The G8 in Italy: Reduce, Recycle and Reuse

When the G8 met in London in April, it was amidst a great deal of hoop-la and media attention. The G8 are meeting again this week in Italy and you will be hard pressed to notice. While some leaders may want to distance themselves from the sexpoloits of Silvio Berlusconi or the image troubled and failing British Prime Minister, you would think they would be biting at the bit to speak to the media and champion their lead-setting role for the world. Indeed, they are indeed meeting in L'Aquila and have a substantive agenda. While the place they are meeting continues to experience tremors (it is the location of the major earthquake Italy experienced earlier this year), there will be few earth shattering announcements coming from these embattled leaders.

At the top of this agenda is Gordon Brown’s insistence that the G8 hold the line on each member country spending their way out of the recession. This is the mantra of the socialist and left leaning members of the G8, including both Brown and Obama. They now add that there is also a need to develop a new regulatory framework for financial institutions – one which encourages lending and increasing the flow of cash into the economy. The evidence is clear: unemployment continues to rise, trade continues to stagnate, protectionism is growing and many firms have been helped out of the recession by being taken into public ownership. While some see green shoots, other sees these as green weeds. Continuing the path of stimulus and resisting the voices of many that suggest that now is the time for fiscal responsibility to correct deficit and debt based funding will be Brown’s desired outcome.

Obama comes with this same agenda, but one which contradicts growth – the climate change agenda. The US House of Representatives has passed an omnibus climate change bill and the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it must regulate and control carbon emissions. All this despite the growing evidence that the earths temperature is cooling and that there are growing doubts about the robustness of the climate change claims of the “warmists”. Obama, Brown and Berlusconi are each seeking to use the G8 as a platform for shaping the December negotiations in Copenhagen for a treaty to replace The Kyoto Accord, which expires in 2012.

The climate change agenda has four components. The first is a firm commitment to reduce carbon emissions from key sectors of the economy for each of the G8 countries. The second is to boost investment in new technologies for alternative energy and transportation. The third is to work with developing countries to offer transition funds to help them grow economically while at the same time committing to reduce their carbon emissions. Finally, there is an attempt to reach an agreement that would permit “border adjustments” (read border tariffs) on goods entering a country which come from a region which does not support appropriate climate change mitigation measures. This is a complex set of issues, made more complex by the fact that the G8 are also meeting with the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) during their time in Italy – they are not all aligned on all aspects of these issues. Expect words, but no action.

The third big issue, symbolic of the lack of value to be attached to the work of the G8, is a focus on development for the poorer countries of Africa. At the Gleneagles summit with Blair in the Chair, major commitments were made to provide intelligent help to Africa. Few of these commitments, other than those relating to debt relief, have been acted upon. They will renew past commitments, make new ones and then go away and file the documents while doing little about them.

What is there to say? The G8 meets, it engages various groups in conversations, it issues communiques and then each leader goes away and gets back to the real work of politics. The G8 is a side-show. This is made clear by the absence of media focus and public interest in the meeting occurring this week and by the fact that the agenda repeats the agenda of past meetings. Reuse and recycle are the current practices of the G8 as far as their agenda is concerned. Adding “reduce” – by not meeting at all – may be the missing item for this organization.

What Palin Needs to Do Now

When Tony Benn left the British House of Commons in 2001 after fifty years as a law maker, he said that “he was leaving parliament to devote himself to politics”. Saraha Palin, who seems to some to immature with age, said basically the same thing on Friday. She resigned as Governor of Alaska and made it clear that she was going to devote her energies to politics.

The media don’t understand this. Palin made clear that she would be freer to campaign for values and policies she supports if she was not tied to the Governorship. She also made clear what these policies and values were - less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and “much-needed” fiscal restraint. She wants to work the national stage and fill the leadership void within the GOP. It’s a bid for the role of the authoritative voice of the party. She will then, it seems, determine whether a run at the Presidency in 2012 is viable.

What is upsetting her, apart from the way the media are attacking the family and the partisan use of ethics to hinder her political agenda, is the lack of a clear, focused and coherent voice of opposition to Obama. Ironically, her key problem is that she is not focused, clear or coherent, as her resignation speech demonstrated. The hockey mum thinks and speaks like someone with attention deficit disorder.

Tony Benn used his exit from parliament to launch a career as a political raconteur and journalist. Renting theatres across Britain, he sat in a chair smoking a pipe and drinking tea, offered a monologue on political issues and then responded for an hour or so to questions. These sessions were sold out across Britain and he moved from being someone demonized as a radical “raving lefty” to being a sane voice of reason, especially on such issues as Iraq, education and the economy. Palin thinks she can do the same kind of thing.

She has three problems. The first is that she doesn’t really have much to say. She has never worked through an in depth political analysis of America and its future and developed a clear and well articulated strategic position on the key issues. What she has are chants and mantras. What she needs is a thoroughgoing analytic and reasoned strategic view of the policies the republicans would now pursue if in office.

The second is that, despite the adulation of many, she is a poor communicator. Just look at her media interviews and listen to her speeches. They are short, unfocused, and not thought through. True, she has emotional appeal and sex appeal, but she does not have “mind appeal”. Obama, in contrast, has real power as a communicator and is clearly seen as a thinking politician – a phrase no one could seriously apply to Palin.

The third is that she does not have a plan. Her resignation seemed to as much of a surprise to her as it was to those around her. Being impulsive does not make for sound leadership. If she did have a plan, no one appears to know what it is. She needs to surround herself with quality planners and strategic thinkers who can move her from being a hockey mum to being a leader. It will take time.

There appears to be another issue: money. Palin does have a Political Action Committee (PAC) which is fund raising for her, but she is not a wealthy person and does have some legal issues to deal with. Later this month her PAC has to report on their fiscal performance. According to some media accounts, money flooded into the account following her announcement on Friday. We will see. What is key is that she invests some of these funds in refining her thinking, her speaking and her strategy. If she simply takes to the streets with her current message, she will blow her up her chances.

There are others vying for the role Palin appears to want to play. Mitt Romney being one and also the most likely to succeed. He has money, he is articulate, he has national experience and he did a credible job as Governor of Massachusetts. He also has the support of the party elite. He could take on Obama now without coaching and investment in finding out about how the world really works. He is the natural successor to McCain. Another is Mike Huckabee, also a seasoned campaigner. Palin will have a lot to do to maneuver around these party heavy weights.

The period between now and year end will be critical for Palin. If she is really serious, she will take some time to reflect and develop a strategic and analytic set of policies and hone her communication and presentation skills. A smarter, better read and more articulate Palin will be essential if her national leadership ambitions are to be taken seriously. As she sits in Wassilla and reflects, she should start reading and thinking deeply about issues and opportunities. She should also keep quiet.

(This is my 500th Post on this Blog Site)

Reinventing Government in Alberta

Even though Alberta has been buffered from much of the recession, our Provincial Government has been exposed for what it is: bankrupt of ideas and out of cash.

Before we rush to judgment, it is worth noting that we are both not alone and not as bad as many other similar North American governments facing real economic challenges. California is bankrupt – in debt at $26 billion and handing out IOU’s to cover for cash it doesn’t have. Several other US States are struggling. The 2009 debt for the year that ended in June for all states was $111 billion and is projected to rise to $180 billion by 2011. To cover challenging finances, Pennsylvania is looking at a 16% tax hike. Arizona, Illinois, Ohio and North Carolina are also in deep trouble. The US Federal Government has such a substantial deficit and debt that many are beginning to worry about whether it will be possible to fund the debt through bonds and other measures. Times are tough.

But Alberta has oil and gas and has had good times. We used to have a strong Heritage Savings fund for a “rainy day”, now denuded due to low rates of return and a failure to continue to put funds into this account when they were available. The Government built up a $6 billion infrastructure fund to cover the costs of growth. But we still face challenging times. According to various sources, we are looking at a $2 billion deficit in health care spending and an additional $2 - $3 billion across all other areas of government.

There are two responses to this situation. The first is try to pretend that we can continue to have the kind of government services we always have had and that we can fund these activities through debt until the good times return. The second is to decide once and for all that it is time to rethink the place of government in society and our daily life. The current Alberta governments response is very much in the first camp, as was evident when the Minister of health suggested that a $1 billion budget cut would have no impact at all on services and other Ministers are busily suggesting that tax increases will not occur in the near future.
The second response – reinventing government is what is needed. There are five things that the Government now needs to focus on to make this happen.

The first is to lay out the next twenty five to fifty years of expenditure on a no change basis, pegging oil prices at current prices and gas drilling at current prices and show Albertans what would happen. For example, if revenues remain roughly on a par with the current projections but health care continues to increase at 13% annually, at what stage does Alberta become unable to pay for health care?

Second, we need to rethink how we manage and fund health, schools (K-12) and care for the elderly. These three items are large expenditures, with the care for the elderly a growing issue for all developed societies. No one is ever happy talking about changes to these three services, but change is inevitable. It is time to engage in a serious discussion about user pay for these services – health care premiums, a higher level of educational taxes and a means tested provision for elder care.

Third, we need to determine if we need all of the other services that government provides. Less is more in the new economy of community. For example, do we really need government to pay for carbon capture and storage – a $2 billion investment in an unproven technology?

Fourth, for those services which we determine we do need, how best do we manage these and pay for them? What level of taxation is required to cover the cost of service? For example, do we really need to fund post secondary education at the level of government support now available? Could tuition be raised, programs reduced, management consolidated? Do we really need so many institutions – why not adopt a Federal University model and reduce the administrative costs? Unpopular, maybe, but necessary absolutely.

Finally, how are we intending to reduce our current dependency on oil and gas revenues to pay for services? Our current health care costs, for example, exceed the income the government receives from personal and corporate taxes. If it were not for oil and gas, we would be in deep economic trouble. But at some point, we will not have these revenues to pay for our government, So what are we doing to diversify the economy, create new sources of revenue and new opportunities for Alberta to thrive and grow?

It is time to take a cold, hard, honest and evidence based look at the future and make some choices, based on a vision for Alberta and an understanding that government will be increasingly smaller and less intrusive than it is now. It will be tough, but necessary. It will take courage, leadership and imagination. It will take foresight and the involvement of the people of Alberta in decisions about their future. Is there anyone who can make this happen? I don’t think so.

Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: 'You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming' -- 'Earth has been cooling for ten years'

Below is a reprint of a July 1, 2009 letter to Congress by a team of atmospheric scientists.

OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.

DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.

Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences

S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS

Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS

Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences

Bleak Britain

Britain’s economic challenge is almost as severe as the challenge of its leadership. Economic decline in Britain is now the worst in fifty years, with GDP shrinking by 2.4% in the first quarter of 2009. Figures released today by the UK Treasury paint a bleak picture of the economy, with all sectors showing a decline and no evidence of the “green shoots” of growth, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown continually refers to. The decline is steep and creates a real set of challenges for the government. It’s the worst economic performance since 1958.

The OECD annual economic analysis of the country, also published this week, suggests that government spending needs to be curtailed so as to bring it back into the zone of reason. It said that Britain's deficit would climb to 90% of economic output – significantly higher than the 80% level the Treasury projected in its April Budget. In order to keep the UK economy in good health, it added, the Government should target "more ambitious" budget cut-backs once the recession is over.

Gordon Brown’s response to the OECD and others demanding austerity planning for the post-recession economy is a firm “no” followed by “maybe”. On Monday he announced a set of proposals for the remaining year of his term before he has to hold a general election. It shows he is committed to recycling – almost everything he announced has been announced before, in most cases just three months ago. The plan involves new commitments to social housing, new commitments to personal tutors for school students falling behind, preventive health checks, docking benefits, Lords reform. Nothing new. But cuts are already being made to the speed of growth of many government budgets and, after the election, the Labour Party indicates that it will make annual reductions in spending. Brown’s mantra is that “you cannot cut your way out a recession”. So he spends more than the country can afford.

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes clear that there is both a need to rethink government and to reduce spending. Interestingly, polls released this week show that the British people are confident that Cameron would be a better manager of the economy and would deliver on his promise to reduce spending. No one appears to be listening any more to Gordon Brown. The challenge Cameron has is that the more explicit he is about what he would cut and how he intends to reinvent government, the more Brown and the Labour Party are able to promote the politics of fear.

Britain is in the pre-election season and the two party leaders are laying down the lines of attack. Brown will promote his record and fear, Cameron will document Brown’s record and counter the fear with an agenda of “real change”. The timing of the election, which has to be before early June 2010, will be just as the recession shows signs of ending, but before the end of the recession occurs. Unless something remarkable happens, the Labour Party will likely lose as the electorate is tired after twelve years of the same promises.

