When Kevin Rudd announced a 5% target for emissions reductions for 2020, you could almost hear John Howard laughing from the political grave. It's small comfort to me that in discussing climate matters since then, a Labor supporter called Rudd “Howard” by mistake. Freudian?
The science the government has in front of it says you have to reduce emissions by 25% by 2020 to save the Great Barrier Reef. Of course Australia cannot achieve this on its own because it accounts for a relatively small fraction of worldwide emissions – even if you account for its role as the world’s biggest exporter of coal (about a third of worldwide exports).
Another thing not widely talked about is that carbon emissions accumulate. Around half are absorbed by the environment; the rest dissipates very slowly over centuries. That means that if we have not achieved a target by 2020 that stops CO2 accumulating to 550 parts per million or more, we can’t just turn off the tap and expect the atmospheric CO2 level to drop.
How soon will the rest of the world regard carbon emissions as a serious, urgent problem? That Europe has committed to a 20% cut by 2020 is some indication.
Why should Europe care more? Partially, it’s because Europe has a stronger tradition than English-speaking countries of taking science seriously. But another factor is Europe’s proximity to the Arctic. A growing number of scientists is predicting an ice-free Arctic summer by 2015. It was a big enough shock when it was reported in 2007 that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2030.
So in a sense the self-styled sceptics are right. The science has enough uncertainties that we have to be cautious about accepting predictions without a wide allowance for error. The problem is, the majority of cases that are breaking out of the modelled predictions are on the worse rather than the better side. How is this possible? With the vast bulk of “sceptics” accusing scientists who predict anything remotely bad of being “alarmist”, the natural tendency of scientists to avoid alarming claims without overwhelming evidence is accentuated. So work predicting rapid ice cap loss for example is not getting the attention it should. Another example: concerns about the possibility of the urban heat island effect (UHI) skewing the temperature trend has resulted in NASA compensating for this effect. While it is true that a temperature sensor put next to an isolated hot spot would be bad for once-off measurement, if that hot spot is not constantly being hotter, it would not add a trend to the stats.
NASA eliminates local anomalies by a process called homogenizing, where temperatures of each station are in effect corrected for excessive variation beyond others in similar terrain.
Let’s look at how over-estimating the effect of UHI could have on the temperature trend. If NASA weights down temperatures from urban area, they could be underestimating the general increase in temperatures, because some of these areas could naturally be heating faster than their surroundings.
In conclusion, here’s an ad GetUp is running.
Thursday, 18 December 2008
Thursday, 4 December 2008
When Old Men Kill their Children
Robert Mugabe is doing it.
The leadership of the old powers of Europe did it in the First World War.
The climate change denial movement wants it too.
When conditions change so that the old logic no longer applies, leaders whose time is past are wont to cling to the old ways, no matter how inapplicable. One of the sorriest outcomes of this sort of stubbornness is the damage to those not responsible, the younger members of society who must live and sometimes die with the consequences.
In Zimbabwe, the economy has collapsed. Schools, once the best in Africa, have mostly stopped functioning. Health services and clean water are all but gone, resulting in an unprecedented cholera epidemic. Life expectancy has plunged to the mid 30s. In the midst of this, Robert Mugabe stands defiant, the liberation leader who is killing his children.
George Monbiot in The Guardian has accused the old men of Europe of killing their children in World War I. He didn’t mean this in quite the sense that I do. The way I see it, the old men of Europe, faced with an unravelling political situation, resorted to the Old Way of calling in treaty obligations to settle matters in a war. What they failed to take into account was that the industrialisation of warfare meant death on an industrial scale. When the horror of their approach started to become clear, instead of pulling back, they poured more young soldiers into an increasingly efficient death machine.
In World War I, as in Zimbabwe, the old men in charge could not put their heads in the new space that had developed since they formed their world view. They insisted they were right despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary.
How does this relate to climate change?
A surprisingly high fraction of scientists who’ve lined up against climate change are relatively elderly, people who are no longer actively researching. These are people who did their science in a world where environmentalists were bunny huggers, and the science in the environmental movement was often vague or ill-informed. They cannot conceptualise a world in which environmentalism is based on sound science, and the opposing position is junk. They therefore stick with positions that are easily debunked, take common cause with non-scientists whose views are obvious drivel and obstruct moves to mitigate climate change.
