Warning: 450ppm CO2 target would delay doubling of GNP by 6 whole months!

Criticise him as a utopian leftwing pinko as you wish to, but Clive Hamilton has clearly highlighted how current governing structures and economic practices are ill-equipped to handle climate change legislation.

Hamilton has pointed out that, in Australia at least according to Garnaut's modelling, a target of 450ppm of carbon dioxide is going to delay the doubling of Australia's GNP by only 6 months compared to a target of 550ppm.^[source] To state the obvious it is an incredibly trivial delay in the great scheme of things. And the delay compared to having no target whatsoever would still only be 2.5 years.

I used to think enacting major social change was largely a case of causing a swing in public opinion to a critical mass which would in turn result in the necessary changes to policy and legislation. But what about the case where public opinion has shifted in support of change, but the science of the issue is too complex (and dare I say esoteric) that the layperson doesn't have any real idea of political and legal changes required to achieve the outcomes desired by public consensus?

To me this is the problem of legislating to combat climate change and it's a global one. Mass opinion has already shifted. Sure there are still very vocal and otherwise-intelligent skeptics out there but even if they are right (and I don't for one second believe they are) public opinion has overtaken them anyway. The problem is translating public consensus to combat global warming and live sustainably into real and effective policy.

This problem truly makes a case for acknowledging and tackling the economic growth fetish, as Hamilton describes it. In this sense, public opinion still needs some swaying, but this is a much tougher task.

More people need to be exposed to and contemplate the idea of economic growth being a fetish... This way public consciousness relating to climate change could be raised in a way that makes the truly desirable legislatory path (i.e. the one that is in the best interests of society as a whole) clear and obvious.

Related older blogposts by me:

• Why sticking to old ways of thinking is stupid (25 February, 2008)
• Buy nothing on election day: On Growth Fetish and Buy Nothing Day (19 November, 2007)

The Clive Hamilton opinion piece came from Crikey.com.au subscriber article (8 September 2008)^{[subscriber link]} from which I paste large chunks here:

Garnaut bows to the insanity of growth fetishism by Clive Hamilton

The Garnaut report demonstrates how our obsession with economic growth is so powerful that we are unwilling to contemplate sacrificing a tiny amount of consumption now to sharply reduce the risk of climate catastrophe.

The report presents modelling results on the economic implications of stabilising atmospheric concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) versus allowing them to rise to 550 ppm. (The pre-industrial level was 280 ppm of CO2 and we have now reached 387 ppm.)

The 450 ppm target will be accompanied by warming of about 2°C by the end of the century while 550 ppm is likely to see warming of 3°C.

Climate scientists believe that the difference between the two is huge with 550 ppm dramatically increasing the likelihood of catastrophes and runaway climate change – such as an irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet resulting in sea-level rise of 7 metres. That would rule out any chance of returning the atmosphere to a safe level for thousands of years.

Yet Garnaut’s recommendation that the Government aim for a 10% reduction over 2000 levels is based on the belief that stabilizing at 450 ppm is politically infeasible and we must reluctantly accept a 550 ppm world.

How much will pursuing the 550 ppm target cost us in terms of lost income? Garnaut says it will shave a little more than 0.1 per cent from GNP growth through to 2050. This means that instead of growing annually at, say, 2.5 per cent if we do nothing, GNP per person would grow at "only" 2.4 per cent if we aim at 550 ppm. Aiming at 450 ppm would cost only fractionally more.

The welfare cost can best be understood as follows. With an annual real growth rate of 2.5 per cent per person, then with no carbon abatement Australia’s GNP will double by 2040. If from 2012 we aim for the 550 target our GNP will not double until 2049, i.e. we will have to wait an additional two years. And, according to Garnaut's modelling, if we aim for the much safer target of 450, we will have to wait another six months.

...

The economic impact of pursuing a target of 450 ppm rather than 550 ppm is so small that it will be exceeded by the normal statistical error involved in measuring GNP growth. Yet it seems that this amount is so large that it renders the safe option politically infeasible.

...

