All you really need to know about climate change

All you really need to know about climate change. We're one big civilisation and climate is changing fast given a sudden imbalance of carbon since the industrial revolution. The mechanism of greenhouse gasses has been known to science for 150 years or so and we're at 400ppm and adding another couple each year, and 2 degrees warming (guessed to come at 450ppm) is a rough, perhaps optimistic, estimate of where runaway climate change could happen given various feedback loops (the ubiquitous "tipping points") and it looks to me like we've got buckley's chance of staying within 2 degrees. With business as usual, IPCC estimates 3-6 degrees rise by 2100. That's just 87 years. Scientists provide the proof of all this for honest readers. To me it looks like game over and sooner than we think. I just hope I'm wrong because nobody wins an argument with physics.

The doom we never mention

Markus' article is lost to me in the mists of time, but I wrote this letter to the editor of the Canberra Times back in August 2012. Things have changed for the worse since then. These days, if I were brave enough, I'd write the last sentence with "probably" in place of maybe.

Markus Mannheim ("The doom that we never mention", Forum, August 25, p1) sounds as defeated as me on climate change. Why no talk of it?

Clearly exponential growth into a finite world doesn't go. It's cheaper to deal with it earlier; it's not at all controversial in climate science; it's not controversial outside the English-speaking world. But it is here. Climate change is insidious in human timescales.

I ask people: if Queensland floods every five years, can it survive the cost? People understand this. Do pollies or the press? I'm sure they do, but politics and commerce and the short term win out. I expect we will be too late; maybe we already are.

Wayback machine: use and abuse of stats

Here's an early one, two letters to the editor of the Canberra Times from early 1999.

My initial comments on Kate Carnell's use of statistics about Canberra

Yesterday, Kate Carnell spoke of Canberra as a “very privileged community” with access to “services at a higher level” (CT, 23 February, p. 1).

This follows regular ABS reports of Canberra as a city with high average wages, a high rate of owner-occupied dwellings with mortgages, a high rate of degree or higher qualifications, and the highest Australian average household incomes.

At least partly, these figures can be explained by a young population with mortgages and families at an financially demanding time of life, years of elite recruitment to the APS and local educational and research institutions, a preponderance of PAYE earners, high labour participation rates, and services (eg, hospitals) provided to a region beyond the local tax base.

We are obviously a comfortable community, but these oft repeated figures suggest a blissful and profound wealth. A visit to the North Shore of Sydney, or ABS figures for the average income in Toorak may surprise those who take these figures in isolation.

My response to a comment on the above letter

Paul Douglas (Canb Times, 5 Mar 99, p. 8) does not seem to have understood the point of my letter on Kate Carnell’s use of statistics to compare Canberra to the rest of Australia.

I argued that Kate Carnell misused these statistics. I still consider my arguments are sound – Canberra’s unusual demographics make comparisons misleading. These demographics are often ignored, not just by Kate Carnell. The statistics imply a greater comparative wealth than is the case, and also hide poverty in Canberra as identified by Paul Douglas. As Crispin Hull also noted recently, Carnell, as our major representative, should not promote common misconceptions of Canberra for political purposes.

On the distribution of wealth in Australia, I have two comments.

Firstly, congratulations to churches and other welfare agencies for their work with the poor. I admire them for this work, and cheer for church leaders arguing the case for social justice. The Left’s retreat into difference politics has left the mainstream churches as a major proponent of a social justice conscience in Australia.

Secondly, I suggest that Paul Douglas’ argument is best directed at those who argue the case for efficiency, globalisation and the market with little regard for distributional effects. We need to imagine alternative economic policies, but I fear there is a lack of readiness to listen.

Aginspin's Forward-Thinker-Of-The-Year Award

"In his penultimate blog for the year, Abbott's parliamentary secretary Senator Cory Bernardi summed up his 2011 in a way which would appear to sit uncomfortably with Coalition policy.

'Emissions have continued to rise, the few dams we have are full again, the Earth has stopped warming and the deceivers in the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) alarmist industry are increasingly exposed for what they are. By my count, it's a happy ending to the apocalypse scenario and I think it would make an excellent movie. I even have a title in mind. Perhaps it could be called An Inconvenient Truth,' he wrote."