The climate change inactivist movement, like the old men of Europe in 1914 and Robert Mugabe, do not care about their children – at least not as much as they care about their pride. They will not admit they are wrong even when the ocean is lapping around their ears.
The sorry thing is that if previous examples of this kind are anything to go on, they may well succeed.
Finally, here's a picture (from NASA; if you’re prejudiced against NASA, the Belgian Solar Influences Data Analysis Centre, SIDC, has consistent data) showing where we are in the 11-year sunspot cycle, which is a good indicator for solar output.
What's important to note about this picture is that two record years for temperature, 1998 and 2005, were both close to minima. The next minimum is expected to be in 2009. Despite the fact that we have been on a downward trend in sunspots since 2000, most years since then would have set temperature records as compared with years before 1998. What this means is that the “it’s only the sun” crew have some explaining to do. And we can look forward to even more record years once we pass through the solar minimum in 2009.
So this is just one more pointer to the fact that we have little option but to take on the old men – otherwise we too will be responsible for killing our society's children.
The leadership of the old powers of Europe did it in the First World War.
The climate change denial movement wants it too.
When conditions change so that the old logic no longer applies, leaders whose time is past are wont to cling to the old ways, no matter how inapplicable. One of the sorriest outcomes of this sort of stubbornness is the damage to those not responsible, the younger members of society who must live and sometimes die with the consequences.
In Zimbabwe, the economy has collapsed. Schools, once the best in Africa, have mostly stopped functioning. Health services and clean water are all but gone, resulting in an unprecedented cholera epidemic. Life expectancy has plunged to the mid 30s. In the midst of this, Robert Mugabe stands defiant, the liberation leader who is killing his children.
George Monbiot in The Guardian has accused the old men of Europe of killing their children in World War I. He didn’t mean this in quite the sense that I do. The way I see it, the old men of Europe, faced with an unravelling political situation, resorted to the Old Way of calling in treaty obligations to settle matters in a war. What they failed to take into account was that the industrialisation of warfare meant death on an industrial scale. When the horror of their approach started to become clear, instead of pulling back, they poured more young soldiers into an increasingly efficient death machine.
In World War I, as in Zimbabwe, the old men in charge could not put their heads in the new space that had developed since they formed their world view. They insisted they were right despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary.
How does this relate to climate change?
A surprisingly high fraction of scientists who’ve lined up against climate change are relatively elderly, people who are no longer actively researching. These are people who did their science in a world where environmentalists were bunny huggers, and the science in the environmental movement was often vague or ill-informed. They cannot conceptualise a world in which environmentalism is based on sound science, and the opposing position is junk. They therefore stick with positions that are easily debunked, take common cause with non-scientists whose views are obvious drivel and obstruct moves to mitigate climate change.
The climate change inactivist movement, like the old men of Europe in 1914 and Robert Mugabe, do not care about their children – at least not as much as they care about their pride. They will not admit they are wrong even when the ocean is lapping around their ears.
The sorry thing is that if previous examples of this kind are anything to go on, they may well succeed.
Finally, here's a picture (from NASA; if you’re prejudiced against NASA, the Belgian Solar Influences Data Analysis Centre, SIDC, has consistent data) showing where we are in the 11-year sunspot cycle, which is a good indicator for solar output.
What's important to note about this picture is that two record years for temperature, 1998 and 2005, were both close to minima. The next minimum is expected to be in 2009. Despite the fact that we have been on a downward trend in sunspots since 2000, most years since then would have set temperature records as compared with years before 1998. What this means is that the “it’s only the sun” crew have some explaining to do. And we can look forward to even more record years once we pass through the solar minimum in 2009.So this is just one more pointer to the fact that we have little option but to take on the old men – otherwise we too will be responsible for killing our society's children.
Monday, 27 October 2008
The Obama Landslide
With just over a week to go to the US presidential election, I now feel confident in predicting not only an Obama win, but a landslide of historic proportions. The Obama and McCain campaigns are both playing this possibility down, claiming the result will be close. They have to. If Obama relaxed now and predicted a landslide, it could result in some of his supporters staying at home. If McCain conceded now, not only does he lose the improbable chance of a last-week turnaround, but he also (further) sabotages other Republican races.
So both sides have to say at this stage that it will be close; if Obama didn't say this, paradoxically, it would be more likely to be true.
Let's look at the indicators for a massive Obama win.
