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

The Chaser's war on ABC ratings

Aunty is no doubt very proud of herself. Not only was the ABC Howard's choice of platform to announce that if he gets re-elected for the fourth time he'll be retiring (??!) but the proud sponsor of the Chaser boys whose show last night was apparently the most-viewed over all TV networks.

While some of the stunts (such as attempting to load furniture on to a public bus) were weak as usual, the APEC stunt was incredible! If you didn't see the Chaser show last night, you can download it or watch online from the website. The funniest thing was the way Julian Morrow, dressed carefully in formal attire, was the only guy the police were eager to arrest, while Chas Licciardello, dressed as Osama, was of no interest at all and just had to trot along behind Julian in the hope of getting some attention!

What impressed me most though are how the responses to that self-praising ABC news item seem to indicate one way in which Australian society is actually functional, even if the same can't be said for our security expertise.

Here are some of the responses:

The Chaser stunt was a perfectly poised political stunt carried off immaculately. ... Its time both levels of government saw this US created war on terror for what it is - a complete joke. -- Chris

The Chaser proved that $160 million was spent on crowd control and not security against terrorism. What did they catch? Some blokes in fancy dress and one nutter with a dart and iron bar. -- Bob Erwin

Possibly one of the funniest things I have seen on television. I hope anyone who disapproved of the stunt last week, saw last nights episode. I don't think its possible to not laugh at the incompetence of the APEC security. Even the cops involved found it funny. -- Old Gregg

Tut-tutters

Sure it did show the security up for what it was: a joke but what if security personnel had responded with violence thinking they were under threat, what if someone had started shooting and people were injured. ...there is time and a place for that sort of well intentioned joke and an APEC summit is not it. Its like yelling 'bomb' on a plane. -- JOhnC

Of course if the Secret Service or Police were allowed to issue shoot-to-kill orders to the snipers, the whole stunt would've had a rather different outcome. ...we should be thankful we didn't have trigger-happy people in charge as in some other countries. -- Norton

Responses to tut-tutters (which really made me happy that people are using their brains!)

I find this line of argument truly absurd. You (and the chief of NSW police) are asserting that highly trained snipers would "shoot first, ask questions later"; there was not a single attempt to stop the team by police, and certainly no instance of them not following directions. They were directed through, and then co-operated completely when finally bailed up. -- Geoff

Not to mention the fact that they expected to be stopped at the first check-point and should never have reached an area where snipers could shoot at them. To say they were putting anyone in danger is ridiculous. -- Jenny

Of course, the Chaser guys don't appear to give a toss about the people they hurt in the process of their pranks so it's certainly fair criticism to say this:

With all the money and hype with security it all still comes down to how our human brains work, we see want we are accustomed to seeing and respond accordingly, the Chaser team use our human (if you like) weakness to great advantage and great amusement. -- J Dunn

Chas Licciardello image courtesty of ABC.
Categorised as: media, society
Technorati Tags: ABC, satire, APEC, Chaser's War on Everything, Australian politics, security breach, Julian Morrow, Chas Licciardello, The Chaser, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Man attacks shark!

Thanks to the sharp eyes of one who comments here as jair, a jaw-dropping story of when you know you've had too much vodka to be out catching squid!

An Eyre Peninsula man is the talk of the town after catching a bronze whaler shark in his hands and wrestling it up onto a jetty.

Phillip Kerkhof from Louth Bay was at the local jetty when the 1.3-metre shark began chasing squid lures.

He says he climbed down a ladder and began to follow the shark in shallow water.

"I just snuck up behind him and eventually I went for the big grab and I fluked it and got him," he said.

"He's just thrashing around in the water but then he was starting to turn around and try to bite me and I thought 'well, it's amazing what vodka does'."

The only damage from the dangerous species was a bite mark to his jeans.

"It's not something I'd recommend to do. When I sobered up I thought about it and I said, 'I'm a bit of an idiot doing it'," Mr Kerkhof said.

Now, for anyone who hasn't been in Oz for the past month or so, this comes hot on the tail of another curious shark story from just a month ago, where Eric Nerhus, an abalone diver, took on a shark with his abalone iron while his head was inside the shark's mouth... and survived with only a few lacerations and broken nose.

Last time I was on Eyre Peninsula I took the chance to visit Blacks Point, near Elliston, where surfer Jevan Wright died, snatched by a white pointer, just short of his 18th birthday... pretty sad...

But now it seems vodka-fuelled man is fighting back!

White pointer image thanks to Dave Gittins
Eric Nerhus image thanks to BBC.
Categorised as: nature, society
Technorati Tags: Phillip Kerkhof, shark attack, white pointer, Eric Nerhus, Jevan Wright, Eyre+Peninsula

Under Southern Stars rates well under 5 stars

Amanda Vanstone's freshly penned patriotic song is several stars short of a Southern Cross to me! Under Southern Stars just rings hollow to me and I would be disappointed to see it infiltrated into schools.