Some progress has been made in key social issues over the last twelve years, especially in terms of primary education and some aspects of health care, but Britain is in trouble. From transport to housing, from secondary schools to elder care, from policing to social services, problems abound. What the electorate appear to be looking for, according to in depth polling, is inspiration coupled with a sense of capability.

Brown no longer inspires and there are strong questions about his capabilities, especially following several botched attempts to respond to the MP expense scandal and the total failure to meet targets he himself set with respect to the climate change agenda. He is seen to dither, wobble and pander.

Cameron is a much more effective communicator, but is not inspirational. Many see him as a Blair like figure – effective with words, but duplicitous. He is untested with respect to competence and capability, though he has secured the benefit of the doubt from a portion of the electorate. He will find, when the election is called, that he has challenges convincing people that his deeds will match his words.

Cameron also has another problem. His front bench team have a habit of offering comments that run contrary to those made by the leader. Discipline is lacking, yet will be crucial. Every slip will be punced on and used as part of the “you can’t trust the Tories” fear tactic Labour will pursue.

It will be a nasty election – bitter arguments, partial truths masquerading as evidence and reality, new lows of debate. The victim will be the economy and the sense of the integrity of politics – already shaken to the core by expense scandals and the new concerns over the second jobs many MP’s have. It is a bleak time. It is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Environmental Protection Agency Supresses Risk Analysis

A review of the scientific evidence supporting the claims concerning anthropomorphic global warming has been undertaken by two senior policy members of the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, both concerned that the agency faces negligence charges for the willful refusal to look critically at the science. Despite their review, completed as part of the risk assessment for the agency, their work has been suppressed.

Here are their key conclusions:

• The earth has been cooling since 1997-8, with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation going negative in September 2007 and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation in January 2009. This despite continued CO2 emissions.
• Atlantic hurricane behaviour is not seen, according to the current consensus view of hurricane specialists, to be linked to CO2 emissions but rather to patterns of hurricane behaviour seen over long periods of time and independent of increases in CO2 emissions – cyclones will be little different from the patterns seen in the past.
• The idea that the ice in Greenland will rapidly shed its ice has now been largely dismissed by scientists who study this particular ice shield.
• The recession, which has significantly reduced a range of economic activities and subsequently led to a reduction in the rate of growth of CO2 emissions, has not been factored into the analysis of climate change.
• A study which compares the proposal emanating from climate change models and actual data which focuses on the IPCC claim of a strongly positive feedback role for water vapour in the atmosphere is not supported by the actual data, which actually shows that the feedback role of water vapour is negative.
• The IPCC, according to several studies (but one meta-analysis in particular), uses faulty and incomplete solar data which in turn leads the IPCC to underestimate the impact of solar variability on global temperatures. The new research suggests that solar variability could account for more than 65% of the increases in the earth’s temperature prior to the current cooling period.

Their conclusions are twofold. The first is that there are no compelling reasons for the EPA to “rush” to regulate CO2 emissions. The second is that if the EPA does regulate emissions, as they now plan to do, the resultant legal challenges will open up the science and create risk for the organization which has insufficiently reviewed the science and has too readily accepted the IPCC AR4 report as “gospel” – even though it is already three years out of date. As specialists in risk assessment, they urge caution.

Palin for President?

The sad and sordid business of the Governor of South Carolina and his Argentinean mistress has done wonders for Sarah Palin’s complexion. She’s smiling and many republicans are miserable. Governor Mark Sanford, who resigned as Chair of the Republican Governors, was a real contender for the republican presidential nomination for 2012. Now he is out, leaving Palin in a stronger position.

As the conservative commentator David Frum observes, the republican party has a long history of turning to the person who finished second in the republican primaries during the previous season. They did so for McCain, Dole and GHW Bush and could well do so again for Mitt Romney. But Romney never achieved the profile, followership and sense of passion that Palin had when she ran as McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate. He’s smarter, but not as popular.

Palin is not exactly the great communicator in terms of comprehension, eloquence and clarity. But she speaks with passion and humour, seems to connect with a section of the working class and the republican party and speaks with a clear conservative voice. She is not well read or entrepreneurial in the same league as Romney, but she is a populist.

Palin also knows too little about too many things to win at this point – she has nothing to say about the financial regulatory regime needed to ensure that the financial meltdown does not repeat itself, she has no real foreign policy understanding and he views about many issues are just naïve. But the primaries are two years away and the election itself closer to three. There is time for her to develop a stanace of these issues and to learn her lines.

Palin against Obama would be a real test of liberal socialist thinking and right wing conservatism – a test that will change political rhetoric in American for some time. It will be fiery, abrasive and divisive.

Palin will have a lot to go after. By the time of the election, US debt will be close to fourteen trillion dollars and it will be clear that the Obama administration will not have a firm enough plan to tackle it. The government will be intruding in more and more aspects of people’s lives as a result of a raft of liberal legislation Obama, Pelosi and the democratic party have in mind. Climate change legislation will be having a negative impact on the economy as well as a significant impact on the energy bills of families. There will be no solution to the Middle East crisis and the US will still be in Afghanistan and involved in Iraq. While some changes to health care will have been made, they will fall short of the expectations Obama has allowed to build for this reform. Rather than “yes we can”, the republican’s will be chanting “was that it?”.

On the other side, Obama will have Palin the fumbler, Palin the public service reducer and Palin the wild-card on foreign policy. He will beat here on communication, but she will challenge him on his connection to real people and the real issues he cares about.

It will all come down to the two political machines and the extent to which they can leverage their candidates strength to get the vote out. Many democrats may think there is no real contest and may think the voting is all over before the voting starts – they would be mistaken. The machines have to work like a charm to get the vote committed and out.

What should worry Americans is both this choice and the question “who is behind Palin?”. If she does become the candidate – and we are two years away from knowing – she will need a strong running mate and an exceptionally smart backroom team. It will be this backroom team the US elects if she wins the Presidential election.
The worst thing the Obama team can do is wish Palin as the candidate and then take a victory for granted. She may be a loose cannon and nowhere near as strong an orator as Obama, but she has passion and build fierce loyalty. Many voters may well be disillusioned with Obama by 2012 – she will look so completely different from him that it may give a real option for voting.

All Palin needs now is for Romney to admit that he has a conservative conscience and a liberal sex life and she’d be home and dry as the nominee.

Getting Down to the Wire for Cap and Trade in the US

The US Climate Change bill, known as the Clean Energy and Security Act, will be voted on this week in Congress. It still looks doubtful that the democrats can secure the 218 votes necessary votes to pass the Bill, with some estimates that there are just 190 votes currently favouring the legislation. The legislation would require a 17 percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, mandate electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources by 2020, provide $90 billion for new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, along with $60 billion for carbon capture and sequestration. Another key provision, termed "cap-and-trade," would require industries and manufacturers to cut carbon emissions by setting up a system where they could buy and sell pollution credits.

Republicans are concerned that cap and trade will be a regressive taxation that will negatively impact the economic recovery, lead to higher energy costs and increase the number experiencing energy poverty. Warren Buffet, who now advises President Obama on economic matters, agrees.

It also contains a set of measures which should be of significant concern to Canada in general and Alberta in particular. Buried within the Bill are provisions for a levy on goods imported into the US which come from a country which is not seeking to limit CO2 emissions, as judged by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The idea behind this is simple: once the US regulates greenhouse gases produced by US companies, those companies won't be struggling to compete with foreign companies that have no such restrictions imposed on them.

The target of this provision within the legislation is China and India and it can be seen as part of the US bargaining position for the Copenhagen climate change negotiations to be held in December. China is already suggesting that this is an opening protectionist move which will trigger a trade war. It is also in breech, in China’s view, of the World Trade Organizations regulations.

Canada could be affected if our CO2 emissions regulations, which focus on intensity targets rather than absolute emissions, are deemed by the US to be inadequate when compared to their own measures. The target here would be oil from Alberta’s oil sands – so-called “dirty oil”.

As the US debates this Bill, there are interesting developments in Australia. They are, according to one report, proceeding at a Koala’s pace. The Australian Senate looks likely to reject its own version of cap and trade. This follows the Prime Minister Rudd’s announcement that, even if the cap and trade scheme passes the Senate, its introduction will be delayed by a year. On June 4, this delayed emission trading scheme passed the House of Representatives despite a solid vote against it by the opposition. But it now faces certain defeat in the Australian Senate. Whereas the Labor government controls 32 votes in the Senate, the opposition Liberal-National coalition controls 37 and is committed to vote against it if the Rudd government will not grant more time to consider the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference in December and US Senate deliberations. Many of the coalition parliamentarians now want to vote unconditionally against an ETS in any form.

A key factor in the Australian context is the widespread public skepticism about the science of climate change. A new book, written by the experienced climatologist Ian Plimer, is having a major impact. Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science has caused several former cap and trade supporters to shift their views and has lead some leading journalist to recant their hitherto strong support of carbon sequestration and cap and trade. The book simply points to the absence of convincing scientific data, based on observations and measurements, that manmade CO2 is a primary contributing factor to climate change. It also offers a compelling critique of computer climate simulations – the basis of most of the global warming “science” that now informs policy. The book is in its fifth printing after just a month of publication. It is pushing others to “come out of the closet” and make their voice heard, which in turn is influencing the politicians faced with a crucial vote.
The developments in the US and Australia are all preludes to the Copenhagen conference to be held in December. Aimed at developing a new global agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto accord, governments are positioning and maneuvering. It is not a pretty sight. What is becoming clear is that the campaigners seeking strong, tough measures to “save the planet” are losing ground to economic realists and to those who simply do not accept the simplistic “manmade” view of climate change.

The US vote this week, if it fails, will derail the Copenhagen talks. If it passes, it will make clear that the climate change agenda is as much about economic protectionism as about the climate. Either way, it will make agreement in Copenhagen more difficult to achieve – something evident from the several meetings that have taken place already in preparation for the December meetings. We are in for a stormy political summer.

All Day Kindergarten Not Necessarily a Good Thing...

Dalton McGuinty, Ontario's Premier, is so convinced that early childhood education and “sure start” is critical to the fight against illiteracy, poverty and a failing economy, that he has pledged substantial amounts of money to the expansion of kindergarten to every four- and five-year-old in the province. Ultimately, the idea is to create a “seamless” merger of child care and early childhood education, with elementary schools acting as year-round hubs for children from birth to age 12.

On the face of it, this may appear sound. After all, there would appear to be compelling evidence that children can be taught basic reading and writing and math skills early and that their lifelong social and intellectual development is shaped by learning that occurs before the age of five.

But the so-called compelling evidence is in fact more complex. Early childhood education appears to be of marginal value, in educational and social development terms, to middle and upper class children. Their home environment, parental support and level of education and the presence of books and nutrition in the home all aid their effective intellectual and social development, even when both parents work.

Where early intervention is most needed is amongst the poor, especially aboriginal children whose parents are unable to support their social and intellectual development in the same way as their middle class counterparts and where nutrition and health are also problematic. Basic and standardized interventions, like all day kindergarten, have little sustaining value. What appears to be needed are customized interventions over a considerable period of time on a per family basis. While such interventions may include all day kindergarten, this in itself is not likely to produce the results which McGuinty and his advisors anticipate.

The evidence of Head Start in the US, which is only a partial comparison to what McGuinty is proposing, is that the benefits of early childhood educational interventions dissipate over time – the effects don’t last long. SureStart, a scheme being adopted in the UK, begins a randomized control trial this month in Derbyshire and it will be interesting to review a longitudinal study of these children over the next fifteen years. But right now, the evidence appears thin that this kind of intervention can make a significant difference to a generation of children.

At the same time, McGuinty is committed to a substantial poverty elimination strategy, to hiring 8,000 nurses to new positions and spending a significant stimulus fund to boost the Ontario economy and provide support to a failing manufacturing sector. Ontario – a “have not Province” receiving transfer payments from the Federal government – is big on ideas. Now they have to find the cash to pay for this, which means both higher taxes and cuts in other services.

So the all day kindergarten becomes a question of trade off’s. Is this more important than, say, the 8,000 nurses or the continued investment in university research? Will it produce such strong social benefits – lower crime rates, higher levels of literacy, more employable individuals in 2030 than in 2010? – to justify the costs? These economic and social benefit assumptions have not been made available for review, but it doubtful that they will show a compelling case for action. Also not available is a full and detailed life-time costing of the all day kindergarten scheme in its entirety, nor is there a risk assessment of the impact of such a scheme on other services, such as health and social services.