What of the “Bradley effect”, the alleged tendency for polls to be biased against black candidates because those polled don’t want to be seen to be racist? There is considerable dispute as to whether this effect was real. For example, one of the polls that erroneously predicted that Tom Bradley had won the 1982 California gubernatorial race was an exit poll, that failed to take into account absentee ballots, and the Republicans won on absentee ballots. On the whole, there is evidence that the “Bradley effect” is more likely to be a cover for weak polling technique rather than a real effect. In the current campaign, Obama has several times done better than predicted in the polls.
A big difficulty with polling in a game-changing election is that pollsters rely on demographics from past polls to predict future outcomes. In an election where some constituencies that have low participation rates come out in force, all those numbers could be skewed.
This close to an election, it would be an extremely rare event if polls showing the sort of lead Obama now holds reversed. Absent a real Bradley Effect and taking into account that it is his campaign that is mobilising key groups with a history of low participation, any error is more likely to be in his favour than not. So based on polling, unless his campaign makes a truly significant blunder in the last few days, his chances of not only a win, but a big win, are high.
Again, all the pressures are on his side if you look at desire for change. The McCain's camp is trying to argue simultaneously that his short time in Washington makes him both inexperienced and a Washington insider, while McCain’s lengthy period in office makes him not only experienced but an outsider. That these contradictory arguments are implausible only helps Obama.
The ”it’s time” effect that worked so well for Gough Whitlam and Kevin Rudd in Australia (the latter against the backdrop of economic prosperity) is amplified by a widespread agreement that the Bush presidency has failed on all fronts. The war on terror has lost direction, the economy is in the toilet and social divisions are as deep as at any time since the civil rights movement. For McCain to claim to be an outsider, he would have had to disavow many more Bush positions than he has; it is not enough just to say that Bush was right on strategy but wrong on tactics, which is what the McCain position amounts to.
Also, despite the prejudice at the start of the primaries that Hillary Clinton would be a divisive figure, she turned out to be be surprisingly popular. Obama in many ways has similar pluses and minuses to her. Both have a sharp intellect (a plus or a minus, depending on how dig you deep into social strata), with backgrounds in law. Both have had relatively short periods in elective office; the talk of his inexperience somehow failed to touch on hers. Both represent demographics that have traditionally been excluded from high office. Both therefore represented change even before they articulated a platform. McCain, on the other hand, represents the past, and has failed to say how he really represents change. Had he campaigned as himself rather than the lapdog of the hard right, he may have stood a chance. But having allowed his campaign to look like George W. Bush, the remake, he has totally lost any chance at claiming it's his time. The Palin mistake only compounds his problems. McCain would have been a better president than Bush, but he's 8 years too late. If something happened to him and Palin was put in charge, very few people honestly believe she will do an even halfway competent job. She is the one part of his campaign that does represent change, but it's a scary kind of change: not what people are looking for in a time of multiple crises.
That brings me to the next range of issues.
It's very seldom to have as wide a range of crises as is currently facing the US: peak oil, mitigated by worldwide economic collapse (as if that is a solution), all layered on top of climate change.
The US now needs a leader with the mass appeal of a JFK, the long-range vision of an FDR, and the unifying skills of a Nelson Mandela.
It’s not totally clear to me that Obama has all of the above, but it is clear that McCain falls far short. His campaign has been one of the most divisive I've witnessed. It is all very well for the ignorant to label Obama's tax proposal (that goes back to the tax rates in the time of one of the most popular presidents in recent times, Bill Clinton) as “socialism” but for McCain to repeat this is just absurd. His campaign has not done enough to stop ridiculous claims that Obama is a Muslim (as Colin Powell put it, it's not true and anyway why should anyone care?). They also keep harping on the by now thoroughly debunked “palling around with terrorists” claim. This is not even smart campaigning, let alone the question of dishonesty. When you are up against a candidate who can outspend you by as much as seven to one in battleground states on advertising, going negative assumes a level of risk not seen in previous campaigns.
Obama certainly has crowd appeal; even his opponents recognise that. On long-range vision, his case for heavy investment in alternative energy is a good sign, even if he is putting too much store on the bogus concept of “clean coal” (contrary to what we are widely lead to believe, even if this technology works, it will not fix existing coal power stations, so it is a total fraud to use “clean coal” as an excuse for continuing to build coal power stations). On unifying, he seems to be doing pretty well.
