Students at the University of Sheffield have donated four tonnes of goods to city charities. As...
Why Recent Graduates Should Join Code for America
Sympathy for the dodgy salesmen of Australian politics
Babel Rising
T.C. Boyle: Incorporating Environmentalism in Art
The Stone Roses confirm all planned shows to go ahead after Ian Brown calls Reni a 'c**t' onstage
A Green New Deal

The movement for a Green New Deal is gathering pace. This is not just about the reinvigoration of Keynesian economic principles to fight climate change, but also the need for a radical metaphor for reform - and a bold language of hope - that lives up to this definining challenge of our age. SARAH BARNS considers the language of climate change reform.


"This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper".

Yes, that's Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his inaugural speech in 1933 as President of the United States ushering in a 'New Deal' for the American people.

The times they were tough. Over a quarter of the country were out of a job and industry was running at half the capacity of pre-Depression years.  Roosevelt's New Deal tried to turn all that around by introducing sweeping reforms which put government back in the driving seat of the economy. From 1933 to 1935 it spent not less than $3.3bn on major public works, adding to the purchasing power of the nation and helping to employ all those jobless Americans.

Did it work? Not really - most economic historians would argue it was the war that finally nailed the Depression, and many, particularly those partial to the later monetary policies of Milton Friedman, would also contend the New Deal in fact delayed business growth through over regulation and by encouraging massive union strikes.

If not a wholly-applauded example of fiscal intervention, the New Deal lingers on as a metaphor for heroic political leadership. If nothing else, it has continued to inspire belief that completely new, large-scale ways of running a nation can not only be imagined, they can also be made real. It's the shift from political aspiration - whether of a free or planned economy - to political intervention that has continued to capture the imagination of many.  

Reform of such magnitude certainly required things be bad enough that people were willing to try something radically new. Voters aren't known to change their governments when the economy is riding high. But without a form of audacious leadership to unite the 'imagined community' of the nation around a shared concept - whether of hope, or fear - there is little chance of getting behind the petty, humdrum politicking of everyday government affairs.

George Bush Jnr has known that, inciting the constant threat of terrorism to fund his massive, $650bn military intervention into Iraq these past five years. Barack Obama also knows that, with his Obama For Change campaign making a snail trail to the White House this year.

Which brings us to that current 'diabolical policy problem' we now face as a global political community: climate change.

Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

This week the Rudd Labor Government in Australia introduced its green paper outlining a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for adoption in 2010 as Australia's contribution to fighting this global challenge. Though it's a small nation, Australia's contribution matters: it is the world's biggest supplier of coal.

Broadly, the paper etched out a scheme that would see gradual implementation of a new carbon market, funded by the cost of our high-polluting ways. How much our carbon pollution would cost hasn't yet been decided. The decision on who would initially pay for the cost of heavy polluting activities like coal-based electricity, and trade-exposed activities like aluminum smelting has: the electorate, in the form of compensation.

The Rudd government also made clear how it would get this key piece of economic reform past the grubby, populist Nelson Opposition: remove the excise on fuel as part of the package, just as Nelson has been demanding, to ease the pain of increasing petrol costs.

What's also been made abundantly clear is that this Government is firmly committed to fighting climate change primarily as an administrative problem of government.

The day the green paper was launched Rudd said he expected to be attacked by the left, which wants a purist approach, and the right, which denies climate change. "I'll cop that," he announced proudly. That's the kind of visionary leader Rudd wants us to believe he is.

In driving this piece of significant economic reform through hostile camps left and right the moral principle Rudd adheres to is primarily an administrative one: the need to stick to his deadlines. The reform agenda 'guided by the science' that he so emphatically relied upon to boost his green credentials pre-election now takes a back seat; this journey is guided by tricky Treasury modeling of economy-wide impacts and the necessity of political trade-offs.

What those trade-offs mean is that private car transport will be penalised less than public rail, and that the most dangerous sources of carbon emissions, coal-fired electricity generators, will receive a windfall of free permits. Of course, these price signals are not consistent, but tuned to reflect the economic might of key industries, and the need to placate our car-addled society from thinking anything significant actually needs to change.  

