On Healthcare ( although this clip to be fair is on his radio show)

On President Obama:

Foreign Policy: ( With a head of state “in that area”)

On the rising “Oligarhy(sic)”

The run up to Copenhagen has begun and by all accounts it was a little more fiery than expected. I’m not referring to the Climate Camp in London, whose location was kept so secret, nor am I referring to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s remarkable comments that there are an increasing number of scientists who have doubts about Climate Change…really? This sounds a little like Sen Inhofe’s infamous list, many of whom were horrified to learn they were including on his list ( yes, he basically made it up). All of these are mere broadsides in the contemporary Climate Change debate.  The fire in this debate, which we’ve only seen glimmers on touches on the elephant in the room for environmentalists and even governments, Population control. India’s Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh issued a response to efforts by the US to bring India’s population into the debate:

Speaking at a conference in the Indian capital, organised by Delhi’s Centre for Science and Environment, Jairam Ramesh said there was a “move in western countries to bring population into climate change [negotiations]. Influential American think-tanks are asking why should we reward profligate reproductive behaviour? Why should we reward India which is adding 14 million people every year?”

For many environmentalists, population control is the issue not spoken of. Many are reluctant enough to talk about curbing our “excessive lifestyles”, reducing the number of cars, the size of our homes, waste and all the rest of it makes Environmentalists seem draconian enough and a ideology of gloom without adding the terrifying illiberal issue of population control to the mix. Yet for many, it remains the elephant in the room. Recently some scientists in environmental corners have whispered it out, what is the best thing I can do to to go green? hybrid car? recycling? Errr no, don’t procreate so much.

The maths is quite simple, if you stopped flying and etc etc you could probably reduce your average footprint from say a ball park of 25 down to 15, a big reduction to be sure but over your lifetime that would ( very simplistically) only take  800 tons difference. Here is what a child adds on average:

Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

But population control goes beyond Climate Change, in fact to some extent it dwarfs Climate Change as a problem. The world’s population is estimated to peak  around 2050, with  at over 9 billion people.  Over that period standards of living will rise for hundreds of millions of people which, without huge breakthroughs in food production and resource recycling will result in incredible strain on a planet already unable to sustain the current population. The new people rightly will expect higher standards of living than their forebears and governments will face acute problems as rising demands meets dwindling supply. Climate Change compounds the issue, reducing the earth;s resource capacity most critically in areas of food production and more gravely reducing it in the regions of the world with the fastest growing populations.

Africa and the Middle East, have among the fastest growing population and are also among the most water-poor areas in the world, with the former in historically dire straits its problems will almost certainly be gravely compounded lacking even the basic means  agricultural production.

The issue, is a uniquely human one,  all other animal species grow to the extent their environment can sustain them, reaching a natural equilibrium of sorts. Humans, differ and have expanded exponentially over their history. This century may prove more testing than others with Climate Change and economic growth heading towards a degree of inevitable conflict. You’ve already seen this problem, water resources in Sudan, oil wars in the Middle East, these problems aren’t solely due to population but population can create almost insurmountable structural pressure on politics to match demand.

But unlike other Climate Change problems which are about financing , economic growth, technology transfer and trade terms, population control hits home directly.  How many children will you or someone else be allowed? It’s a distinctly moral question, the biological essence of humanity is put into question and one of surely our most basic rights could be called into question. Deeper than that is that, it has more underlying undertones of power politics. Wealthy and ageing western populations trying to curb the fertility of China, India, Africa and the Middle East, touches on raw nerves of the balance of global power.

This isn’t the first time the issue has been raised. China, the only country to have enacted an all-encompassing population policy in its infamous “one child policy” has in the past noted that it has done more than many countries in the effort to control Climate Change through its one child policy,  which it estimates have kept several hundred million from existence and thus relieved enormous future amounts of strain from the world.

Going into Copenhagen population control is highly unlikely to feature, however its emergence into International dialogue has begun already and soon this taboo subject may well become centre stage, although I suspect a third-rail at first.

I toyed with Gordon Brown’s talk on communications creating a global conscience but….. this is more time out.

Actually, I’ll feel a little guilty if I keep copying and pasting in these links. De Botton is spot on, the meritocratic society has at its core an individualistic notion. That has as he points out, an obvious flaw, losers really are losers. Is it fair? Yes and no, certainly concrete barriers are less evident that before, but the problem with a meritocracy is that its a bit simplistic and all to perfect, unlike reality, so perhaps we should be a little less judgemental and focus a little more on public good… *cough* Denmark *cough*, ahem.

Newcomers tuning in to the G8 meeting may have been surprised by recent events. On balance it looks like an event where things get done, everything about it oozes action and dynamism. Firstly, just who they are ought to be enough: USA, UK, Russia, France, Germany, Canada, Japan and errr Italy ( it is rich at least). Secondly, there are as the name would suggest, only 8 of them. 8 is quite small, not like the UN, a system perfectly matched to ensure gridlock if any real global policy ever had to take place. Just 8, market based democracies this ought to be packing with leadership and vision.