We Need a Strong Public Service

Public servants are challenged. Over the last twenty years, especially in Alberta, there has been a shift from a public service which is focused on the public good, giving independent advice to government and using evidence to support their thinking to a more politicized public service which sees the work of the government as the public good and focus their advice on delivering to Ministerial expectations. Its not good.

The shift is evident in the anxiety and fear that many young public servants feel. If they give advice which is evidence based and thorough and in the public good, but is contrary to the initial desires and expectations of Ministers, rather than being thanked, they are made to feel inadequate and unhelpful. This leads to a degree of fear about their future and anxiety about promotion and career development. It also leads to advice and evidence being developed which they know meets the initial thinking of Ministers and excludes other, often “better” options. Of course, at some stage in the to and fro between Ministers and the public service, the service has to deliver the advice and support the decision of the Minister requires, but only after a dialogue about options.

This shift, which is a constant topic of conversation amongst public servants, results from four developments. The first is the disdain some politicians have for professional public servants. Ralph Klein, for example, was dismissive of many of those at a senior level who advised him or his Ministers and said so. After he had cut 2,500 public service jobs he once quipped “no one will notice that they have gone”.

Second, bonus schemes provide many public servants up to thirty per cent of their salaries. Bonus schemes at this level require a high degree of “fit” and “compliance” with the dominant ideology of a branch or division. Where this is “do what you’re told” and “please the Minister” then this is what occurs. While not all schemes across Canada have this character, the public servants see “play ball, get the cash” as a growing incentive to tow the line.

Third, there has been a lack of investment in the training and development of public servants and in the information support services they need to mine information to provide quality evidence based decisions. Significant decisions on, for example, how best to invest research and innovation funds at the Federal and Provincial level are generally based on scant information. Health care investment decisions are also based on some, but limited evidence.

Finally, governments have persuaded themselves that there is no substantial difference between the governments’ interests and public interest. In Alberta, for example, where one form or other of a conservative government has been in power for so long that many can’t remember what an alternative might look like, this is an especial problem. It shows itself most powerfully in health care where the governments’ interest in reform does not appear to be aligned with the public interest in understanding health care sustainability from a service, not a cost, perspective.

Senior public servants are, relatively, well paid when all aspects of their compensation are taken into account. More junior public servants, especially entry level staff, are not. Attracting and retaining talented people and nourishing them to be independent thinkers, developing their analytic and process skills and equipping them with the self-confidence to stand up to politicians and make their case, before then making the decisions made by the politicians work is getting more difficult. This at a time when many government departments will be losing baby boomers to retirement and seeking to rethink how they do their work.

We are also entering an era of significant cuts to public services. Paying down the debts incurred as a result of “stimulus” and fiscal easing and managing our way out of deficit budgeting will require a refocusing of public services, staff reductions and budget reductions. Tough times all round. This is a time for bold thinking and we should look to the public service to offer that thinking. But they will be focused on job protection and will be even more fearful now about their future than they were just a year ago. We can anticipate early retirement schemes, wholesale job cuts and many smart people leaving the public service for richer pastures.

It is time for a renewal of the “public” side of public service, a strong focus on evidence based decisions, more transparency in government and clearer demarcation of the advice leading to a decision from the task of implementing a decision once made. It is time for the public service to be encouraged to strengthen their commitment to independent advice and evidence based decisions and for politicians to show the respect the professional public service deserves.

Cuts - Get Used to It

The next set of political challenges will be simple: which political party can reduce public expenditure and reduce the role of government while doing the least damage to education, health and services to the elderly.

The reason is simple: all national governments in the developed world are now burdened with debt as a result of their “stimulus” spending and years of expenditure growth. Canada’s deficit, for example, is currently estimated at between $50billion and $100billion. Britain’s debt, by 2011, will be 100% of GDP. The US debt is so large as to threaten the stability of the world’s financial system - its around $10 trillion and growing by billions a day. There is a danger that the agencies which rate the financial stability of nations – the bond rating agencies – may start to downgrade several countries, including Britain and the US.

In Britain, the “cuts” debate has already started. The embattled Gordon Brown, giving a new lease on power due to a spineless Labour party, is talking about his strategy of spending more and contrasting this with the Conservative party’s strategy of cutting public spending. Yet his own 2009 budget promises cuts of substance, including almost immediate cuts in real terms to health care, starting in 2011. Independent financial analysis suggests that the cuts will be in the order of 5% each year for six to eight years.

Obama, while campaigning for increased public spending on health care, is also talking about increasing efficiency and eliminating waste (terms that are a code for cuts) so as to halve the deficit by the end of his first term.

The real challenge here is only partly about finances. More importantly, it is about the place of government in twenty first century society. The key question, in each area of life, is do we need to be doing this work at all? If we do need to do it, then we should ask can it be done as well (or better) by someone other than government at a similar or lower cost? If the answer is yes, then change is needed. If the answer is no, the next question is how can government do this outstandingly well at the least lifetime cost of service?

If we are not careful, the debate about cuts will get in the way of the debate about the appropriate role of government. In Canada, we see this most in the debate about healthcare. The “friends of medicare”, for example, do not accept that the current Canadian system is unsustainable and unaffordable, despite strong evidence to the contrary. They want governments to spend more, not less and they see no role of substance for the private sector. For them, this is not a matter for debate.
Climate change campaigners also see regulation and government enforcement, including significant and substantial subsidies and increased public presence in many areas of our lives, as absolute pre-requisites for the shift to a low carbon economy which, they insist (despite scientific evidence to the contrary), will “combat climate change”. More spending. Anyone who does not support this view is a “denier” who puts the planet in peril.

Education is another area which is seen by many as “hallowed” ground, despite evidence that spending more makes little difference to pupil performance and has no impact on productivity.

What is needed are informed options which are independent of political parties and based on best practice analysis from around the world. Put the options on the table, cost them and provide a basis for evaluating them and then let us begin the debate. How political parties chose to mix and max the options will tell us a lot about their beliefs, values and strategy.

We should also not believe any politician who suggests that government spending will not be cut, even for health or education. Look at real spending, not forecast figures, and watch them stabilize and shrink in real terms. Its going to get tough. Get used to it.

The End of Consensus Science

On June 4^th, the US House of Representatives received a petition signed by 31,478 scientists. It asks congress to reject the current orthodoxy with respect to global warming, the greenhouse effect and climate change. Here is the text:

``We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality. So much for the IPCC’s so called “scientific consensus”.

Climate Change Talks in Trouble

The purpose of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December is to agree on a multi-national deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which has no targets for emissions reductions beyond 2012. Climate change activists are looking to Copenhagen, encouraged by the newly minted US strategy, to begin a process of rapid de-carbonization of the global economy. It is not likely to happen.

First, as recent talks in Bonn make clear, some key rich countries – especially Canada and Japan – are unwilling to commit to specific legally binding targets. They want to see what the developing countries will do before making their commitments.

Second, the developing countries are asking for substantial commitments both of emissions reductions and financial support from more developed countries. The rich countries balk at the financial transfer sums involved and the poorer countries are demanding tougher targets than the rich countries are willing to offer.

Third, the US position is very soft. The greatly watered down “cap and trade” scheme for carbon reduction will not lead to significant emissions reductions but will lead to heavily subsidized green industries and increased energy costs. Economic pain with no carbon gain is likely to cause political fallout from both green campaigners worried that the US will not honour its commitments and from business who think that the costs of the Copenhagen compromise will be too high.

Fourth, to achieve a commitment of holding climate change to an increase of no more than 2 degrees Celsius will be very aggressive carbon emission reduction targets – far more aggressive than any country has yet committed to. With the US offering little – just 4-7% below 1990 levels by 2020 and Japan, Canada, China and India being reluctant to set targets, the earths climate will continue to experience the greenhouse effect.

Fifth, apart from the political issues, the logistics of lowering carbon emissions aggressively by some 4-5% per cent per annum for a considerable number of years and the economic fall-out of industry disruption such change will cause, there is the difficult problem of the data. The observed climate data, as opposed to the data produced by the twenty three climate change models tracked by the UN, is showing no evidence of warming and in fact the earth looks to be cooling, following a prolonged period of low sunspot activity and changes in cloud formation, wind patterns and ocean currents. Those who look at the evidence believe that a twenty five to thirty year cooling period is likely. The evidence for this is mounting, just at the time when the warming argument is important for policy makers – they now rely on models rather than evidence for their rationale for changing how the world’s economy functions.

Finally, as Kyoto has shown, talk is cheap. Action is more difficult. Few of the countries who signed up to Kyoto have or will achieve the targets set by that legally binding agreement. Even fewer know how to reach the substantial targets they have set for 2020, which is just over a decade away. Countries like Britain, France, Ireland and Germany which have strong targets are also suffering from severe economic challenges, some of which will persist for a considerable number of years. Changing how business is done over a period of economic recovery is likely to slow that recovery.

Independent observers watching the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen are not optimistic of a breakthrough deal being reached in Copenhagen. Compromise, back-sliding and double-speak – the kind of thing seen at the April G20 summit – will be the hallmark of the December meeting. For those who believe that the planet is imperiled, they will be deeply disappointed. Their warnings and arguments will be shrill, stark and largely emotional. For those who do not accept the basic premise of this meeting – that wise words and limited actions can change the patterns of nature – they will be relieved that the more radical emissions reduction targets and strategies are unlikely to form a part of the conversation. No one will be happy.

We can expect some of the scientists, especially those for whom the line between social action and science has become blurred, to become more and more aggressive in their “use” of evidence to support a case for radical change. We should be cautious about climate change scientific assertions in the lead up to Copenhagen. We should also be cautious about the pious declarations of politicians – deeds speak louder than words.

King Cnut tried to command the tide of the river in Britain to prove to his courtiers that they were fools to think that he could command the waves. His point was that nature commands the oceans and climate. He is purported to have said "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws."

Our impact on the climate is, if anything, modest. It is possible that a very modest outcome from Copenhagen summit in December will meet the political need to be seen to act and the economic need to act slightly. While some will claim that the sky is falling, many will breathe a sigh of relief that compromise and back-sliding may actually lead to common sense.

More People Now Believe Elvis is Alive Than Support Labour

Gordon Brown has had a terrible week-end. Apart from giving a good, solid speech at the D-Day ceremony in Normandy, where he was overshadowed by a powerful and evocative peroration by Barrack Obama, the plot to oust him continues, with the plotters emboldened by terrible election results for Brown’s governing Labour party.

In the municipal elections, the Labour Party lost some 284 seats and lost control of four municipal councils it had held prior to the election. Any map of the local election results shows strong conservative gains – they won 241 seats in total and gained control of ten councils, taking the number under their control to 30 with the Liberal Democrats gaining control of the City of Bristol.

In the European elections, Labour came third behind the Conservatives and the UK Independent Party (UKIP)– with Labour’s share of the poll down by 9% on the last European election results. Of the 69 seats available in the European Parliament for Britain (excluding Northern Ireland), Labour has won 13. Worse, the racist neo-fascist party, the British Nationalist Party (BNP), has won two seats despite an active campaign by all established political parties and Church leaders – a win that relied on disaffected Labour voters shifting to the far right. The BNP seats are in the traditional Labour area of Manchester, Yorkshire and Humberside. Even in Wales, a Labour heartland, the Conservative topped the polls. Less than 6% of eligible voters voted Labour – more people believe that Elvis is still alive. None of this is good for Labour and all of it is bad for Gordon Brown.

On Friday, Brown reshuffled his cabinet and left in place his expense scarred Chancellor and brought back into government Peter Hain, who left his position as Secretary of State over a sleight of hand in his election expenses. Adding four Ministers from outside parliament who will go to the House of Lords and serve from there, the reshuffle has failed to calm the anxieties within the Labour Party. Now the reshuffle of junior Ministers – those outside cabinet begins – and already there are resignations. The plotters continue to work to oust Brown as quickly as possible.

The plotters have found a new ally – Lord Falconer, a former Blair cabinet Minister, who has suggested that a leadership review would be appropriate. He said, during a television interview, speaking about the Labour party, that “we need unity above all. Can we get unity under the current leadership? I don't think so. The only way it can be achieved is a change of leader.” While he has a certain cache amongst the intellectual members of the Labour Party, he is not sufficiently placed to do to Brown what Geoffrey Howe did to Thatcher – he will not be the one to bring Brown down.

Former Brown cabinet Ministers, especially Hazel Blears and Caroline Flint, are planning a major assault on Brown’s leadership, focusing on both policy issues and also his inability to manage and work with others. Caroline Flint has already made clear that Brown finds it especially difficult to work with women. Leaked emails from Lord Mandelson, one of Brown’s newly strengthened cabinet Ministers, make clear that Mandelson sees Brown as both insecure and “angry”. Backbenchers continue to be asked to sign up to a no confidence letter to Brown – some now beginning to demand a leadership review. The discontent is palpable, the disillusionment is growing and the despair over the potential of a landslide Conservative victory when Britain finally has a general election is real.

