How Howard deals with the enivronment

How does the PM deal with the environment? Why, he gambles that we don't really care and changes the subject to the hip pocket of course. Peter Hartcher from the Sydney Morning Herald explains. smh.com.au, 30/03/07 John Howard could not have chosen a more exquisitely churlish moment to truculently, almost exultantly, dismiss the idea of setting any targets for cutting Australia's output of the greenhouse gases thought to be responsible for global warming. It was on Wednesday afternoon during the Parliament's question time. Britain's Sir Nicholas Stern was in the building and waiting to meet the Prime Minister. Stern is the author of the celebrated Stern review last year that said global warming "could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century". The front page of the Herald was reporting that Stern had arrived in Australia, asking that the country commit to mandatory targets to cut carbon emissions by 2020 to levels 30 per cent lower than those of 1990, and to cut by at least 60 per cent by 2050. The Labor Party has supported a target of cuts of 60 per cent by 2050, although, crucially, it has failed to say how it proposes to achieve them. And Howard knew that Kevin Rudd is convening a so-called summit on climate change in Canberra tomorrow where Labor will parade its concern for the planetary future. So with Howard under pressure from the rock star of climate change, Stern, and the rock star of Australian politics, Rudd, to commit to targets for cutting greenhouse emissions, what did he do? He told the Parliament: "I am not going to join the Australian Labor Party in destroying the jobs of Australian coalminers. I am not going to join the Labor Party in committing to targets which will do disproportionate damage to the Australian economy." Yesterday, at a press conference, he amplified this decision. It would be the easiest thing in the world, he said, for any politician to commit to anything by 2050, knowing he wouldn't be around to deliver. A wag at the back of the press conference immediately shot back to Australia's second longest-serving prime minister: "Is that a commitment?" Howard, doing the mental arithmetic that puts him at the age of 111 in 2050, decided that this was one retirement deadline he could agree to, and said so. Of course, Howard is right - it would be dead easy for him to match Labor's unsupported commitment to cut emissions by 60 per cent by the time the babies in the maternity wards today are buying their bright-red midlife-crisis hydrogen cell sports cars at the age of 43. So why won't he do it? Howard is no longer a sceptic about global warming. He now agrees it is a problem, and he has announced policies to try to address it. These include yesterday's decision to put $200 million towards an international fund to help poor countries better manage their forests, which are being stripped away at a rate that contributes 20 per cent of the world's annual carbon emissions. But his chief aim is to frame this year's federal election as a referendum on economic management. He wants to be able to portray his Government as the reliable and trustworthy manager of a strong economy, and Labor as the party of dangerous neophytes, fiscal madmen and green fundamentalists. Of course, Howard is setting up a false dichotomy in the policy choices he portrays. What sort of future does Howard think the Australian coal industry faces as the world gradually moves to an era of low-emission energy? It will have no future at all. It is stunning to see that the private equity consortium bidding for the big Texas power utility TXU has offered, as a condition of its $US45 billion bid, to cancel eight of the company's 11 planned coal-fired coal plants. Even to Wall Street raiders and Texan energy shareholders it is clear that coal has lost much of its legitimacy as a fuel. How does Howard think he is helping the long-run growth of the economy by denying corporate Australia the certainty of a clear carbon policy? Every industry needs clarity on this. Even the leader of the global climate change sceptics, the US oil major Exxon Mobil, has abandoned scepticism, and is calling for the clarity of a framework of climate change policy. Which sectors does Howard think will be the growth industries of the future? It's alternative fuels and energy-saving that will offer the great opportunities for growth, where the next century's BPs and Exxon Mobils will be found. The Australian founder of a pioneering solar energy firm, Solar Heat and Power, has moved to California where the regulatory system encourages renewable energy. So Howard's position is a policy nonsense. But he is putting his trust in cartoon-simple political caricatures for the election campaign. It's a big risk. We know from a Newspoll last month that 76 per cent of Australians think climate change is a major problem. And Labor is prepared to campaign on the issue - it is about to air a TV ad narrated by Peter Garrett pushing its global warming credentials. Has Howard lost his fabled political nous? He is taking a calculated risk our concern about global warming is widespread but feebly felt. He is punting that it is not a vote-switching issue. The evidence is very sketchy, but it supports Howard's punt. Only 20 per cent of respondents to the Newspoll were prepared to "pay a lot more" for alternative energy sources. And a poll by the market research firm Pollinate found a similar syndrome. Its director, Howard Parry-Husbands, says: "Seventy-five per cent of Australians are concerned, but understanding is very low at 40 per cent and the proportion prepared to change their behaviour over it is barely in double digits, 14 per cent." So Howard is talking global warming nonsense, but in the confident expectation that we don't care enough to call his bluff.

