Ukip has no policies beyond EU and immigration, says Green party leader

The Guardian, 28 April, 2014

Green party leader Natalie Bennett has attacked EU election frontrunner Ukip, saying Nigel Farage has stamped policy out of the party’s platform.

With polling showing Ukip looking increasingly likely to take first place in the election in May, Bennett said Farage’s party was without substance and were benefiting from a general disengagement with politics.

Speaking at the Green party’s campaign launch in London today, Bennett said: “As far as I can work out, Nigel Farage has entirely written it off so that Ukip has no policies at all. It seems to stand for getting out of the EU and stopping immigration and other than that he seems to have said, right, we have no policies.”

“It’s a reflection very much of the dissatisfaction with politics. I think they will get a lot of votes in the north from poor, dissolutioned people who feel like they’ve been left behind, left out. And in many ways they’re right.”

Bennett said the looming failure of the major parties in the election made it obvious that Britain’s electoral system was inadequate to represent the choice voters desired.

“What this also represents is the fact that two (or if we are being charitable two-and-a-half) party politics has very much broken down as a system. It demonstrates the utter unfitness of the first-past-the-post system that we have in Westminster.”

The Greens are the fourth largest voting bloc on the floor of the EU parliament. The UK party currently holds two seats in London and the south-east.

Green advisers say they are quietly confident they will double this number in the European elections on 22 May. They are engaged in a battle with the Liberal Democrats, whose vote has plummeted, to take two new seats in the eastern and north-west regions. Recent polling has both parties hovering around 8-9%.

In their election manifesto, launched this morning, the Greens presented what they described as solutions to the excesses of the banking sector, Tory austerity and David Cameron’s championing of the shale gas industry.

Advertisements

Is biodiversity offsetting a ‘license to trash nature’?

Guardian Eco Audit

12 November, 2013

Plans to replace habitat destroyed by development has been described as too simplistic by the Environmental Audit Committee. With your help, Karl Mathiesen investigates if biodiversity offsetting can deliver on its promise to benefit the environment and the economy.

Click here to see how the debate unfolded.

The World Is With Howard On Climate Change

Published in New Matilda

7th November, 2013

Listening to him speak was comforting. Like hearing your father’s voice after a long time apart. John Howard’s idiosyncrasies have grown more pronounced as his seventies have progressed, the pauses and dysfluencies longer, the rhetoric less incisive. It all serves to enhance the vaguely adorable Elmer Fuddiness. In aesthetic terms, it was oddly pleasurable.

The auditorium at London’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers was packed to the oak-lined gunnels to receive the annual lecture of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).  As a retired warhorse Howard has rarely weighed into public discourse. But preaching to a choir of “climate realists”, Howard seemed at ease.

He made several arguments about climate change, most of which were so tired they were hardly worth waking up and wiping the dribble from their lip. There was the old line about science, by nature, never being resolved. He claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been infiltrated by a fifth column of climate ideologues, while saying his own position on climate change is informed by instinct. He dipped into GWPF founder Nigel Lawson’s book, An Appeal to Reason, and pulled out the notion that our grandchildren are waging intergenerational tyranny upon us from the future.

“The present generation should not carry too heavy a burden so that future generations are only 8.4 times better off rather than 9.4 times wealthier,” he said.

As Lenore Taylor pointed out on Wednesday, Howard completely missed the point about the causal link between climate change and bushfires. His speech, called “One religion is Enough”, berated the intolerance of climate “zealots”. Although which single religion he thinks is enough he declined to say.

The audience looked like it had been pressganged from the gentlemen’s clubs of Pall Mall. They all had a chuckle when Howard said there had been a “magnificent change of government” in Australia and how wonderful it was to have centre-right chums ruling Commons at the same time. He really played to the 11 women in the 200-strong crowd when he said: “The history of mankind has told me of his infinite capacity to adapt to the changing circumstances of the environment in which he lives.”

It all seemed rather innocuous; an anachronism, harmless old blokes wagging their chins to the tune of dead ideas. It might have even been a bit embarrassing for Tony Abbott to have his mentor making statements like:

“The high tide of public support for over-zealous action on global warming has passed. My suspicion is that most people in countries like ours have settled into a state of sustained agnosticism on the issue. Of course the climate is changing. It always has. There are mixed views not only about how sustained that warming is, seemingly it has not warmed for the last 15 years, and also the relative contributions of mankind and natural causes.”

But against the temptation to write him off (and gleefully bash Abbott by association) rubs a hard truth: John Howard represents the way the world acts on climate change.

Serious politicians now recognise that climate change rhetoric is in vogue – it won’t do to meet IPCC findings with anything but solemnity and hand wringing. But there exists a vast gap between how the world speaks and how it behaves.

Howard said his long-standing opposition to the Kyoto Protocol had been vindicated by its manifest failure to deliver a global framework to tackle carbon emissions.

He said: “It is highly unlikely that a compact of that kind will ever be achieved. Notwithstanding President Obama’s strong commitment to cap and trade in his state-of-the-union address in February of this year, there remains a bipartisan reluctance in the United States to embrace agreements of this kind.”