Brown has played his major card – the reshuffle of his cabinet and changed in non Cabinet Ministerial appointments. What will follow, as he made clear in his press conference on Friday, is a clear and sharp agenda for change and a platform for Labour’s election manifesto. It will not be enough. The electorate is sending clear and unequivocal messages to the party and Brown is refusing to hear them. More of the same, with the face and voice of the message changing only slightly, will not be enough to save Brown from the anger of the people. He is finished, knows it, but refuses to accept it.

It is not, however, a time for David Cameron to gloat. The leader of the Conservative Party has to be very careful. Brown laid out a challenge to him on Friday by repeating his mantra “you cannot cut your way out of a recession”. This despite the fact that his own Government’s budget makes clear that there will be significant and substantial cuts in public spending from 2011 onwards – after the general election. Brown wants to push Cameron into a spend versus cuts campaign, when in fact both parties will have to cut public spending deeply to get Britain back on track.

British politics is frenzied and dangerous right now. Frenzied if you are trying to follow it – so many twist and turns. Dangerous if you are in the midst of it. None of these shenanigans are helping the work of government and it is this that the electorate cares about.

Stick a Fork in Him, Gordon Brown is Done

Last Friday Gordon Brown rang The Priory to inquire about the health of Susan Boyle, the singer who became an international sensation on Britain’s Got Talent, but had a meltdown when she didn’t win. This Friday, Susan Boyle rang Downing Street to inquire as to the political health of Gordon Brown, who is having his own meltdown as the most troubled Prime Minister since Anthony Eden.

Four Cabinet Ministers and two Ministers of State resign within three days, one suggesting that Brown should join him so as to make it less likely that the Conservatives will win an election. Meantime, the British public is sending a strong message through the polls that the Labour Party has lost its favour and that, while the other parties are not much better, anyone but Labour will do. Labour is set to lose significant ground in its municipal heartland, if early English results are anything to go by.

Brown has rushed a cabinet shuffle and conceded ground to both Milliband, who stays at the Foreign Office and, more significantly, Alistair Darling, who stays at Chancellor. This decision to keep Darling in place is a blow to Brown, and reveals his vulnerability. He had made it clear during this last week that he wished Ed Balls, the Education Minister, to move to the Treasury but Darling had made it clear that he was not moving. He either stayed in the Chancellorship or he left the front bench. Brown conceded and both Balls and Darling stay where they are.

This is the end for Brown. While he may survive till Sunday, the European Election results due Sunday afternoon will rekindle the anger and bitterness within the party and push the plotters further. At least two former cabinet members suggested or hinted that Brown needed to go and a third left rather than accept a demotion, unhappy with Brown’s leadership. A backbench hotmail campaign calling for Brown is gaining ground, even as Alan Johnson, the imputed alternative leader to Brown, accepts the position of Home Secretary, thereby confirming his allegiance to Brown.

“Stick a fork in him, he’s done”, said one backbencher today when speaking of Brown. He may be Prime Minister by name, but continues to battle his own party and is distracted from running the country. Infighting, bickering, power struggles, campaigning has taken over the Labour Party, who are now less than a year from being required to hold a General Election. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are both calling for an immediate general election, one Labour is certain to lose in a most dramatic way. Whether Brown likes it or not, there is no leadership, no strategy and no plan to either rebirth the British economy and its social development or to fight off the Tories at the next election. The Party, as Nick Clegg, the Liberal Leader, rightly observes “has run out of track and the train is derailed”.

The collapse of the Prime Ministers authority and the debacle within the Labour Party is spectacular. A sequence of high profile resignations, culminating in that of the Defence Secretary late yesterday, challenged Brown through a form of Chinese torture – each resignation being another drip of venom pouring down on a beleaguered and ham fisted Prime Minister. Even the Queen, who appoints him, must be wondering whether she call him in and ask him to go.

The surprising thing is how Brown has boxed in Alan Johnson. Many backbenchers and a large number of political commentators, most notably Polly Toynbee in The Guardian, had seen Johnson as the next leader of the party. A strong communicator, steady pair of hands and supported by many in the party, he was seen to have the “moxy” to push back at Cameron and begin the turnaround in Labour’s fortunes. In interviews on both Wednesday and Thursday he supported Brown and today has accepted a senior role in the Brown cabinet. This makes the plotters work more difficult and requires Brown to voluntarily relinquish his post, which no one expects him to do. Leaderless and limping, the plotters now have to find a new champion to rally behind. It wont be easy. The “I come to bury Brown, not to praise him speech” is a difficult one to give.

Brown has bought a few days of time to consolidate his inner circle and rally his own support, but it is temporary. This thing will not go away. It’s the swine flu season, after all. Brown will see most of his opponents as swine.

The End of New Labour is in Sight

Gordon Brown must feel very strange. He is supposed to be in command of a government. He is supposed to be the one who determines who is in and out of Cabinet, what they will focus on and how they should work with the public. All of a sudden, he has no real moral authority.

Two Secretaries of State – the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, and the Communities Secretary, Hazel Blears – have indicated to the media that they have resigned ahead of a cabinet shuffle which will happen between Friday morning of this week and Tuesday afternoon of next. Two junior Ministers, those for Children, Beverly Hughes, and Europe, Tom Watson, have also resigned. Due to the never ending revelations about expenses, others may well have to – including the Chancellor Alistair Darling. It’s a mess – an unprecedented debacle and a tragedy for Labour. As Oscar Wilde indicated, losing one is unfortunate, but four speaks to negligence.

It will get worse. Tomorrow, it is widely expected, Labour will suffer its worst electoral defeat in municipal and European elections in over twenty five years. The public, tired of this government and its polemic, rhetoric and lack of substance, will show that it is in charge of the political future of those at Westminster and it is in a foul mood. As one veteran observer has indicated, the general public’s mood is that “crucifixion is too good for some people” – and it is Gordon Brown they have in their sights.

Worse, he faces a backbench revolt over a rumored cabinet appointment. Ed Balls, currently the Education Minister, is widely tipped to replace Alistair Darling as Chancellor. A tough enforcer and a close ally of Brown’s, his appointment is being resisted by many in Government and in the party. In part it is because he is too closely allied to Brown, is a bully and is not respected. More significantly, it is a test of the authority of the backbench. If they can stop Balls they can oust Brown. And oust they must do, since Brown, no matter how bad Bleak Thursday’s poll results are, he will not resign.

Plotting is rife at Westminster. Alan Johnson is widely regarded as the safe pair of hands who can steer Labour out of the crisis and into the general election, which must be held on or before June 3rd 2010. The Guardian and other newspapers have been pushing his name as Brown’s immediate successor and he had made no moves to indicate his disinterest. It will take a series of refusals to serve in a new Brown cabinet and significant letters of no confidence from the party over the week-end to force the issue, but egos being what they are, it is doubtful that key party members have the courage to do what is best for Britain and force Brown out. Instead, they will accept the grace and favours of a cabinet post, even if its only for twelve months.

A lame duck Prime Minister (more likely, a lame gannet – a protected Scottish bird) at a time when Britain is in deep economic trouble is not good for Britain. Nor is a government starved of imagination, fresh thinking and concrete proposals for action. Debt ridden, lurching from crisis to crisis with no over-arching strategic intent, the government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is in desperate need of an injection of fresh leadership. Only a new politics, a new language and a new commitment to smaller, less interventionist and less expensive government will satisfy the people. A reform of how parliament works and of Cabinet is essential.

A new path for the economy which relies less on Government bail-outs, hand-outs and dole and more on entrepreneurship and self-reliance is key. Cutting government programs and reducing the bloated public service and its various illegitimate cousins – non government agencies funded entirely by government – and capping public sector pay are all essential actions to reduce deficits and debt. While Labour chants that the Tories “will cut government programs”, the Conservative party needs to say that it will and will do so with gusto. Its what Britain is ready for. The fact that Brown and his remaining three or four friends want to expand Government shows just how far out if touch he and the party is.

When you wake up on Friday morning you will be witnessing the beginning of one of the most intriguing week-ends of British politics for a quarter century. Watch what happens carefully and witness the beginning of the end and the end of New Labour, for that is what we are witnessing right now.

All Fur Coat and No Knickers

Momentum is gathering amongst world leaders with respect to the agenda for Copenhagen in December – the world gathering to develop a post-Kyoto treaty on climate change. We can expect lots of lies, damn lies and statistics to appear between now and then, some from scientist seeking to sway the agenda and others from polemicists and activists seeking a new world order in a post-carbon economy. It will be messy and verbally violent.

Recently, there was a report that some 300,000 persons a year die and a further 30 million impacted as a result of climate change. Sponsored by an organization headed by the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, this disreputable report uses sleight of hand and deception to reach this conclusion. Treating all deaths from hurricanes, floods, tsunami, earthquakes and other naturally occurring events as “climate change impacts”, they arrive at this figure. It is surprising they did not include the 500,000 people a year who die from flu to boost this number. Despite the widespread condemnation of this piece of rhetoric by serious scientists, the media continue to report this as is if it were fact.

Then we have had the deniers. Those who deny the facts and prefer instead to rely on climate change models for their “evidence”. These models have singularly failed to predict the climate since they began to appear and be taken seriously some twenty five years ago. The fact is that the earth has not warmed since 1998 and has been in a cooling period since 2001, due in part to changes behaviour of the sun. Also a fact is that the polar bear population in most of the polar bear communities is either stable or increasing, not decreasing and that the Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker. These inconvenient truths are denied by climate change campaigners and their camp followers, since models show that these satellite based observations do not tally with the model predictions.

Prince Charles has suggested that we have just 100 months to save the planet, by which he means reforestation of the rainforest and a substantial reduction in the use of carbon based fuels and in CO2 emissions. Supported by twenty Nobel laureates, he suggests that action now can “change the climate” and save the planet. In this kind of rhetoric he is following a royal tradition, established by King Canute who thought he could command the tides to change and drowned as a result of how own stupidity. Man cannot change the climate and “stop” global warming unless man alone causes climate change, and there is little convincing evidence that man is responsible for the climate. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) makes clear in its extensive report that the evidence favoring health effects of climate change or the impact of climate change on ocean levels is not at all the story the IPCC would have us believe, and is not as fear-mongering as the press like to hear. The NIPCC study, supported by more scientists than have been involved in the IPCC work, is also clear that the impact of CO2 emissions from man-made systems on the climate are not as serious or threatening as many would like us to believe.

The story of the arctic is the story that seems to convince most people that climate change is real. The story is that the arctic is melting so fast that, within a very short time, the Northwest Passage will be open and the North Pole will be a grassland. As a result of the melt, the oceans will rise and a number of small islands will disappear in the flood of ocean water that will occur.

Now to some facts. The opening and closing of the Northwest Passage is not a new phenomenon – it has happened several times before, the last time being in 1906. The ice melt which has occurred is part of a cyclical pattern of ice melting and is connected to a variety of factors, not least of which is the pattern of ocean currents. Despite claims to the contrary systematic measurement of ocean levels on the coast of the vulnerable islands do not show any rise in ocean levels significant enough to threaten these islands. Once again, computer models are the basis of these claims, not observed data.

The scares will keep coming, getting more intense as it becomes clear that the compromises and fixes that the politicians will deal in over the next few months will not appease the most ardent of the climate change deniers – those who claim that man made climate change will destroy the planet, in denial of the facts. Greenpeace and others will be shrill and their scientific allies, fearful of the loss of their grant farming and rent seeking resources, will come to their aid with more scare stories.

If Kyoto is anything to go by, there will be a lot of talk and very little actual achievement. Bu then, I guess this is the nature of the climate change business – “all fur coat and no knickers”, as my grandmother used to say when warning me to be careful around certain kinds of people. She may well have been right.

Academic Dishonesty?

In a gesture of public spiritedness, seven academics who include three lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a former director of the World Climate Research Program wrote to Australian power generating companies on April 29 instructing them to cease and desist creating electricity from coal....

“The warming of the atmosphere, driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, is already causing unacceptable damage and suffering around the world.”

No evidence is provided for this statement and no signatory to this letter has published anything to support this claim. These university staff are unctuously understanding about the plight of those who face employment extinction in the smokestack towns of Australia. Worse, they are using their positions to assert a moral authority and a right to command which they do not appear to posess.

They write: “We understand that this will require significant social and economic transition that will need to be managed carefully to care for coal sector workers and coal-dependent communities.”. This love for fellow workers brings tears to the eyes.

