Bluegrass Consulting: Blueblog

In an ideal world, politicians would hold strong and sincere convictions and would debate on concrete issues aiming at improving the life of citizens. In this world, politicians would strive to raise public awareness rather than to sustain ignorance.

Given the way both the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have been dealing with the issue of immigration, if this world existed it was a long, long time ago.

In the recent elections, Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided to distinguish herself from her predecessor by shifting from a “big Australia” to a “sustainable Australia”. So far this kind of strategy is understandable: as a newly designated Prime Minister and with little time to convince, it is quite normal that she should try to differentiate her policy from her predecessor’s.

It is however more questionable that she should clearly link immigration policy and population policy, which is a dangerous shortcut that could be harmful to Australia in the long-term.

It does not matter whether it shows opportunism on behalf of the Labor candidate and whether both skilled and unskilled immigration have played their part, in particular in the country’s growth. The shift from a “big Australia” to a “sustainable Australia”, which is backed by almost 75% of Australians, appeared positive to Julia Gillard’s election.

On the other hand, after President Sarkozy’s popularity plumbed the depths in July 2010 (26% of favourable opinion), he gave a very strong speech in Grenoble on 30 July 2010 where he declared nothing less than a “war on crime”, forgetting that the age of prohibition is long gone. In his speech the French President promised legislative reforms to withdraw the French nationality from non-natives criminals.

This unfortunately sounds like Sarkozy’s favourite remedy to unpopular polls; he indeed gave similar speeches on security when he was Interior Minister in order to increase his popularity as a potential candidate for presidency.

Once again, this very negative strategy seems to be working as a poll of 6 August 2010 stresses that 70% of polled agreed with the president in regard to the withdrawal of the French nationality for some non-native criminals when the life of a policeman is threatened.

Apart from being populist and xenophobic, this is just another step in the escalation of a government where the current Interior Minister was condemned after he professed racial insult and where French police imposed brutal treatment of immigrants.

In the end, while Prime Minister Gillard’s communication has not been as ambivalent as Sarkozy’s, the goal remains the same: winning elections. It is a shame that political figures devote more time to discussing sensitive issues in a populist manner rather than engaging in open and constructive debate on what are important issues at many levels. While it is clearly a good means to their end it definitely does not heighten politics.

Arnaud Eard

Arnaud comes from Paris and gained a MA in International Political Economy at the University of Sheffield. He has been interning at Bluegrass Consulting since May 2010.

This is part 2 of a 4 part series which uses Julia Gillard and the current Federal Election to examine whether spin techniques effectively developed for the 20^th century media model are now outdated and ineffective in the 21^st century.

Gillard’s declaration she’s “going to discard all of that campaign advice and professional or common wisdom and just go for it” (in regard to “risk averse” election campaign communication) highlights the fact that old spin (controlling information by restricting journalist access, staying ‘on message’, an over-supply of information {e.g. renouncements of announcements} and over emphasising the positive) hasn’t been working.

These spinning techniques, which 10 to 20 years ago were largely a hidden and unknown art, are now a notion so familiar to the public, they no longer work. The extensive criticism and coverage of the much overused ‘moving forward’ slogan is just one example of that.

In addition, Channel 7 reporting political news, with the by-line, ‘cutting through the spin’, is another example of how widely spin it is now ‘accepted’.

You can’t be tricked when you know the tricks.

Nothing new in blaming the media

Much has been written on the role of the media in the challenge for straight forward authentic communication. The 24 hour media cycle, the demand for ‘new’ news, means journalists fail to properly cover policy due to a lack of time, and as Bernard Keane also points out, a lack of specialist skills: “The result is too much cynicism and not enough scepticism.”

Despite politicians and their advisers knowing the media is likely to misrepresent them, “gratifying them” remains the “primary purpose of the professional politician (who acquire) a crippling self-enfeeblement driven by their dependence…”

Keane also explains, and as we all know, it’s in the media’s interest for politics to remain in a “permanent cycle of spin, conflict and commentary, while actual problems are never resolved”. Good news doesn’t sell papers and conflict is essential to a ‘good’ news story.

But this is something spinners have known for a long time! That we haven’t found better ways of dealing with this is positively amateur.

Worse still…we have a major trust deficit

Spin can be defined as a type of propaganda, providing an interpretation of an event or issue to persuade public opinion in favor or against. It is between the two World Wars that spin was really pioneered, with Joseph Goebbels using it to great effect for the Nazis. Post war America refined his approach, with Eisenhower’s Republicans bringing professional propagandists into their inner circle for the first time, ensuring a decisive win.

