Rudd 'has a bit to learn about China'

OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd might be fluent in Mandarin but he still has a bit to learn about Chinese history, said Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Mr Turnbull was commenting on the Labor leader's planned trip to China at the head of a team of shadow ministers, scientists and businessmen to ask Beijing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

Announcing the trip at the weekend, Mr Rudd referred to former Chinese leader Chairman Mao's policy of 'letting one hundred flowers bloom'. But Mr Turnbull said Mr Rudd's comments showed he lacked understanding of important aspects of Chinese history. "That (remark) would've struck a chill into the heart of everybody who actually knew about Chinese history," Mr Turnbull told ABC radio today. "In 1956 when Chairman Mao said to the intellectuals of China 'let one hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend', he encouraged intellectuals to come out and criticise the government and then when he found out who they all were ... he purged more than a million of them."

Mr Turnbull said it would be quite devastating if that were Mr Rudd's intention. "If that's the kind of government Kevin Rudd's promising - and I'm sure it's not, I suspect he doesn't know as much about Chinese history as he pretends - then we've got a lot to worry about," he said.

Source





Stern words, but short shrift for the economics of climate change

By Terry McCrann

BRITISH economist Sir Nicholas Stern made a flying visit to Australia last week. Via, apparently, South Africa, India and Indonesia. So much for carbon-neutral burning the oil at midnight, and all the other hours through the day.

Sir Nicholas is the putative author of the 700-page The Stern Review, the Economics of Climate Change, which purports to establish the world will be better off pre-emptively reducing carbon-based greenhouse gas emissions, than living with them. That's, to stress, establish supposedly in entirely unemotional analytical terms. Its bottom line: cutting emissions will cost 1 per cent of global GDP. It will "save" somewhere between 5 and 20 per cent of global GDP.

Yet, in watching Sir Nicholas at the National Press Club and reading the reports of his press interviews, he had almost nothing to say about the economics of climate change. Instead it was almost all about the science. What increased concentrations of greenhouse gases would purportedly do to temperatures, to weather, and so on. Intriguingly, at one point, musing that it almost always involved water.

One of two ways he came closest to talking about his own speciality, the only reason he is "in the discussion" at all, was to prophesy massive population shifts. In other words, it was all boilerplate preaching from another High Priest in the First Church of Climate Apocalypse. Repent of your emissions and you will be saved.

Now this is not another bleat from a so-called "climate sceptic". But a critique of Stern specifically in his/its own (purported) terms. What we saw was that Stern in person was as empty of any serious economic analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change as his review was in 700 pages. Indeed, for the purpose of the discussion, assume that everything predicted about temperatures and climate was likely to prove correct. One can't say accurate because the ranges of possible outcomes are so wide as to be almost analytically useless.

What would you then expect from an economist? To take that foundation and first, analyse the costs and benefits of the outcomes. With appropriate ranges to reflect the range of outcome uncertainties. To take one example: global temperature up, say, 2 degrees. What are the costs and, yes, the benefits of that? It might be easier to understand that there really are benefits from a warmer world if you lived in Moscow than in Manila. But there are, and they need to be netted out against the costs.

Let us assume the alarmists are right and the costs far outweigh the benefits; the net costs will still be something less. Critically, these should only be the economic costs. It's not for Stern the economist to "value" that a hotter Manila or a stormier Brisbane would be "unpleasant". His only analytical concern should be any economic consequences, including measurable externalities. To incorporate anything else is to pollute, and so fundamentally compromise, the economic analysis. Indeed, it builds in a self-reinforcing feedback bias. Hotter is economically bad. The world is getting hotter. So does that have good or bad economic consequences? Why, bad.

Then an economist, working off the net costs (or benefits), would analyse the net, to stress again, economic costs of cutting emissions. And compare that net cost with the first net cost. That would "tell" you whether the cost of cutting emissions was worth the cost of avoiding their consequences.

Two other points need to be made. You have to incorporate the ranges in the analysis; and weight them relative to likelihood, and to risk. And you also have to adjust for different time periods. The costs of cutting emissions come now and in the near future; the costs of the consequences come later, perhaps much later. Hence the need to discount those future costs of climate change back to today, to measure directly against the costs of cutting emissions.

Now the economist has to turn a blind eye to those broader issues. Otherwise you won't get robust information on which to base either subjective or objective decisions. Objective: maybe it is economically better to live with a 2 per cent hotter world, and deal with the consequences. Because net-net we would be better off. But then it would be perfectly appropriate to make the subjective judgment: no, 2 per cent is non-negotiable. Yes, we will take a second-best economic outcome. But we will do so with our eyes open and fully understanding what we are doing.