The electricity generating companies should reply by cutting off the power to academics’ homes and host institutions, forcing our ideologues to lead by example.

We're All Going to Die ! (Well, Maybe Not...)

The media widely reported a study issued by the Global Humanitarian Forum which suggested that some 315,000 or more would die each year as a result of global warming.

It is nonsense and an example of bad science being used to set the stage for the global climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. We can expect more of this shoddy work by scientists concerned about polemics rather than science in the next few months.

Here’s why it is bad. First, natural disasters such as hurricanes, flu, tsunami’s, earthquakes have been occurring since the beginning of time – plagues and pestilence, floods and swarms of locusts appear in the Bible. There is no established link between human induced climate change and such naturally occurring disasters. In particular, hurricanes and extreme weather events occur as a result of a range of phenomena, of which climate change is one, but have occurred with greater frequency (especially hurricanes) than currently experienced before human induced climate change was an issue.

Second, many of the assumptions in the report are based on some very odd claims. For example, the report looks at earthquakes in 1980 and compares them with those in 2005 (no explanation of why these two dates are chosen) and then suggests that all weather patterns connected to disasters follow the same trajectory as the difference in number of earthquakes between these two years. This is irrational. It is like looking at baseball scores in 1980 and 2005 and suggesting that all events in cricket can be explained by the differences observed in baseball scores between these two years.

Third, even though their premise is absurb, it gets worse. All deaths and unfortunate outcomes over and above those which occurred at the 1980 level in each subsequent year are attributed to a single cause – man made global warming. No evidence, no partitioning of the data into different categories of cause, just the assumption that it “must be global warming” and man made warming at that.

Fourth, the increase in disasters observed worldwide can be entirely attributed to socio-economic changes. This is what has been extensively documented in the peer reviewed literature, and yet — none of this literature is cited in this report. Not one serious review of this literature is included. Instead the report authors rely on this cooked up comparison between earthquakes and weather related disasters. To be fair, the paper does cite the Stern review of the impact of climate change, but several subsequent reviews of the Stern data and analysis show clearly that these estimates were off by an order of magnitude and relied on a similar sort of statistical gamesmanship to develop its results (which is why serious researchers dismiss Stern’s analysis).

These kind of reports – scaremongering fiction masquerading as “science” – will begin to appear more strongly in September and October as the pre-Copenhagen meetings start in earnest. They will reveal that science, rather than being a disciplined and systematic approach to the study of a given phenomena, is becoming more like a branch of politics with edited and made up data and poor methods being excused because the conclusions and claims “fit” the political rhetoric needed to steer world political leaders in the “right” direction in December. As a scientist concerned about methodological integrity, such polemical nonsense is offensive. As a journalist, I am concerned that my colleagues treat such reports as factual when in fact they are fiction.

Rethinking Schools

Schools shape our future as a society. They are the bedrock of a community – a place in which all of our futures are nourished and developed. A place where skills are taught, enabled and encouraged. We should all care about what happens in schools, even if we do not have children attending them. One of those kids stood at the bus stop with baggy jeans and a funny hat may well become your pension fund manager just a few years from now. Others will run businesses that will hire your granddaughter or work to ensure our planet survives the onslaught of climate change.

But there is something wrong with our schools. They are burdened with too much direction about what they should teach – too many curriculum objectives, too many politically correct imperatives and too many instructions for our instructors. They are held accountable but are not given the tools for the responsible tasks they are given. They are subject to high stakes testing where students, on a single day, determine the fate of the school and its teachers. They are vulnerable and stressful. They are permanently failing to deliver to all of our expectations.

We also do not treat our teachers as true professionals. They are given limited scope for independent action – as if we do not trust them, despite their years of training, to do the job entrusted to them. We disdain their professional development activities and scoff at their summer vacations. We do not show them respect when, as they must do, they tell us that our son or daughter is not the paragon of excellence we thought them to be and that they are struggling.

We also see schools as a preparation for something else – for work, College or University – rather than places of learning in their own right. In fact, as one keen observer has noted, much of schooling is seen as a preparation for the work of a few – those who go to University - and is not, therefore, a great place for those for whom the trades, or creative arts or community service or retail is their chosen destination. We therefore teach, through our structures, large numbers of students to live with failure.

It is time for a radical change. Our schools need to do more to help our students be part of the solution to the problems our communities face – homelessness, poverty, isolation of the elderly, climate change, driver irresponsibility, the growing challenges of obesity and early onset diabetes, to name just some. Our schools also need to become less focused on being the pathway to post-secondary education and more focused on developing the skills which would enable all students to be life-long learners at any level and at anytime.

We need to counter the view that schools should narrow their focus to the basic science, mathematics, literacy and technology subjects and instead encourage a richness of personal learning which involves creativity, emotional intelligence, physical education, wellness and social skills as well as the more usual subjects. Creative diversity is a better bet for our future that a focused insistence on just a core. All need literacy and numeracy, but the development of these skills needs to be based on authentic and engaging learning activities.

We should reduce our division of knowledge into subjects and focus more on real world problem solving for authentic audiences where students are asked to contribute directly and in a meaningful way to the solution of problems facing their community. By focusing on project based work, the need to learn and develop skills normally associated with our “traditional” subject areas will arise naturally and be driven by student engagement rather than Provincial requirements.

We should empower and enable teachers to determine large “chunks” of the work their students do, rather than directing them with curriculum requirements – one Grade 9 science Provincial curriculum has over 260 objectives which teachers “must” complete during the year, 60% of which are likely to appear on a Provincial Achievement Test. This is pure nonsense, driven by the demands of post-secondary institutions rather than the learning needs of students. If we give schools back to the teachers, we should indicate the competencies at a broad level which students need on leaving school and let them, as professionals, determine the best route to these outcomes.

Finally, we should accept that teachers are best place to assess their students and reduce the focus on standardized, annualized, aggregated, average test results and focus instead on frequent, systematic and focused teacher assessments as the basis for pupil evaluation.

Our schools and the curriculum which informs their work were designed for nineteenth century education for an industrial world. It is the twenty first century and an age in which knowledge rather than industrial systems drive our economy. Our schools need a transformation – they need to be part of the twenty first century, not stand apart from our time.

Goodbye Gordon and Hello Opposition

Gordon Brown has been seen on television hugging babies. Accompanied by his wife, he was visiting day care facilities, possibly to get some idea on how to deal with recalcitrant and misbehaving children, some of whom grow up to be expense guzzling Members if Parliament. Later in the same day, his parliamentary colleagues began their Star Chamber examination of those who have committed the most heinous offences in the “expensegate” scandal that has gripped British politics and crippled parliament.

Earlier this month he had dinner with David Blunket, disgraced former Home Secretary, and his predecessor, Tony Blair, stimulating speculation about a cabinet shuffle and an October election. Indeed, several former cabinet colleagues appear to have been consulted on a repositioning of New Labour shortly after the expected debacle of the municipal and European elections due on June 4th.

It doesn’t matter. Shuffling the deck chairs as a ship is sinking and changing its final destination will not lead to a turnaround in Labour’s fortunes. The party is finished, at least for a while. There are three reasons.

The first is that it has become irrelevant to the future of Britain. It continues to use old Labour party tactics to deal with a post-modern, post-carbon set of economic and social challenges. The party has no vision, no strategy and, most important of all, no new language to talk in direct and clear terms about what it stands for and what it is seeking to achieve. Worse, it seeks to use deception and obfuscation as its primary method of sounding authoritative when all know that it is bankrupt of ideas and desperate to cling to power. The April budget showed this deception, obfuscation and bankruptcy in crystal clear terms.

Second, as the expense scandal demonstrates, all political parties have taken the British people for granted and for a ride - New Labour, more than others. While the conservative party are not immune to the fallout from the scandal, it is the governing party that will take the blame. And so it should. The party’s history is “of the people, for the people” – not mention of “for myself, ripping off the people” you will notice. There is a sense in which a scandal for a conservative is expected and one for a Labour party representative is reprehensible – they are more likely to be on “our” side, it used to be thought, than the Tories, who have always been in it for themselves.

Finally, there is the Gordon problem. Anointed as leader – no one stood against him – and deteriorating in leadership, Gordon Brown is an all round dithering disappointment. He started badly, suggesting a quick snap election and then backing away once polling numbers suggested he may not win. He progressed haltingly and then he had a few successes. Just a few weeks ago he seemed to do well at the G20 summit, but its all gone now. And gone is what most of his colleagues wish of the Prime Minister. Alan Johnson, an amiable and affable foil, is touted by several as an interim replacement tiding the party through its inevitable defeat and managing the aftermath. But Gordon won’t go. He is too stubborn, too deluded and too myopic to think that his departure might actually do some good.

So now the question within the Party becomes one of solace. How can the party be relieved of its agony and politics in Britain move beyond its current preoccupations with scandal and back to the real business of British politics - reinventing Britain?

There are four things that need to happen for Labour. First, it needs a strategy for the New Britain. Forget New Labour, think about the country. Focus on what it will take to restore social and economic well being and the pride of the British people.
Second, it needs new leadership. A new leader and new faces throughout the key portfolios of government. A new generation. These new leaders, who need to be of a different generation from Brown, Mandelson, Johnson, Blair and have a new rhetoric of change, have much to do to rebuild the self confidence of the party. David Milliband comes to mind as a possible leader of this generational coup. It needs a very British coup.

Third, there needs to be an election and quickly. October is the earliest which makes sense, but only if the first two actions outlined here are in place. While no one likes February elections – especially those of us who have managed them – this is the better date. It gives a chance for new thinking, new people and new policies to develop and effervesce with the people.

Finally, Labour needs to plan for defeat and to use the time in opposition wisely. If it does not, it could be in the wilderness for as long as the Liberal Party – close to a hundred years. Smart opposition, planned policy development and a systematic approach to rebuilding the party from the ground up will all be needed to restore Labour to power within ten years.

But it needs to start now. Each day that passes without action on this agenda is another year of opposition. Get used to it.

No Home, No Job and No Hope - Time to Act

We have a strange attitude towards homelessness. We are all clearly against it and think that something must be done, but rarely do anything ourselves.

Municipal governments are against it, have no authority or mandate or funds dedicated to it, but build affordable housing anyway with taxpayers money, then ask regional and national governments to support them. Regional and national governments provide funds for affordable housing, both to municipalities and to charitable organizations, and some affordable housing gets built, but homelessness persists.

A true example of a vicious circle.

One cause of homelessness is our complete inability as a society to know what to do with those who are mentally ill. We used to have hospitals and centres where those troubled within themselves were kept and occasionally cared for. While sometimes the treatments provided were more experiments with drugs, power cords and music, sometimes they also made a difference. They were not pretty places – I used to work in one and, believe me, they were not arts centres or blissful heavens of tranquility – but at least they gave those not able to care for themselves shelter, warmth and food. When these places were deemed cruel and inhospitable and “care in the community” became the mantra of the do-gooders, the patients were turned loose onto communities without the “care” provision. They are one source of homeless people.

A second are those who, for whatever reason, have turned to drink and drugs as a way to cope with the travails of their lives. At some point, the drink or the drugs have taken over their lives and it has led to them not being able to afford or sustain shelter. The street becomes their home.

A third, smaller but nonetheless disconcerting group, is the runaway. Teenagers who can no longer tolerate the impertinence of their parents or the rivalry with siblings or the abuse from peers run away to find a new space in which they can find out who they are and secure solace in the anonymity of a new start. Rarely does this lead to the solution they sought; often it leads to abuse, prostitution, degradation and poverty. The street is both their prison and their lost hope.

A final group, now fast growing, is those who are victims of the recession. The disposed, the desperate, in indebted. Some seek shelter with family and friends, but eventually their network is exhausted and they sleep in their car or van, in parks or on the street. Some are working poor – holding down a part-time job, but unable to afford a home or have to trade food and clothes for shelter.

Some of the homeless try to get out of the cycle of poverty – but the number of working poor and homeless is growing. Some find homes, but cannot keep them and find themselves back on the streets weeks or months later, even more desperate than they were before – they tasted what the future could be like, but the taste soured and became an acid despair, sometimes in more ways than one. Others do make it out of street-sleeping and start to pull themselves together, but they need support and constant reinforcement to sustain their new life. It is not easy, however it turns out.

In any major city in North America, homelessness is a challenge in search of a solution. Each day, good people with strong commitments work to ease the pain of homelessness, to provide temporary shelter and solace and do what they can. But still they come. Each month, politicians at all levels renew their commitments and speak eloquently about solutions and support, provide some funds and make a difference to a few people. But still they come.