Is it time to stand down?

Time to declare? Things change in politics, even the great ones start to realise they are not immortal nor invincible. One wonders if this is the dilemma now facing prime minister John Howard. One prominent journalist explores... By Paul Sheehan, Sydney Morning Herald, 26/03/07 The people have spoken. John Howard should go. Now. Voters spoke decisively on Saturday in the Prime Minister's main political base. While the NSW election was not a vote about John Howard or his Federal Government, it was an emphatic rejection of the Liberal Party and its robotic state leader, Peter Debnam. The result confirmed what the opinion polls had predicted. It also buttressed indirectly what the wider electorate has been saying for months, via the opinion polls: the era of John Howard's political ascendancy is over. It is not just a matter of bad poll numbers. It is a matter of executive responsibility. Howard should do the right thing, the honourable thing, and step aside in favour of his deputy, Peter Costello, who is almost 20 years younger (49, the same age as Kevin Rudd), and has been a highly successful Treasurer for 11 years and the most brilliant performer in the Parliament for all that time. He deserves his moment in the sun. If Howard were to step aside now, he would hand over an economy in the best shape it has been in a generation. This would be his legacy. It would also be the platform for Costello to have a fighting chance in seven months' time. Two recent party leaders, Simon Crean and Kim Beazley, stepped aside because the opinion polling was showing they were leading their party to disaster. The most successful Labor prime minister in history, Bob Hawke, departed after four successive victories and his timing turned out to be perfect. The most successful Labor premier in NSW history, Bob Carr, also departed with perfect timing. Shortly after he walked away from the job he told me: "I learnt that politics is the art of constant improvisation, constant reinvention." Howard needs to improvise. Eight months ago, after deciding to stay and run for a fifth term, he wrote to his parliamentary colleagues on July 30 that "the overwhelming view of the Liberal Party [is] that the current leadership team, with me as leader and Peter Costello as deputy leader, should remain in place through to the next election. I'll continue to serve as leader of the Liberal Party for so long as my party wants me to and it's in the party's best interests that I do so." His then opponent, Beazley, was trailing in the polls by a disastrous 27 per cent to 59 per cent as preferred prime minister. Now it is Howard who trails badly as preferred prime minister, behind a much younger, talented, calm and conservative Opposition Leader. The most recent Herald/ACNielsen poll, two weeks ago, produced an unprecedented dip against the Government, with Labor ahead, on a two-party-preferred vote, by 61 per cent to the Coalition's . The same poll had Rudd ahead of Howard as preferred prime minister by 14 points, 53 per cent to 39 per cent. This is the biggest lead enjoyed by an opposition leader since Howard led Paul Keating by 16 points a year out from the 1996 election. Those numbers later held firm and translated into an anti-government landslide. These numbers were supported last week by the latest Newspoll, which also had Rudd ahead as preferred prime minister by 14 points - 49 per cent to 36 per cent. The poll numbers are bad enough, but they are not the reason why Howard should step down as a matter of executive responsibility. Last week Howard addressed Parliament to explain and justify Australia's role in the military occupation of Iraq. His argument was utterly unconvincing. Opinion polls show that the public, by an overwhelming majority, has concluded that the Government made a historic blunder engaging in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In so doing, Howard turned his leadership into an adjunct of the discredited presidency of George Bush. He has made Australia a bigger target for terrorist attacks, for no discernible strategic pay-off. While the terrorist threat is real, and growing, the rhetoric and tactics of the "war on terrorism" have been a series of blunders. Howard can no longer fight a "khaki election". On the other threat to Australia's security, climate change and global warming, he is finally mobilising after 10 years, but his engagement with the issue is so belated it remains hollow. There have been other key blunders since Howard decided to stay on. The pivotal battle over Work Choices and industrial relations has been mishandled at every turn. The legislation is unwieldy and complex. Carriage of the battle was placed in the hands of Kevin Andrews and then with another low-voltage performer, Joe Hockey. All while the unions spend millions on a scare campaign that has yet to meet serious opposition. Most recently, the Government's attempt to hurt Rudd over meetings with the disgraced former West Australian premier Brian Burke appeared desperate and disingenuous, and quickly imploded into the disgrace of Santo Santoro. Howard may be a formidable, durable political leader, but at every critical juncture he has been the beneficiary of good fortune not of his own making. In 1996 it was Paul Keating's arrogance. In 1998 he lost the popular vote to Beazley but his majority was so large he survived. In 2001 the September 11 attacks changed everything. In 2004 he got Mark Latham's coarseness. With the country in great shape, but the public weary of him, Howard, at 68, should declare victory and depart. The alternative is to risk everything, including his seat and his legacy. To prove what? Costello is ready. The polls could not be worse. And his caucus is restless. He has been given fair warning to leave undefeated, and let the young lions do battle.