Year of the faux protester / Lenore Taylor IN Sydney Morning Herald online, 25 Dec 2011. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/year-of-the-faux-protester-20111223-1p8d4.html#ixzz1hXA7177d

Two to one third

"Firm statistics from the University of California, Berkeley, have proved that, in the United States, more than 80 percent of the total increase in income in the quarter-century to 2005 was enthusiastically sequestered by just the top one per cent of the population. That was the year fortunes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett ($89 billion) nearly eclipsed the combined wealth of the bottom 120 million Americans ($95 billion)" Urgent pleas: help support Australia's battling billionaires, but Nicholas Stuart, in Canberra Times, 29 Jan 2011, Opinion, p.25.

No comment required really, other than that 120 million is about one third of all of the population of the US.

And more from later that day:

"The Economic Policy Institute reports that the top one per cent of households in the US holds 34.3 per cent of private wealth, more that the bottom 90 per cent combined" Teh hole in America's middle, by Mark Engler, in New Internationalist, no. 439, Jan/Feb 2011, p.22.

Now I take a stand

10 May 2010

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

Dear Prime Minister

I write at a time of stress for Labor and you, with dropping support and coming up to an election. I too am disappointed with Labor. You did well with the GFC, but then you had no debts leading into it, and that was a product of Howard’s year (damn that man). You did well with the Apology and Kyoto, but they were easy. You’ve since dropped so many of your commitments, even the “greatest challenge of our time”. Conviction politician? Don’t think so. Practical politician. Yes, clearly. A politician who can argue a case, lead a country when the need is great and evident? Clearly not that. Despite the articles in the Monthly and the corny down to Earth language.

My vote has been ignored

I am of the centre left, quite moderate. I am reasonably informed and interested. My vote has been ignored – Labor has always expected it in a two-party preference. And you know what? You’ve always had it. But to avoid being taken for granted (for my electorate, for my 2nd preference, etc) I must take a stand.

Now I take a stand

Labor will not get my vote, second preference or otherwise, without these changes below. Neither will Liberals. Perhaps no-one will and it will be wasted. So be it.

Labor will not get my preference in the Senate, either. That’s important to you, because my vote may be worth something there.

Labor will get my vote if …

CLIMATE CHANGE -- Labor must present a committed and intelligent response to Climate Change. This is most likely a carbon tax, but more is required. Read James Hansen or other. This does not mean rolling over for industry. It does mean some interim limited pain, but it avoids greater pain for all our children, and establishes a long-term sustainability. Read Nicholas Stern. Disastrous change is that close.

INTERNET CENSORSHIP -- Labor must cease the dangerous move to censor the Internet. I attach a letter I sent previously to the minister, the PM, Greens and Liberals, and for which I didn’t receive one receipt. (How poor are our manners these days). I heard on the radio today Conroy saying he would come out against abused censorship. What a stupid statement. He is building the infrastructure for abuse, by him or others. I don’t care what he wishes. I care what opportunities for abuse that he establishes. This is the short end of a dangerous straw.

There are a string of other matters, too. Human Rights Act; workplace relations; immigration; poor administration (insulation, schools); school league tables; many more. But you will get my vote if you satisfy me on those two issues above: Climate Change and Internet Censorship.

If you present policies I can believe, I may give you even first preference, but it’s not looking likely.

I write as only one, but I am not alone.

Freakout!

I've been reading the latest book by the climate change guru, James Hansen. These quotes were new to me and hit me with the proverbial sledgehammer. 1,000 breeding pairs? That is virtual extinction and we've been there once already. It's the sort of intensely frightening scenario that I've heard James Lovelock suggest on ABC Radio National's Science Show. What have we got awaiting us, given we're doing nothing much about it.

“Twenty thousand years ago, sea level was 110 metres … lower than it is today, exposing my of the present continental shelves. The rate of sea level rise can be rapid once ice sheets begin to disintegrate, About 14,000 years ago, se level increased 4 to 5 metres per century for several consecutive centuries – an average rate of 1 meter every 20 or 25 years” p.38

“The decent our of Eemian warmth into ice age conditions must have been stressful on humans, even though it took thousands of years. Indeed, the final descent into full ice age conditions 70,000 years ago was rapid and coincided with the one near extinction of humans; as few as one thousand breeding pairs are estimated to have survived during the population bottleneck.” p.39

Storms of my grandchildren / James Hansen. London : Bloomsbury, 2009

Censorship

I just wrote this letter to Senator Stephen Conroy who is proposing a mandatory block on certain Internet content. Here I release it as an open letter. For more information on campaigns against this censorship, visit Electronic Frontiers Australia

5 April 2010

The Honorable Senator Stephen Conroy
Parliament House, Canberra

Dear Senator Conroy

I am writing to request that you withdraw from your intention to censor the Web.