Garnaut himself ... asks "Is it worth paying over the course of the century less than 1 per cent of GNP for the non-market benefits, insurance value and the enhancing value beyond the 21st century of the 450 strategy?"

He says this is a matter of judgment. Anyone who has to give more than a moment’s thought to this choice must be deluded.

...

Image courtesy of Stephen Leahy.
Categorised as: philosophy, society
Technorati Tags: Garnaut report, Australian economy, Clive Hamilton, growth fetish, public opinion

Well I failed, but Rudd government doing okay...

First an update on Buy Nothing Day the Saturday before last... I failed miserably to buy nothing on Buy Nothing Day. Not only was it a Saturday but a day when the Howard government was chucked out after 11 years, meaning a celebration was absolutely in order!

First I bought a sausage on bread at the polling booth where I volunteered because I was hungry. Second I bought some hommus to take to the party. Third we bought some wine on the way to the party. Then I almost but not quite sold my soul to the Greens.

On the topic of greening, I want to publicly commend Rudd for already ratifying the Kyoto Protocol to a standing ovation. (Well effectively ratified. Apparently the UN takes around 90 working days to make it official... wow what a bureaucracy!)

Australia received huge applause at a UN conference on climate change in Bali after it was announced Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had begun to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr Rudd says signing the instrument of ratification means Australia will be a full member of the Kyoto Protocol before March next year.

This means Australia's greenhouse gas emissions should not be higher than 8 per cent above 1990 levels.

Some delegates of the 12-day conference of parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also gave a standing ovation over the signing. (source)

I don't care much for the grumblings that all this is yet to be properly costed and that it might have a deleterious effect on the economy. This is a win for public consciousness; a measurable shift in the zeitgeist. I look forward to the newly-raised awareness people will start to have, given Australia's sudden and decisive ratification of Kyoto. Now, there is no silly defence of "Well I'm sure if it was a serious problem John Howard would be doing something about it". Those people, happy to trust in their almighty leader, have just been told in no uncertain terms that human-caused climate change is a problem.

Not only did Rudd deliver on this Kyoto promise sooner than expected, but I notice he has set up a series of public accountability mechanisms that show potential to both encourage productivity and discourage unfulfilled promises from the new government. See first his 5 key aims (via Gam) and second Crikey's assessment:

Kevin Rudd has indicated that he's going to be big on report cards during his term. Report cards for his ministers, a report card for himself... (source)

I shouldn't be surprised. This is just basic good, responsible management, but it's such a shock to the system after 11 years!

Categorised as: politics, society
Technorati Tags: climate change, Australian politics, Kevin Rudd, Kyoto Protocol, accountability, Green politics

Buy nothing on election day!

On Growth Fetish and Buy Nothing Day

This Saturday, apart from being election day, is Buy Nothing Day (BND). It's on the 23rd in the Americas, but the 24th elsewhere. Anyway, I will participate and encourage you to do so too, or even just think about what you're buying and the resources consumed to produce that product if you really must buy. NOT because I think a world without buying is realistic, but because a day without it IS. And a lifestyle with less buying in general (and even lower salaries) almost certainly IS.

Making change is all about raising consciousness and I see BND as a great way to do that.

And, by the way, try not to buy into any of pomposity and lies that will no doubt be spewed from the mouths of politicians that day either!

A bit over a year ago I was reading a book called Growth Fetish by Aussie mathematician/public thinker, Clive Hamilton. Frankly, the effect it had on me still hasn't worn off! I highly recommend it, but unfortunately it's a hard slog if you're used to lighter reading.

The essential idea is that we, probably internationally, but certainly in Australia, fetishise a economic growth (and other kinds of growth) at the expense of our own wellbeing, not to mention the environment. Hamilton also offers approaches to economic and political practices, both at the state and individual level, to counteract our various growth fetishes and so regain balance, personal wellbeing and the integrity of the environment. (Read the Wikipedia article for a more scholarly summary).

While we probably don't need to read Growth Fetish to understand such well-worn truths as "money can't buy happiness" and "over-consumption doesn't increase satisfaction", it is particularly clearly put by Hamilton, and in a calm, unpretentious and empirical fashion.