Is the PM arrogant?

Poll finds John Howard is seen as arrogant Daily Telgraph, 21/03/07 PRIME Minister John Howard has said he is surprised by a poll finding that seven in 10 voters think he is arrogant, saying he has nothing to be arrogant about. The Newspoll of more than 1200 voters found that 68 per cent thought Mr Howard was arrogant, compared to 29 per cent for Labor leader Kevin Rudd. Only 50 per cent thought Mr Howard was in touch with the electorate, compared to 76 per cent for Mr Rudd, and fewer than half (49 per cent) thought Mr Howard was trustworthy. "I've got to say this, I don't have anything to be arrogant about - not at the moment, politically, nothing at all," Mr Howard has said on Southern Cross Broadcasting. "I mean, it's the most counter-intuitive finding in a poll I've read in years.  I look at all the other polls and they say I'm a country mile behind. "I can tell you, I don't feel very arrogant, I don't behave in an arrogant manner." Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce has said the poll is wrong and Mr Howard cannot be expected to do "somersaults down the corridor" to prove to people he is not arrogant. He has said the Prime Minister is efficient and business-like. "He can't be the all-singing, all-dancing, hugging and kissing and doing somersaults down the corridor to make people feel happy," the Queensland senator has said. "He's got to run a country and with that has got to come a sense of decorum and a sense of gravitas of the position that you've got. "I want to see the boss running the show which is what we've got." Public opinion Mr Howard has said he has strong views and is prepared to argue his case and go against public opinion on important issues. "But I do listen to people, and I may not end up agreeing with them, I don't always, and I think the job of leader is to listen and lead, and not always just count to 51 per cent and say that's where I'm going to go," he said. "On occasions you've got to swim against the tide. I did it on Iraq, I did it on the GST ... I believe in what we're doing, and if at the end of the day the judgment of the Australian people is (against us) ... I have to accept that." Mr Howard said when governments were doing badly in the polls generally, they tended to get marked down on everything. Tasmanian Liberal MP Michael Ferguson was standing by his leader today. "John Howard's my hero, he remains so," Mr Ferguson has said.

Following the leader

PM won't be moved by US climate policy Sydney Morning Herald, September 19, 2006 Australia will make its own path on climate change and would not automatically follow the US in a possible policy U-turn, Prime Minister John Howard says. Mr Howard said he had seen reports that US President George W Bush was about to dramatically change his country's position on global warming. Asked if a US change of policy would affect him, Mr Howard said Australia made up its own mind. "We make our own assessment of these things," he said. "And our own assessment is that if Australia were to sign the Kyoto Protocol we would damage our country's interests, because the arrangement would impose obligations on us that would not be imposed on countries like China and Indonesia." British newspaper The Independent has cited senior Washington sources as saying President Bush is drawing up plans to control emissions of carbon dioxide and rapidly boost the use of renewable energy sources. The White House has not denied a change of policy is on the way and the sources say the most likely moment is the President's State of the Union address in January. Meanwhile, Mr Howard said terrorism was a greater threat to Australia in the future than global warming. "Terrorism is more arbitrary, it's far more capricious, and, of course, its immediate consequences on the people it touches are more hideous," Mr Howard said. The question is posed in former US vice president Al Gore's documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. Mr Howard said Mr Gore had sent him a film and he planned to watch it. He said he accepted the planet was getting warmer but did not accept all Mr Gore's messages. "And I believe the methods he proposes will do a lot of short and medium term damage to the Australian economy," he said. "It will send industries offshore, send Australian jobs to countries like China and Indonesia. "I think we can tackle the problem in a different but equally effective way."

