Climate Doom Continues

Australians have the benefit of the latest scientific and economic information about climate change, and our leadership has a mandate to act decisively on the issue. We already have a very high standard of living, and will continue to do so under any sort of carbon-related belt-tightening. Despite this, the prospects of drastic action are still pretty slight. What hope is there then for the rest of the world?

The Government have always said their climate change strategy would be guided by Ross Garnaut's report due in September, but he has released an interim report this week. In summary, Garnaut has said that things are the grim end of the rate of change; that Australia will suffer particularly badly from the effects; but that Australia is in a good position to do something about it. Basically, the situation is dire, and we will have to act quickly and firmly in order to have any hope of forestalling a major crisis. "Without action we are running towards dangerous points more quickly that a lot of the earlier analysis has suggested," he has said.

Response, sadly has been predictable. It's the usual slew of empty rhetoric and non-sequiturs. From the government, first the rhetoric:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has told Parliament it is vital the Government gets its climate change policies right.

"It's critical for the economy, critical for families, critical for the environment, critical for national security," he said.

"After 12 years of inaction on the whole question of climate change it's time that Australia led the international community on this question, it's time we had a government that led the national debate on this question.

"That's what needs to be done now, that's what this Government is now engaged in."

All well and good, but without actual policy and targets, it's not meaningful. So compare to this:

But she [Penny Wong] says Labor will not go past its election commitment of a 60 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

"Obviously unlike the previous government we have said we would be cognisant of the science," she said.

"But the Government's commitment is the one we made prior to the election and that we took to the Australian people, which is a reduction of 60 per cent by 2050.

"That is the approach the Government will take."

I really struggle to understand the mindset that says, "we are sticking to our arbitrary target, no matter what the science says." Leadership requires adapting to new information and circumstances. Surely the only sensible policy is one in line with the science - otherwise, why bother to become "cognisant" of it in the first place, except as an exercise in public relations?

Of course, the Rudd Government is still better than the alternative. An AAP article has some terrifyingly short-sighted remarks from the coalition:

Liberal MP Barry Haase says consumers will bear the brunt of costs if the federal government adopts the recommendations of report author, economist Professor Ross Garnaut... "(Prime Minister Kevin) Rudd's already gone too far on climate change," Mr Haase told reporters on Thursday.

...

Liberal MP Don Randall said the interim report would put the Rudd government under a fair bit of pressure... "The previous government was always concerned about these arbitrary figures that are going to cause a lot of pain to the rest of Australians."

...

Nationals MP Paul Neville said industry would suffer if the government set unrealistic targets that did not require the rest of the world to jump on board... "If we close down aluminum and coal in towns like that then we're exporting Australian jobs.

I'll keep saying it: If we need to experience pain, if we need to sacrifice jobs, if we need to set hard targets, then that's what we must do. The alternatives are decades of famines, wars and disasters. Anything is better than that. And if there is some uncertainty in the science, that doesn't change our responsible course of action - to prudently ensure that we minimise the risks in whichever way we can.

As I have written before, this short-sightedness is made all the more mystifying to me by my sense that the public would be onside with dramatic action. Imagine a worst-case scenario: "People of Australia, the scientists have spoken, and we cannot ignore their warning. The world is headed for disaster on an unprecedented scale. We're all going to have to pay six cents more per kilowatt-hour of electricity and 5 cents a litre for petrol, and work hard on conservation. Though this will be tough for many in the community, it's the only way we can reduce our emissions while funding development of renewable energy sources. We must act now or reap an uncertain and deadly harvest in decades to come." Would this lead to a revolt among the electorate? I honestly feel that people would suck it up if presented honestly and was backed by good science. Heaven knows my father's generation put up with a lot worse than expensive electricity during the depression and the war - fuel was actually rationed then! (I already pay a 5.5c premium on my electricity under the Green Power initiative.) Would such policies lead to an economic slowdown? Perhaps, but so what? What's to decide when the alternatives are minor economic slowdown and global catastrophe?