The main idea that really stuck with me (but perhaps not the most critical one) was the personal application – that avoiding buying too much stuff is good for our sense of wellbeing. AND that the opposite is true. I'm not sure I am capable of applying the logic of this idea particularly well in day to day life, although I did find that you can learn to recognise the feeling of regret/disappointment on considering exiting a shopping precinct without having bought anything, acknowledge it, and gently push it out of your mind. If you have realised that I am in fact female you may not believe this, but you will believe me when I say I made up for it with expensive impulse purchases on other occasions!

The perfect YouTube accompaniment to this post just popped up on my radar (via Gam)


What about the more broadscale application of Hamilton's ideas? I'm in favour of capitalism – with careful regulation. And I'm in favour, at the individual level, of consumption – at a moderate and fully-conscious level, and according respect to our planet's delicate ecosystem. The problem Hamilton brings up is the totally unrestrained, even unconscious, overconsumption and capitulation to the pressure to earn incomes higher than what we need that fund this overconsumption. Naturally I'm also against the various deleterious effects that the consumption of resources for the production of goods and produce has on the environment too.

The study of marketing has put many dollars and massive human resources into devising ways to manipulate human nature to encourage us not only to spend more money but to earn more so we can spend more. Surprise, surprise, this is not actually good for us. Hamilton's rather radical answer was to put an end to marketing as we know it. I am highly skeptical, but how about this alternative? I like to imagine that an equal amount of brainpower and dollars as is now put into researching human behaviour for marketing purposes could one day be put into understanding human behaviour for the purpose of "transitioning to a post-growth society" as Hamilton would put it. For instance, imagine having a body of knowledge that explains with science rather than proverbs how it is that people gain happiness and contentment from moderation. Actually, a great deal of knowledge could simply be derived from observing tenets of marketing and experimenting with reversing these...

I'm not alone in thinking we are at a critical point in time with regard our natural environment and ecosystem. It seems that unrestrained capitalism (or a belief that economic growth is a necessity) must inevitably lead to over-consumption of natural resources and a majority of unhappy people. So why would we support it?

As usual, I welcome your thoughts.

A post on the upcoming election to come very soon because I see it as very much related. The Liberal party slogan for this election is "Going for growth" – obscene wouldn't you say?

Categorised as: philsophy, society
Technorati Tags: economics, economic growth, sustainability, zero growth, Buy Nothing Day, Clive Hamilton, Growth Fetish, Australian politics

Boycott Zimbabwe cricket match? Only if it doesn't hurt the economy!

Recently there's been a lot of discussion about the quandary of the Australian cricket team as to whether they should fulfil their contract obligation to play the Zimbabwean team in Zimbabwe or to boycott the match or request for it to be played elsewhere to avoid giving the Mugabe an "enormous propaganda boost",^[source] which would likely impose a $2 million fine on the team from the ICC.

While John Howard and Alexander Downer initially 'strongly urged' the Aussie cricket team to do the 'right thing' and cancel their Zimbabwe tour, they have gradually stepped up the tone of their words as the story has gained media coverage to the point where, now, they have effectively banned the team from participating in the Zimbabwe tour. "[Australian] Cricketers won't play in Zimbabwe while Mugabe's in power", said Downer in one media statement.^[source] And apparently they'll be blocking cricketers request for VISAs if they try.

There are two questions this issue raises in my mind. First, is it of significant practical benefit to ordinary Zimbabweans in the long term to make this stance (even if in the short term it could be to their detriment, as Gam points out, due to the loss of potential revenue from international visitors)? I suspect it would be -- particularly in the long term, so I support the Howard-Downer stance on this, even though I suspect they came to it on realpolitik rather than moral grounds.

The second question is whether most people, most Australians, would be prepared to take the same moral stance in a consistent manner, when it would certainly be to Australia's overall economic detriment -- at least in the short term?

