Labor's Climate Policy? "It's Shit!"

The funniest part of the Chaser's election coverage, which kicked off last night, was surely the point at which the team formed an impromptu "Citizens' Assembly" from the Lateline studio audience. "What do you guys think of Labor's climate policy?" they asked "It's shit!" came the unified reply.

The gory details of Labor's policy started to emerge over the weekend, but the Herald Sun has just picked up a new hole in the plan: "Gillard defunds award wining solar science".

Here's a summary of why I think Labor's climate policy is a balls-up:

1. The US 'Cash for Clunkers' Scheme wasn't about the Environment

I haven't written here previously about why I think the "Building the Education Revolution" program is getting a very unfair wrap - but I've thought about it. Unfortunately, people look at BER and say "that's not the most efficient way to give schools new infrastructure". I agree - but BER's primary driver wasn't about giving schools new infrastructure.

The construction industry is big, cyclical and highly interconnected, meaning that an economy-wide downturn can hit the industry hard and the flow-on effects can be persistent. A sharp downturn means that firms have to lay off a large number of workers, many of whom are unskilled (or all have similar, specialist skills that aren't in demand) . This means there are few short-term re-employment prospects and a lot of panic. Consumer confidence takes a hit and it could well be the start of a downward spiral.

So how does this relate to Climate Change Policy?

Given Julia Gillard was the Minister responsible for BER, I can only assume that she would have a well-founded understanding of the distinction between the rationale of a a stimulus project and the key auxiliary benefit that justifies the expenditure (and helps sell the scheme to a populace with limited economic literacy). For BER, construction industry stimulus was the main game, school infrastructure was the auxiliary benefit.

A 'Cash for Clunkers' program involves trading in an old car for a cash payment to put towards buying a new car that is more efficient. The Obama administration implemented a similar system in 2009, called, the "Car Allowance Rebate System" (CARS). Unlike Australia, the US still has an auto-manufacturing industry. In the case of the US scheme the environmental benefits were auxiliary - the main game was supporting car manufacturers.

These days, Australia doesn't make a lot of cars. Not only are we no longer in need of urgent economic stimulus for this economy in general, this policy would suggest that we're trying to stimulate an industry that doesn't exist. The cost will be bourne by Australian taxpayers, but most of the benefits will flow to overseas manufacturers.

So how did the CARS program wash up? Well, lots of Americans got new cars - so many, in fact that the $3 billion US program had to be closed early. And the economic benefits? Even with a sugnificant auto-manufacturing industry in need of some support, some cost-benefit analysis research suggest the project had a net cost of US$1.4 billion.

2. Screwing the Good Guys

If you asked me a week ago for an opinion in the "bright spots" of the Australian solar power industry, here's what I would have been thinking:

First, the Solar Flagships program that the Government has committed to funding to the tune of $1.5 billion. I don't know whether large-scale solar generators will ever be cost competitive - even with a carbon price they're still a long way off. However, I think large scale systems have a better chance of being cost-competitive than small scale systems and if utility-scale solar is ever going to be competitive, there is a massive need to start addressing the technology risk (if no one has built one before, there are much greater risks things won't work - this pushes up the cost of funding to the point that the funding cost alone can make something uncompetitive). Solar Flagships is a good inroads to addressing this.

Second, I think there's potential for some Australian researchers to build some great capabilities in high-end solar technology. A few months ago while doing some research into solar panels i came across some interesting marketting references to Australian researchers. Solar panels generally fall into two camps; "branded expensive and reliable" or "so cheap you'll take the risk". The type that I was looking at was from a large manufacturer based in China that fell firmly into the latter camp.

Unsurprisingly, the solar manufacturer sought to provide some reassurances of the quality of the technology. In the marketing material where they did this, the key selling point was references to their use of technology and research collaboration with programs from the University of NSW. Developing this type of capability clearly made sense from an Australian industry perspective; we're not a mass-manufacturing country, but if we can maintain the research programs in these sorts of areas it's possible to become a specialist in this niche of the research industry.

Guess who's paying for the "Cash for Clunkers" program? $220m comes from Solar Flagships and the Herald Sun article reports that the UNSW Photovoltaic Centre of Excellence has lost its funding.

3. A Scheme that Could Do Something Useful Appears to have Disappeared

The CPRS had problems, but I get the feeling that I'll look back on the CPRS White Paper in years to come and contemplate that it was the closest thing to a functional carbon pricing mechanism that this country is likely to get. Coal generators were getting comfortable with how much it was going to cost them. Shareholders were aware of the issues and it had become regarded as a foregone conclusion. It was already been written into asset prices.

For those with the 'Resources Super Profits Tax" fresh in their mind - consider this: the aggressive response of the mining industry to the proposed RSPT was exactly the type of response a government should expect when looking to hit companies' profit margins. The only reason the power sector couldn't be as aggressive in relation to the CPRS is because Labor was given such a clear mandate from the 2007 poll. Even if Labor can get re-elected (and right now that's looking questionable), the perceived public mandate is gone. Expect industry to come out with all guns blazing.