If Australia under Labor can't do it, very few countries will. I almost wish I suffered from the lack of imagination that plagues so much of the body politic and its remora fish the commentariat. Unfortunately, I can all to easily imagine what the world that awaits us might be like.

History in the Making: Sorry

In a brilliant, moving speech, Rudd has apologized to the Stolen Generations and to Australia's indegenous peoples. It was eloquent and sincere, and cannot help but raise hopes that real progress will be made in Aboriginal affairs under this Government. With that, Howard's relaxed and comfortable, "pragmatic" approach is justly consigned to history's scrap-heap, and not a moment too soon.

It's an all-too-rare moment when a person can feel morally uplifted by a speech in parliament, so enjoy it. It's even rarer to feel unqualified pride in our political leadership, but this is one of those times.

The less said about Nelson's droning followup, with its tired resort to "good intentions", strange appeal to the memory of 100,000 dead diggers, and creepy litany of rapes, the better. The crowd responded appropriately, turning their backs and chanting "get him off!".

Leaving the Kokoda Track

Although this isn't the US where fear of not "supporting the troops" is enough to close down political debate, under John Howard the lionisation of the Aussie digger reached new heights, and we have seen few indications that this will change soon. So before I have a look at the hallowed place of the mighty digger in our history, I'd like to lay out my qualifications.

I've never experienced the fear and doubt of a war, but I'd like to think I have an idea of what military service means to the country and to a family. My paternal grandfather was a digger - he served in the Somme in World War I, and amongst other injuries got a dose of German mustard gas there. My maternal grandfather was a digger - he saw combat in the Pacific in World War 2. My father served in the RAAF in wartime, too. (I won't get into the uncles, and can only guess what service my great-great grandfathers must have performed in the Prussian army.) To my regret, this tradition of service ended when the Australian Army rejected me thanks to poor sight in my left eye (I was 18).

There's no question Australia's soldiers have fought with distinction in many wars and theatres across the globe. They have done us proud. But have we become too proud of this tradition? Grateful thanks is one thing, hero-worship quite another, and if we haven't crossed the line between them we are certainly pretty close. Although this self-indulgence is relatively harmless as national vices go, it worries me a little. It's backwards-looking, and mythologizes a stereotype of a man that is less and less relevant in the 21st century. We all admire the bravery and spirit of the men at Gallipoli, but would any of us want our sons to experience that? After all, we focus on the larrikinism and acts of derring-do, but not so much on the boredom, terror and hideous violence that these men endured - and inflicted on their enemies. Is it such a loss that men of my generation never had the opportunity or obligation to go overseas and shoot a stranger? Perhaps my character would be stronger for the experience if I had. Perhaps I wouldn't be able to sleep for the night terrors. (I'm sure there was a lot of that amongst the survivors of Gallipoli, something else that the folk-histories would never mention). In any case, it's time for a new national ideal of manhood that is less soldierly, even less of a larrikin*, but encompasses some different values besides courage under fire. Worldliness, thoughtfulness, compassion, entrepeneurship - these are some values that would serve a modern Aussie better than the ability to survive an artillery barrage with his sense of humour intact.

Of course, it's much easier said than done to create a new national model to aspire to, but we have to start somewhere. Why not the Kododa Trail?

Australia is doing its damnedest to preserve the Kokoda Trail as a hiking track for the adventurous and a monument to the diggers who fought and died there. There's nothing ostensibly wrong with this, and I have a lot of respect for those that have done this arduous walk with a desire to pay their respects and relive a little bit of our history. I have pondered myself whether I would be up to the test. We are in danger, though, of forgetting that this part of the world isn't ours, no matter how hard we fought for it 60 years ago. When we feel that the actions of the diggers there give us the right to decide what the area's current residents do with the land, we have passed from paying our respects into outright sanctimony. The owners of the land are blocking the track in protest, since they stand to miss out on $100 million of mining proceeds if Australia succeeds in torpedoing the project that would destroy part of the area.

A mine is an ugly thing, and when billions of dollars are involved, it gets even uglier. I was a little discomforted by this line in the Age article:

Frontier Resources' managing director, Peter McNeil, spoke with village chiefs before yesterday's blockade and helped villagers prepare placards.