For instance -- and this is a fact about which it seems few people are aware -- there are nine children of prominent ministers of the Mugabe regime studying here in Australia,^[source] no doubt paying big bucks for their schooling or university places. Should these nine Zimbabweans be deported in line with the Howard-Downer moral stance on the cricket issue? Absolutely. Will hurt Australia's reputation for providing full-fee-paying international students with schooling and university degrees. Yes it would.

Should Australia then also boycott sporting events in China, based on China's current human rights record? If so, should Australia also deport all Chinese full-fee-paying students, especially those whose parents are in powerful positions in the ruling Communist party in China? Now that would seriously be to Australia's economic detriment, given the amount of money made from full-fee-paying students from China who study here. I somehow doubt either Howard or Kevin Rudd would publicly suggest any such boycott against China because that's not what Australians want. A secure economy is apparently more important than moral considerations.

And I seriously doubt either Howard or Rudd will make moves to deport the Zimbabwean students here until a big stink is raised about it in mainstream media. Full credit to Crikey for bringing it to my attention months ago! And now you know too.

The information about children of Zimbabwe's elite studying in Australia came from an article in Crikey.com.au (16 April 2007)^{[subscriber link]} from which I paste an excerpt here:

Zimbabwe leaders' children in Australia: who's here by Jane Nethercote

Crikey can now name nine children of senior figures in the disgraced regime of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe who are either studying or resident in Australia.

The children live here despite the Australian Government's financial and travel sanctions against close associates and supporters of the Mugabe regime.

...

Today, the ZIC has identified at least nine children either studying or resident in Australia:

1. Sylvester Chihuri, son of Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri
2. Tendai Nguni, son of Sylvester Nguni, Deputy Minister for Agriculture
3. Kudzai Muchena, son of Olivia Muchena, Minister for Science & Technology Development
4. Thelma Chombo, daughter of Minister for Local Government, Ignatius Chombo
5. Taona Karimanzira, son of Harare Provincial Governor David Karimanzira, is in Brisbane
6. Emmerson Mnangagwa, son of Emerson Mnangagwa, Minister for Rural Housing
7. Pride Gono, Praise Gono, Passion Gono (children of Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono). Pride and Praise, twin sisters, are at Latrobe University in Melbourne. Passion is a son of Gideon Gono, and is said to be working in Sydney.

The current Australian government bans against Zimbabwean figures don't extend to family members. However, in order to send children to Australia and support them while here, financial transactions must surely be taking place, if not by leaders of the ZANU-PF then on their behalf.

...

Mugabe image courtesy of BBC: Zimbabwe 'abuse stepped up' (17 April 2003).

Categorised as: media, philosophy, politics
Technorati Tags: Australian politics, realpolitik, John Howard, Alexander Downer, Kevin Rudd, boycott, Australian cricket team, Mugabe regime, Zimbabwe, Zimbabwean students, Australian universities, ethics

Costello budget 2007: Will he add a stripe of green?

In the lead-up to Costello's May 8th, election year budget speech, Greenpeace is asking you to guess how many times you think he'll mention climate change (if at all), given he's never mentioned it since he started doing budgets eleven odd years ago.

Take a punt on Peter

Given the fact that Australia is still the world's largest exporter of coal, he may just be able to manage it once or twice with a spin towards keeping Australia beautiful while still keeping our coal mines alive and exporting to China – or whichever poor country it ends up in.

Sure the ice has been breaking up, but we just thought that too many penguins were pecking at it.^[source]

In related hilarity, last week a video of "Costello's other budget speech" was released on YouTube, which might help you decide on your answer to Greenpeace's question. Bob Brown would be a deeper shade of green with envy! Good luck striking the right balance on the 8th, Peter!

Categorised as: politics
Technorati Tags: Peter Costello, climate change, global warming, Greenpeace, Bob Brown, coal, Australian politics, green politics

How broad is broadband? Not a problem of breadth but universality!

A really good article in Crikey yesterday that cuts through all the bullshit surrounding claims about broadband in Australia. The fact is that the broadband in my city-centre office is fantastic, fast and affordable for business, but drive and hour outside and it's not. "Better broadband" isn't about Australia performing better against some international benchmarks, but simply providing more equitable access over various geographical locations. That is what we want fixed!

