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.

Keelty out of Control

What an unlikely celebrity is Mohamed Haneef. The humble Indian doctor, unwittingly embroiled in a global terrorism investigation. Something about the case must have appealed to Australians' sense of fairness and love of the underdog. The fact that there wasn't a skerrick of convincing evidence against him probably helped elicit a little empathy, too.

One Australian who doesn't like Haneef is Mick Keelty. As the nation's top cop the buck stops at his desk as far as the investigation of terrorism is concerned, and the publicity and sympathy that Haneef got was, to Keelty, nothing short of an affront and a travesty. Even as the case against Haneef crumbled to dust, the Federal Police Commissioner (with much help from the Attorney General and Immigration Minister) would not back down and continued to insinuate that there was some piece of evidence just under the surface that proved Haneef was an Al Qaeda sympathizer and that the Feds should be left to do their job in peace by a rabid media.

So it seemed to me at the time, and Keelty's speech to the Sydney institute this week more than confirms it. He went so far as to call for a media blackout on all terrorism-related investigations until they had run their complete course through the judicial system. This clearly would have spared him the Haneef-ulcer that is probably throbbing right now under the weight of tonight's spaghetti bolognese, but does anyone else in the country think that justice would have been better served if the AFP had been allowed to quietly lock up Haneef without a fuss? With all the attention history is getting as a school subject, sometimes one really has to wonder if the people in the top jobs have read enough of it.

"He also called for a halt to criticism of public institutions." One almost has to laugh at such a statement, coming from a high-ranking public official. What sort of democracy would this be if such a statement was taken seriously? Although Keelty is probably quite an able cop, it's going to be very hard for the public to put their trust in him after remarks like this. His ability to perform as Commissioner has therefore been weakened by this outburst, and that's just bad for justice in this country.

In a move that I am still getting used to, the Government did exactly the right thing and put the Commissioner in his place. "Access to government information and decision-making are keys to a healthy and vibrant democracy," said A-G Robert McClelland.

Not only that, but Christopher Pyne spoke up for the opposition and agreed with the Government. It's truly amazing what a political difference a few short months can make.

Complements to the Minister

Walk into any pharmacy in Australia and you are confronted with a bewildering array of boxes and bottles - medicines by the thousands. A pharmacy exists to dispense these medicines, often on behalf of doctors, and provide expert advice on their use and effects. We trust that our pharmacists are well trained and have an interest in our medical well-being.

Pharmacists are also retail stores, however, and the more they sell, the more money they make for their owners. A moment's reflection on this fact raises an unavoidable conflict of interest. We put our trust in the pharmacist to give us good advice, and in the Government to make sure that what they are selling us is legitimate. Unfortunately, where there's money to be made, that trust isn't always well placed.

As it happens, those pharmacy shelves are filled with two types of products: Medicines regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and "complementary" medicines which are regulated poorly at best. (This problem isn't confined to pharmacies - health food stores and even supermarkets are filled with unproven herbal "remedies" and homeopathic "cures".) Although selling toxic pills is a definite no-no, products registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods are not tested for efficacy at all. This includes pretty much every type of alternative medicine you can think of: Homeopathy, vitamins, Chinese medicine, aromatherapy, and an entire zoo of weight loss aids.

Until now, the most potent legal weapon available to those concerned with the peddling of snake oil to consumers has been false advertising laws, but there have been few successes here. The published claims of the producers are usually ill-defined, making any sort of prosecution very difficult. Witness the fact that homeopathic medicines, which consist entirely of distilled water, are ubiquitous in this country. Australian doctors, and concerned pharmacists, among others, have lobbied for many years to have this loophole fixed. And now, it looks like the new Government may be fixing its eye on this very subject.

Senator Jan McLucas, parliamentary secretary to Health Minister Nicola Roxon, has been receiving submissions in this area. The Australian is reporting on the flurry of lobbying that this has caused. On the one side, the AMA, CHOICE, and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia agree with the need for reform, but the Complementary Healthcare Council, an industry group, maintains that the current regime is working well and doesn't need any changes. A group called Ethical Complementary Medicines has also entered the fray for reform, but who they are seems to be a bit of a mystery.

