Alex White » Senate

Alan Kohler shows he doesn't know about politics

Alex — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:14:41 +0000

Alan Kohler, of Business Spectator fame, wrote yesterday in Crikey:

Against all expectations, Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt have actually come up with a clever climate change policy, and certainly one that will change the debate in Australia.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will now have to quickly do a deal with the Greens to get a government scheme through parliament, or else simply give up and blame everyone else.

With the failure at Copenhagen having pulled the rug out from under him, and a global agreement on emissions trading now impossible this year, Kevin Rudd must avoid a 2010 election on his current CPRS at all costs. To do that by dealing with the Greens now would mean a two-year carbon tax eventually turning into an emissions trading scheme â€“ a big risk.

(My emphasis.)

Unfortunately, this kind of commentary is completely misleading, unhelpful and uninformed. For a business analyst, it shows a concerning naivete in the political process and the dynamics of the Australian Senate.

For the record, the Labor Government needs seven (that’s seven) additional votes in the Senate to pass legislation.

Seven votes.

The Greens Party has five (that’s five) votes in the Senate.

There are two (that’s two) cross-bench, independent senators, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding.

To pass any legislation through the Senate, Labor needs both (that’s both) cross-bench Senators and all (that’s all) of the Greens Party Senators.

There is simply no possible way for a “deal with the Greens” to deliver a carbon tax or anything else. A “deal with the Greens” would deliver an extra five (that’s five) votes in the Senate, falling two (that’s two) short of a majority. Even if Senator Xenophon voted with Labor and the Greens Party, Senator Fielding is an avowed climate denier (and so wouldn’t vote for a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme).

“Dealing with the Greens” would not deliver a two-year carbon tax. It would deliver precisely nothing at all.

Human activities are the primary driver

Alex — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:18:32 +0000

With all the hysteria about climate change following the Liberal leadership disaster, it’s easy to be caught up with the notion that there’s a huge backlash against action on climate change, or policies to reduce carbon emissions (eg. the CPRS).There’s even been talk around the pro-climate action groups that the science has been seriously compromised due to the hacking of emails from the Climate Research Unit in the UK.

Possum has a great article on the fraud that is the “anti-climate action community backlash“, with the results:

Total Support for a generic ETS has dropped by 2 points â€”â€‰not a significant change. What has occurred though is that the â€œDonâ€™t Knowâ€ camp has crystallised out into opposition to any ETS.

Real Climate, a website created by real, actual, climate scientists (rather than paleontologists or physicists) has written an interesting refutation of the notion that the hacked CRU emails undermines climate science:

Itâ€™s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but itâ€™s important to remember that science doesnâ€™t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isnâ€™t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isnâ€™t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

And rounding out the discussion about climate change and politics, here’s a link to an old article from Climate Progress about 18 leading scientific organisations writing to US Senators arguing that human activities are the primary driver of climate change:

Dear Senator:

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.

These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.

We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

(Original source.)

Labor won’t go to a double dissolution election

Alex — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:28:15 +0000

There is a lot of talk all over the place about Rudd going to an early double-dissolution election. Many otherwise well informed people I’ve met (engineers, accountants, academics, and so on) believe that a double-dissolution is both likely, easy and in Labor’s favour – even Larvatus Prodeo goes on about it.

Antony Green has categorical refutation of the notion that Labor has an interest in going to a double dissolution election. His psephological view is that Labor will simply go to a normal (half-senate) election.

This is for the simple reason that under a double-dissolution, the quota for the Senate is halved, making it far easier for the Greens Party and independents to get elected, and harder for Labor (and the Libs).