Don't trust everything you read on the Australian internet
Shara Evans, Founder and CEO of Market Clarity (independent research company), 18 April 2007

With Australia's internet speeds a hot election topic, figures are being thrown about to demonstrate where we sit in a global field.

For example, the World Economic Forum "league table" has been cited by many commentators as showing that Australia has the 25th lowest "internet bandwidth" in the world.

It demonstrates no such thing.

The problem with statistics – particularly in the telecommunications market – is that too often, numbers are handled by people who:

• Don’t understand the limitations of the source data;
• Don’t understand the age of the source data; or
• Are so concerned with a political point that they don’t want to know whether their data is accurate or not.

The WEF data quantifies Australia’s international connectivity. It adds up the capacity of our international submarine cables, assigns a portion to internet use, divides this capacity by our population, and ranks countries according to "International capacity per 10,000 inhabitants".

This doesn’t tell us much about Australia’s telecommunications development, because:

1. International capacity doesn’t measure the broadband speeds available to customers – it measures how much traffic carriers need to send overseas. For example, if Google puts a server in Australia, searches no longer travel to America.
2. Capacity on modern fibre optic cables can be added as required, but capacity measurements generally look at the total amount of lit capacity (what’s needed now), as opposed to the potential capacity of a cable system.
3. International capacity may impact the "wait time" to download a file from America or Japan. However, this is in the control of the ISP, which decides how much capacity it can afford to buy.
4. The WEF report uses data published by the ITU in 2002 — the equivalent of ancient history in Internet time.
5. The data used in the WEF report falls short of reality (current lit capacity) by a factor of 16. Its assertion that Australia has around 5 Mbps per 10,000 citizens is simply inaccurate. The available international capacity on Southern Cross, Jarasaurus, SeaMeWe-3, Australia-Japan Cable and the venerable Tasman-2 system is more than 240 Gbps — with more than 80 Mbps of international Internet capacity per 10,000 people.

In other words, the metric used to justify calling Australia’s broadband download speeds a "disgrace" is inaccurate and inapplicable. It also ignores the fact that market forces are addressing international capacity. Three groups (Southern Cross, Telstra, and the Pipe Networks – VSNL consortium) are planning many terabits of new capacity.

What of the famed OECD league table, favourite of politicians and journalists?

While describing the table as "a disgrace" may be too strong, it should be handled with care. In particular:

• There seems to be no single common denominator for the word "broadband". Some countries count 64 Kbps services; the European Commission’s definition (not used by all EC countries) starts at 144 Kbps. Australia’s definition (256 Kbps) is higher than 17 out of 30 OECD nations, while another three countries don’t start counting broadband until 512 Kbps.
• The OECD uses ACCC broadband figures, yet Australian Bureau of Statistics broadband numbers are significantly higher (3.6m versus 3.9m in Sept 2006).
• There is no way for the everyday reader to confirm the accuracy of the data, since some individual countries do not release their own public broadband statistics.

Broadband statistics are good enough for an argument around the barbecue — but any serious attempt to map policy (and billions of dollars) to broadband league tables needs to start with accurate data.

Image courtesy of monkeyinabox.net.
Categorised as: technology, politics
Technorati Tags: internet, broadband, USO, ACCC, Shara Evans, Australian politics

The prejudice, intolerance and hate common to many religions

Following the "uncovered meat is the problem not the cats" controversy, Ms Fits has highlighted equivalent comments made by a Baptist pastor in Victoria.

Pastor David Hodgens: I confess to being very uncomfortable with the tone and reported content of the sheikh's comments... However, one of the things that seems to have been lost in the ensuing discussion is whether or not the point he seemed to be trying to make... ought to be examined. Is there a link between provocative dress and sexual assault?

Leering at a woman in particularly tight or revealing clothing is wrong but so is dressing in a way that is known, even designed, to entice others to sexual desire. (source)

All we need now is a rabbi to point out the same applies to promiscuous Jewish women and the reality of the problems with common philosophy underpinning MANY mainstream religion becomes apparent. One only needs to consider the effective cancelling of a gay parade in Jerusalem to see that certain abhorrent views such as homophobia are common to fundamentalists of both Islam and Judaism just to start...