Follow on

Politics, not policy, behind PM's switch Sydney Morning Herald February 19, 2007 JUST weeks before Prime Minister John Howard announced a taskforce to examine emissions trading, his department privately advised him that any carbon trading scheme in Australia was against the national interest. As the Government remodels its image and policies on climate change in the lead-up to a federal election this year, documents obtained by The Age reveal that the Government, as recently as October, had no intention of a carbon trading scheme in Australia. The Government has recently indicated it would be willing to consider a national carbon trading scheme after the emissions taskforce reported this month that Australia may have to introduce a domestic scheme because a global trading system was likely to be years away. But the documents suggest the recent shift in language and policy may have more to do with political pressure to act on climate change than a serious policy rethink. A speaking note written by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on October 17 said that "a national emissions trading scheme, in the absence of similar action globally, would not be in the nation's interest". Confidential briefing notes written for Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane in September were even stronger in their opposition, casting doubt on the ability of trading schemes to reduce emissions. "Australia does not see the need to impose an economy-wide system on carbon trading … market mechanisms currently implemented (overseas), particularly emissions trading schemes, have not yet proved successful in reducing emissions or driving technology development," the Industry documents said. Weeks after these were written, Mr Howard signalled a dramatic policy shift by announcing an emissions trading taskforce on November 15 to investigate Australian participation in any global scheme. In a discussion paper this month, the taskforce found a global scheme to be far off and suggested a national scheme be considered, adding there was no time for complacency. In response, Mr Howard said a national carbon trading scheme could be introduced if there was "reasonable anticipation" of action on a global scale. Mr Macfarlane, formerly a long-term opponent of carbon trading, said he now had an "open mind" to an Australian scheme. Carbon trading involves energy-intensive industries getting permits to generate a capped amount of emissions. If emissions are reduced, a company's unused permits can be sold to those having difficulty meeting their emissions cap. The scheme creates a financial incentive to reduce emissions. According to documents obtained by The Age under freedom of information, the Government as recently as the end of October had no plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions soon because it opposed emission reduction targets and preferred technological solutions. "The Australian Government is focused on developing technological solutions to address climate change as it considers this to be a more effective approach than adopting emission reduction targets," an October speaking note written by the Prime Minister's department said. The documents also show the Government was worried about the impact of the September visit by former US vice-president Al Gore to promote his film An Inconvenient Truth, even though some senior ministers openly scoffed at Mr Gore's climate change message. Mr Howard's department was sufficiently concerned about Mr Gore's film to draft detailed points to promote the Government's initiatives on global warming and defend it from any criticism. Speaking notes written for Mr Howard specifically to counter the film highlighted Australia's $2 billion investment in climate change measures. They also suggested Mr Howard could raise how Australia was "actively working to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the extent of future impacts". Mr Howard's department has engaged one of the nation's top fossil fuel industry lobbyists, Australian Industry Greenhouse Network chief executive John Daley, as one of a group of experts who prepared policy options for the emissions trading taskforce.