Later, Bill Clinton and chief spinner James Carvelle mentored Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson/Alastair Campbell as they reinvented the Labour Party. And it is perhaps with Blair that we saw the beginning of the decline of 20^th century spin. Alastair Campbell, Blair’s former Press Secretary, while still in that role, spoke publically of how this new communication had become a hindrance to good government and had cost them dearly in terms of trust.

“We did make a concerted effort to get a better dialogue with some parts of the media…this was of course about reaching their readers. …but therein lay the seeds of spin. The consequences were greater than we anticipated. People stopped trusting what we had to say.”

A lack of trust virtually makes spin ineffective, as can be seen in the 2005 UK general election. The Government thought services were improving in heath and education. Polling showed the public also thought their schools and hospitals were improving. But they also thought they were lucky and that nationally things were getting worse.

They discounted their own personal experience because it was in agreement with the government line, and they were almost programmed to disbelieve anything the government said. (This example was found in Ivor Gaber’s paper Too much of a good thing: the ‘problem ‘of political communications in a mass media democracy)

Post 1 in this series began to examine the PR spin techniques of the NSW ALP Right and their role in the current campaign, as well as whether the declaration of the ‘Real Julia’ was actually just part of the strategy and part of managing perceptions around Australia’s first female leader and the way in which she took power. It concluded by questioning whether publicly rejecting the”very risk averse standard campaign model” was just more spin…

Post 3 will examine whether social media can help build trust and how the future of spinning lies in losing control. The final and fourth post will examine Ms Gillard’s apparent rejection of the “very risk averse standard campaign model” in the context of the election result.

Ruci Fixter

Julia Gillard’s political woes shine the light on the failure of modern day spinners clinging desperately to a political communication technique invented for the 20^th century model of mass media. In the 21^st century, these techniques are proving increasingly out of date and so dangerously ineffective it could lose Labor an election when spin, ironically, should be key to winning elections…

Standard and well known spin techniques such as the ’seven second grab’, key messages, catchy slogans and carefully controlled media management have all backfired spectacularly for Ms Gillard. All of a sudden, these tricks look very dated prompting her to publicly reject this “very risk averse standard campaign model” and re-introduce herself as the “real Julia” in a desperate search for authenticity.

This move was a somewhat startling acknowledgment that the usual spin simply wasn’t ‘cutting through’. Techniques designed to win were, in fact, conspiring towards losing Labor the election.

Focus groups - unfairly dumping leaders for false infidelity?

So how is it the ALP’s crack campaign team, seasoned professionals whose job it is to know the business inside out, couldn’t predict that this ‘old spin’, on its own, wouldn’t work? They should have been even more aware of the dangers, given the current levels of cynicism around how Julia assumed office.

In fact, one almost wonders if there was even a communication strategy in place to deal with how the electorate may have responded to Rudd’s unprecedented and brutal assassination. Or was it so clever we almost missed it…?

Many people place the bulk of the blame for the campaign’s rocky ride at the feet of NSW Right leader Mark Arbib, who both secured and destroyed Rudd’s leadership. It is not only the role he is believed to have played in convincing Rudd to dump the ETS, a turning point for voters, but the risk averse, poll-centric, NSW Labor Right strategy, that he along with long term friend and campaign director Karl Bitar have continued to push as the best campaign model.

But it appears that the result has been panicky politics driven by focus group research, which has seen leaders dumped like 20-somethings dump lovers over false infidelities. Many argue their use of the focus group results is not accurate or effective.

Former staffer in the Carr and Iemma Governments, Mark Aarons, explains their technique involves targeting the least politically committed voters in marginal seats. Their theory is that “…these people determine who win government and their views should therefore predominate in policy-setting. In a bizarre reversal of conventional political wisdom, leadership is redefined as following such people by pandering to them.”

Aarons’ experience was that this strategy “led the (Iemma) government up a blind alley”, not reflecting mainstream voters who hated the policy idea” (in this instance the Kurnell desalination plant).

However, most say there is little wonder the Arbib-Bitar partnership believe in this model. Arguably it has won them office in NSW since 1995 and, maybe, even the Kevin 07 election. Why fix it if it ain’t broke? But election 2010 seems to have broken the mould. Time will ultimately tell.