Back to the point though. Clearly, the response to Sheik Al-Hilay's comment two weeks ago DID turn into a muslim bashing exercise at the expense of becoming a bashing of the "blame the victim" mentality which exonerates perpetrators of sexual assault by implication!

Apparently it's okay for Pru Goward to call for the sheik to be deported for his comments, but, as Ms Fits points out, the same is NOT being applied to Hodgens. Why? Because it's an extremely stupid, small-minded and illogical suggestion in the first place.

If someone makes comments which challenge our common belief in human rights (well common to some, not all) then it's our job to stand up and point this out, but I don't see how deporting the commenter is in any way helpful. It simply means some other poor country has to deal with this misogynist small-mindedness.

The xenophobic and anti-Islam sentiment that prompted these kinds of calls from Howard and Goward is just as bad as the sheik's misogyny! Let's deal with misogyny, xenophobia and the challenge of religious diversity right here and not offer divisive "solutions" that would simply pass the buck on to a different country.

And there's something else that has been missed in all this. Let's imagine for a moment our PM and sex discrimination commissioner really wanted to help both Australia's non-muslim and muslim population have increased wellbeing, instead of just looking for a way to create more votes for themselves from conservatives frightened of "the other"... A sensible discussion of the issue could have in fact been used to create understanding and bridges between two subcultures in Australia! Let's keep that in mind for next time eh.

Categorised as: philosophy, politics, society
Technorati Tags: misogyny, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, religion, xenophobia, homophobia, hatred, deportation, Al-Hilaly, David Hodgens, prejudice

Cowardly behaviour at the Cole enquiry: C'mon surprise me!

"I don't have any specific recollection," said Alexander Downer – several times – on the dock at the Cole Inquiry. What a surprise! Like we thought he would suddenly break down and tell the truth – that the Australian government hand in glove with the AWB were completely aware they were screwing the Iraqi people who effectively paid via AWB for Saddam's nukes and gold-plated palaces.

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has begun giving evidence to the oil-for-food inquiry in Sydney. Mr Downer has said he does not have any specific recollection about seeing many critical cables about rorts of the oil-for-food program. His statement, just tendered to the inquiry, repeats that statement many times. Given the list of departmental cables relating to allegations against AWB, he has written: "I don't have any specific recollection of having received or read this cable." Often it adds: "I don't consider it was likely to be judged sufficiently pressing or critical to be shown to me." Mr Downer says he was generally aware of the allegations, but not aware of any intelligence on allegations against the grains trader. He says he would have expected his department to investigate allegations about money from contracts going to the Middle East and contracts being inflated to pay kickbacks.

Bastard.

John Howard has a real opportunity. Both Vaile and Downer now look tremendously incompetent and it dramatically reduces my opinion of their ability to lead. Leadership demands that you don't make assumptions that your staff should have told you when something important was afoot. After all, you as the leader, are fully aware of anything important that's afoot. Leadership demands that when a mistake has been made you accept responsibility for it. Real leadership also demands that when innocent people have been wronged, you tell the truth about it.

John Howard, you have an opportunity to shock me here and demonstrate true leadership, which neither Vaile or Downer could.

Note: I posted on this topic back in November, and if anything I'm madder about it now than then. At that point, I didn't fully comprehend how the money channelled to Saddam was sourced straight from the capite censi of Iraq (from their Oil-For-Food funds). Supporting the evil dictator guy is one thing. Stealing from the people with whom we apparently went to war to rid of their evil dictator is another thing!

Update: In case you didn't already see it, Tim D spotted a incredible yet cringe-worthy slip of the tongue on the part of Downer: "I rarely — er... I mean really — read the cables from New York". Really?

Update: In case you were wondering, Howard completely failed to surprised us when he spoke to the commission on this too.

Categorised as: politics
Technorati Tags: Australian politics, Alexander Downer, Mark Vaile, John Howard, Cole Inquiry, Oil-for-food scandal, leadership