I missed this piece by Gene Healey at the time, but it’s well worth a read. Healey a libertarian points out that the neocons don’t merely support lots of particular wars, they are pro-war on principle. Tim Lambert made the same point a while back.
Along the same lines, Spencer Ackerman at The New Republic on the Right’s Vietnam syndrome
Weekend Reflections is on again. Please comment on any topic of interest (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). Feel free to put in contributions more lengthy than for the Monday Message Board or standard comments.
Public opinion isn’t always a reliable guide, but, given time, and a reasonable hearing of the issues, ordinary people get most things right in the end. The Lowy Institute survey released recently illustrates this with respect to climate change. Respondents were given three choices of viewpoint on climate change, as follows
There is a controversy over what the countries of the world, including Australia, should do about the problem of global warming. I’m going to read you three statements. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view.
Easily the most popular option, supported by more than two thirds (68%) of respondents, was that ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem [and] we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’. A quarter (24%) of respondents agreed that ‘the problem of global warming should be addressed, but its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost’. The least popular option, supported by only 7% of respondents, was that ‘until we are sure that global warming is really a problem we should not take any steps that would have economic costs’.
Not surprisingly, I agree with the majority, but I don’t have too much of a problem with the second position either. Kyoto is a low-cost first step, and gradualism is appropriate. The third position, which is pretty much that of John Howard, has even less support than I would have expected.
But where does this leave the denialists, who dominate the opinion pages of the Oz, and most of the rightwing blogosphere? Their view, that the whole thing is a hoax cooked up by greenies and scientists looking for grant money, wasn’t presented, but looking at the results it’s hard to believe it would attract more than 1 or 2 per cent of the population, on a par with theories that NASA faked the moon landings, or that the US government was behind 9/11.
Read More »
I rarely agree with Jennifer Marohasy, but that’s all the more reason for noting our occasional points of agreement. This post points to an important policy failure, the replacement of timber sleepers by energy-intensive concrete throughout Australia’s rail network, with no apparent consideration of greenhouse costs.
Of course, you can’t expect an infrastructure company like he Australian Rail Track Corporation to do detailed climate auditing of all its input materials. As long as the greenhouse costs of concrete, and the benefits of timber, are not reflected in their prices, decisions like this will be made in construction projects of all kinds. So, we need to get a carbon tax or permits trading scheme in place as soon as possible.
The Socialists won a surprise victory (or at least a plurality) in the recent Austrian elections. The outcome appears to promise a departure from power for Jorg Haider, although the combined vote of the far-right parties was still 15 per cent, which is disappointing.
For CT election-followers, the outcome is of interest in another respect. According to the reports I’ve read, all the polls and all the pundits got this one wrong. So, if betting markets got it right, that would be pretty strong support for claims about the wisdom of crowds. But my (admittedly desultory) scan hasn’t produced any info. Can anyone point to market odds for this outcome?
Read More »
There’s lots of interesting stuff up on the Risk and Sustainable Management Group website
In Branson’s Greenhouse Philanthropy? Mark Neal makes the point that Richard Branson’s recent moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are being driven by the approach of an emissions permits market, and make sound business sense.
Nanni Concu looks at Ethics of conservation versus ethics of development defends market-based instruments against recent criticism, and looks at Green choice. Also, Strategies for energy security links to the always-interesting Jeffrey Sachs.
On water, a central interest of the RSMG group, Mark covers the new Office of Water Resources, a BCA report urging action and the vexed question of recycling
Read, enjoy and comment
Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber has set up a wiki directory for academic blogs. This sort of thing has been tried before, with varying degrees of success. For example, this Muisc blog wiki looks fairly lively. On the other hand Wikablog seems to pretty much moribund. The new one has the advantage of starting with the fairly extensive CT blogroll, supplemented by some discipline-specific lists.
It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual, civilised discussion and absolutely no coarse language, please.
The passage by the US Congress of a bill that among other things abolishes habeas corpus for terrorism suspects, allows interrogation methods that would normally be classed as torture, and allows the President to declare legal residents of the United States to be enemy combatants has produced a predictably partisan divide. All but two Senate Republicans voted for the Bill (Lincoln Chafee opposed and Olympia Snowe did not vote), and most pro-Republican bloggers seem to have backed it with marginal qualifications.
Those of us who fear and distrust the Bush Administration naturally find it easy to see what harm could be done with powers like this. The Administration’s supporters, on the other hand, seem confident that only the likes of David Hicks and Jose Padilla have anything to fear.
So, for those who support the bill, it might be useful to consider the standard thought experiment recommended to all who support dictatorial powers for a leader on their own side. Think about what the other side might do with these powers.
Read More »
Another great Grand Final, with some excellent play and some misses that will be rued for a long time to come. I’ve never followed either team, but men watching a sporting match have to take sides, and I went for the Swans, while my son backed the Eagles.
John Quiggin 