Unfortunately, reality is different and while the world is cooking, the G8 kindly offered some token money to help agriculture in developing countries and to promise to keep global temperatures down to a mere 2C rise, no policy, no action or room for vision rather a an extended press conference, suitably vague to offend nobody and of course hopelessly lacking in leadership.

With Climate Change’s effects flexing their muscles, declining ice in the Arctic, water crises from Northern India, to Australia and the US west, rising sea levels and things only set to get worse, it was disheartening to say the least that the top 8 richest countries in the world apparently struggle to lay out any plan that might make them have to take Climate Change seriously. Why was this so?

Apart from the G8’s careful ability to rarely achieve much, this G8 with a focus on Climate change had several factors that damaged it from the start:

1. The US the only chance of any global leadership, has yet to pass a Climate bill at a federal level, and has recently been delayed, in reality removing much of the the US’s strength in International negotiations.
2. Russia, amusing ( black comedy style) Russia has announced that by allowing emissions to increase up to 2020 at predicted level it will still achieve its kyoto targets  due to so much soviet heavy industry closing down.
3. Japan, promised to reduce emissions by 15% on 2004 baselines, essentially then reducing 4% emissions since 1990.
4. Canada, ranked bottom of the G8 group by the WWF-Allianz group, this affluent state is unfortunately ruled by a Stephen Harper’s minority coalition government whose biggest contribution to Climate change discussions has been to a) admit Climate Change exists and b) be reassured that soundsbites are becoming more robust ( but god forbid they translate into policy).

Amusingly, that leaves the European contingent as leaders, now on the one hand, as a cautious EU supporter I’m proud we’re leading the field, on the other hand UK, Germany, France and Italy reads like who’s who of 19th/20th century has beens and are woefully incapable of providing the true leadership we need.

What are the positives then?

Firstly is that we are in a recession and that may make policy makes especially cautious to be seen to be making any moves on Climate Change that could hamper economic recovery, or even sound like it might, if the US in particular begins to pull out in the next 4 months it may even be able to sneak a bill through congress. If it does this, this could easily provide the catalyst for for key developing countries such as China and India to begin managing targets.

Secondly, Canada could get a new government, actually quite likely and while Mr Ignatieff is still a fan of Alberta’s tar sands, he is a world apart from Mr Harper when it comes to actually tackling Climate Change.

Finally, the debate will continue to roll on, Climate Change will not be going away, slowly but surely people are coming to terms with the need for policy action and I see domestic movement having a positive reciprocal relationship with International policy, if something however disappointing but vaguely substantial can be agreed at Copenhagen, this will strengthen the case for domestic politicians to go back home and bolster their own efforts which should be able to feed back into International negotiations. We won’t get this right with one swing but slowly our pleasantly inadequate politicians might manage to avoid total catastrophe.

It’s crunch time on capital hill as the Obama administration puts its political capital on the line for the House to pass the Waxman-Markey bill. For those of you who don’t know, the Waxman-Markey bill is the first Climate Change bill to be introduced in the US ( on a federal level).

So what does it promise? (See here for a more comprehensive overview)

• To reduce US emissions on 2005 levels by 17% by 2020
• To bring US emissions down by 80% by 2050
• 25% of US energy by 2025 must be renewable
• A Cap and Trade system, 85% of permits will be auctioned off
• 2 Billion tons worth of carbon offsets
• A whole host of other measures from building efficiency, fuel standards and even a new technology bank!

Ok it’s been watered down, see Kelly McManus’ coverage at Climatico to,how its been watered down. Worse the Senate will be an even tougher battle with a smaller Democratic majority, and still no Al Franken *sigh*, but make no mistake, this bill is a game changer.

For a long time, I’ve had a list of things I would like Obama to do ( not including saving the US economy):

1. Health care
2. Climate Change bill
3. Immigration Reform
4. Gay rights

That isn’t a definitive list but if he got those down, that would do for me. Although far from perfect, this Climate Change bill is the only realistic chance of success in combatting Climate change, not simply because the US is the world’s second largest polluter but because it is the world’s superpower and the largest economy. If the US  was not willing to take serious action against Climate Change, China India and the rest will never get on board. As we head towards crucial Climate negotiations at the end of this year and the beginning of the next this is probably the only chance the US has of passing a serious Climate Change bill in time, to show it is willing to take serious leadership

And to be honest, the Democrats won’t have it this good for a long time, at best they will keep a hold in the 2010 mid terms, there is a small chance they’ll be able to expand and a good chance they will slip a little bit. They have a large majority in the house and IF Franken were ever seated would be looking at filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The time really is now.

So if it passes what then? Well if it passes, it still ahs to go and get watered down in the Senate, but if it survives that and the Republicans don’t use the fillibuster than a framework has been set for the US to reduce Climate emissions. With luck this will change the nature of debate for further incremental legislation to strengthen the legislation, critical to this will be:

• Proven success of green jobs, already a growing number of economists and think tanks ( e.g. Pew Research) have come out in support – that green can be good for the economy.
• An economic upturn in general, weakens the hand of those who oppose the bill purely on economic grounds.
• The continual reduction in climate sceptics as evidence already insurmountable continues to pile over, until Republicans realise that opposing near total majority of world scientific research is ridiculous, this could take a long time, but if enough of the American public are convinced, Republicans may eventualyl change their tune. Then the debate will be about the type of policy rather than the exisitence of Carbon Dioxide :-p

The House votes tommorow, fingers crossed.

by TfUnQ

Is the European Union at a decisive point?