It is now not even clear how much carbon emissions this new scheme will allow. That's despite the fact that 'the science' here is unambiguous: we have already passed the dangerous level for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Scientists now believe that a 60 per cent cut in Australia's emissions by 2060 will in fact be too low.

In facing the defining challenge of our generation, the Australian Rudd Government is selling us an administratively complex trading scheme as a business-as-usual aspect of normal governance.  Whether we do or do not get a reprieve from fuel excise takes centre stage, while thornier questions regarding the ethics of unchecked economic growth fueled by dirty coal are left for the fringe dwellers. Here, Rudd seeks to unite us as a nation around the econometrics of impacts. The language he uses to galvanise us all around the challenge of change is no more heroic than that.

It would seem an appropriate time for our leaders to take up the mantle of the heroic visionary, to unite us around the concept of radical change rather than focus our minds on the impacts of incremental imposts  - to act as leader, not chief of operations.

A 'Green New Deal'  - one involving tougher regulation of capital, changes to tax systems and a sustained program of investment in energy conservation and renewable energy - is to be launched by the New Economics Foundation in the UK today.  There is nothing incremental about this proposed package of reform. It is calling for nothing less than a return to pre-war Keynesianism – complete with big increases in public investment spending and much tighter controls on international finance – with a “war economy” social mobilisation harnessed, this time not towards fighting fascism, or deep economic depression, but towards heading off ecological crisis.

As one of its authors, the Guardian's Larry Elliott, has written "It is worrying and depressing that there is an intellectual vacuum where there ought to be a plethora of ideas about how people ought to dig themselves out of this hole". As the report will no doubt argue, in the spirit of Roosevelt, we need not shrink from honestly facing the challenges of our world today.

blog comments powered by Disqus
 
To Budget on the Environment
11 may  | 

By Sean Maguire

From your grey-to-change citizen of ambivalence, to your hug a tree hippie- the last few weeks have been depressing for Australian environmentalists of every hue.

Last night with the release of Rudd's third Budget their concerns seem amplified.

The CPRS has been shelved till 2012, $238 million has been cut from the Department of Climate Change and local projects such as Landcare have lost millions from their budgets. 

So as pundits praise Rudd's prudency and restraint remember that he's pushing back the changes that will soon be inevitable and making them all the more impossible to achieve.

 

 . . read more
Engaging With China - From Kevin Rudd
3 apr  |  There is no simple one-line answer on the question of how we should seek to engage China. It’s a huge country with complex global, domestic and historical currents that influence its current policy decisions. But one key is to encourage China’s active participation efforts to maintain, develop and become integrally engaged in global and regional institutions, structures and norms.

At the same time, we also have to recognize that China is rapidly increasing its military spending... We should not, at one level, be surprised that a more affluent China seeks to spend more on its military, but China also needs to be aware that its modernization drive also has an impact on the region. It is, in part, a question of transparency. It is also, in part, a question of uncertainties concerning long-term strategic purpose. We must remain vigilant to changing strategic terrain, but strategic vigilance must not be allowed, of itself, to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is nothing predetermined about a U.S.-China conflict in the future.

We decide the future by our actions today, and we need to give ourselves the best chance to choose the best future for us all. We need to have strong regional and global institutions, a China that is positively engaged in those institutions as a responsible stakeholder, contributing to a harmonious global and regional order and continued good management of the China-U.S. relations by both sides. [More] . . read more

Historian Vs Futurist on Human Progress
12 jun  |  Niall Ferguson and Peter Schwartz let it fly on where humanity is heading and how we have gotten to the point that we are at today,

Historian's and Futurists clashing on whether we look to the past to determine our future, or look to the future to redefine our past.  . . read more

Tibet and True Friendship - From Kevin Rudd
10 apr  |  Australia like most other countries recognises China’s sovereignty over Tibet. But we also believe it is necessary to recognise there are significant human rights problem in Tibet. The current situation in Tibet is of concern to Australians. We recognise the need for all parties to avoid violence and find a solution through dialogue. As a long-standing friend of China I intend to have a straightforward discussion with China’s leaders on this. We wish to see the year 2008 as one of harmony, and celebration – not one of conflict and contention.

