media of late for going committee and commission crazy since assuming office, there is little doubting that new frameworks for international co-operation are required in order to progress debate beyond the status quo on nuclear disarmament that currently exists. One would also hope that the government works to ensure that its position on uranium trade does not serve to fatally undermine its good will in establishing this commission. We must remember that it is easy politics to establish commissions; whether or not the government has done the right thing will depend on whether the commission achieves anything of worth. The outcome is what, at the end of the day, we should judge, not just the intention.

UPDATE: From this report, it seems that the commission’s goal will be to deliver a report to a conference of experts in the field in 2009, before serving as input to the planned 2010 review of the NPT.

As an Australian I am sort of proud that the Earth Hour event has now taken off all over the world. Practically speaking of course I am not sure the event achieves all that much, but if it continues as an annual event it will serve as a potent global reminder of the importance of tackling climate change issues. I think its interesting that folks like Matthew Warren at The Australian and of course perennial climate change sceptic Tim Blair have quickly jumped back on the contrarian bandwagon. Unfortunately, the event embodies enough symbolistic bonhomie to attract satire and ridicule from anyone with a bone to pick with either the mainstream acceptance of the climate change science or symbolism in politics more generally. There is a target on its back as wide as a barn because of the way it is framed.

I suppose a slightly broader question is whether events like this are really worthwhile, when all things are considered. Regular readers of this blog will probably not be surprised to hear that I think they are, although I think its healthy to temper one’s view of symbolic events like Earth Hour with a dose of scepticism. I think the positives we can take out of Earth Hour mostly relate to increasing public awareness of climate change issues, and the marketing of environmental issues more broadly as being somewhat relevant to us all. Any reduction in overall carbon emissions resulting from Earth Hour is of course likely to be on the inconsequential side of things, as several critics pointed out in relation to last year’s inaugural event. However, critics who focus entirely on the raw carbon emission reduction from the event are missing the point. The event provides an avenue to people who ordinarily would not give two hoots about climate change issues to be part of something bigger themselves and make a small difference. Many people now doubt see that powerful corporations and other Australians they respect and admire are taking the event seriously, and decide to participate, or in the very least, think a little bit more for a moment about what climate change may eventually mean for the planet.

The professionalism and success of the campaign is an interesting contrast to the sheer juvenilia exhibited by some climate change science deniers. But then for some of these people, “denier” is too strong a word; they haven’t bothered to engage with the science, and only seem interested in letting off some steam with some faux-cool contrarianism. These guys are to climate change issues what kids taking mobile phone pictures up women’s skirts are to clothes shopping. Offensive, irrelevant, and just plain pathetic.

UPDATE: Tim Blair’s entirely predictable and brain-free snark in response to this post is here. I feel gratified to be the target of a re-run of the “Al Gore catches a lot of planes” gag. Maybe it is a summer programming thing over there - who knows?

The Coalition’s enthusiasm for pursuing nuclear power solutions for Australia apparently dropped off quite rapidly after the departure of the former Prime Minister; although we have only started to hear about it now. Despite no associated media statement being released at the time, Chris Hammer reports in The Age today that the decision to junk the Coalition’s approach to nuclear power was made at a shadow cabinet meeting in December last year. Shadow Environment spokesperson Greg Hunt now suggests that there is “zero chance” of a nuclear power industry emerging in Australia within the next 40 years. Needless to say, it is very interesting that an election result apparently has the capacity to change a partyroom’s mind on a policy so profoundly. Particularly one which the election was not widely perceived to be a referendum on.

Unfortunately for the Opposition, its new “stance” on nuclear power appears riddled with ambiguity and is ripe for attack from the government. Consider this thoroughly non-sensical sentence attributed to a spokesperson for Doctor Nelson, attempting to summarise the Coalition’s revised approach to nuclear power issues:

Yesterday a spokesman for Dr Nelson said: “Coalition policy is to investigate the possibility of nuclear energy, but it is not part of our policy. If it were to occur, it would only occur in a bipartisan way.”

A translation would seem to be required. The message from the Coalition seems to be that they are interested in investigating the possibility of nuclear energy, but no, of course they would never actually pursue the development of a nuclear power industry in this country. No, sir. They are just interested in investigating it. Unless of course, the Rudd Government decides to embrace nuclear power, in which case they would be happy to hop on board for the ride, as they have done on industrial relations, the Kyoto Protocol, apologising to the stolen generations, and so on, over the course of the last couple of months.

The Nelson Opposition has once again been caught junking a seemingly unpopular policy, without actually thinking too much about what its new approach or direction in that area is going to be. This latest sabotage of the Howard team platform adds further credence to the snowballing public perception that the Coalition has not a clue what it stands for anymore, now that its former leadership team are mostly now on the backbenches or else out of parliament. It needs some direction and fast, before the Rudd Government starts feeling like the comfy old pair of slippers that the Howard Government became for so many ordinary voters out there.

The Rudd Government’s credibility on environmental (and perhaps, by association) economic issues is likely to depend to a significant extent on the eventual outcomes of the Garnaut Climate Change Review, and of course the government’s reaction to the report’s findings. Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol so soon after being elected ensured that the new government got off to an excellent start from a symbolic perspective, although its stance on emission cuts was left somewhat undefined at the UNCCC meeting in Bali last December. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong nevertheless articulated Australia’s position quite clearly; namely that the Rudd Government would, having announced the Garnaut Review prior to the election, await the review findings and recommendations before setting any interim targets. It obviously wasn’t quite as forthright a position as the environmental lobby would have liked, but in process terms the position made eminent sense.

Since then there have been some pre-emptive ad hominem attacks on the “green” credentials of Professor Ross Garnaut, mostly centred on the fact that he is an economist, and therefore that he is likely to focus on the economic impacts of emissions cuts, rather than the disastrous consequences if emissions cuts are not adopted, according to the climate change science. Considering these attacks, it is quite interesting to observe Garnaut’s recent comments from a conference in Adelaide yesterday (as reported by Penelope Debelle in the SMH):

On the eve of the release today of his interim report on climate change, Professor Garnaut told a conference in Adelaide yesterday that without intervention before 2020, it would be impossible to avoid a high risk of dangerous climate change. “The show will be over,” he said.

The Government’s existing target is to cut greenhouse emissions by 60% by 2050. Professor Garnaut said Australia would need to go “considerably further” as part of a global agreement, with full participation by developing countries, to keep climate change at acceptable levels.

These are strong words in a “green” sense for someone who has been typecast in some quarters as the stereotypical “grey” economist. I look forward to the outcomes of the Garnaut Review, and I certainly have a strong level of confidence that Garnaut will get the balance right between the economic aspects the nation will need to deal with and the potential environment repercussions. The man’s economic credentials are unquestionable. These recent statements reinforce the fact that he is cogniscent of and ready to accept the implications of the science. The early indications are that this appointment, made in Opposition by Federal Labor, was an excellent one.

UPDATE: Details of how you can make a submission to the Garnaut Review if you are so inclined can be found here.