4. Climate Policy is Complex

150 randomly selected citizens should not make decisions about climate policy. Here's why:

JG: "so, Fred, what do you think is an appropriate allocation of compensation to cover generators' increased working capital requirements that result from needing to take a long position on carbon to hedge their short power position, given the mismatch in the contract settlement dates?"
Fred: "I think power prices are too high."

These issues are complex and they're difficult even if you have a relatively good understanding of the power industry. Simplifying them may be convenient, but it has no hope of producing a meaningful outcome.

PLNC on the Tele

The Daily telegraph has had me perplexed. I have been reading it all week trying to find an article that was even vaguely noteworthy. I kind of feel like picking up an international story is a bit of a cop out, so I was raising the bar and looking for something that was at least domestic - preferable local.

The Courier Mail is so terrible that it's occasionally quite amusing and the Herald Sun and the Adelaide Advertiser at least have the pretense of news. To a cynical southerner, it's easy to get the impression that NSW and Queensland are both lands of the vacuous. But at least Queensland is smiling. The Daily Telegraph is like a plastic-boobed peroxide-blonde girl in a bikini, but rather than feeding your parking meter she's giving you a death-stare.

To make matters worse, I don't even have football to fall back on.

In any case, I've had a bit of a strange fixation with the whole election process this time around, and it's been election coverage that's finally got the Tele over the line.

The Tele has the following to say about the upcoming election:

1. That Penny Wong has suffered discrimination
An lesbian woman with an Asian background and a public profile? Discriminated against? Really?

2. That Tony Abbott is pimping out his family
No, not literally - though at least that would be 'news'. Tony Abbott has a rather unfortunate 'soft side'.

Tony says, "paid ma- parental leave" but I hear, "pregnant and barefoot"

Tony says, "my daughters are campaigning with me" but I hear, "so they can't be off having sex"

Tony says "my wife Margie and I..." I hear, "... deliberately barren - remember?"

When Julia holds a baby, she looks friendly. When Tony hold a baby, I'm scared he's going to try to eat it. Which is odd, given he actually has kids.

3. Julie Gillard evidently doesn't have enough family
This article asks to see more of "Mrs Gillard's" boyfriend. Indeed.

Of course, the stupidity of all of this makes me feel very, very disillusioned about the Australian political landscape - but it's worse than that. It's easy to criticise 'focus group politics' but far more troubling is the fact that political parties keep using it because it actually works.

The recent exhumation of Bob Hawke's political voice places his stark "love of the Australian people" in stark relief against my ambivalence after reading the Tele. Are the nice, rational people that I encounter in my day-to-day life not really representative? Am I delusional in my perception of the 'national character'? Have I deluded myself by surrounding myself with people who are generally nice, rational and open minded, when what the country really expects from me is to quit my job so I can stay home and raise babies and develop delusional fears about immigrants and gay people?

Is Sarah Palin Allowed to Invent Words?

The PLNC begins in the Sunshine state with a look at the Courier Mail:

Sarah Palin creates word controversy, compares herself to Shakespeare

It terrifies me to think that there's even a remote prospect of Sarah Palin becoming the next leader of the "free world", but I have to confess that there's a little asshole voice at the back of my head saying "What if she just got the Republican nomination then didn't win?... think of the comedy... and it's not your country anyway..."

Then I just think about the prospect of Americans having a chuckle at our expense over Tony Abbott and I quickly learn a thing or two about showing more empathy.

The Mail doesn't pass judgement in this article. Queensland is like a hot version of Alaska with a few less guns, so you can't say too much about Palin without running the risk of alienating a few people. It simply states that:

"Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin defended her newly-created word today, then compared herself to Shakespeare in the realm of coining new terminology. The word was "refudiate" - it was unclear if she meant refute or repudiate..."

Perhaps she meant both!

Palin noted, in her defence that "Shakespeare liked to coin new words too." Indeed he did, but she's a fair way off the mark in her comparison. Shakespeare invented words based on a vast knowledge of linguistic etymology and classical mythology and in doing so created a type of language that extended the range of expression of the English language. That's why you all got stuck reading iambic pentameter as a teenager.

Interestingly, the following phrases also create nuances of meaning*:

1. So Kate goes, "Wow - I wish I'd been there!"
2. So Kate is like, "Wow - I wish I'd been there!"
3. So Kate is all, "Wow - I wish I'd been there!"

With the first expressing a direct quote, the second a potential paraphrasing and the third suggesting that Kate is either excited, or a pain in the ass.

What Palin has done here is not as unsophisticated as when I'm tired and decide I want to change what I want to say half way through a word ("problem" and "issue" thereby become "ishblem" or "proshue" and people tell me I'm an idiot). She's combined two similar sounding words with compatible meanings and come up with something that sounds very much like an acceptable piece of the English language. Until you think about it a bit more.