Old spin doesn’t work for ‘real Julia’

These campaigns have been largely stage managed spin-fuelled fiestas, and none more than Kevin 07. And as Michael Gawenda points out in Business Spectator, Gillard 2010 is in many ways no more or no less stage managed than Kevin 07 was.

However, what is different is that she has only been PM for six weeks and the way in which Rudd was deposed. Going to the polls seems rushed…standard NSW campaigning?

What is interesting and maybe very clever spin, is this point made by Gawenda:

“Gillard had two major problems coming into this campaign: she had been involved in the assassination of Rudd and she was a woman. Gillard and her advisors, it seems, decided that any sign of aggression, of passion or even vision, would be turned against her - she would be seen as an angry, pitiless, female, political executioner. So for the first two weeks of the campaign she behaved as if she was on Prozac.”

So maybe this strategy was deliberate all along.

Play the standard orchestrated campaign cardboard cut-out; let it look like you are being played by the ‘faceless men’, because anything else would make you look like “an angry, pitiless, female, political executioner”.

And then announce the arrival of ‘real Julia’, who it now looks like has been brave enough to stand up to said men, and indulge the electorate with a soft, approachable and benevolent female leader.

Maybe sexist attitudes towards women in power have been grossly overlooked in how this campaign could and needed to be played.

It might actually be very clever indeed - an all together cleverer ‘new’ spin, a planned emergence of the real Julia as a natural evolution of the Gillard personality.

But then, the long term damage to the Labor party, brought about by the scary power of the faceless men, now emblazoned in the psyche of the electorate, still seems a high price to pay for this approach.

Using Julia Gillard and the current Federal Election as a case study, this is the first in a 4 part series examining whether spin techniques effectively developed for the 20^th century media model  are  now outdated and ineffective in the 21^st century. Post 2 looks at the ineffectiveness of ‘old spin’, the role of the media, and the trust deficit. Post 3 examines whether social media can help build trust and how the future of spinning lies in losing control. The final and fourth post will examine Ms Gillard’s apparent rejection of the “very risk averse standard campaign model” in the context of the election result.

After 2 months of fierce struggle, highly expensive ads and the election of a new Prime Minister (PM), the Federal Government and the resources industry have finally reached an agreement on the now scrapped RSPT.

One can wonder if it has resulted into a win-win situation or, given the new neutral name of the tax, if the resources industry is not the main winner of the deal. Is the glass half full or half empty?

From a political point of view, the MRRT appears to be the first victory of Julia Gillard’s new role as Prime Minister. Her ability and her efficiency in leading negotiations surely took a weight off the Labor Party’s shoulders for the election now being held on August 21.

The original RSPT was definitely too disconnected from the way market works whereas the MRRT shows far more respect for market conditions.

However, it appears that former PM Kevin Rudd was close to an agreement and that Julia Gillard only had to seal the deal, probably with larger concessions. So her victory has somewhat of a bitter taste for taxpayers.

From Rio Tinto’s, Xstrata’s and BHP Billiton’s point of view, the MRRT is a genuine victory. Indeed, Gillard’s Government has conceded on:

-          Lowering the rate of the tax from 40% to 30%.

-          Raising the rate at which the tax applies from 6% to 13%.

-          Removing the retroactivity of the tax.

-          Applying the MRRT only to iron ore and coal mining companies.

This is good news for big mining companies - especially for those that extract gold and base metals - and testifies of their strong lobbying power on the Federal Government.

On the other hand, medium and small mining companies have lost out given that they were not part of the negotiations.

In the end, the resources industry will have to share a bit more of its colossal profits, logically enough for the Federal Government to help, finance its flagship projects (the national broadband network, climate change, etc.) and lay down a stronger tax base during the resources boom.

The MRRT will enable a better distribution of wealth among Australian people, which was the primary goal of taxing the resources industry. But picking who won the debate seems a fairly simple task - just ask Rio Tinto or BHP. They can hardly contain their delight to have, again, emerged into positive territory.

Arnaud Eard

Arnaud comes from Paris and gained a MA in International Political Economy at the University of Sheffield. He has been interning at Bluegrass Consulting since May 2010.

If ever a social and political issue was so completely driven by the power of imagery as opposed to fact - it is that of ‘boat people’.  We are manipulated and cajoled by a potent combination of pictures, fear laden political catch phrases and an absence of hard facts.