This is critically important in another way. Properly informed, you might decide to live with a half-way outcome. To opt for, say, 1 per cent in temperature and less damage to the global economy.

Now the trade-off highlighted at the start would suggest the Stern Review does this, and the bottom line is so overwhelmingly favourable to action against emissions that it must cover the range of uncertainties. One per cent versus 20 per cent could live with a huge adjustment. It does no such thing. It is fundamentally compromised because the analysis builds in the climate theology. But in any event the analysis itself is seriously flawed. As a distinguished panel of economists has demonstrated in a punishing shredding of the economics of the review.

The panel included the former chief economist at the OECD, David Henderson, our former chief statistician, Ian Castles, and the biographer of Keynes and distinguished economist in his own right, Robert Skidelsky. Their withering analysis, published in World Economics, concluded Stern was deeply flawed. "It does not provide a basis for informed and responsible policies." The single most damming flaw was Stern's choice of a discount rate to "value" those future climate benefits in present terms. Just 2.1 per cent. A statement essentially of climate hysteria. Even more damming, it was not actually disclosed in the review. A statement essentially of guilt.

Stern in person rather embarrassingly confirmed the review's flaws - and his own theological hysteria - with his second venture towards economics in his Press Club appearance. Explaining why the developed world had to take most of the carbon cuts - by between 60 and 90 per cent - and so the reduction in economic growth, he said inter alia, that the developing world like China and India had to be allowed to "catch up". To have their economic growth.

In very simple terms, were the developed world to seriously cut carbon and growth, the developing world would not have its growth. China is only growing at 10 per cent-plus because of its access to the US and other developed country markets. You would expect a former World Bank economist to know that access to our growing markets is the absolute foundation of 4 billion people moving out of poverty, disease and early death. Cutting carbon emissions might make an "apocalyptic churchgoer" like Stern feel purer. It will have a much more salutary impact on the people of those countries he has recently been flying over.

Source





Decayed Australian mathematics teaching

It's been figured out: our numeracy is not what it should be, writes Kevin Donnelly

In March 2004, 26 Australian academics wrote an open letter to then federal education minister Brendan Nelson about the parlous state of primary school literacy teaching as a result of Australia's adoption of outcomes-based education fads. Among the concepts was whole language, whereby students are made to look and guess instead of learning the relationship between letters and sounds. The rest, they say, is history.

Nelson set up a national inquiry into literacy. The subsequent report concluded that state and territory curriculum documents, teacher training and professional development had been captured by the whole-language approach and a greater emphasis on teaching the traditional phonics and phonemic awareness was necessary.

Not to be outdone, Australia's mathematicians have organised an open letter to the Prime Minister, to be delivered next week. It has been signed by more than 440 local and international academics concerned about the parlous state of mathematical sciences in Australia. Signatories include Terry Tao, the recent winner of the internationally acclaimed Fields Medal; John Ball, president of the International Mathematical Union; and many of Australia's most qualified mathematicians and statisticians.

The open letter cites the fact that many universities are closing or reducing departments of mathematical sciences, that the shortage of graduates is so acute that "it inhibits the work of business and industry", and that the quality and rigour of mathematics teaching in schools and universities have been severely undermined.

The letter argues that there has been little, if any, action at the commonwealth [Federal] level - notwithstanding the release three months ago of Mathematics and Statistics: Critical Skills for Australia's Future, a report summarising the findings of the national strategic review of mathematical sciences - and that the time for action has long since passed.

In short, the report of the national inquiry concludes that the supply of trained mathematicians and statisticians is inadequate and decreasing, that Australian academics are becoming increasingly isolated and under-resourced, that not enough Year 12 students undertake more difficult courses (participation in higher-order mathematics fell from 41 per cent in 1995 to 34 per cent in 2004), and that high school mathematics is taught by teachers with inadequate mathematical training.

The report does not only concentrate on the negatives: it also offers a number of recommendations for improving the situation. They range from strengthening Australia's research base to guaranteeing funding for organisations such as the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute and the International Centre of Excellence for Education in Mathematics (funded at present by the Department of Education, Science and Training) and rebuilding mathematical science departments.

Given the concerns aired in these pages over the past two years about the quality and rigour of Australia's school curriculum and doubts about teacher effectiveness, it's hardly surprising that the report on mathematics and statistics also highlights the need to strengthen secondary school mathematics courses and to ensure teachers have a thorough grounding in the discipline.