The arguments are clear and have been cited in many places

it can be bypassed (proxies and other non-Web paths)

it won’t stop really dangerous activities (paedophile pickups online)

it won’t stop groups who will find other mechanisms (paedophiles, terrorists)

it will slow down the Net (you have only tested with huge bandwidth and minimal usage, and are even admitting it will slow major sites like Wikipedia and Google)

it will inevitably block innocent materials

the secrecy of blocking lists and mechanisms breeds suspicion

But my main concern is with freedom of speech, and establishing a mechanism for this to be abused. This may not be your intention. But we see bending of rules and misinformation aplenty in otherwise democratic countries, both by the public and by government, and egregious examples in states that have introduced Internet bans like this. The incentives and the supporters are there for a closed society, for one reason or another (business, morals or whatever). We don’t have a Bill of Rights or any formal safeguards against blocking of freedom of speech (other than some limited rights implied from the constitution). This is a dangerous action and it establishes the system for major abuses in future.

I am not the only one arguing against a filter. I note today’s Canberra Times editorial (Tread carefully on web censorship, in Canberra Times, 5 Apr 2010, p.8), and the recent reports of concerns at the US Department of State and the widespread concerns amongst the ICT community. And I suggest you take heed of this for another generation of voters. They already know Howard Liberals for the benign economy of the time. Now they also equate Labor with censorship. I am a parent of young adults and I know this to be the case. This is a major issue to that community as well as others and will help to set voting expectations for a generation. I warn you to take care to align with conservative Christian bodies. Australia is the product of a Christian tradition, but it’s an easy-going one and open to secularism. The conservatives are loud but they are also short-lived and often just plain wrong.

You can still make a tactical withdrawal. Perhaps change your message to support the existing blocking mechanism (Howard was sensible enough to withdraw from this hornets’ nest) and publicise the blocked list or at least provide a decent audit mechanism. On the other hand, the Liberals may still save you from yourself by not passing the legislation on the basis of freedom of speech. But it’s a strong argument and embarrassing to be on the wrong side of it.

Let me tell you this story to illustrate my concerns. I run a website and blog, and I put a lot of voluntary work into it (...). It is respected and is valued enough to be archived by the National Library of Australia. But if I try to send a link in a Facebook message, I get a refusal and a message that some of my content is “abusive”. So I am locked out of that path, and totally without justification. You may not plan to limit speech, but it’s inherent in your actions.

Freedom of speech is a foundation right and essential for the protection of other rights.

Your path is very dangerous and I implore you to reconsider.

[Name withheld for Internet publication]

Godswallop

Ah, there are times I get so annoyed that I think I should start up old AginSpin again. I'm too busy, but I thought a post was required for this nonsense. The Christians are getting uppity, and they are appearing everywhere. Sadly, it's not the type that I admire and respect, but the conservative and noisy wing. Here's a Catholic contribution:

"Last century we tried godlessness on a grand scale and the effects were devastating. Nazism, Stalinism, Pol-Potism, mass murder and broken relationships: all promoted by state-imposed atheism or culture-insinuated secularism".

So is quoted Archbishop Anthony Fisher for Easter (Sydney Morning Herald, 2-4 April 2010, p.1). I guess Easter is a time of emotion for the good church hierarchy, but this is perhaps a bit over the top. Godlessness = mass murder and broken relationships? I don't want to waste time responding, but just register my annoyance and displeasure. Make what you will of it, but remember the Crusades and the church's current problems with paedophilia.

Is the conservative wing promoting his own, I wonder? A very sad commentary on the divided church. I prefer church members with less conviction and more compassion - they are around, just less well reported and more humble.

As quoted so solemnly by Jacob Bronowski on the Ascent of Man: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken / Oliver Cromwell.

Stop War @ Hicks St - for David Hicks

You can't see it too well, but the street sign in the background says "Hicks St"

Dear ABC...

