Greenhouse Politics
The political debate over climate change is ratcheting up in the two notable holdouts to the Kyoto protocol – Australia and the United States. The current issue of Nature takes a look at upcoming national elections in both countries, and what role climate change is playing in each.
We got started on this special package of features knowing we wanted to flag the 24 November elections in Australia. Political experts differ, but most polls and other observations suggest that climate is a more defining factor now than at other times when Liberal prime minister John Howard has been up for re-election. In our piece, Sydney-based journalist Stephen Pincock reports on the climate moves the Howard government has been making, and whether that will be enough for him to come from behind in opinion polls that have him trailing his Labor opponent Kevin Rudd. Keep tabs on the latest with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s election site.
Once we got going on the Australian situation, we couldn’t help but start wondering about the US presidential election. It’s still nearly a year away, but the rhetoric about energy policy is flying fast and furious. Every leading candidate, for both the Democratic and Republican nominations, has a serious-sounding platform about how to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. The question, of course, is who will actually be elected and what will he (or she) actually do? Nature reporter Jeff Tollefson has spun a hypothetical piece about what the new president might be able to accomplish in leading the US in climate policy. (For a more science-fiction take on this scenario, check out Kim Stanley Robinson’s recent novel Sixty Days and Counting, in which a newly-elected president tries to save the world from a global-warming-triggered meltdown.)
And finally, we had been looking for other ways to tackle the complex suite of climate-related bills now moving slowly through the US Congress. We collected together a group of experts from science, industry, policy, and environmentalism to talk shop about what we might expect in terms of mandatory emissions cuts, and when. It was a lively discussion in the conference room of Nature’s Washington offices, fueled by coffee and a large number of sugary pastries from the bakery downstairs. Which, when you come to think about it, is never a bad way to go about solving the world’s problems.
Alexandra Witze, chief of correspondents for America, Nature
Comments
Excellent point on the Australian election, and the implications it could have in Bali and beyond. Will Bush, the potential lone wolf, capitulate to the calls from every other nation to okay mandatory limits on emissions? Logical. But not likely. On the US presidential election front, it's important to note the difference between a platform for climate action and one to reduce US dependence on foreign oil. Liquefied coal, for example, gets at the latter but is a greenhouse gas spout.
At SolveClimate (www.solveclimate.com), we have a policy tracker, where we've analyzed most of the frontrunners on the major climate change solutions. The GOP candidates fail on every front. John Edwards is the leader in the pack among the Dems.
Take a look if you're interested. Thanks.
Posted by: Stacy Feldman | November 16, 2007 08:34 PM
Now that the IPCC Synthesis Report has driven home the last nail in the Sceptic’s coffin, it’s time to get on with saving the planet’s ability to support human civilization.
Let’s get the priorities straight. Most of what’s left of the fossil fuels has got to stay underground. It’s no good changing a light bulb if the money we save gets spent on other stuff that uses fossil fuels. And changing the behaviour of six billion people is tricky. No, the carbon has got to stay in the ground and there are about 30 key nations that can make that happen. These nations have got to agree just to leave the stuff in the ground. Not easy but persuading 30 national leaders ought to be easier than persuading the six billion.
With a large part of the coal and oil left in situ, the price of fuels will sky-rocket and the market will sort out efficiency savings and sustainable energy sources. Governments that like the idea of equable distribution may choose rationing other than by price amongst their populations but that’s up to them. The main thing is that 30 nations agree to limit supply. That’s just what they are not doing at present, all the talk being on the demand side.
If we are going to have any hope of surviving global warming we have to focus on supply side economics not demand side. Time to wake up.
Posted by: Biff Vernon | November 17, 2007 09:35 PM
Response to Biff Vernon:
At every AR of the IPCC the last nail was said to be driven into the sceptic's coffin. I think there is ample room left, as the 4AR certainly is not the last word on AGW, and there remain many points of attack. This remains me of a software package of the 70's, which grandiloquently was called "The Last One" and was meant to make superfluous all future programming work. A scientist should never accept an report by a committee as the last word to be said.
Posted by: Francis Massen | November 21, 2007 04:23 PM