Keep following

PM in memory lapse over emissions trading Sydney Morning Herald, Canberra February 6, 2007 Prime Minister John Howard doesn't recall if cabinet considered a proposal for an emissions trading system four years ago. Mr Howard said he didn't carry in his head details of every submission that went before cabinet. "Let me simply say that our position in relation to an emissions trading system is that we have at present at work a joint task group between the Government and the business community," he told parliament. "Tomorrow that task group will be releasing a discussion paper which deals with these matters." Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd had asked Mr Howard if a submission proposing an emission trading scheme went before cabinet in August 2003 and if that proposal was rejected. Mr Howard said yesterday the discussion paper would outline issues regarding development and implementation of a workable global emissions trading scheme and the role Australia could play. He said evidence of climate change is undeniable, and that market mechanisms - including carbon pricing - would be integral to a long-term response. Mr Howard said that introducing a carbon market would have to be sympathetic to industry. "It's important that we develop an approach to carbon pricing that is acceptable to and sympathetic to the interests of Australian industry," he said.

Around in circles

Ministers at odds on climate plan Sydney Morning Herald , Canberra, February 7, 2007 Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane: Wants Australia to move ahead on emissions trading. Photo: Andrew Sheargold Other related coverage FEDERAL Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has broken ranks with his cabinet colleagues, saying he could consider a national or regional emissions trading scheme, provided Australia was not disadvantaged. Ahead of a new issues paper on emissions trading expected from the Prime Minister's high-powered government-business taskforce today, Mr Macfarlane has confirmed that he has an open mind on whether Australia could move on its own, or with key players in our region. "It is worth looking at whether it is possible to have an interim scheme, either national or regional, that does not disadvantage Australia's competitiveness or endanger Australian jobs," Mr Macfarlane told The Age last night. His comments came as Prime Minister John Howard was forced to correct a statement he had made to Parliament during yesterday's question time, in which he had said that "the jury is still out" on the link between emissions and climate change. In an unusual move, Mr Howard returned to the chamber to say that he had misheard the question. He said he thought that he had been asked about the drought rather than the link between climate change and carbon dioxide emissions. The Prime Minister's embarrassing correction followed a bruising question time battle with Labor over climate change. Laying down critical markers for the election campaign, Labor leader Kevin Rudd said that a government of climate change sceptics could not be part of a comprehensive solution to the issue. Mr Howard and the Government's new Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, countered that Labor was full of climate change "purists" and "fanatics", and was not serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions because it refused to enter debate on nuclear energy. Mr Macfarlane told The Age that he could not see a global emissions trading scheme being in place by 2012. He said it was reasonable to consider interim measures provided they built on the Government's existing environmental and energy policies, such as the $500 million low emissions fund. "I have an open mind provided it builds on what we are doing in the Energy White Paper," Mr Macfarlane said. His comments depart from a statement on Monday by Treasurer Peter Costello that Australia should not move ahead of the world to make polluters pay through an emissions trading scheme. Yesterday in the Senate, Finance Minister Nick Minchin said it "is a fallacy to suggest that you can just unilaterally introduce (a) domestic scheme without doing significant damage to Australians". "The Government continues to be opposed to Australia acting unilaterally to tax Australian industry by way of a domestic emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax in the absence of any action by our trading partners or other major nations in the world," Senator Minchin said. The nine-page issues paper to be released by the Prime Minister's taskforce today is expected to raise a series of questions about how to design a carbon trading scheme. It is also expected to ask whether Australia needs to overhaul current policies, including state policies restricting carbon dioxide emissions. In Brisbane, Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said there was "enormous sense" in the idea of introducing a carbon trading scheme that would mean Australia had "a proper trading scheme similar to the UK and similar to parts of Europe". What the leaders said THE QUESTION KEVIN RUDD: Does the Prime Minister recall his Industries Minister saying just six months ago "I am a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change"? Does the Prime Minister support this statement. THE ANSWER JOHN HOWARD: "Well, Mr Speaker, it's not only remarks made by people in this Parliament. There is a farmer I know who is sceptical about that connection too … the jury is still out on the degree of connection. But what matters is what to do about it … " THE EXPLANATION HOWARD: "Having read the transcript of the questions, it is quite clear that I did mistake it. I was wrong to talk about climate change and drought when the question was about climate change and emissions. And just for the record, I do believe there is a connection between climate change and emissions. I don't really think the jury is out on that. I do think the jury is out on the connection between climate change and drought … " Is the prime minister past his prime on environmental issues? email us: jason@mygreenway.com.au