So as the transformational figure needed in a time of extreme crisis, Obama at least has the potential to do what needs to be done. Before the election, I would have scored McCain higher. Back in February, I blogged on the US election, starting with the words “Lucky, lucky Americans”, comparing their options with the incumbent. But his entire approach is to appeal to the section of the Republican Party that didn't like him before (Palin, calling Obama a “socialist”, allowing others to label Obama as a close associate of a “terrorist”). Ignoring the rest of the country is a massive failure of judgment at a time when the US demands clear and decisive leadership of a kind only required in the past at rare times of extreme crisis.
That in my judgment the US requires such a transformational figure doesn’t mean that the average US voter sees this. All the polls point that way, but I don’t recall seeing one that directly asks the exact questions needed to determine if people agree with my assessment of what’s required. Nonetheless, the fact that Obama is a better fit to my requirements and the fact that he is energising a wider base than any candidate for decades indicates that he is making some strong connections with broadly-held perceptions.
Given how much hangs on this election, I hope Obama is up to the challenge.
The New York Times has recently editorialized on the same subject, giving Obama one of the strongest endorsements I've ever seen them give a candidate.
Electoral Compass USA allows you to compare your position on the issues with those of the two candidates. This is an interesting way of seeing which candidate your are really closer to, independent of your preconceptions of which is closest to your views.
The right has been trying desperately to label Obama as a socialist. Here's a YouTube response:
This article has also been published at On Line Opinion.
So both sides have to say at this stage that it will be close; if Obama didn't say this, paradoxically, it would be more likely to be true.
Let's look at the indicators for a massive Obama win.
Polls
What of the “Bradley effect”, the alleged tendency for polls to be biased against black candidates because those polled don’t want to be seen to be racist? There is considerable dispute as to whether this effect was real. For example, one of the polls that erroneously predicted that Tom Bradley had won the 1982 California gubernatorial race was an exit poll, that failed to take into account absentee ballots, and the Republicans won on absentee ballots. On the whole, there is evidence that the “Bradley effect” is more likely to be a cover for weak polling technique rather than a real effect. In the current campaign, Obama has several times done better than predicted in the polls.
A big difficulty with polling in a game-changing election is that pollsters rely on demographics from past polls to predict future outcomes. In an election where some constituencies that have low participation rates come out in force, all those numbers could be skewed.
This close to an election, it would be an extremely rare event if polls showing the sort of lead Obama now holds reversed. Absent a real Bradley Effect and taking into account that it is his campaign that is mobilising key groups with a history of low participation, any error is more likely to be in his favour than not. So based on polling, unless his campaign makes a truly significant blunder in the last few days, his chances of not only a win, but a big win, are high.
The ‘it’s time’ effect
Again, all the pressures are on his side if you look at desire for change. The McCain's camp is trying to argue simultaneously that his short time in Washington makes him both inexperienced and a Washington insider, while McCain’s lengthy period in office makes him not only experienced but an outsider. That these contradictory arguments are implausible only helps Obama.
The ”it’s time” effect that worked so well for Gough Whitlam and Kevin Rudd in Australia (the latter against the backdrop of economic prosperity) is amplified by a widespread agreement that the Bush presidency has failed on all fronts. The war on terror has lost direction, the economy is in the toilet and social divisions are as deep as at any time since the civil rights movement. For McCain to claim to be an outsider, he would have had to disavow many more Bush positions than he has; it is not enough just to say that Bush was right on strategy but wrong on tactics, which is what the McCain position amounts to.
Also, despite the prejudice at the start of the primaries that Hillary Clinton would be a divisive figure, she turned out to be be surprisingly popular. Obama in many ways has similar pluses and minuses to her. Both have a sharp intellect (a plus or a minus, depending on how dig you deep into social strata), with backgrounds in law. Both have had relatively short periods in elective office; the talk of his inexperience somehow failed to touch on hers. Both represent demographics that have traditionally been excluded from high office. Both therefore represented change even before they articulated a platform. McCain, on the other hand, represents the past, and has failed to say how he really represents change. Had he campaigned as himself rather than the lapdog of the hard right, he may have stood a chance. But having allowed his campaign to look like George W. Bush, the remake, he has totally lost any chance at claiming it's his time. The Palin mistake only compounds his problems. McCain would have been a better president than Bush, but he's 8 years too late. If something happened to him and Palin was put in charge, very few people honestly believe she will do an even halfway competent job. She is the one part of his campaign that does represent change, but it's a scary kind of change: not what people are looking for in a time of multiple crises.