It is time we tackled this problem. A stimulus package aimed at solving homelessness in Canada – rebuilding and restoring our mental health system with sensible medium term care and treatment to tackle those on the street because the care in the community is not there; new counselling services and support centres for teenagers who cannot cope with their lives, their parents and their crumbling social world; new approaches to drink and drugs; new work opportunities in social programs and public services to provide some work opportunities; a concerted effort to make Canada a home-full country.

Now that would be something.

.

Economic Impact of Cap and Trade on US Economy

The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis used an econometric model of the U.S. economy to measure the projected impact of the cap and trade bill now before Congress and found that by 2035 it would:

• Reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion;
• Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by more than 1,900,000;
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
• Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;
• Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
• Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500;
• And increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 more per person — again after adjusting for inflation.

Just imagine this analysis being half right - its very serious. Gains in emissions ? Almost none. As one Democrat has said the bill is "environmental socialism" - all pain for almost no environmental gain.

Mr Speaker

In 1695 Sir John Trevor, Speaker of the House of Commons in the English parliament, was forced to resign due to corruption. He had accepted a bribe. He did however retain his role as a senior judge – Master of the Rolls.

This will not be the fate of Michael Martin, current speaker of House, who has just announced his resignation. He is embroiled in a scandal in which the political parties have colluded to create an expense and favour regime which can only be described as imbued with largess. The scheme, overseen by a committee of the House Chaired by the Speaker and managed day to day by servants of the House, permits such things as: payments for mortgages in second homes for MP’s even though the mortgage no longer exists; payments for furniture, refurbishment; payments for some staff, including spouses and offspring; payments for decoration and repairs. So far, some seventy MP’s have been “outed” for what the public see as outrageous payments and for “fiddling” while the country burns its way through debt and recession.

Michael Martin’s offenses are threefold. The first is that he is the public face of the House of Commons. As Speaker his primary role is to protect the integrity and honour of the House. Both are in tatters. The second offense is that he sought, though legal means and others, to keep the expenses of MP’s from ever being made public. He used his authority to steer a legal challenge to the Freedom of Information Act aimed at exempting MP’s expenses from disclosure. His final offence is that he failed to read the mood of the country and of the Commons. Over twenty MP’s had signed a no confidence motion against him and there was a minor, if typically polite and very British, rebellion against him in the House yesterday when he read a statement which ignored the issue of his own culpability in these matters.

He will go before the summer recess in a few weeks and a new Speaker will be chosen, The odds are heavily in favour of a very different voice – that of Frank Field. A former Cabinet Minister who has made a career of being a Labour Party MP critical of his own party and whose standing has risen so that he is now thought more highly of than when he was in Cabinet. More significantly, through journalism, he has developed a firm commitment to the underdog and has integrity – something desperately needed in the House.

Changing the Speaker will not change the mood of the country – which is palpably viscous. The normally sedate BBC program Question Time was amongst the most raucous shows in BBC news history, rivaling Jerry Springer. The public are in the mood for a hanging.

Changing the Speaker will also make little difference to the underlying issue, which is now the complete loss of confidence in the House and the honesty of MP’s. Only an election will affect this and Gordon Brown, the beleaguered Prime Minister, knows that calling an election now would seal the fate of his Government and his party for at least a generation. While David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, will win, he will do so with a smaller majority than would have been the case before the scandal broke – some of his own colleagues are amongst the worst offenders in the expense scandal.

These are momentous days in British political history, but they are unpleasant. We can expect more turbulence and an emergency landing before the House can take flight again.

Politics, Compromise and the Cap and Trade Scheme in the US

When laws are passed in the United States they are usually subject to so many compromises that it is not uncommon for the original intention of the legislation to be lost.

This appears to be the case with the new version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, issued on 15th May 2009. This bill sets emissions reduction targets for 2020 at 4-7% below 1990 levels by 2020 – considerably less than the 15-20% targets set by other jurisdictions, including the EU. While the 2050 target is substantial – an 83% reduction on 1990 levels – setting long-term targets which are demanding is easier than setting short term targets that will require immediate sacrifice and significant change.

The Bill also creates a cap and trade regime in which some 85% of the emissions permits are given away and only 15% of these permits are auctioned. Companies that secure permits through either allocation or purchase may then trade them for profit. Obama had seen 100% of these permits being auctioned and had planned to use the resultant $650 billion over ten years to pay for a tax credit aimed to offset the higher energy costs that will result from cap and trade and reduce the number of people moving into energy poverty. These tax credits – an essential part of the low carbon economy – will have to be funded by other means, probably through deficit funding.

The problem with giving away so many permits, as has been found in the European Trading Scheme, is that the price for carbon traded in the market is set unrealistically low. By auctioning the permits, the scheme begins with a realistic market value for a tonne of Carbon – thought to be $50 or more. By giving so many permits away, the price fluctuates in a price range below that which requires firm to change their carbon emitting behaviour.

Also included in the Bill is permission for firms to buy offsets - project based reductions – but these are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent per year or 30% per cent of U.S emission reduction, split evenly between domestic and international offsets. Domestic offsets do not include Green Buildings offsets. There are provisions for emissions reductions from reduced deforestation through what are known as “allowance set-asides”.

The Bill will likely achieve several things. Congress could finally pass a bill focused on climate change and head into the December world summit on climate change in Copenhagen with something to work from. Second, it will significantly increase energy and supply chain costs, only partly offset by tax credits and other social security payments. Third, it will create a new bureaucracy – regulating carbon emissions – and a new financial services business – carbon credit trading. Finally, it will do little to cut emissions.

Europe has had a cap and trade system for sometime – since 2006 in fact. Despite this, emissions from industries required to cap and trade have continued to rise. They rose 0.4 percent in 2006 over the previous year, and 0.7 percent in 2007. A major reason for this, the analysts suggests, was governments alloating too many trading permits to polluters when the market was created – a mistake that the Obama administration is about to repeat. In Europe, over allocation of “free” permits led to a near-market failure after the value of the permits fell by half. This also called into question the validity of the cap and trade system.

Offsets were also allowed by the European system, as will be permitted under the Bill now before the US congress. Many were attracted by the UN sanctioned offsets, but serious doubts have been cast on their effectiveness. Most of the funds are allocated to third world countries for forestry and other projects intended to capture carbon, but some of the funds have been siphoned off into other activities and the impact of the projects in terms of carbon storage is minimal. The chief concern is that this “buying of carbon penances” does nothing to change emissions behaviour in the company buying these offsets.

Cap and trade is a way of avoiding the real issue: the need to tax carbon if the intention is to change human and organizational behaviour. This is why many “green” organizations and researchers oppose cap and trade – they don’t see it as leading to the substantial emissions reductions they see as needed to “save the planet”. A flat tax on carbon - $50 a tonne or more - would force industries to change their behaviour and spur the development of new technologies for transport, buildings and energy production. If each individual person, as well as the companies or organizations they worked for, had to pay for the carbon they emitted, then a low carbon economy would emerge, these campaigners suggest. What is more, emissions would go down quickly as the costs of emitting would be quickly obvious to all.

Take an example. A business executive living with a husband and two children in California who has to travel as part of their employment is likely to account for at least 7 – 9 tones of carbon each year. At $50/tonne they would pay a tax of $350 to $450 year plus additional costs for heating, natural gas, gasoline and other energy sources. They would also pay more for all goods, since transportation costs for goods would also increase. We can estimate the impact at around $1,500 a year on an individual. On a small transport company with twenty trucks, they may also have to pass on to consumers around $35,000 a year in carbon taxes. Such sums would get people’s attention. Cap and trade, however, is like derivatives, I doubt whether anyone can really explain what these are as they walk around Safeway or Next – its hidden and away from view.

As the US sees no short term emissions reductions from its cap and trade, it will start to want to sell more permits and create a real market. It will face fierce opposition from industry, especially the transportation and energy sectors. It will also face a backlash from tax payers who will have seen higher costs without any social or environmental benefit. What the American Clean Energy and Security Act will do is delay the real debate about emissions and the environment until the next Obama administration, when the environment will likely be a more urgent issue for some.

The Decline and Fall of Politics in Britain

The three major political parties in Britain are reeling from a public backlash against them. The symptom is a scandal over expense claims by elected members of parliament. These include claims for digging out a moat, refurbishing chandeliers and reimbursing mortgage payments that had never been made. It’s a mess, and will likely lead to a major upset in the June 4th local and European elections. It has already led to a cabinet resignation and its increasingly likely that the Speaker of the House will suffer a no confidence vote this coming week in Westminster. He will then have to resign. There will also be more cabinet resignations and a cabinet shuffle.

All of this is a symptom of a deeper issue – the growing inability of politicians to show leadership through integrity and their own ethical behaviour. All expenses claimed were “within the rules”. The problem is, the over generous rules were not the basis to guide behaviour. The disease here is the absence of integrity and ethical behaviour, whatever the rules, amongst politicians.

The people are angry. They have a chance to show this in just a few weeks when Britain elects its local councilors and members of the European Parliament. It is very likely that the beneficiaries of this anger will be three non mainstream parties - the British National Party (BNP), the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Green Party.

The BNP is a right wing organization. They dislike Jews. They dislike of international capitalism, the USA, gender equality, homosexuals and liberal democracy. They are in favour of massive reduction in immigration into the UK and of returning many who have settled in Britain back to their “own” countries. The leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, has been very cunning in repositioning his party as a all-purpose anti-Establishment national front, rather than as a slightly less intellectual version of the Sturmabteilung. But don’t mistake the reality: this is the Oswald Mosley fascist party in a twenty first century guise. Griffin recently suggested that British born citizens with Asian parentage were not really British. Despite its racialist and protectionists views, the party has a core support amongst white working class voters and may benefit significantly from the backlash against the mainstream parties.

The UKIP, in contrast, has won political favour with some and has nine elected members in the European parliament, one elected members of the House of Commons and has secured, through defection, two members of the House of Lords. They are focused on getting Britain out of the EU – believing that the growing amount of regulation and law that emanates from Brussels which Britain has to follow is an affront to democracy. They experienced some problems in their troubled history. Their leader, Robert Kilroy-Silk, defected to form his own party - “ego the size of a planet”, as one observer said of Kilroy-Silk at the time. Some initial members were seen to have ties to former right wing organizations – they were removed. They will likely secure a significant number of new votes – enough to secure additional seats in the European parliament.

The Green Party stands for the things you would expect it to stand for – emissions reductions, no nuclear power, no new runways at Heathrow and so on. It is growing in popularity – it has 116 local councilors and two members of the European parliament. It has been gradually growing its vote and gives the impression of being ethical, imbued with integrity and focused on doing the “correct” thing. In the current climate, it should do very well in the coming election.

But none of these parties are significant enough to challenge the stranglehold on power of the Labour Party and Conservatives. The Labour Party have that look right now of a rabbit caught in the headlights of a truck, driven by a man with a long rifle. The Conservatives have dealt with the current politicel mess with more decisiveness and clarity, though it is conservative politicians who can claim the record for stupidity. We are witnessing a spectacle of politics – the final demise of Labour but not with a sense of victory for the Conservatives. The electors will, reluctantly, favour the Conservatives but send strong messages by voting for these three other parties.

It is sad spectacle to watch. Someone should advise the Queen to dissolve parliament and require her Prime Minister to go to the people. It is the first step to cleaning up politics.

Glamour, Substance and Europe - What To Look For on June 8th

Between June 4^th and 7^th the whole of Europe will go to the polls. More accurately, around 40% will. Despite high unemployment, company closures and governments being very active socially, politically and economically, turnout in voting for the 736 members of the European Parliament will remain low. Proportional representation means that voting is for a slate of candidates, rather than a specific one and the parliaments work is largely mysterious to many voters, despite the fact that it can affect many aspects of daily life. Most “ordinary citizens” feel disconnected from the important work of the parliament.

There are several things to keep an eye on when the results begin to appear. The first will be how deep the defeat of the Labour Party in Britain is and what this signals for the future of Gordon Brown, Britain’s embattled Prime Minister. Most of the chattering classes in London see the European election and the local elections in Britain taking place on the same day as marking a turning point in the politics of replacing a Prime Minister. If the defeat is devastating, especially in the local elections and Labour losses are high, key party figures begin to see their own political future on the faces of their fallen European parliamentary colleagues and local councilors. The knives will be out for Gordon. His response will be a reshuffle of his cabinet and a focused attempt to reassert his authority – the scale of the cabinet shuffle being in proportion to the scale of defeat in the local and EU elections. Gordon Brown will survive, but the party will have a full dress rehearsal for its expected defeat in May or June of 2010 when there must be a general election in Britain. Gordon Brown will be “damaged goods” and the internal strife within the Labour Party – something which it excels at – will help secure a victory for the Conservative Party in the 2010 elections.