Most of us have heard it at some point - boat people are only a tiny fraction of the ‘illegal immigrants’ coming to our country. In fact virtually all come by plane. Every day, at least 13 asylum-seekers penetrate our borders through airports, by using traditional visa options, a hefty 30 times those who come by boat, according to this report. Furthermore, Amnesty research shows that 96.6 per cent arrived by airplane whilst only 3.4 per cent by boat.

But still the arrival of a new boat and its passengers, its picture sprayed across the front pages of our newspapers and TVs, spells such panic that it dominates the national agenda, the national conscience and national elections, time and time again.

Perhaps the sophisticated nature of aeronautical transport and an established gateway - compared with leaky boats and unwashed passengers - makes one group look safe and the other not? Or perhaps it’s simply because those using our airports, coming in one by one, elude that potent ‘group photo’ that gets everyone so flustered.

Boat people, according to Tony Abbott, pose a threat to “keeping our borders secure and our country safe” . I wonder, how exactly is our safety being jeopardised by boat people and not plane people? In fact, the research says plane people are much less likely to be genuine refugees, only about 40-60 per cent compared with 85-90 per cent of boat people.

Is Abbott piggy-backing off the fear still simmering from Howard’s political opportunistic legacy of ‘children overboard’, and the oh so loose and intangible connection between terrorism, Muslims and boat people?

And whereas boat people are detained while their claims are processed, plane people live in the community and are allowed to work; a Rudd Government initiative. Where is the fairness there?

The truth is, having boats rock up on our shores is not a ‘good look’ politically. It looks like we have no control, when in truth the evidence shows we have far less ‘border control’ through our airports.

Julia Gillard, whilst also guilty of cleverly ‘handling’ this political hot potato, deserves credit for being the first of recent Prime Ministers to point out the real numbers, saying “…the number of asylum seekers arriving by boat is very, very minor. It is less than 1.5 per cent of permanent migrants each year; and indeed it would take about 20 years to fill the MCG…”

So, despite my initial thoughts, she doesn’t seem to be swinging as hard to the Right as may have first appeared.

This can also be seen through her acceptance of the ‘push’ vs. ‘pull’ factor as to what drives the number of boats. “It has less to do with what we do here and more to do with the conditions people are escaping - like war, genocide, imprisonment without trial, torture…” Read here for some interesting research on push/pull factors.

Finally Gillard’s key policy plank that has media headlines pointing to Howard’s Pacific Solution, although scant on detail, is not really like the previous government’s ’solution’ at all. As explained by credible political blog Pollytics.com:

“The creation of a well resourced, properly administered regional refugee processing centre that has UNHCR participation, regional government cooperation, a fair, efficient and consistent refugee status determination process, clearly defined legal rights for appeal and, most importantly, a well functioning resettlement program…was one of the most important long standing goals of most refugee organisations in Australia.”

The post goes on to explain that the Pacific Solution was canned by refugee organisations - because it was exactly none of these things.” It’s also why comparisons between the Pacific Solution and some possible East Timor solution are pretty superficial and lazy.”

Former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, a vocal, committed and harsh critic of the Pacific Solution and politicisation of refugees, agrees it is different and has given the plan “his provisional approval“.

If you want to see more on how this could actually work, and be a benefit rather than a burden to East Timor, check out some of the comments here.

In the meantime, as we wait to see Gillard flesh out the policy, let’s remember to not let the pictures of another boat make us panic, look at the stats, the facts, and remember last year Australia took only 0.6% of the world’s asylum seekers. We are after all just a little fish…in that big blue sea.  And if you still want to get upset, think of the planes.
Ruci Fixter

As the wheels on the Rudd train rattle and loosen and the destination once so bright now looks foggy and unknown, the pressure is not just on the train driver, but his top engineers and navigators, whose youth have many asking, do they know what they’re doing or are they just on for the ride?

Is someone’s age a genuine indication of their professional ability and skill or is it just an easy target? Take Adam Boland, Channel 7’s boy wonder who at just 24 began steering Sunrise to “national dominance 10 years ago”. Clearly his age wasn’t a hindrance.

On the other hand we have the Primer Minister’s top advisers Alister Jordan, Lachlan Harris (both 30) and Andrew Charlton (31) who featured in Tuesday’s Australian newspaper under the title Novices at the wheel of state. (Note: Peter van Onselen the journalist who wrote the story is only 34).

