Australian Policy Online brought my attention to a new publication from The Climate Institute debunking Five Carbon Trading Myths (PDF). The APO comments:
Economic analysis by CSIRO, ABARE and the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change shows that the early introduction of carbon price is affordable and will not make electricity more expensive. It will also be a billion-dollar international industry. This fact sheet refutes some arguments about the potential problems of carbon trading.
This was released before the recent article from The Age providing its background and highlighting the carbon trading scheme of Origin Energy, the Business Council of Australia's publication of a Strategic Framework for Emissions Reduction (PDF), and the Business Roundtable on Climate Change's recent report arguing that "early action to reduce emissions would add $2 trillion to GDP by 2050 and create more than 250,000 jobs."
It would seem that the main organisations clinging to believing in the carbon trading myths these days are the Federal Government and businesses more disposed towards fast-following or gaining the benefits of being late adapters.
The way this issue is evolving, like so many others in the recent past, continues to amaze me and shatter the straightforward cut-n-paste tendency of mind to read historic national dynamics onto the future – I was always told that political activism and parties lead the way with dealing with the social dimensions of change, whereas today, the evidence suggests the realm of mainstream politics is almost always the last arena of society to change. Do we need a new mechanism of leadership, change and governance? Perhaps I should promote the Simultaneous Policy initiative here… but surely we can get past the impasse that is our noble but flawed execution of democracy…
Here's a question I have for every futures thinking individual: what comes after democracy? To wit, where do we go next, after our current form of democracy – more a 'lobbyocracy' (thanks Jose;) – when we consider not only national but global political institutions?
Love to know what you think…
Comments (2)
Hi Chris
Perhaps a post-democracy will actually be a democracy? Where people are able to provide active interplay on various issues with their elected representatives rather than beholden to lobby groups as Jose says. And also, there could be a push towards increased citizen referenda on particular issues either at general election time or perhaps annually.
The State Government (Victoria) conducted a report into electronic democracy that was tabled in 2005. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/E-Democracy/Final_Report/Executive.htm
Not much has been implemented on this since then which is a pity as more open information from the polity to the citizenry will assist in democratic efforts. ED is not so much about voting but about increasing participation, accessibility and publishing of information. Steven Clift http://www.publicus.net/ is the guru in this area - thanks for the reminder - I haven't got back to his site for a long time.
Posted by Luke | April 14, 2007 11:52 PM
Posted on April 14, 2007 23:52
Hi Luke,
Perhaps it will be a democracy - but certainly/hopefully a new and improved one!
I really liked the direction of the ED report - quite considered and inspiring actually.
It goes to the heart of how to address my main concern with extending democracy globally: how to educate people beyond destructive ethnocentric fundamentalist thinking: otherwise the humanity would vote itself into another world war, and that's just for starters.
Posted by Chris | April 19, 2007 12:14 PM
Posted on April 19, 2007 12:14