A second development could be the winning of seats by the British National Party (BNP) and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). The UKIP, which won twelve seats at the last European election, wants Britain out of the EU. The BNP is the new incarnation of Oswald Moseley’s version of the British fascist movement – opposing immigration, EU membership and minority rights and favouring what we may see as a white supremacist position. At the last election the BNP secured just 6.4% of the vote – just 2% short of the votes requires to secure the allocation of a seat.

The third thing to watch is the pattern of voting in Ireland. The Lisbon Treaty, which gives a new constitution to Europe and, amongst other things, significantly strengthens the role of the EU Parliament, was rejected by the Irish voters in a plebiscite. When the votes are counted in June, it may signal a change of heart by the Irish or, more likely, a hardening of their opposition to the new constitution. Some of the parties standing favour Lisbon and some are opposed.

Finally, there is the pattern of voting in Germany. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, faces a Federal election in September of this year. No one party will emerge as an overall winner in these elections and some are suggesting that traditional coalitions may also not be easy to form, given the challenges that Germany faces. Merkel has committed to win a majority for CDU/CSU and FDP (the CDU/CSU's traditional coalition partner) in 2009 – the EU elections will tell whether she is on track to do so. At the last European election, the CDU/CSU won 44.5% of the vote and he FDP 6% - they need to do at least this well to signal an easy victory in September.

For pure entertainment, keep an eye on Italy. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, facing divorce from his wife, originally selected several glamorous women with no substantive political background to run for office. It will be interesting to see whether Italians support glamour or substance.

Cap and Trade Dead in the Water?

Democrats in the Congress are deserting Obama’s climate change key legislative agenda – the cap and trade proposal. The most recent deserter is the Chairman of the powerful Agriculture Committee, Colin Peterson (D: Minn). Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) called cap-and-trade "the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time." Even scientists, like James Hansen and John Lovelock – the leading climate alarmists in the world – oppose the cap and trade legislation. In their view, the cap-and-trade approach is both “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.”

There have been several technical analysis of the potential impact of the cap and trade legislation in the US. Most suggest that a full implementation and adherence to the emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect. This assumes a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of greater than 80%, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey climate bill. It would produce a global temperature “savings” during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC, assuming India and China also started to cut emissions.

The bill envisions a cap and trade revenue to the US treasury of $400 billion, increase energy costs to a level of app. $3,000 a year more per family and lead to some 800,000 job losses. At least, this is the view of Senator Jim Inhofe – the Senate’s resident climate change skeptic. Pointing out that the vote on this aspect of the budget secured just 39 votes in the Senate – Obama needs 60 for the legislation to become law – Inhofe makes clear that he thinks that the cap and trade scheme is “dead in the water”.

Experience elsewhere – especially the EU – suggests that cap and trade, unless really carefully enacted and enforced, will lead to some people becoming quite wealthy, most people becoming poorer with almost no impact of CO2 emissions. A pharmaceutical company in France, for example, has switched its core business from producing health products to selling carbon credits – its more profitable. They continue to emit exactly what they emitted before the scheme began.

Some law makers in the US are beginning to tout the idea of a carbon tax – along the lines of that implemented in British Columbia. This too is dead in the water. Almost all law makers are opposed to a carbon tax, arguing that it would have substantial negative impacts on the economy in general and “ordinary” families in particular. While the promise is that other taxes would be reduced, the reality of the US debt-ridden economy is that the government needs all of the tax revenue it can get. The suggestion is that a carbon tax would be simpler to administer than a cap and trade scheme. In the history of US tax law, no “simple” tax has remained simple for long – it would get very complex very quickly, with exemptions, different rates for different industries and special cases. It is not going to happen.

Obama has committed to reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 – a cut of 14% on current levels – and then a cut of 80% of the 1990 C02 emissions by 2050. The IPCC has already said that the 2020 target is far too low and should be nearer 25%. The target is important – it reflects the extent of Obama’s commitment and is the lowest target set by any G7 nation. It also represents what Obama thinks is realistic – something other countries do not seem to take into account when setting targets (almost none of which are ever met).

If the cap and trade legislation fails, as looks likely, Obama has released his secret weapon: the Environment Protection Agency. They have ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and falls within their remit to regulate. They will begin to develop regulations, focusing on major polluters first – watch for the coal industry and coal fired energy plants to be targeted – they have already placed a hold on several coal fired powered plants which were about to be approved. Also targeted will be buildings and emissions from transportation. The EPA is a blunt instrument which will enact regulations within existing legislative frameworks, not requiring permission from Congress.

As the US develops its opening position for the Copenhagen Climate Change global summit in December, a failure to pass cap and trade and the setting of very modest targets would signal that the US will not lead the Copenhagen negotiations. Instead, the EU will be the lead organization. According to several diplomatic sources, preliminary work on the summit is not going well. The faltering US legislation and low targets, coupled with the continued challenge by China and India over their role in climate change and the implications of establishing global targets are challenging the diplomats to find a meaningful compromise. Also challenging is the demands of developing nations for an annual payment of $600 billion to compensate them for the impacts of climate change, largely driven by the developed economies. Copenhagen will be a battle, and largely symbolic.

The good news is that it is getting cooler, the global climate is well within its normal range, the arctic ice is getting thicker and there is growing recognition that climate alarmists, who base most of their arguments on climate change models rather than actual observations, are being revealed as exaggerators and polemicists. It will be an interesting period between now and the end of the year.

Gordon Brown is a Dead Parrot

Gordon Brown is, as Monty Python might say, “a dead parrot” as a Prime Minister. He is amongst the walking dead of British politics. Following his half hour of sunshine in the immediacy of the G20 summit in the first week of April, his decline has been rapid and remarkable.

The fall begin within hours of the summit’s ending. It became clear that the numbers he gave for “new” stimulus activity were a fiction – no new money of any kind for the British economy. Then we moved into full sleaze mode. The British Home Secretary, responsible for all aspects of British law, submitted a claim for expenses which included porn films watched by her husband. As all MP’s expense claims are about to published, but much sleaze is leaking out. Brown then appeared in a bizarre video on You Tube looking like a cross between Simon Cowell and Rasputin, with a bizarre smile. He proposed a cleanup plan for MP’s expenses, which was quickly rejected by all concerned. Worse, it angered his own party.

As if this wasn’t enough for him to appear a plonker, he then proceeded to get confused in the House – leaving and then returning on a run when he remembered he was to make a parliamentary statement –much laughter on the Tory side and shaking of the head on the Labour benches. Several cabinet members began to suggest, off the record, that Brown had lost the plot and it was time for him to go. The Deputy Leader of the party, Harriet Harman, suggested that Labour’s mistakes needed to be atoned for. Former cabinet members also started to suggest that Brown was a dead duck.

Latest polling figures put the Conservative Party, with David Cameron at the head, some 19 points ahead of Labour, fueled by the realization that the April budget figures will lead to a prolonged period of real austerity – cuts in government services, increased taxes and more challenges for health care. If the situation remains the same at the election, which is due before June 2010, Labour would be severely thrashed – the conservatives would have a majority of 170 seats.
The big test will come in June when the Brits goes to the polls for the elections to the European parliament. Normally this is a big yawn, but David Cameron has asked the people of Britain to use this election to show their disgust with Brown – vote to show that you want change. While the total voting will be small, Labour will do badly. It will be a symbolic defeat.

What is important is that Labour MP are now seriously worried about retaining their seats in the coming election – its clear that many will not. Some are already moving to suggest that the party replace Brown before the election – which means he would have to go between now and the middle of July. Brown will not go, so we have trench warfare within the party = more seats will be lost. Brown will shuffle his cabinet in the summer, leading to more disgruntlement – more warfare. More seats lost.
So it doesn’t look at all good for young Gordon. Even Tony Blair is letting it be known that he is not at all happy at how things are going. Its fascinating to watch the decline and fall of someone who should never have been Prime Minister.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

Al Gore: “…unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

Lord Monckton observes:

My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report’s first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10. The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC’s published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize. The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for their homes. The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.

Lord Monckton also notes:

“At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physical the Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC’s 2007 report do not mention it once. The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth’s surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the “surface forcing”), and the temperature will scarcely respond. That is why all of the IPCC’s computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot”, the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.

For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, “The science is settled”, remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC’s computer predictions. The IPCC’s entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist”.

John Houghton, second Chairman of the IPCC, wrote in 1994 that ‘unless we announce disasters, no one will listen, setting the tone and focus for the narratives which have followed climate change science and the IPCC since.

Canada and the EU NAFTA Like Deal in the Making

Canadian government officials are in Prague seeking to open talks on a wide-ranging agreement with the EU. While labeled a trade agreement by many, it is in fact much broader. We will wait to see just what the EU will agree to, but make no mistake: it is a significant agreement.

What it will seek to do is more closely align Canada with some of the work of the EU, especially as it relates to sustainable development, the movement of people and intellectual property. Though trade is a strong focus – the EU is Canada’s second largest trading partner after the US, with a total of $109.4 billion (€70.3 billion) in trade in 2007 making Canada the EU’s eleventh largest trading partner – the “soft” agreements on sustainability and labour mobility may be of most interest.

Changing trade arrangements to remove barriers, especially in services, could be mutually beneficial. A study commissioned by the Government of Canada suggests that changed rules could yield $18.26 billion (€11.6 billion) for the EU and $12.9 billion (€8.2 billion) for Canada in terms of additional GDP contributions, with services leading the way. This would require the elimination on tariffs on bilaterally traded goods, easing restrictions on services and opening up competitive bidding on government contracts to EU companies and giving equal access to such contracts for Canadian companies bidding in the twenty seven countries of the EU.

Behind this focus on trade is a desire to strengthen intellectual property protection, a more effective enforcement of labour laws and the focused enforcement of the environmental protection legislation and the freer movement of labour. In particular, there is a desire to make it easier for Canadians to serve as executives for European companies, for there to be much easier arrangements for credential recognition and more efficient tax arrangements for individuals moving between Europe and Canada.

Also on the table is opening up the possibility of increased foreign ownership in media and airlines, the regulation of financial services and the encouragement of foreign direct investment by EU in Canada and Canadian in the EU.

Canada already has several other agreements with the EU – on science and technology, on aviation and on cultural exchanges. This new agreement will be substantial and very comprehensive - all Provinces, except Newfoundland and Labrador, have signed up to the framework for the agreement and have participated in shaping the key agenda for this weeks talks. There are significant concerns, including the implications for Canada’s fisheries and fur trade and for environmental protection under the terms of the treaty. Newfoundland is concerned that EU fishing fleets may have too easy an access to an already stressed fishery while others are concerned that the EU will force Canada into a “green” strategy that is not in keeping with the economic interests of Canada. For many, including the Canada-EU Business Council, the agreement is more substantial than the NAFTA agreement, but is moving through a process of negotiation almost unseen by the public.

Climate Change Update

There have been several developments on the climate change front.

First, the Department of Climate Change and Energy in the UK has been named as having the worst CO2 emissions for a UK government building. As part of a general review, which observed that the government cannot even meet its own targets for buildings it controls, the Department responsible for moralizing and preaching cant even follow its own strictures. “Do as I say, not as I do” seems to be the government mantra.

Second, the good news. The Antarctic ice shelf is getting thicker. The sea ice around the continent is far above average. Also, note the colder than average sea surface temperatures around Antarctic (according to NOAA). If the media is going to discuss the Wilkens Ice Shelf, they should also discuss these other data. The expansion of the sea ice coverage implies a significant cooling.

Third, more good news. The Rector of the University dedicated to climatology in Russia (St. Petersburg Hydrometeorological University, a regional educational hub of the World Meteorological Organization / WMO) has concluded that the period of cooling we are now experiencing will return the pattern of climate change to its more normal seventy year cycle. He said that in "three or four years, all these factors have subsided after a few years the trend of global warming on its way to a gradual cooling. There is every reason to assume that the projections of future warming are not justified: in the next decade, we go to the climatic norm, which was 70-years", - assured Professor Lev Karlin , the Rector of the University of Hydrometeorology.

Fourth, the current global cooling is now in its 8th year. The declining ocean heat content is at least in its 5th year. Sea level rises have slowed or stopped. Record rising Antarctic ice extent and rapidly recovering arctic ice since the 2007 cycle minimum indicates that, while changes are taking place at the poles, both are cooling. The sun is in a deep slumber. All of this despite increases in CO2 emissions. You would think that the emperor has no clothes argument would started to be heard, but instead we have legislators and UN officials, spurred on by gallant and increasingly chthonic and vociferous NGO’s, hell bent on destructive legislation aimed at increasing energy poverty, disrupting industry and causing job loss. Go figure. Time for a really cool look (sorry for the pun) at actual data rather than models. Even James Lovelock is concerned about models shaping policy when there is evidence to be had.