That brings me to the next range of issues.
Crisis Leadership
It's very seldom to have as wide a range of crises as is currently facing the US: peak oil, mitigated by worldwide economic collapse (as if that is a solution), all layered on top of climate change.
The US now needs a leader with the mass appeal of a JFK, the long-range vision of an FDR, and the unifying skills of a Nelson Mandela.
It’s not totally clear to me that Obama has all of the above, but it is clear that McCain falls far short. His campaign has been one of the most divisive I've witnessed. It is all very well for the ignorant to label Obama's tax proposal (that goes back to the tax rates in the time of one of the most popular presidents in recent times, Bill Clinton) as “socialism” but for McCain to repeat this is just absurd. His campaign has not done enough to stop ridiculous claims that Obama is a Muslim (as Colin Powell put it, it's not true and anyway why should anyone care?). They also keep harping on the by now thoroughly debunked “palling around with terrorists” claim. This is not even smart campaigning, let alone the question of dishonesty. When you are up against a candidate who can outspend you by as much as seven to one in battleground states on advertising, going negative assumes a level of risk not seen in previous campaigns.
Obama certainly has crowd appeal; even his opponents recognise that. On long-range vision, his case for heavy investment in alternative energy is a good sign, even if he is putting too much store on the bogus concept of “clean coal” (contrary to what we are widely lead to believe, even if this technology works, it will not fix existing coal power stations, so it is a total fraud to use “clean coal” as an excuse for continuing to build coal power stations). On unifying, he seems to be doing pretty well.
So as the transformational figure needed in a time of extreme crisis, Obama at least has the potential to do what needs to be done. Before the election, I would have scored McCain higher. Back in February, I blogged on the US election, starting with the words “Lucky, lucky Americans”, comparing their options with the incumbent. But his entire approach is to appeal to the section of the Republican Party that didn't like him before (Palin, calling Obama a “socialist”, allowing others to label Obama as a close associate of a “terrorist”). Ignoring the rest of the country is a massive failure of judgment at a time when the US demands clear and decisive leadership of a kind only required in the past at rare times of extreme crisis.
Reality Check
That in my judgment the US requires such a transformational figure doesn’t mean that the average US voter sees this. All the polls point that way, but I don’t recall seeing one that directly asks the exact questions needed to determine if people agree with my assessment of what’s required. Nonetheless, the fact that Obama is a better fit to my requirements and the fact that he is energising a wider base than any candidate for decades indicates that he is making some strong connections with broadly-held perceptions.
Given how much hangs on this election, I hope Obama is up to the challenge.
Another Opinion
The New York Times has recently editorialized on the same subject, giving Obama one of the strongest endorsements I've ever seen them give a candidate.
Check Your Views
Electoral Compass USA allows you to compare your position on the issues with those of the two candidates. This is an interesting way of seeing which candidate your are really closer to, independent of your preconceptions of which is closest to your views.
On the Lighter Side
The right has been trying desperately to label Obama as a socialist. Here's a YouTube response:
Another version
This article has also been published at On Line Opinion.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Climate Change, Peak Oil and the Meltdown
Some people are already talking about how mitigating climate change is a luxury that will have to await recovery from the economic meltdown. That is loser talk. Governments at least in countries with sound economic management that haven't run up massive debt can and should look at this as an opportunity for long-term infrastructure spending. And what better way to plan for the future than to reduce the future impact of higher energy costs and climate change mitigation?
Here are a few ideas for consideration. First, funding efficiency drives will gear the economy for future competitiveness.
Another idea is to fund free solar hot water for 100,0000 and free solar power for 40,000 low-income households (each at a cost of about $400-million); both would generate jobs and save poorer people money. Why is this a better idea than existing Australian state and federal rebates? Because there rebates cause no downwards price pressure; the price rises to whatever the market will bear. I've seen solar water heaters in South Africa for sale at less than the post-rebate price in Australia. If the government buys a large number of systems and pays for installation, the vendors will build economy of scale, then have to drop prices to continue with that scale in the broader unsubsidized market. To me this makes more sense than an ongoing price subsidy, the effect of which is to keep prices high.