Our shared future is not only one about harmony between nations and peoples. It is also about harmony with nature — the “Unity of Man and Nature” — a concept with ancient roots in Chinese thought. We all share responsibility for the future. One of the big future challenges for Australia and China is climate change. Australia is committed to strong action domestically and internationally on climate change. Because we know that climate change is the great moral, economic and environmental challenge of our time – one that all nations have to work together to overcome... I also believe it is important for China’s own future. Unless we are successful, China will face increasing pressure on its water supplies, changing rainfall patterns and rising sea levels.

A strong relationship, and a true friendship, are built on the ability to engage in direct, frank and ongoing dialogue about our fundamental interests and future vision. In the modern, globalised world, we are all connected; connected not only by politics and economics, but also in the air we breathe. A true friend is one who can be a “zhengyou” , that is a partner who sees beyond immediate benefit to the broader and firm basis for continuing, profound and sincere friendship. In other words, a true friendship which “offers unflinching advice and counsels restraint” to engage in principled dialogue about matters of contention. It is the kind of friendship that I know is treasured in China’s political tradition. It is the kind of friendship that I also offer China today.

Translation from Kevin Rudd's address to students at Peking University, Beijing. . . read more

Giant snake fossil hints at a hotter future
16 feb  |  Giant snake fossil hints at a hotter future . . read more
Rudd's second apology, just as pointless?
5 apr  |  By Sean Maguire

Apologising is a uniquely human action, it involves taking responsibility for a mistake and admitting you erred. In someways it also involves asking for forgiveness.

Kevin Rudd, Australia's former PM who was sacked by his own party last year, apologised last night for "killing" his Emissions Trading Scheme which he says brought about his downfall.

Whether this is true or not, his apology echoes another one he made in his first week in government. That "sorry" was to the aboriginal people of Australia who since British colonisation were oppressed, marginalied and literally stolen from their families. 

His apology in that instance was personal and was seen almost universally as a positive step towards reconciliation and healing. It didn't lead to a better livelihood for indigenous Australians and has to be seen now as a symbolic act without much substance behind it.

Hopefully this second apology for failing on climate change can lead to asking for real forgiveness by making some real progress.    . . read more

The Media Climate - From Stan
27 feb  |  A recent newspaper item by a well known Australian economics journalist entitled ‘Hitting the non-existent limits’, emphasises how little-understood are the limits to (exponential) growth. With a vague reference to the remarkable work done by the Club of Rome in the now updated book The Limits To Growth, the author has highlighted the dangers of climate change. Citing the fast growing economies of India and China (about 10% per year or a doubling in size after just 7 years), the article suggests their rapid growth would be impermissible in future years if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.

This is no doubt true. However it is only the tip of the now-melting iceberg. The real strength of the work presented in The Limits To Growth was the modelling of exponential growth under many limits simultaneously. Even a growth rate of as little as 2-3% per year (about the current rate in the ‘developed world’ and approximately that modelled in the book) amounts to a doubling in size of industrial output and population within 23-35 years. The results of the modelling show that if growth is allowed to continue, the world system simply loses the ability to cope. Depreciation begins to exceed investment with increased expenditure on sources (technologies) and sinks (pollution mitigation).

Although heavily publicised, climate change is only one of the indicators that the world system has indeed already reached the limits to growth. Other indicators include; peak oil, the lack of arable land and decreasing land yield, a shortage of timber, the decreasing catch of fish and the need to construct desalination plants at huge expense. . . read more

Q&A with Richard Newell
17 dec  |  Q&A with Richard Newell . . read more
Futurist Movies
21 nov  |  Depictions of the future in film . . read more
blogs   100words
 
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan (1986)