No doubt, the villagers are getting some help from mining company lobbyists in organising their protest. That doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a high horse we are riding here. When we can't comprehend that the exploits of Australian soldiers do not invoke feelings of reverent awe in poverty stricken Papua New Guineans, it's time to have a closer look at our relationship with the legend. We are asking them to sacrifice a brigher future for their children at the Alter of the Digger. Either we must make it up to them, or we need to look for inspiration somewhere else.

* I also scratch my head at those who in the same breath praise the irreverent digger larrikins and complain about the drunken hoons doing burnouts in their suburban street or ruining their day at the footy. These are two sides of the same coin.

Confiscating Your Life Story

I think most of us agree that if a drug dealer buys himself a Ferrari with heroin money, the car is forfeit if it can be proved the money he bought it with was derived from illegal activity. A bank robber shouldn't be allowed to keep the money he stole, even if he serves the time. This is a long-standing pillar of criminal law, and despite the headaches modern international tax law must give prosecutors, it's pretty uncontroversial.

What if the profit is accrued less directly? Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, literary proceeds are also illegal (that is, subject to confiscation). Leaving aside the tabloid hilarity of Corey Delaney, few of us would be comfortable with a killer getting a handsome payday for a Today Tonight interview while his victim's parents are still coping with a devastating loss. If it would sell ads, the media would pay for a story - it's their business and they can't realistically be faulted for that - so it falls to the law to see that justice is done, and remove the incentive to engage in high-profile crimes.

The scheme, though, is not without its troubling aspects. What if someone is convicted but maintains their innocence? What if they publish their autobiography years afterward, in which the crime (admitted or not) plays a part? Under the law, if the notoriety you gained from committing the crime contributes to any benefit, then you're in trouble. It's not hard to imagine a situation where a person becomes famous (i.e. notorious) from committing a crime, but uses the experience to become, say, an activist for legal reform. This would be illegal under the Act, which specifically includes "any live entertainment, representation or interview" as a literary benefit. Being paid on the lecture circuit is a definite no-no. I don't know how a judge might weigh up the contribution of criminal-related notoriety to an income stream, but one supposes that sort of question is what keeps our judges on the gravy train.

This brings us to the cause célèbre of the day, David Hicks. The controversial gag order imposed by the Guantánamo prosecutors, although probably unenforceable here, will expire soon, and Hicks is already fielding many offers from media outlets. Although the Hicks camp has denied that they mean to profit from the affair, the issue is obviously going to come up, especially when seven figure sums are being mentioned. The A-G has been pretty unequivocal in his previous statements on the issue: "He would expect authorities to prosecute Mr Hicks from illegally profiting from his story." On the other hand, Dick Smith has said he should be able to profit. Presumably the law officers will give McLelland's statements a little more weight, but you never know. The PM himself was more ambiguous:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told Fairfax radio that it is up to the Director of Public Prosecutions and Federal Police to determine if any media agreement is within the law.

"Here we've got something quite specific, which is whether a person who has fallen foul of the law should be able to sell their story for profit, and I'll leave that determination to the independent judicial and legal authorities," he said.

The question we're left with, and this goes right to the heart of the whole Hicks case, is which law - and whose law - might he have "fallen foul" of? Since Hicks has never been charged under Australian law, for his profits to be seized, he must, under the Act, have committed a "foreign indictable offence", specifically an offence against a law of a foreign country. There's a second part to the test, too:

...If the conduct had occurred in Australia at the testing time referred to in subsection (2), the conduct would have constituted an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory punishable by at least 12 months imprisonment.
_{(PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002 - SECT 337A)}

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I'll go out on a limb and say that Hicks' Gitmo offences would arguably fail both provisions of the foreign indictable offences stipulation. Testing them in court would surely open one interesting can of worms, and could embarrass either the Australian or US governments should they fail to pass the test. Given that fact alone, if I was David Hicks, I'd be talking to ghostwriters right now.