Of course "free" doesn't mean no one pays for all this; it comes out of our taxes. But the same is true of roads, the vast majority of which don't have tolls. Building roads contributes to carbon emissions yet somehow "free" roads are acceptable to some, where a plan like this is seen as somehow wrong because someone is getting something for nothing. I wonder, do the same people argue that you can't mitigate climate change because the poor will suffer the most from extra costs of energy?
The government should support development of sustainable biomass and wind turbines on farms. Measures here could include direct subsidies and decent feed-in tariff policies for supplying clean energy to the grid. Both interventions would generate an income stream for farmers, reducing the pain of higher energy costs for their operations. Good for the environment, good for the economy. There are some interesting biofuels options out there. Legumes for example do not need nitrogen fertilizer. Peanuts are one of the oldest sources of biodiesel; better still are legumes that grow on land unsuited to food crops, such as the Pongamia tree.
Improved urban public transport should be another priority. Again, it creates more jobs, is better for the environment and reduces the impact of high energy costs on those on lower incomes. Add to this putting more services into outer suburbs to cut travel distances. Again good for the environment, good for the economy, good for those on low incomes.
Better inter-city rail is a longer-term project. But why not start planning now? What will we do when air travel becomes prohibitive? Already, fast trains are competitive in time for travel up to 1,000 km, allowing for the inconveniences of getting to and from airports and on and off planes. Europe and parts of the Far East already have this infrastructure; countries like Australia and the US need to catch up, otherwise they will be severely disadvantaged in sectors of the economy where medium-range travel is a significant cost.
All of this except the inter-city rail project that would be a longer-term project could be funded for less than the $10-billion the Rudd government is pumping into the economy mainly by cash handouts, as their response to the worldwide economic meltdown.
We have had a brief breather from high oil prices thanks to the financial meltdown, but don't expect it to last (prices are already heading up). Oil is not made by melting down markets ...
Here are a few ideas for consideration. First, funding efficiency drives will gear the economy for future competitiveness.
Another idea is to fund free solar hot water for 100,0000 and free solar power for 40,000 low-income households (each at a cost of about $400-million); both would generate jobs and save poorer people money. Why is this a better idea than existing Australian state and federal rebates? Because there rebates cause no downwards price pressure; the price rises to whatever the market will bear. I've seen solar water heaters in South Africa for sale at less than the post-rebate price in Australia. If the government buys a large number of systems and pays for installation, the vendors will build economy of scale, then have to drop prices to continue with that scale in the broader unsubsidized market. To me this makes more sense than an ongoing price subsidy, the effect of which is to keep prices high.
Of course "free" doesn't mean no one pays for all this; it comes out of our taxes. But the same is true of roads, the vast majority of which don't have tolls. Building roads contributes to carbon emissions yet somehow "free" roads are acceptable to some, where a plan like this is seen as somehow wrong because someone is getting something for nothing. I wonder, do the same people argue that you can't mitigate climate change because the poor will suffer the most from extra costs of energy?
The government should support development of sustainable biomass and wind turbines on farms. Measures here could include direct subsidies and decent feed-in tariff policies for supplying clean energy to the grid. Both interventions would generate an income stream for farmers, reducing the pain of higher energy costs for their operations. Good for the environment, good for the economy. There are some interesting biofuels options out there. Legumes for example do not need nitrogen fertilizer. Peanuts are one of the oldest sources of biodiesel; better still are legumes that grow on land unsuited to food crops, such as the Pongamia tree.
Improved urban public transport should be another priority. Again, it creates more jobs, is better for the environment and reduces the impact of high energy costs on those on lower incomes. Add to this putting more services into outer suburbs to cut travel distances. Again good for the environment, good for the economy, good for those on low incomes.
Better inter-city rail is a longer-term project. But why not start planning now? What will we do when air travel becomes prohibitive? Already, fast trains are competitive in time for travel up to 1,000 km, allowing for the inconveniences of getting to and from airports and on and off planes. Europe and parts of the Far East already have this infrastructure; countries like Australia and the US need to catch up, otherwise they will be severely disadvantaged in sectors of the economy where medium-range travel is a significant cost.
All of this except the inter-city rail project that would be a longer-term project could be funded for less than the $10-billion the Rudd government is pumping into the economy mainly by cash handouts, as their response to the worldwide economic meltdown.
We have had a brief breather from high oil prices thanks to the financial meltdown, but don't expect it to last (prices are already heading up). Oil is not made by melting down markets ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)