Auspundits

Internationalism: An Entropy To Inaction

Two articles disparaging internationalism. One by David Brooks in the NYT, which is unsurprising. The other by Simon Jenkins in The Guardian, which is very surprising. Both Brooks and Jenkins also lends their support to the necessity of the U.S.'s role as Leviathan. Jenkins writes:

The Americans are right, that if you want something done in the world, get a nation to do it, not an inter-nation. I may be opposed to both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is a significant difference between them noticeable to any visitor to their capitals. In Baghdad, America is unmistakably in charge and the world follows. There is a clear line of command that leads, however misguidedly, to Washington. Things get done.

Afghanistan is the opposite, the embodiment of Tharoor's globalism in practice. Some 30 nations piled into Kabul after 2001, under the banners of Nato and the UN. There was and remains no coherence, no agreed strategy and a perpetual feuding over rules of engagement, use of air power and policies for anti-corruption and counter-narcotics. Things do not get done.

Green Favouritism

According to some green-house gas alarmists, Australia needs to be put under greater pressure to sign the Bali mandate:

Critics say Australia is yet to fully declare its position, and is stalling talks as a result.

But China should not be pressured:

"To strictly criticise China is not going to lead anywhere and could be quite destructive with regards to the negotiations here in Bali," said Yang Ailun, Greenpeace China Climate and Energy Campaign Manager...

Wasn't the Rudd Revolution enough? Another example of green-think and hypocrisy.

Post-Kyoto and Carbon Taxes

Our new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, along with a quarter of his cabinet, will be attending the the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali over the next week. It is expected that he will commit Australia to emissions cuts of between 25% and 40%, caveated on the delivery of a report he commissioned from economist Ross Garnaut. These proposed emissions cuts would devastate the Australian economy with electricity prices expected to increase by about 30% and agricultural output contracting by up to 20%.

These would be a consequence of the real economic costs to achieve the emissions cuts targets by proposed carbon taxes. Economist, Ross McKitrick has put forward a different type of carbon tax, the T3 tax, that is based on science that both "alarmists" and "deniers" accept. It links carbon taxes to the change in the mean temperature of the tropical troposphere with heavy penalties if (as the alarmists claim) temperatures rise dramatically. This simple, revenue-neutral proposal has gained little publicity and deserves further investigation, particularly when we have governments around the world selling their countries into an economic abyss while, as McKitrick argues and Lord Monckton once again demonstrates, significant scientific work is yet to be completed.

H/T: Andrew Bolt and Steve McIntyre.

Update 9/12/07 6:40PM AEST: The Garnaut Climate Change Review's Terms of Reference could, if desired, consider the effectiveness of the T3 tax. Perhaps a submission to this review may not go awry.

Update 9/12/07 10:00 PM AEST: Unlike the "science", the form by which climate indulgences will be sold is far from "settled".

Alarmism of U.N. Scientists? Never...

THOSE UNITED NATIONS SCIENTISTS: "

The Washington Post reviews the work of top United Nations scientists, November 20:

The United Nations’ top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade ...

The Washington Post reviews the work of top United Nations scientists, November 18:

The world will have to end its growth of carbon emissions within seven years and become mostly free of carbon-emitting technologies in about four decades to avoid killing as many as a quarter of the planet’s species from global warming, according to top United Nations’ scientists.

"

(Via Tim Blair.)

Interest Rates

The Reserve Bank of Australia has announced an increase in the cash rate by 0.25% p.a arguing that "aggregate demand...need[s] to moderate...". What does this mean?

I confess: I love the French...

...now that they have a President and a Prime Minister demonstrating common-sense.

Calls the Cops: Climate Change Sceptics have surfaced!

Four members of Australia's governing Coalition and members of the Parliamentary Science and Innovation Parliamentary have voiced scepticism over the Committee's statement that (para. 2.1):

There is now compelling evidence that human activity is changing the global climate. The majority of scientists, and the community at large, agree that global action is needed, otherwise we risk reaching a point where it is too late to reverse the damage.

U.N. Chief: Global Warming, not us to blame for Darfur

Recently several prominent international figures have begun attributing regional conflicts to climate change (caused obviously by human activities). The first one I noticed was a speech that Margaret Beckett, British Foreign Secretary, gave in April 2007. The second is an article published yesterday in the Washington Post by Bai Ki Moon, the new Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Foreign Policy: Romney has the goods

U.S. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has an article in the July/August 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs that details some of his Big Ideas. Or as he labels them: "Four key pillars of action". Noted grand strategist Thomas P. M. Barnett's summary?

 

Romney is totally solutions-based. I don't think he can win the [nomination], but you'd have to consider him as a totally do-something [Vice-President]....doesn't sound like I need to brief him, despite the efforts of several go-betweens.

Liveblogging - Climate Change: Debunking the Myths

Matthew England is Professor and Director of the 'Climate and Environmental Dynamics Laboratory' at the School of Mathematics, University of New South Wales. He wil be giving a presentation titled "Climate Change" which I will liveblog here (and post in retrospect).

Update: Professor England's presentation can be found here.

This is the first time that I have liveblogged so bear out any kinks in the liveblogging session.

Also note that the The Rational Debate of Climate Change Society , which hosted the event, maintains that:

Our stance on climate change and global warming is one of neutrality. We firmly accept that the climate IS changing, as it always does. However, we openly question the accusations levied on the human race, marking it as being the primary cause of this change. We do not deny it though, we simply question. We are also against how climate change has been hijacked by politicians, whose primary goal is not to obtain objective facts about global warming but to promote their own agenda. In line with our purpose, we strongly feel that the rational, scientific approach to global warming is the way the world should be tackling this issue.