The point is that Palin may be well off the mark when comparing herself to Shakespeare's conscious construction of linguistic shades of grey, but she could equally well have argued that English is a language that has been shaped by bogans that just got things 'wrong' en mass. The work "bird" was "brid" in old English and I occasionally wonder if "ask" will become "aks" in future English.

Does this mean that Palin's on to something here? I suspect not, but only because I can't recall hearing many bogans repudiate things.

*I nabbed this example from here

Plastic Lines Newspaper Challenge

Over the next two weeks (or so), I will be engaging in a series dubbed the inaugrual "Plastic Lines Newspaper Challenge". The concept is that over the period of the PLNC, posts will be based on Murdoch newspaper articles, one from each state and territory.

I usually read the Age. One friend recently questioned this choice by suggesting the Age was "crazy, left-wing propaganda" and that reading it made me a Communist. I think this response was a bit of an overreaction, given that my preferred paper is the AFR, I just don't want to have to pay for an online subscription.

The PLNC will aim to draw something interesting out of the Murdoch dross.

If Carlton Functioned Like a Corporate Workplace...

Here's a list of ways Carlton would have to change if the boys were really determined to be 'professionals'. Given I realise that the Plastic Lines readership may not have a high correlation with the football-supporting public, let me explain two things:

- Chris Judd is the captain; and

- Brett Rattan is the coach.

Here we go:

1. Chris Judd wouldn't run for the ball
Judd would reason that he had done all the work getting himself the captaincy. It's no longer his job to get contested possessions. In fact, contested possessions are beneath him and it would be unbecoming for him to attempt to get them. Further, he would often leave the ground at three quarter time. After all, he only moved from West Coast to Carlton so he didn't have to work so hard and could spend more time wit his family, it would be unreasonable to expect him to stay back with the others.

2. Runners would all be young women
All the senior players would have dedicated runners to bring them water and pat the sweat off their brows. Despite the fact that sex discrimination no longer exists in the workplace, all of these runners would be young, female and attractive, except for the occasional one who would be a bit older. The older runners would usually work for more arrogant players, who were more likely to need someone to speak them in a mothering tone. Given that this is now a 'professional' sport, these runners would now be called 'Executive Assistants'.

3. Players would play two games a week
Yes, I understand their contracts only say one game per week, but they should have understood that they are obligated to perform additional duties over and above what's in their contracts.

4. Move Over Betts, Yarran and Garlett
Betts, Yarran and Garlett wouldn't be up at the forward line. The notion of this row of small forward runs completely counter the notion of running a professional organisation. There would now be three key criteria for obtaining these types of key positions; you'd need to be tall, white and have attended a private school, preferably in Melbourne.

5. Recruitment would be based on TAC Cup performances
Rather than look at players recent performances, skills and potential, selectors would base recruitment on how many goals each player was able to kick during their final TAC Cup (under 18s) game. This is based on the well founded logic that looking at a single number that someone was able to achieve at the age of around 18 is the best way of defining their lifetime capabilities.

6. Chris Judd and Ben Cousins would still catch up

Not because they liked each other. Just because they worked together once, are still in the same industry and, you know, it's hard to tell when keeping in touch with someone like that may come in handy.

7. No quarter time or half time huddles
Brett Rattan would have far more important things to do than speak to players. At three quarter time they would all gather in a huddle and wait for him. Just before the siren to go back on, he would stick his head around a corner and say "by the way boys, I expect you to score 15 goals in this quarter". If the team failed to comply, it would be their own fault.

Stinky

The Gruen Transfer did a great segment last night on deoderant advertising. It was made more interesting by the fact I was sitting in a lounge room with my mother and boyfriend. Both of them think that ads like this one are a hearty laugh. I'm in the category of people who find them seriously discomforting.

Television has a way of creating meaning through a kind of synechdoche - when someone on Home and Away 'kisses' their friend's boyfriend, I implicitly assume this is the PG version of them doing the nasty on the kitchen table. If you accept that consumers know this, then you can understand why I see the "spot and stare" ads Brut is currently crapping out as a blatant incitement to pack rape. If you think this is some sort of "feminist overreaction" then you've clearly never been alone in an isolated area and had a car full of people, each of whom is around 50% larger than you, leering and jeering at you. The 'implied threat' is not subtle.

In any case, I digress from the main subject of this rant, which is that those tits-and-ass ads for Lynx, featuring content such as the following:

are actually the product of a large multinational firm - Unilever. No surprises there, you may say.

However, consider that within the stable of Unilever brands is another brand of supermarket deoderant and beauty products pitched at a different segment of the market. Do you remember that wildly successful "Dove beauty" campaign? If you don't here's a brief recap:

If you ever had an inkling that perhaps these campaigns were based on a sense of social obligation any deeper than someone trying to sell you shit, think again.

If you have a problem with Lynx putting this kind of shit on your TV, I suggest you point this out to as many of your female friends as you are able. And if you ever see a bloke buying Brut in a supermarket, wave your pinky finger at him for me.