My posts are too infrequent these days, but here's a letter I just sent to the ABC, which I'll treat as open.

I am a regular listener to ABC RN. I recently read the transcript of “A narrative for a long war”, Background Briefing, 20 August 2006. I wish to express concern about balance in this program.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1716276.htm#, viewed 15 November 2006

The program deals with public relations activities by the US and its opponents in the Middle East. I was disappointed by the range of views presented by this program.

Comment was given by -

• John Rendon – “a PR strategist who does most of his work for the Pentagon” (US)
• Kylie Morris – “Channel 4 reporter” (UK)
• John Brown – “former US diplomat who resigned from the State Department over the decision to invade Iraq” (US)
• William Mccants – “researcher at the Centre for Combating Terrorism … [a]t the US Military Academy, West Point” (US)
• Dr Steven Corman – “in charge of the CSC, the Consortium for Strategic Communication at Arizona State University” (US)
• Mark Lynch – blogger (as Abu Aardvark) and political scientist (presumably US)
• Adel Iskandar – “Egyptian academic … from the American University in Washington, D.C.” (Egyptian/US)
  

Quotes were presented from -

• Donald Rumsfeld – US Secretary of Defense, extended comment from a speech
• Ted Sorenson – “President Kennedy's speech writer”, one question to Donald Rumsfeld
• GIMF “Global Islamic Media Front” – quotes of Shahzad Tanweer, quotes of responses to Rumsfeld
• “The management of savagery” (book) – readings
• US Army officer/s
• Tony Blair (GB), Condoleeza Rice (US), Pres Bashir Assad (Syria), Pres Ahmadinjehad (Iran)
  

Note this list does not include people from the Middle East, other than a US-resident and US-employed Egyptian, and the strangely similar quotes of Blair, Rice, Assad and Ahmadinjehad about creation of a “new Middle East”. Despite the similarity of their statements, I expect they hold very different underlying world views. Otherwise, the words from Middle Eastern sources were quotes rather than comments, and were subject to comment from Western participants.

So, I ask -

• where are non-Western world views displayed in this program
• (evidenced here but observed more broadly) why does the ABC seek British and US commentary on such matters, and treat this as independent commentary

I feel that Australian media tends to have a limited view of the world. I feel this is especially evident in socio-economic and political matters, but is probably discernable in other areas. This may or may not be a conscious decision, but it is an easy trap. I feel this happens because -

• we are English-speakers in a world where English is the lingua-franca, and so gravitate to opinions in our own language
• we are closely associated with the US and Britain in politics and culture
• as the pre-eminent world power and (arguably) centre of empire, the US inevitably tends to a parochial view (it’s not the first: vide “All roads lead to Rome”) and this is exacerbated by the US self-vision as the “indispensible nation”
• our own history and world-view is Anglo-American and is shared with this major world power
  

Over 20 years ago, I was resident in non-English speaking Europe. I was interested to find a broader world-view. I interpreted this as a culture which needs to understand other languages to exist in the world, and must enunciate, rather than borrow, its world-view. Returning to Australia was a lesson in a shrinking awareness and a limited vision. And thus, I consider that in a practical sense English is an advantage, but in a cultural and idea-related sense, it is a limitation.

In summary, this approach is misleading and can serve political or ideological ends. But that is not all. It is also potentially dangerous because we fail to test our ideas and assumptions.

After years of listening, I have great faith in the honest attempts of ABC staff, and Background Briefing staff in particular, to intelligently seek out a fair approximation to the truth. So this letter raises issues of balance in one program, but is not a general attack on BB or RN. Rather, it seeks to highlight the limited vision that affects out best efforts.

In a similar way, I hope the Board and management of the ABC are honest in their attempts to support effective, demanding, honest, truth-seeking broadcasting. Sadly, the indications, at least concerning the Board, seem to point in the other direction.

Yours sincerely

Terror to the left of us, terror to the right

I noticed a little article in the Canberra Times (22 Jan 2006, p.9) today reporting on the number of calls made to the National Security Hotline. The figures interested me. Apparently there have been 71,000 calls since the hotline was set up in 2002, of which Philip Ruddock says 37,000 were "useful". Ruddock told a Young Liberals conference that "the information had increased the authorities' understanding of the threats facing Australia" (quote from the article, not necessarily from PR).