Vox Europa says cap-and-trade has become the whipping boy of a poisonous debate in the US Congress, tarnishing it beyond any hope of implementation.

In Australia, Abbott says he is concerned about climate change and that he has the most powerful plan to approach its mitigation. The Direct Action Plan has the added benefit of avoiding confrontation with Australia’s powerful mining sector. But scientists and economists say it won’t work. Just yesterday, Howard’s own Treasury secretary Ken Henry called the policy “bizarre”.

China, India, Brazil and the rest of the world shrug their shoulders and keep on building their middle class any way they can. Europe forges on bloody-mindedly with carbon reduction, but can’t bring the rest of the world with it. And Russia? Let’s not even go there.

Even if every country meets it current carbon reduction pledges, the UN Environment Program predicts the world will still warm beyond the 2C safe target.

Howard also made recommendations on how to mitigate the effects of the warming he is so “agnostic” about. Invest in renewables (if you can afford it) and go nuclear. Which is essentially what the world is doing.

He wrapped up by giving a rousing testimonial to “the shale revolution” which he said was “a real game changer”. He listed as its major benefits its ability to wean the west off middle-eastern oil and reduce the carbon emissions he had just spent an hour saying might not be so bad.

Again, it sounded a little bit like an old fossil going into bat for his namesake fuels. But of course, Howard is right on the money again. It is estimated that thanks to fracking, US natural gas production will increase by 3.4 billion cubic feet per day during 2014 to reach 69.1 Bcf/d by years end.

As Howard ended his speech, the GWPF’s Benny Peiser rose to warn guests that there was a large protest outside. Howard looked bemused. Not for years had one of his speaking appearances been met by a rowdy mob. But of course, it was a coincidence. Masked austerity protesters were remembering the fifth by marching on Guy Fawkes’ old target at nearby Westminster. The announcement plunged the hall into disorder. Most of the blue bloods rushed towards the front exit, keen to rubberneck the protest. Some insisted on using the back in case the riff-raff were dangerous.

Howard stood momentarily still as bodies rushed one way or the other. For a brief second he struck the figure of a confused, elderly man, wondering what all the fuss was about. Then the moment passed, the old shark smile was back. He disappeared through the back door, vigorously pressing flesh with the men who have long stood with him on the brake.

John Howard praises Abbott’s defiance of climate zealots

Published in the Guardian, 6 November, 2013

John Howard has told an audience of climate sceptics in London that Tony Abbott’s defiance on global warming in the face of left-wing zealotry was the foundation of his electoral victory in September.

In a lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, established by former Thatcher minister and climate sceptic Nigel Lawson, the former Australian prime minister insisted that the high tide of public support for “overzealous action” on global warming has passed.

“I am very sceptical about the possibility of a global agreement ever being reached when you look at what happened in Copenhagen,” he told reporters before the speech, adding there was no real prospect of a deal between the major emitters Europe, the US and north Asia.

In the speech, titled One Religion is Enough, Howard described his own dalliances with an emissions trading scheme (ETS) as purely political and questioned the scientific consensus on climate change.

“Tony Abbott now has the great responsibility and honour of being prime minister of Australia because a little under four years ago he challenged what seemed to be a political consensus on global warming,” Howard said, describing Abbott’s stance as “courageous”.

Howard’s speech described the advocates of climate change mitigation as “alarmists” and “zealots” for whom “the cause has become a substitute religion”. He said “global warming is a quintessential public policy issue” and policymakers should not become subservient to the advice of scientists.

“Scientists are the experts in science, judges experts in interpreting the law and doctors skilled at keeping us healthy, provided we take their advice. But parliaments, composed of elected politicians, are the experts at policymaking and neither expressly or impliedly should they ever surrender that role to others.”

He added that he had grown up being told ulcers were caused by stress but it was later revealed a virus was to blame.

“You can never be absolutely certain that all the science is in.”

Howard said he admired the work of many of the scientists who contributed to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but he said the body itself was fundamentally political, not scientific.

“One has to question whether the IPCC approach represents in its totality pure, disinterested scientific enquiry. Because after all it was spawned by a political process,” he said.

Howard said the science of climate change had been shown to be mercurial and this had lead to a change in public opinion.

“The high tide of public support for over-zealous action on global warming has passed. My suspicion is that most people in countries like ours have settled into a state of sustained agnosticism on the issue. Of course the climate is changing. It always has. There are mixed views not only about how sustained that warming is, seemingly it has not warmed for the last 15 years, and also the relative contributions of mankind and natural causes.”

The period between 2007 and 2013 saw a fall in public acceptance of climate change science. In 2013, only 66% of Australians said they were convinced climate change was occurring.

Howard described a recent comment by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which drew a link between extreme weather, the NSW bushfires and climate change, as an “extraordinary proposition”.

He said that a television programme he had watched, which aired on the ABC during the ensuing spat between the Figueres and the government, featured a painting of the Black Tuesday bushfires of 1851. He said this illustrated that bushfires were tragic but commonplace events that punctuated Australia’s history. Abbott and environment minister Greg Hunt had previously employed similar arguments to discredit Figueres.

