Bluegrass Consulting: Blueblog

Friday: 08 January

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“

Friday: 08 January

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.

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?

Wednesday: 09 December

Well, well, well… you can’t say that no one saw it coming (Blueblog 16 Nov 2009).

Behind deposed Finance, Infrastructure, Ports and Waterways Minister, Joe Tripodi’s tears on Nov 15 just after he was dumped by the then NSW Premier Nathan Rees, was a furious, tactical and vengeful factional warlord - ready to take matters in his own hands… with a little help from fellow warrior - Eddie Obeid.

It took less than three weeks to mount the spill that cut the man (who Tripodi and Obeid installed as Premier only the year before), down and put him in the corner while 47 out of 68 Labor MP’s orderly lined up behind their faithful and stuck the knife in - much like the scene from the movie Flying High no doubt.

With Nathan gone, in swings A.B.N. - (Anyone But Nathan)… Frank Sartor, Kristina Keneally, I don’t think it really mattered - certainly not to the ALP State office. It was just simply time for Nathan to go.

Much like Tony Abbott, as the “ideological love child” of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop, ascended to greatness as Federal Opposition Leader two days before… the “factional love child” of Tripodi and Obeid emerges as the victor in the NSW Government Party Room - All hail Premier Kristina Keneally!

What does this mean to the people of NSW?

• A Cabinet reshuffle of the reshuffle the month before… (It really is hard to keep track of who’s who in the zoo).
• I’d say a bit of money being spent on stationery reprints and office signage.
• Maybe a boom in the elocution training business, by way of lessons for the new leader, to try and smooth out that Ohioan accent and perhaps give her a bit more of a ‘dinky di’ feel that will appeal to the people?
• Some white-anting from the discarded former leader, Mr Rees?

So other than the Prime Minister being slightly annoyed (… understatement?) and a mental flash-image of watching CNN or Fox News as you tune into Channel 7, 9 or 10 each night… not a lot has really happened!

One good thing that has come out of all of this, is the fact that Kristina and Carmel now lead the first two-woman executive in the country… that is a move for equality, I guess.

However, I’m going to go out on a limb and say - I doubt that this point was at the forefront of ALP Honourable Members’ minds in casting their votes.

What are your thoughts? Comments?

Monday: 15 June

Sad news from Victoria - Peter Costello announced today that he will not stand for re-election for the seat of Higgins at the next federal election (whenever that may be).

I am amazed at the harsh comments that have popped up on the news.com.au and SMH websites by various readers / bloggers.

For someone that has made a huge contribution to Australia, surely he deserves at the very least a quiet tip of the hat even from his opponents?

Just like I have asked before; where would we be today without the work of Paul Keating during his tenure as Treasurer and PM, and the economic reforms of his era, I ask - where would we be today if it hadn’t had been for Peter Costello’s work between 1996 and 2007 and without the reforms he took our nation through?

I wonder if we will be saying the same in years to come about Wayne Swan?

I wish him well in his future endeavors, wherever they take him.

Do you have any thoughts on his departure? If so, drop me a comment below….

Nathan

Tuesday: 09 June

The Labour party in Britain were left reeling yesterday as they slipped to overall fourth place at a historic low of just 16% of the proportional vote for the European elections held last week.

Voters across Europe deserted mainstream parties in favour of fringe parties or simply abstained from voting, in what some analysts say is a backlash to perceived economic inaction surrounding the global financial crisis.

In Britain, voters were still reeling from the cross party MP expenses scandal. Labour appeared to be most heavily hit with an almost 10 point drop in overall votes, but the conservatives, whilst finishing on top, also did not receive the expected surge in support from their previous showing. They did however hold their ground and led the party vote split with 27% share of the vote.

The centre left parties were the biggest loser across 27 Euro member states with the Centre right coalition cementing its place as the largest voting bloc. The BBC has a rather nifty interactive chart showing the results here

There was also a notable rise of nationalist or specifically anti-immigration (often outwardly racist) parties in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia and the United Kingdom.

The British political establishment appeared in despair at their failure to mobilise voters against the far right British National Party (BNP). The party has now broken into the mainstream by securing two seats in the EU parliament.

Of interest to the many Australian “No clean feed” activists - the Swedish “Pirate Party” won a historic seat in the parliament running on an internet privacy platform, after polling 7.4% of the vote in Sweden. Support for the party increased markedly in April after a Stockholm court sentenced the four original founders of file sharing website the Piratebay to a year in jail.

NP