It got me thinking. These seem pretty big numbers. Presumably, the hotline is like a call centre, and any really serious calls would be followed up by agents, and would not lead to further stats for the hotline. So, there will be some multiple calls, but not too many. I stand to be corrected on this - it's an assumption. And assuming each call is about one person (or group), and the call wasn't repeated, and also that there aren't multiple calls about one person (or group), that gives us one report for every 281 Australians, and an "interesting call" for every 540 Australians. One in 540 Australians a terrorist? That suggests there are 555 terrorists in Canberra. Wow.

Another way to look at it is with respect to the number of Australians arraigned on issues of terrorism. There were 14 arrested a few months ago, and I didn't think there were any others - at least not known to the public (it's quite possible that someone is taken by ASIO these days, and we would never know, as it's illegal for family or friends, even journalists, to announce it). So the figures are - 2,642 reports per terrorist. We must have a very observant population. Someone's obviously doing their share for me. Or maybe I'm being reported for this blog.

This is all based on some precarious assumptions, but the picture it gives of Australia is scary - we must be riddled with terrorists. I assume one day we will be bombed somewhere, but with so many evil ones amongst us, it should have happened numerous times already.

But then, maybe we're just riddled with fear, and it'll all be OK in the end.

Why would you have private ownership of a road?

I recently had an interesting discussion on PPPs and the newest (and most controversial) Sydney tunnel. It got me thinking about its implications for economics and politics. What are the issues to consider if we are honestly trying to be non-ideological in the discussion of privatised roads and PPPs? These appeared to me to be the issues requiring consideration.

Are there management benefits of running a road under private ownership? Is there any more involved than just letting a road sit there, be maintained, and collect tolls?

Can a road be seen as in competition with other roads (or means of transport)? And related, is competition a requirement to ensure public good is realised by private ownership. Are there such things as natural monopolies? Are natural monopolies recognised in our current view of modern economics, and, if so, how are they supposed to be managed?

[The new Sydney tunnel has seen associated road closures to support more tunnel use.] Government-owned roads could still be supported by closures of other roads, but would these decisions be made on just profit-related grounds, or additionally on other grounds, eg, equity, environmental, efficiency? (We can assume any concessions on roads originate from requests/demands by profit-seeking private owners).

Benefits from competition in construction and management are expected. A government can obtain these benefits while still owning the road.

Private ownership requires 1/ higher rates of interest on monies borrowed to build the road, and 2/ profit to the owner/shareholder. To what degree does this benefit the public? To what degree does this just transfer wealth? From whom to whom?

Tolls are user pay systems. User pays is to some degree a flat tax system, but it does support economic efficiency. Tolls can still be used on government-owned roads.

What benefit is there in removing a road from a government budget to the taxable, private economy? Is this a real-world benefit or a paper-based benefit (higher GDP etc), or a benefit at all?

To what degree do PPPs and private ownership of roads affect corruption? Does private ownership place roads outside political manipulation, corruption, etc? Alternatively, does the big money involved lead to other forms of corruption?

Who covers the risk? Is this maybe the major benefit from private ownership? If so, is it realised in general PPPs and in these contracts?

Is there ideology in Private-Public Partnerships, as displayed in road ownership issues? Is ideology evident in immediate decision making on specific cases? Probably not: it’s more likely just poor thinking in the development of specific contracts. More broadly, is ideology evident in the underlying assumption of the benefits or superiority of PPPs? This involves examination of the history of economic thinking on natural monopolies. We need an economic historian to judge this one.

Open letter to Larry Beinhart

Larry Beinhart is the author of a book I enjoyed immensely over the Christmas break. He invited emails, so I copy mine below as an open letter. Larry sent a quick and gracious reply, but I'll respect his privacy and not release it here. Larry is also the author of American hero, which became the wonderfully clever and black film, Wag the dog. He's also just written Fog facts : searching for truth in the land of spin, about the concept discussed in the letter below.

Larry

I’ve just read your book, The Librarian (Scribe, Carlton Nth, Victoria, 2004) You invite readers to email: “if you like the book and want to tell him so … email”. Well, I do (like the book) and I am (emailing).

Why do I like the book?

Partly because I too am a male librarian, so I can claim the central character as a role model … I am a male librarian. But really I jest.