Whilst running the country vs. running Sunrise may seem an inequitable comparison, what is it that makes one young manager a ‘wonder boy’ and the others ‘novices’?  It may simply come down to how they tackle the challenge.

Age discrimination - or simply too young?

With more and more young people ascending to management positions, it is often these young highly capable managers and advisers who face roadblocks because older people use their ages against them.

In the case of the PM’s three young guns, are we simply seeing an older caucus speaking out because they are struggling to accept the tremendous power these youthful advisers have, and now that things have gone bad, looking for the easiest excuse?

Then again, it makes every sense to ask, especially as the wheels are coming off, is there a lack of experience here which needs to be addressed? And, are these young advisers doing what they should to ensure their short years do not translate into a lack of experience or strategic ability?

Politics not friend nor mentor

Adam Boland took steps to counter his young age. “Being so young, I had to become a student of TV, because I wasn’t around for the first 20 years of television… I’ve also surrounded myself with people such as Graeme Rowland who has been there for most of that time.”

Rudd’s advisers appear to really only be surrounded by Rudd, and the nature of politics is such that adopting experienced Labor party mentors to tell them the political lessons of 20 years ago…is not really possible.

The ‘trust’ and ‘confidentiality’ inherent in the role of a political adviser, spurned by the ever present threat to their boss’s leadership, leaks, and the need for the PM’s office to look like it knows what its doing, makes it hard to see how they could engage a mentor to bounce their ideas off and learn from.

And there is the obvious point, that Rudd would also be worried that asking the advice of others would be perceived as a sign of weakness on his part, and no doubt there would be those who would like to interpret it that way.

Learning on the job

So while a mentor may be out of the question for Rudd’s young men, there is no limit to these three advisers becoming ’students of politics and public affairs’. As Bernard Keane said in Crikey last week, talking more directly of Rudd, “there is no shame in learning on the job…John Howard almost managed to make himself a one-term wonder, but went on to do OK.”

A point made in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald was that van Onselen ‘forgot to mention’ that Bob Hawke had many successful ‘young buck’ advisers, while John Howard’s chief of staff in his first term, Grahame Morris, “was a man with years of experience when he was forced to fall on his sword.”

Maybe if Rudd’s three advisers were older they would have remembered first hand when in 1987 the Hawke Government introduced a 40 per cent profits tax on off shore petroleum and the industry’s response was by all accounts similar to that of the proposed super profits tax, one of the main issues behind all this finger pointing.

If they had worked around government then, would this be an example of how they would have had the ‘experience’ critics say they lack? No doubt this experience may have helped, but ultimately the challenge is as Keane says”…communicate effectively the case for reform, detail the flaws in the arguments of your opponents, and show you’re determined to achieve what you set out to do.”

What you don’t know - the past and human behavior may tell you

Communicating effectively and detailing the flaws in the opposition is in essence the crux of Alister and Lachlan’s job and on a positive note where they actually have proven they can do it; Lachlan through developing and managing the media strategy for Rudd in the 07 election, earning him his job today, and Alister through his years working by Rudd’s side in shadow government, most effectively and expertly causing political damage to the Howard Government over the AWB “wheat for weapons” scandal.

Showing that you’re determined to achieve what you set out to do may be something they have less experience with, and something they need to man up about when dealing with ‘the man’, who’s ultimately responsible for this.

Experience isn’t everything, and years passed do not guarantee a pay off in the rise of one’s intelligence, especially in the areas of social and public affairs, where instinct and generational understanding is key. But if young advisers look to the past to manage the present and future political challenges, their chance of success will no doubt improve.

For as we know, human behaviour and responses are more often than not predictable. This is the very reason the Kevin 07 campaign was designed and built around Abraham Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of human needs‘.

You are never too old to ask for help

The lesson to take away may be that you’re “never too old to ask for help“, something Rudd was told recently by Jack the Insider. He tells the PM that Hawke and Keating are real assets for him and the fact that their advice is not sought “is staggering”. “If a government finds itself in trouble as this one has, it would be sensible to go first to the caucus and then place a call to the old salts; the combat hardened political men of yore to seek advice.”

At the end of the day, its safe to say, no one is ever experienced enough, but how they manage that, whether they ask for help or not, is what proves are they driving the train or should they get off at the next stop?

Ruci Fixter

The global financial crisis has had many economic, financial, social and political consequences. And, surprisingly, it also made both A. Merkel of Germany and N. Sarkozy of France partially amnesiac.