So here's my uninvited and likely unwelcome critique:

Home to first Australians / Joined from near and far / Shining light for freedom / Under southern stars

This is a nice acknowledgement that "first Australians" existed before being joined from near and far, but it doesn't make it clear WHO they are. If I was a five year old learning this song I would wonder to myself why it had been worded so strangely and what was the point of explaining that Australia is home to the first Australians. Isn't that a tautology, I'd think, in concept at least since it would be a while before I'd learn words like 'tautology'! When I turned seven or eight, if I was lucky enough to have good teachers I'd have come to understand the first verse refers to indigenous Australians and that "first Australians" is a politically neutral term to disguise the fact that we are talking about black people who weren't legally considered equal humans until sometime in the late 1960s. If I didn't have good teachers I'd no doubt still be imagining the "first Australians" as dashing young sailors running up the Union Jack alongside eleven boatloads of smelly convicts exported from the UK.

Nation made of many / Bound in hope as one / Building for the future / Under southern sun

Let's face it. Nationaly unity is a kind of mythology politicians use to their political advantage. Australians on the whole are well educated and therefore smart enough to know that diversity is as much a strength as unity and that in Australia we constantly are trying to strike a balance between those two forces. But that doesn't come through in these words.

Free and friendly nation / Born of our own hands / Peace our greatest virtue / Mighty southern land

Free and friendly? It's a rich thing coming from our former immigration minister to say, being privy to what was going on in Baxter, Villawood and Nauru, and presiding over the department that deported Vivian Alvarez/Solon (whatever her name was) and imprisoning Cornelia Rau.

For most citizens, free and friendly are the reality, but for muslims or non-white people I doubt it rings true. The old "land of opportunity" does ring true however. I feel like Australia is a country where if you have citizenship or have been granted permanent residency or permanent protection then pushing will get you everywhere! If have a strong enough ambition, you probably can fulfil it.

Valiant in to battle / Courage to the end / Standing firm for freedom / Loyal southern friend

Yes Australia did participate in both world wars and the Aussie diggers apparently did earn a reputation for "bravery" and "mateship". That will do, though it would be nice to talk about the bravery and courage of non-military citizens...

Nature's earthly heaven / Glory for our eyes / Ours alone these treasures / Under southern skies

I like the fact that Vanstone's version doesn't overdo the "nature's gifts" description of Australia, which is completely fair, but who's to say that Iran isn't just as naturally beautiful? What I mean is that it's not a feature unique to Australia.

Shining light for freedom / Under southern skies

Vanstone's summary^[1] of her composition was: "Indigenous Australians were here first, we are an immigration country, freedom is what we've enjoyed all our lives and we are under southern stars – everyone knows the Southern Cross." Fine, why not say it like that in your lyrics then? You've done a 3-star job, Amanda, but more effort required on the lyrics. That said, good on you for trying.

Also, I find the repetitive tune majestic but dull. It is derived from Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1"^[midi] which is a bit more exciting than this watered-down version, but still very British to its core. Why can't an Australian composer produce a majestic musical composition which is stirring like 'Pomp and Circumstance' or 'God Save the Queen', yet not dull like 'Advance Australia Fair'?! I believe the capability and creativity is all there; the talent just needs to be focused in this direction!

Vanstone image courtesty of National Indigenous Times (13 July 2006).
Vanstone cartoon by Wilcox via Gary Sauer-Thompson's philosophy (20 May 2005).
Categorised as: society
Technorati Tags: Under Southern Stars, Amanda Vanstone, patriotism, Australia, national anthem, national song, Edward Elgar, immigration detention

Quaint memories of DFAT's "battleaxe spinster"

Geoff of the RadWaste blog has posted an absolute gem! This is a minute paper from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the pros and cons of hiring women as trade commissioners. Here's a sample of the list (which was almost all cons):

A man normally has his household run efficiently by his wife who also looks after much of the entertaining. A woman Trade Commissioner would have all this on top of her normal work; (source)

I think that for me, and plenty of other cusp gen-Yers and gen-Xers, it's easy to under-appreciate the truly radical shift that occurred in the way the role of women in society was viewed. Because it happened before we were born or were old enough to see it, we kind of have this feeling that women must have been liberated from unwanted/undeserved domestic drudgery and child-bearing ever since the condom and washing machine were invented.

But as late as 1963 — just six years before they put a man on the moon — the value of a woman was still clearly seen to be 99% in her ability to attract men by her charms (and, by default, to "run HIS household efficiently").

Given this knowledge, it's no surprise that the Trade Commission was seeking young women since they pointed out that only a "relatively young attractive woman could operate with some effectiveness".

But the problem with young women at the time was that they either got married...

...most of them [single graduate trainees] would probably marry within five years... (source)

...or that they remained unmarried...

...A spinster lady can, and very often does, turn into something of a battleaxe with the passing years. A man usually mellows... (source)

(That one is hilarious!) Then if all else fails to prevent women entering the Trade Commission, residual misogyny could be trusted to prevail.

...such [a female] appointee would not stay young and attractive for ever and later on could well become a problem... (source)

Germaine Greer's writings suddenly seem so much less loopy and like something that was truly influential in galvanising action at the time!

It's a very expensive process [hiring women], but External Affairs lack courage to slam the door because of parliamentary opinion, pressure groups and so on. (source)

Update: For clearer source images on the National Archives website (thanks to Colin's comment) see PAGE 1 and PAGE 2.

Battleaxe spinster image thanks to Lintukoto.net Banner generator.
Categorised as: society
Technorati Tags: womens movement, Germaine Greer, DFAT, chauvinism, feminism, gender roles, gender divide, Australian government

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