Partly, because I discovered your book American Hero after seeing the film Wag the Dog and enjoyed it immensely and was informed by it. I’ve been recommending it regularly to friends ever since.

But I am informed by this book: this is why I write. I am interested in politics, somewhat so in US politics (we all have to be; we are all influenced by your overwhelming global power) but also by our national conservative politics, which is also triumphant, and busily cloning itself on US conservative models. You can see my occasional musings on my blog: http://aginspin.net

I learnt something that’s not new to me or to the world, but is new to me as an emotional or visceral understanding: that fiction can offer more understanding than fact, especially during times of spin and confusion. I learnt to think of possibilities as conceivable rather than just conspiratorial. Suddenly being aware of these more unlikely possibilities is a reasonable response. It’s interesting to me that this comes from the power of the fiction (even where the fiction is so closely related to reality as in both your novels). It allows the rationality of the conspiratorial to display itself, and make the logical possibility a real feasibility. It frees the mind to be creative in responding to limited facts. It allows the spun mind to be open to what may be happening. I like the result, so, thanks. It’s valuable work you are doing. I don’t want to sound like I am discarding rationality (I remain grounded in enlightenment rationality, scientific humanism and the like). But we are surrounded by spin, and misinformation, and conceiving the possible and the likely and the self-interest is helpful in determining just where to look for the facts. Excuse my lack of clarity, but I guess you see what I mean.

Perhaps we are seeing the high point of radical conservatism. I hope so, and others have been suggesting it recently. But I’m not too hopeful and I fear the possibilities of continuing on this path. We have seen fascism, nationalism, autocracy, and the like often enough in the last century. We pat ourselves on the back for defeating them, but that’s the direction we are headed in.

So I fear the worse, but then I’m not an optimistic type.

How to deal with it? I think you said it right: “It depends on you. Sorry about that. But it does” (p.431). So another revelation: individuals matter. But of course you have to get them to understand the importance of civil rights, good polity, etc, and not just be bought off by consumer comfort (which is nice enough too). It’s a matter of responsible citizenship. Demanding, yes; satisfying, also yes. Nothing new here to your noble American ideals, but, in practice, pretty much divorced from reality. Our British tradition is that we are subjects of the monarch, not citizens of a republic. It’s not so admirable, although perhaps as effective in practice.

Another new idea I liked was “Fog Facts”. Is that a term you use in the US? It’s not one I’ve heard, but the concept’s known well enough. We can know lots, if we just read or seek out the facts. But who has the time? Fog facts can appear after the event, but they are more interestingly, and frequently enough, found during it. The tale of WMD is a perfect example of Fog Facts, and we had a goodie here during a recent election campaign. You probably haven’t heard of it. Check it out if you wish to be exposed to excellence in government media manipulation (the Children Overboard affair during the 2001 Australian Federal Election). In my books, our Prime Minister John Howard is a political master well above the skill level of your current president. Just look at his comfortable place in politics (despite endless support for Bush and involvement in Iraq) compared with the messes George Bush and Tony Blair are in.

I’ve also discovered recently the importance of conversation. It’s a great test, but tests are not comfortable and they are often ignored. I’ve learnt it by sitting at work next to a politically-interested conservative, engaging in conversation, and having to justify to my own ideas. You discover that your own ideas can also be wooly and unsupported. It’s a valuable realisaton. It reminds me of that quote used by Jacob Bronowski in The Ascent of Man (as he steps into a creek outside Auschwitz; originally from William Blake?) “I beseach thee in, the bowels of God, think it possible you may be mistaken”. My version is prosaic: always test your ideas. There’s nothing new in all this, but a wise procedure none the less.

I’ll look forward to your next political thriller to help me further on this quest :->

Thanks again, and keep it up.

Eric

The new face of Australia

Pic from Canberra Times, 17 Nov 2005, News p.5.