On the one hand, it took A. Merkel almost an ‘eternity’ to agree onto Germany’s contribution to the Greek bailout plan. While it is true that A. Merkel was more preoccupied by crucial regional elections in North Rhine-Westphalia, she should have considered reassuring financial markets instead of frightening them. In the end, her party lost the election and now markets continue to stagger.The chancellor was too quick in forgetting the major political role played by the European Union during the reunification of Germany as well as the great economic contribution of the euro to the country’s recent prosperity.

On the other hand, N. Sarkozy, a former law student, would like to amend the French Constitution with the view of setting limits to public debt. Regulating public expenditure is of utmost importance but modifying the Constitution certainly is not the right means to that end. In essence, the purpose of a Constitution is to define the frame in which public policies should be implemented and not to specify the contents of public policies. N. Sarkozy is clearly making deficits a national issue although the stability pact is already meant for this.

These two testimonies of memory loss epitomize the impossibility for the European Union to achieve more than an economic and monetary union. With national interests keeping the upper hand over common interests, a genuine political union is sheer fantasy.

Arnaud Eard

Arnaud comes from Paris and gained a MA in International Political Economy at the University of Sheffield. He has been interning at Bluegrass Consulting since May 2010.

The opposition has made it clear - “NO ETS”.

So, in another classic example of political acrobatics, it would appear that Penny Wong has done a 180 on her choice of negotiating partners.

On the 22^nd of December last year… some 40 days ago, the Climate Change Minister ruled out negotiating with the Greens to get the ETS through.

And now it would appear those comments aren’t so fixed in stone after all…

Today, Penny Wong will meet with the Greens Deputy Leader to try and nut out a solution for the ETS.

I wonder what will come of it… - Will we see the Government committing to a 40% reduction by 2020 that the greens were touting last year?

Unlikely… but surely there will have to be a compromise… the question however is… What will it be….??

In the words of Ban Ki-Moon - the summit just “could not end in failure”. Why? Well the concerns for most surrounding the success of the summit lay directly at the heart of international law and international negotiation… the basis and structure for the United Nations.

With the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan all still treaties and all still in effect, the “Copenhagen Accord” is merely a piece of paper that tells the world… “We haven’t wasted your tax-payer dollars… no, really… we promise!”

Political will, national promises, economic direction and public pressure just wasn’t enough to overcome the key issue that many nations had moving into Copenhagen… National Sovereignty.

And the final outcome of the summit seems to reflect that very point.  Despite many nations coming together forging a sense of cooperation and collaboration, national sovereignty remains supreme. All nations coming together in unity is one thing… and despite everyone’s best intentions, I really cant see how binding agreements with threat of financial penalty and legal action can be made collectively with all the world cheering along, especially on such a diverse and complex issue such as Climate Change!

There have been no quantified targets for emission reduction. Even the 50% by 2050 that was in early drafts couldn’t make it through the grueling negotiations. The action plan as it currently stands is that industrialised countries will inform the UNFCCC secretariat by 31 January, the extent to which they will cut their emissions after 2012 (when the current phase of Kyoto runs out). The emerging economies or developing nations will tell the UNFCCC what they plan to do to control their emissions. However… no one will be legally bound to any commitment.

The reference to transparency in the text I guess is something significant, because what it means is that for the first time ever, actions by countries can be globally assessed for all to see. However, there is no verification anywhere of the actions undertaken in the smaller nations of the developing world… not unless they are paid for by the developed world.

And finally… there is no detail at all on any of the elements within the accord. There is a reference to the target of limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, as well as the need for quantified action by both developed and developing countries. Great… BUT how will this target be achieved… your guess is as good as mine.

I guess really we will have to wait for the review of progress… in 2015.

What WAS actually achieved…? Well… see below -” The Carbon Cost of Copenhagen“

16,500 delegates from 192 countries, 5,000 journos and 40,000 eco-campaigners amounting to over 40,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide, (roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006). The organisers laid 900 kilometers of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals were served and visitors busily sipped over 200,000 cups of coffee.

Cartoon by Paul Thomas (UK Daily Mail 08/12/09)

Australia sent 114 delegates to the conference (a few more than Britain’s 71 delegates).

114 people traveling to Copenhagen amounts to around 1817 tonnes of carbon emissions (or 2500 peoples annual emissions in Malawi… ouch!).

Thoughts? Comments?