The Constitutional Treaty was savagely beaten by the Dutch and by the French.  Awkwardly righting itself ike an overweight middle aged boxer, convinced that its younger and sprightlier opponent ( the citizens of each European country) will fall victim to its experience, it crafted a new treaty. The Lisbon treaty, cunningly devised to make things like flags non-binding ( and yes it was a little paired down in other areas).  The leaders of the EU sent this one flying back at its citizens and this time avoided those awkward referendums by letting parliaments vote. After all, nothing says democracy like keeping out the people – not burdening their minds with issues or even giving them the chance.

This approach seemed to work until the Irish, actually did give their citizens a referendum and then it was voted down. Now,  I admit the anti-EU vote was a bit ridiculous in Ireland, with a mish-mash alliance of all loading up on one ticket. The “No” group had anti-abortionists, anti-immigrations, sovereignty issues that the EU was not touching on aswell as a good old mix of domestic politics, and the pro-EU group launched a rather half-hearted campaign failed to really engage the population despite the fact the EU was a core element in making the Irisi=sh economy as successful as it has been.

Then came the European Parliamentary elections, which told us little except what we already knew. That most people, but above all the English will treat it as a vote on national politics, that some countries will neatly forget everything the EU has done for them, Austria I’m looking at you,  and other countries will demonstrate just how sickeningly successful :-p their country is, by devoting large chunks of their vote to the single issue of Internet piracy laws…Sweden. However the overwhelming message, if not Euro-scepticism was “couldn’t care less-ism” with a whopping 57% of Europe just not bothering.

Since then, the a second round on the Lisbon treaty is being prepared in Ireland, with a couple more opt-outs and time for the Government to reassure the population that the EU will not be interfering on some key key issues, it appears the vote will get the yes. Then what?

Is the EU actually in a crisis? Nosemonkey reacting to a fellow blogger’s conversion to Euroscepticism had this to say:

I know how he feels.

This is a vital, fundamental problem that the EU seems repeatedly unable to address – it is excruciatingly hard to be enthusiastic about the European Union. No matter how much you try, the more you look into it, the more you see its flaws. The more you look for sensible ideas for its future purpose and reform, the more you see the tsunami of inadequates that tend to gain positions of power in the damn thing rise up and threaten to swamp the whole project in a deluge of tedium, petty squabbles, meaningless jargon and total lack of vision.

All of which is true, but where is the glimmer of light? Well about wheres it usually is.  It lies with the trundling technocratic engine of the EU eventually serving up something more palatable, more people driven than they currently have. The Lisbon treaty is not the answer, it is a little closer to the answer with more power to the European Parliament, it makes the European Union a little more democratic, a little less technocratic and brings MEP’s a bit closer to being able to truthfully say that the European Union is abobut the people.

Thats the start, but that alone won’t make a huge differnece, it at best further weakens Euro-sceptics position that the EU is completely undemocratic.    The more important detail probably lies int he creation of a President of the European Council,  (rather than the rotating chair approach we currently have). While this could go either way, a figure-head with a larger presence on the international stage, i.e. a former Prime Minister could potentialyl bring the work, and direction of the European Union much closer to home.

At present the European Union leadership, if it can be called that it a micture of Barroso, a man who endeared himself to the British public by saying  the people “that matter” in the UK  are talking of joining the Euro ( making him rude, elitist and wrong), and the rotating head of the EU Presidency, that would be Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, who described the EU as a “failed and bankrupt entity”. If the E?U were to instead appoint somebody with a big name and good communication, to be leader that could give voice and shape to the EU’s role then that may prove enough to start an undoubtedly slow and gadual process of citizenry engagement, that might eventualyl turn the EU into something that people could understand and one day, even relate to.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath, not only does the Lisbon treaty still have to pass, but some of the proposed candidates for this “Presidency” are not exactly the stuff of dreams – here’s a few:

Mr Tony “Iraq Waq” Blair – actually probably a good choice in terms of Blair’s understanding of where Europe needs to be heading (CAP reform, streamlined decision making but the Iraq war still makes him a polarising figure on the continent).

Jean-Claude Juncker – Prime Minister of Luxembourg, probably a terrible choice and UKIP’s dream candidate, because he comes across as a bureacratic dull and totally lacking in wider popularity or name recognition becuase, well he’s from luxembourg.

Bertie Ahern – once suggested probably not so likely, Bertie isn’t a terrible choice at all but is he a big enough player on the European stage?

Angela Merkel – Not sure how likely this/ any of these are but I’m quite fond of Angela, proving herself a pragmatic and effective politician in Europe’s powerhouse Germany, she would have strong credentials.

All things considered however, I wouldn’t hold your breath

You couldn’t make this stuff up…