This pic stunned me. It's the face of a very tired and bereft Terry Hicks. Terry is the father of David Hicks, the Australian who has been held in Guantanamo Bay for 4 years. I needn't recount the story. Quotes from David Hicks' defence lawyer, the US Marine Major Michael Mori, say it for me. "He just wanted to know why the Australian Government didn't want him to come home...I couldn't answer his question except to say that he had not violated any Australian law but that his government had decided to leave him there in Guantanamo anyway...He didn't understand this and neither do I. Still don't. I couldn't understand how Australia could abandon its own citizen this way. Britain didn't, neither did Italy or any other European country. We don't do that. As an American, there is an expectation that citizenship means something. No American was sent to Guantanamo. No American will be tried by military commission." And even more damning is this. "This is a process designed by the President and the Vice-President and the imperative is to get convictions... This process is nothing like a court martial, nothing like it. I'm still not an expert on international law, but I know enough to know this is not justice." (Sydney Morning Herald, 19-20 Nov 2005, News Review, p.30).

David Hicks in not the first sacrifice on the altar of political power and influence in recent Australian history. Refugees are an obvious offering, and now terrorists take their place as the devil to be feared. It's a simple picture that's painted: with us or against us; good or evil; black or white, no shades of grey. And no understanding of the other allowed (see how the press not allowed to present images of refugees our camps) and little sought. David Hicks is unlikely to be the last. Heaven help us. We are on a dangerous path. It's one that's been seen before, but with our common ignorance of history, it's one we are likely to tread again.

Ya gotta laugh

Well, everything seems to be going pretty badly these days (climate change, Australian IR and Terrorism legislation, US political foolishness, Iraq, fundamentalism and other unreason, climatic disasters, etc), so it's hard to retain your sanity and some sense of humour. Lots of people just give up and retreat to the nest, which only allows these influences further rein to reign further.

But even so, you have to wonder how the forces of unreason can be so influential when you read junk like this -

"'It has been established beyond doubt that the placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy.' A spokeswoman for The Society fo Homeopaths on a study in The Lancet that showed homeopathic medicine works no better than placebos (BBC news online, 29 August)".

New Scientist, no. 2515, 3 Sept 2005, p. 10.

Another end is nigh

I’ve written here before on peak oil. It will cause huge changes in our economies. I was about to say it’s being ignored, as it’s not a hot topic of political conversation. But really it’s influencing lots around us: the Iraq war; the Toyota Prius; even high rise construction near Canberra city centres.

And today there was another Canberra Times’ Opinion piece on peak oil. Here are some quotes:

“The Oil Age … is about to come to an end … Not as doom-mongering environmentalists have falsely predicted, because the black gold is about to run out. But much more subtly, because world production will start falling in the next few years, demand will outrun supply, and prices will shoot up.”

I can’t see that the environmental movement ever got it wrong here. It’s strange that the author, or perhaps his confidant, seems to have to stick the boot in. I don’t think environmentalists ever suggested there was a tap that would turn off from one day to the next. The “tap”, when it arrives, will be rationing by various militaries and governments. And this tap won’t be turned off from one day to the next (short of some major emergency) but it will be turned off from one year to the next. Some sort of rationing will be necessary. But we are yet to see whether the decisions on rationing will be as sensible as the initial decision to ration.

“Over lunch Matthew Simmons, chairman of one of the world’s largest oil investment companies and an advisor to the US president, predicted that the price would reach $US100 ($A130) a barrel within three years, more that three times as high as just a few years ago. This month it topped $US79 ($A91).”

“The orthodox oil industry view is that there is plenty of time: peak oil will not occur until the 2030s … US production peaked in 1971, Britain’s in 1991. The British-based Association for the Study of Peak Oil estimates that the Middle East’s peak is just five years away; Simmons believes it may already have passed”

“The end of the oil age is in sight, but who’s looking?” By Geoffrey Lean. In Canberra Times, 20 Sept 2005, p.11.

The end is nigh

Claims of end of the world always catch the attention, but there may be some justification this time around. Global warming increasingly seems to be living up to the dire predictions claimed by the environment movement.

Katrina was a warning, as is the drought in Eastern Australia. And a string of observations are pointing in the same direction. Climate is a complex thing, and no one event can be specifically ascribed to global warming, but climate scientists predict climatic events will be more severe as global warming takes hold.

There was one scientific indicator that was not in synch, and so was used to question global warming - lower atmospheric temperatures as measured by satellites. But recent research has found errors in calibrating the satellites, and reviews of observations have come into line with other measurements of global warming.

Then last Saturday’s Canberra Times reported observations which suggest the melting of the northern polar icecap is well and truly underway. The implication is sea-level rise, from melting of ice over Greenland and the Arctic. And, during discussion of Katrina, I heard that it’s all speeding up, because the heat sink which was the ocean has reached its limit.