When asked by the audience about the Australian media’s portrayal of the climate debate, Howard said there had been a balanced conversation on the issue on most parts, except within the ABC.
“It would be wrong to say that all of the Australian media are signed up to the alarmist agenda, even though some of them are.

“The groupthink of the ABC on this issue is quiet clear … On this issue it’s signed up, there’s no doubt about that. It’s equally fair to say that sections of the Murdoch press, and particularly the national newspaper the Australian, are more sceptical.”

During his failed bid to win re-election in 2007, Howard advocated an ETS. He said the promise was an aberration necessitated by a “perfect storm” of ongoing drought, severe water restrictions, bushfires and the release of the Stern review and Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. He added that a strong economy made economic arguments against action difficult to sustain. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, at the time 73% of Australians expressed concern about climate change.

“The global warming issue helped Labor,” Howard said, “as its views at the time were more fashionable than ours.”

Since being deposed, Howard has reverted to what he describes as “climate agnosticism”. In 2011, he launched an “anti-global warmist manual” written by geologist and climate sceptic Ian Plimer. The book encouraged schoolchildren to question their teacher’s interpretations of climate science.

At the lecture former Liberal leader was forced to defend his decision to read Lord Lawson’s book An Appeal to Reason twice despite not having picked up any other book on global warming.

Asked if that was unbalanced, the ex-PM said he re-read the work as a courtesy after being invited by Lord Lawson to deliver the lecture.

Howard said it was a “counterbalance” to advice previously received from government departments and stressed he’d read “numerous articles” on climate change.

Abbott, often considered a political scion of Howard, has taken a similarly utilitarian approach to climate change policy. He supported Howard’s last-minute ETS in 2007 and Malcolm Turnbull’s carbon trading policy in opposition. But since becoming Liberal leader Abbott has opposed Labor’s carbon tax.

Howard told the audience in London that Kevin Rudd’s vacillation on an ETS was a “foolish” political move, which ultimately lead to both his downfall and the election of Abbott.

Most economists believe Abbott’s direct action approach to curbing carbon emissions will be more expensive than an ETS. But on Tuesday Howard refused to be drawn on his protegee’s policy.

“It’s better for the government that’s proposing the direct action plan to engage in the debate,” he said.

Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council which arose from Abbott’s extirpation of Labor’s Climate Commission, said: “Howard’s comments are out of step with 97% of climate scientists from around the world who have found through years of diligent research that climate change is a significant risk.”

“The earth continues to warm strongly posing serious economic, health and environmental risks for Australia.

“Policy makers should rightly debate what to do about climate change, however, the science is simply indisputable.

She also urged the “need to base climate change policy on sound scientific facts, not opinion and intuition.”

Politics

Inside Cover, Australian Times, 29/11/11

Karl Mathiesen

Also published on tasmaniatimes.com

This week’s decision by the Gillard government to ditch laws that discriminate between asylum-seekers coming to Australia by sea and those who come through airports could be the first step on the government’s road to redemption – even if they took it for the wrong reasons.

Labor is in a world of pain at the moment, with polls consistently showing Tony-and-friends kicking the crap out of them by 12-15 points.

The asylum-seekers issue has been a dependable loser for Labor for more than a decade.  Abbot has managed to turn the issue against Labor particularly effectively.  Especially when you consider that boat arrivals under Gillard’s premiership have actually decreased since their peak in 2010.  The political debate consistently ignores that Australian government policy is a marginal factor affecting boat arrival numbers; rather more influential is the global refugee context.

The Coalition’s success is rooted in Abbott’s special brand of populism.  He defies the polls that show the majority of Australians saying that they want people’s refugee claims to be assessed in-country.  Instead he whispers to that dark corner of the Australian psyche that harbours fears of the peril flooding over the white picket fence.  Abbott tickles the little bigot in all of us, the part that hopes desperately for things to stay always the same.

Labor’s (and particularly Gillard-Labor’s) failure has been their errant desire to beat the Coalition at their own game – only to find that they aren’t actually very good at it.  Meanwhile they have been haemorrhaging votes to the left and the Greens are like vampire bats in a bison stampede.

The recent policy shift – or ‘backflip’ as the bloodhound media have predictably labelled it – has been precipitated by the High Court’s ruling that the Malaysian Solution is illegal under Australian law.  (Does anyone else find it eerie that we have adopted Nazi jargon to describe our methods of processing “illegal” foreigners?)  Having nowhere to go and unwilling to give the Coalition the satisfaction of returning to the Howard-era Pacific Solution, Labor has suddenly, gaspingly stumbled into the rarefied air of the moral high ground.

This move will be popular with many of the same voters who have supported Abbott’s hard-line stance.  Why?  Because we are a schizoid nation, and from our opposite shoulder we yearn to be better than we are.  This part of us craves a leader that tells us “Yes, we can”.  The Gillard government has been a government scared to lead, cowed by focus groups and opinion polls.  It is a sniffing elitism that disbelieves in the vast potential of the Australian people.  This deficit of leadership relegates us to Abbott level.

More courageous leadership will carry the political agenda, raise debate, reignite Ben Chifley’s guttering vision and (to borrow from Abe Lincoln) appeal to the better angels of our nature.