The Age of Thrift is Upon Us

One of the ways we can look into the future is by understand the indebtedness of a country. It is simple really. If a country owes more than it generates in income from producing goods and services, then that country relies on lenders to support it and will have to reduce its government services while at the same time increasing taxation. At some point, cuts to services and tax rises become a condition of people continuing to lend them money – like the IMF or China buying US government bonds. On the other hand, a country that owes nothing but produces significant income from goods and services can expand government services without significantly raising taxes. The way in which we normally look at the future in this way is by looking at government debt as a percentage of GDP.

When we look at this number for 2008, we get some interesting idea of the state of things when the recession was just getting going. Remember: zero percent would be remarkable, but very good. The US had 75% debt to GDP, Canada at 63% and the UK at 47%. In fact, Government debt in the UK was at £697.5 billion ($1232 billion) as compared to just 30% of GDP in 2002 – a steep rise. The April 22nd budget forecast was for debt, by 2013, to reach 75% of GDP. Not at all good.

If this isn’t bad, it gets worse. Many analysts point out that the official government debt figures exclude certain liabilities – for example, the government’s pension commitment to its employees and to citizens, its bail out of the banks which, though may be paid back, may not, and so on. The Centre for Policy Studies argues that the real national debt is already £1,340 billion ($2,370) – worse than not at all good – it is 103.5 per cent of GDP.

But this pales into significance when we turn to the US. As of April 7, 2009, the total U.S. federal debt was $11 trillion ($13 trillion Canadian) - about $36,676 per capita. After Obama’s budget is passed, this will rise to $15 trillion – 75% of estimated GDP by 2013, assuming an economic recovery and significant growth from 2010. Like Britain, the US has unfunded liabilities for health care, pensions and bailouts. As of the beginning of April, when these are added to accepted national debt, the total indebtedness of the US is $53 trillion ($63 trillion Canadian) – very not good. Most of the official debt is held by China and Japan.

Canada has a national debt of app. $461 billion - $13,771 per capita – half the per capita debt burden of the US. Though this represents 53% of GDP, we have a long way to get to get to the major debt leagues. Even the worse case scenario forecasts for post 2009 budget debt, takes us to the top of the first division – well below other G7 members.

So we look in the mirror as Canadian’s and see generally strong position. But our British friends are nor braced for much higher taxes (especially if they earn £150,000 a year or more – the so called “rich”) and deep cuts in services. Our southern cousins are looking at the temporary expansion of government activity – car dealerships, intrusions into health, more spending on education – followed by tax hikes and budget cuts. Lenders will start to get particular about the extent and cost of state services – watch for the lending market getting tighter as more and more governments both print more money (called “quantitative easing” in Britain, isn’t that nice) and seek to borrow more at the same time. Someone is going to call “time” on this brand new government sponsored Ponzi scheme. Thirft will be the name of the next decade.

Don't Panic - People Were Dying from Flu Before Mexican Flu Broke Out!

There is nothing like a few cases of serious flu to stop the world in its tracks and get everyone showing just how foolish they can really be, given a chance.

The Mexican Flu (I call it this out of respect to my former employer. Art Price, who is also part of a major hog farming family) is a scare which is helping to sell newspapers, support ailing TV news and fills an obvious void in our need for a sense of crisis to spur us into action. A very small number of people are suffering flu symptoms and an even smaller number have died. In fact, there have been 93 confirmed cases in the US, 19 in Canada, 13 in New Zealand, five in Britain, four in Germany, 10 in Spain, two in Israel, and one in Austria. In Mexico, where the outbreak is serious, there are currently 2,500 cases of suspected Mexican Flu (only 36 are actually confirmed) and 199 deaths. Total deaths globally stands (according to The Guardian and the BBC) at 207.

In the 2008-9 flu season (which we are still in) there have been 25,952 reported cases of flu in the US. Of these 66.5% were Type A (which includes the H1 strain) and the balance were Type B. In the US so far this year, excluding Mexican Flu, fifty five children have died. In the UK in 2008-9 prior to the Mexican Flu scare, there have been 1,925 reported influenza cases (85% Type A) and some 1,266 deaths due to respiratory illness have occurred, some of which may be associated with flu. In Canada in the 2007-8 season, Canada had 12,256 cases of flu (57% Type A). In 2008-9 so far the number of cases appears similar to previous years - 5,283 Type A cases and 8,767 Type B cases for a total of 14,050 cases.

In 2007 the H5N1 bird flu killed 59 people worldwide, making it a small problem compared to other death causes. However, this was the flu that the WHO claimed was the sign of a coming pandemic that would kill up to 150 million people. A case of chicken little.

So should we be in pandemic mode. No. The situation, according to the UK Medical Officer of Health, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, is concerning but not yet alarming. He pointed out that death from flu is not usual, but not uncommon and that most people have dealt with flu and recovered, as have the first two Scottish cases – the honeymooners who went to Mexico to return to an isolation ward in a Scottish hospital are now home and well.

Cancelling vacations, ruining the carefully laid plans of school children, walking about Heathrow in face masks en route to Canada (which I saw on Tuesday) are all out of proportion. Even if the WHO moves to a full pandemic flu statement later today, it simply signifies the need they have for attention. The less we panic and the more we stay in good health, wash our hands and don’t sneeze all over people the better.

Top Ten Observations from a Trip To Europe

London - Edinburgh - Amsterdam - Utrecht - London - Filey - London and this is a collage of images:

1. Girls wearing very short skirts who constantly pulled at them to try make them longer - why not just buy a longer skirt?
2. Pink - and I mean very pink - hair.
3. Skirts on top of jeans on top of leggins..
4. Drinking in the street - London, Amsterdam and Edinburgh - wasn't that warm either.
5. A preoccupation with being seen to do the right thing - buying organic, buying fair trade, offsetting CO2, worrying about the carbon footprint - the media have done a good job selling righteousness.
6. Insightful newspapers - thank goodness for the Guardian and Telegraph. No idea what The Times is anymore.
7. Growing presence of the lisp.
8. Men with very very close cropped hair and a new celebration of baldness.
9. Sport. Everywhere. All the time. Sick.
10. Extremes.

Will be back in September, this time France and possibly Italy..

The End of New Labour

Several days after the budget of debt, as the UK’s 2009-10 budget statement is being characterized, the analysis is in and it is not good.

The budget made clear that by 2013, net government debt in Britain would be 75% of GDP – more would be spent on debt servicing than nursing. In the coming year alone, the UK Government will need to raise £175billion in loans from the market to fund commitments made to provide government services. However, the independent analysis of the budget suggests that even this is probably a low estimate – it is based on a model for recovery from recession which no one seriously believes. Should the growth forecast be wrong (1.5% in 2010 and 3.5% in 2011), then both taxes need to rise for all considerably and significant and substantive cuts will need to be made in public services. The budget itself sees £15billion in “efficiencies” in the pubkic services next year – coming mainly from health and education.

In its analysis, the left-leaning Guardian newspapers, sees the situation in stark terms – rolling back the state and ending state intrusion in many aspects of life. In 2010, government spending will be equivalent to 46% of GDP. By 2018, this will be reduced to 37.5% - lower than when “New Labour” first came to power in 1998. The Financial Times, who derides the economic growth model on which the budget is based, suggests that there will be a pre-election massaging of the situation with all of the “tough” work to be done after June 2010, probably by a Conservative government.

The cynical analysts suggests that the budget was a trap set to devastate an incoming Conservative government who will be faced by a fiscal crisis and the need to dramatically cut spending across the board, which will make them quickly unpopular – returning Labour to power after a short five year period of recuperation and rebuilding. Only by being honest, clear and very direct about what the problem is and how they will tackle it will the Conservatives win the support of the people for the challenging work ahead of remaking the State – the real challenge of the fiscal debacle.

All agree that Gordon Brown is finished. At the height of his international power at the end of the G20 summit at the beginning of April, he ends the month as a failing leader fiscally and the head of a party which is morally bankrupt - surrounded by sleaze and corruption. No one is openly jockeying for position within the Labour Party, but there are few voices loudly supporting either the party or its leader.

All eyes are on David Cameron and the front bench of the Conservative Party, who do not yet appear like a Government in waiting – not like Blair and Brown did a year before the election they won so convincingly in 1998. They have a lot to do – solidifying their approach to the fiscal maelstrom that awaits them, rethinking the role of the State in every aspect of daily life and considering the future of its relationship with Unions, lobby groups (especially the very powerful environmental lobby, which has convinced people that only governments can save them by stopping natural cycles) and the growing army of (rightly) concerned pensioners. There is a lot at stake. Cameron spoke yesterday of a new era of austerity in which every aspect of life which involves government would have to change so that Britain can again be proud, safe and secure – no specifics. He will need to get very explicit for people to trust him.

New Labour has always been about rhetoric – its name alone is an example. What is “new” about Labour is that it is not Labour as we knew it at all – rather than pale pink socialism, it is pragmatism, idolatry and deceit. Its time is at an end, and this budget was its death knell.

Last Roar of the Celtic Tiger ?

Two weeks ago the Government of Ireland increased income tax, cut spending, offered early retirement to public servants in key areas who were aged fifty or older, cut the expense allowances for MP’s by 10%, cut unemployment payments in half for some categories of recipients and cancelled the traditional Christmas bonus for seniors. Forecasting that debt serving will take close to 12% of tax revenues, the Government accepts that it is in trouble.

There are signs of trouble everywhere. Shops boarded up, “last chance” sales, tensions on pay day in pubs – the day pink slips are more common than pink gins. But the biggest sign is that Dell, once the major employer with its activities connected to one in six jobs in Ireland, is leaving to move to Poland to focus on Russia and emerging economies and spend more of its resources in Asia. The closure of its manufacture plant in Limmerick took 1,900 jobs. While it is leaving some activities in Limmerick, the work that supported the core economy of the region is gone.

Ireland is not the worst case in the Europe in terms of being challenged by the recession – that honour goes to the Ukraine, which is struggling to meet requirements for an IMF bailout, though a loan has now been agreed. Iceland, dramatically affected by the sub-prime collapse of credit, is a close second. But Ireland is the most symbolic. The Celtic Tiger, as it was known, had a reputation for outstanding economic performance. In 2005 it could boast being amongst the world's wealthiest countries since its economy grew nearly five-fold since 1973. It boasted one of the world's highest levels of GDP per capita, some 20 percent above the European average—while 30 years before it was 35 percent poorer than the average. It was a role model for focused innovation and structural supports for industry development – policy tourists loved going to Ireland and then using it as a case study of how to run an economy.

How the mighty fall. Some residents of Dublin think that this challenges now faced by this small country of just over two and a half million people is retribution for not supporting the EU constitution in a referendum in 2008. Others think that it is due to the caprices of corporations, like Dell, who will move an entire factory to save a few million here and there – this after eighteen years of claiming that Ireland was by far the best place it could be. Those who work at the forefront of economic policy and understand these dynamics claim that they are victims of the irresponsibility of US financial institutions.

But it doesn’t matter. People are hurting, families and struggling. Citizens are confused by how quickly a truly vibrant economy could go sour. The government is caught between a rock and a hard place – it has to be fiscally responsible, otherwise the economy is at risk, but it also has to help its people.

One serious concern is that many of the young unemployed will be lured to a life of crime, linked to the work of the “real IRA” – the body insistent on unification of Ireland, but who funds its activities through drugs and protection rackets. Recent shootings north of the border are seen by some as a resurrection of old struggles.

A tough budget, with strong signals of stringency and belt-tightening, coupled with a focused innovation strategy may be the way to proceed – it is certainly what is happening – but it will be a long haul. On the road to recovery, many will be injured and much will need to be repaired. It will be tough.

What is impressive is that the Irish politicians from the Prime Minister down are confronting the issues head on. Promoting austerity is seen as responsible economics. Downplaying rhetoric and not engaging in the blame game is creating a social context where there is a reluctant acceptance that what has to be done has to be done. There is anger – just discussing these issues near the Guinness brewery brought out passion and fear – but there is also understanding.

For now, the Celtic Tiger is not roaring and Ireland may no longer be “king of the jungle” of economic policy and innovation strategy. But it will be back. The Irish are very resilient and they know what it took to build one of Europe’s most vibrant economies. They will dust off their wounds and start again. The tiger may be quiet, but it is not dead.