“The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a ‘tipping point’ beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice, and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically”

and…

“The number of high-strength cyclones, like Hurricane Katrina, has nearly doubled in 35 years in all five of Earth’s ocean basins, which scientists say could be linked to global climate change.”

Both quotes from “Ice melt may be past recovery”. In Canberra Times, Saturday 17 Sept 2005, p. 20

After arguing against global warming for years, even Bush & Co have recently conceded that it’s occurring, but of course, they have their own response to promote.

Alternative voices have been effectively defeated for now. I often feel there’s nothing to do but sit back and watch Rome burn, and have the pleasure of saying “I told you so”. For me, this response has been growing over time, but it’s firmed up following the result of the last federal election, the strength of the right, the poverty of Labor, and the sleepiness of the citizenry. This may be a satisfying response, but it’s self-defeating. Anyone with kids has to fear this outcome. It seems much closer than we imagined only a few years ago.

I’m also amused by the whole concern over petrol prices. What we don’t pay now for petrol, we’ll be paying soon enough. That is, assuming petrol is still available for private use. I can’t see private cars being feasible in 20 years time, at least not ones that run on petrol. But it’s not just petrol for cars. Oil is the basis of so much in society – three’s no alternative for air transport; plastics and fertilisers are by-products; delivery of oranges from California or computers from China requires it. Does this herald a return to local production? Perhaps under computer control from another spot on the Earth. The future looks exciting, but also perilous. I’ll see the start of it, but our kids will make in this big change … or suffer the big crash.

Look about in fear

I need only quote from Brian Toohey in the recent Canberra Sunday Times to demonstrate a frightening trend. The action on Scott Parkin, the proclaimed pacifist and anti-Hallibuton protestor, is a warning of an uncertain future.

“In 2002, Carr introduced the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act which protects police who abuse their powers. The new law states that nothing the police do during a declared terrorism incident, whether a false alarm or not, may be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into question on any grounds whatsoever before any court, tribunal, body or person in any legal proceedings. Removing any role for the courts, as Carr has done, undermines fundamental protections all citizens are supposed to enjoy in a free society.

“Those of a conservative disposition, who believe in imposing checks and balances on the power of the state, cannot be heartened by the plans of the Western Australian and South Australian Labor governments to give more authority to the police so long as they invoke the justification that they are handling a suspected terrorism situation. Although full details are lacking, it seems the police will be able to issue their own search warrants, without bothering with court approval.

“At the federal level, the courts are being pushed aside also their proposed new laws to allow preventive detention of suspects without charge and for the federal police to skip the normal warrant process and order companies to produce materials of alleged relevance to terrorism and other serious offences, so far unspecified.”

“Politicians should stop stirring up terror plot” by Brian Toohey. In Canberra Sunday Times, 18 Sept 2005, p.25

For the record

I was just reading the New Scientist, and this quote appeared. I've recorded it here for future reference, in case we get another invasion justified by more bullshit (see formal definition in the previous post).

"'The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated' A senior official, speaking anonymously, on the still-confidential finding that traces of uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated equipment from Pakistan and is not proof of a clandestine weapons programme (The Washington Post, 23 August)."

New Scientist, No. 2514, 27 August 2005, p. 9.

It's been amusing me for some time how the US government, and presumably intelligence community, can still make claims of hidden weapons programs in countries thay've been railing against for other reasons for some time. It was Abraham Lincoln, that renowned American (sadly of another era) who said: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time". Wise words? Hope so.

Brian Toohey wrote an article on governments ignoring warnings of danger. He compared the US Government's tardy response to Katrina, despite plenty of warnings, with its ready action over WMD that didn't exist in Iraq. He noted that the Australian intelligence officer, Lance Collins, got it right in a memo to superiors dated 15 March 1998. But now, what do we find? Bush is still in place, and beset with problems, but Collins ..."resigned a few weeks ago, after being frustrated by efforts to undermine his contributions on the intelligence front".

Be very worried when truth is ignored in the pursuit of a pre-defined end. Facts will get you in the end, despite your strongest beliefs.

"When warnings of danger are ignored" by Brian Toohey. In Canberra Sunday Times, 11 Sept 2005, p. 24.