Weight loss seems to be the issue that has brought about this renewed attention. It's no secret that Australia is facing an obesity epidemic, something that has real and immediate consequences for the health of Australians. Pharmacies will sell you pills - herbal appetite suppressants or fat metabolizers, for instance. Vitamins, liver cleansers, antioxidants are all pushed, usually with no dietary advice to go along with them. Then come the meal replacement sachets and low-calorie diets. All of these products are totally exempt from any scientific scrutiny, are unlikely to be chided for false advertising, yet could have profound effects on an individual's health. Besides, they are a rip off. Australian consumers deserve better protection.

Senator McLucas and the Minister are therefore to be applauded for taking time so early in their legislative agenda to examine this issue. It remains to be seen what reforms will be enacted, and how successful the industry lobbying against it will be. A lot of money is spent on Alternative Medicines (as much as twice that spent on actual, real medicine), so with so much at stake there will be a fight. I hope the Minister is willing to fight it!

Global Warming/Cold Feet

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics latest report indicates that we are to be one of the countries worst affected by global warming with a decrease in agricultural production on the order of 17%. This figure pales in to comparison to India's 25%, truly a scary number when you consider how many mouths that 25% is feeding. We hardly needed any more reminding, but the visions of our planet's broiling future keep on coming.

This is why I am starting to despair about Bali even before the negotiations have really begun. "Australia's delegation in Bali was quoted as saying Australia 'fully supports' a plan for developed nations to examine cutting emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020", we read in yesterday's paper, but:

Mr Rudd and his Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, later issued statements stressing that Australia was not yet committing to any 2020 targets... By playing down the need for Australia to commit to the deep cuts in emissions...Labor under Kevin Rudd has agreed to set a target of a 60% cut by 2050, but has resisted setting a 2020 goal...

This is not encouraging reading. It does not suggest that Australia is about to become a leader in the global response to climate change. What is suggests to me is that Australia, like most other nations, will haggle and bargain and make rhetoric about sharing the responsibility and try and get away with a minimum of commitment. Rudd himself described the process as "horse trading." Horse trading! Need I even point out that coming together to prevent irreversible changes to the Earth's climate needs a different mindset than negotiating a bauxite exporting contract? If we approach global warming as a game to be optimized in our country's favor, we are truly doomed. The horse trading will turn to recriminations as the disaster hits.

The world is crying out for leadership here, and I had high hopes we might provide it. "We owe it future generations to prevent this disaster occurring," a parallel-universe Rudd might have said. "Whatever the cost, Australia will shoulder its obligations, and help those in the developing world to bear theirs. All humanity is in this together, and time is too short for any further prevarication and horse trading." Fictional Rudd then evoked the spirit of the Apollo Project as he called on the world to make a massive investment in alternative energy research. "We not only plan on meeting these agressive targets but surpassing them by harnessing the limitless ingenuity of our scientists, engineers, and entrepeneurs." I wonder, which alarms you more, the imaginary speech or the remarks printed in the real-world newspaper?

Of course, we're much better off with Rudd than the previous government. In the same article opposition leader Brendan Nelson was quoted as saying "a 2020 target in the range mentioned in Bali would damage industries and hurt low-income Australians." I have a hard time understanding the logic underpinning a statement like this. How can one weigh up shaving 0.2%, say, of Australia's economic growth with preventing an unprecedented global catastrophe and decide to err in favour of the former?

It's clear to me that the consequences of global warming are truly terrible. To cut our emissions according to the most agressive schedule, what cut in my standard of living would be required today? Couldn't we as a nation tighten our belts and make do with a 1% increase in the tax rate, higher electricity prices, or a surcharge on the price of new cars? How will my standard of living decrease when war, famine and drought are the order of the day?

This video sums things up nicely. The costs of action can be well understood and are not unbearable. The costs of inaction are to a large extent unknown but could be catastrophic. It doesn't matter if the true extent of global warming isn't a certainty - it merely has to be likely or even possible for immediate action to be warranted. What's more, I think the electorate largely agrees with me. It's time Kevin Rudd and the the world's leaders to step up and do what needs to be done.