Reading between the lines - and as noted in a submission to the inquiry from Tony Guttmann of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems - it is obvious, in the same way that subjects such as history and English have been dumbed down, school mathematics has also suffered.

Guttmann argues that the type of feel-good approach to education associated with Australia's adoption of outcomes-based education, where the word "failure" is banned and promoting self-esteem is considered paramount, has led to students being unable, or unwilling, to master so-called hard subjects. Guttmann says: "An attitude is being bred in schools that it does not matter whether a student succeeds in mastering a concept, so long as an effort is made and that effort is rewarded. The concept of failure is considered to be potentially damaging to the self-esteem of students, and so must be avoided. This attitude is particularly problematic for subjects in which a substantial body of knowledge is assumed and built upon."

In order to strengthen mathematics teaching, the report suggests teacher training must be improved. Although it does not go as far as to argue that all teachers should complete an undergraduate degree in their specialist discipline, followed by a diploma of education, thus ensuring that graduates have a firm foundation in their subject, the report suggests that mathematical science departments should have a greater involvement in teacher preparation.

Research shows that one of the key determinants of successful learning is a teacher's mastery of a subject. There is increasing concern that the type of general bachelor of education degree designed and taught by schools of education fails to provide such grounding. As Guttmann points out: "The training of teachers can be improved by making sure that mathematics teachers have a mathematics degree, followed by a diploma of education or equivalent. Their mathematical education should not be provided by education faculties, but by discipline experts."

In an election year, it is obvious the two main political parties see education as a significant issue and that Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith have successfully repositioned the ALP by staking the territory once the preserve of the conservatives. It is also obvious that Australia's continued high standard of living and international competitiveness depend on the quality, rigour and effectiveness of our education system, especially in the areas of mathematics and related fields such as engineering, science and physics. In the same way that Nelson, when education minister, acted quickly to address falling standards in literacy and concerns about the quality of teacher training, one hopes that the federal Government will also move quickly to address concerns about mathematics.

Source




"Clean coal" is the middle way in today's environmental politics

CONTRARY to the popular line being pushed by the usual suspects, it is not John Howard who has been left behind in the climate change debate. Rather, it is the anti-development fringe dwellers such as Greens leader Bob Brown and Australian of the Year Tim Flannery. Their demand for a precipitous end to coalmining sets these neo-Arcadians outside the consensus building among serious participants to the debate that clean-coal technology offers a practical, medium-term solution to greenhouse gas emissions that will not erode our quality of life. This point was highlighted by visiting British climate change economist Nicholas Stern, who said Australia had a key role to play in investigating clean-coal technology. It is also the core finding of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report released earlier this month that says demand for coal will increase under any foreseeable scenario. Support for clean-coal research is also an issue on which the federal Government and Opposition find themselves in broad agreement, despite political differences over whether setting a carbon emission target will speed technological development or simply harm the economy.

Despite the inescapable fact that coal is here to stay for the next half century at least, it is unlikely to dominate today's Labor-sponsored talkfest on climate change, or feature heavily on the minds of those who choose to turn the lights off for one hour tonight in a symbolic gesture that draws further attention to a worrying, if not fully understood, problem. There is great heart to be taken, however, from the confidence that leaders in the climate change debate such as Sir Nicholas have about the prospects of solving the problems that burning coal presents for the environment. The MIT report into the future of coal clearly outlines the size of the problem. It says fossil fuel sources today account for 80 per cent of world energy demand, with coal representing 25 per cent, gas 21 per cent, petroleum 34 per cent and nuclear power 6.5 per cent. Only 0.4 per cent is met by renewable sources of energy such as geothermal, solar and wind.

The MIT report assumes that the risks of global warming are real and says the US and other governments should and will take action to restrict emissions. But it nonetheless believes that coal use will increase because coal is cheap and abundant and geographically widespread so that, unlike oil, supplies are secure from political upheaval in the Middle East. MIT concludes that carbon capture and sequestration are the critical enabling technology for reducing CO2 emissions while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs. It says the most urgent objective of the climate change response should be the successful large-scale demonstration of the technological, economic, and environmental performance of carbon capture and storage.

During his lightning visit to Australia this week, Sir Nicholas rejected the suggestions by Lateline host Tony Jones that clean-coal technology was unproven or that Australia should concentrate its research efforts on alternative technologies such as solar. He said it was beyond doubt that China and India would continue to use a lot of coal for the next 30 to 40 years, and Australia was likely to be one of the world leaders in solving the riddle of developing technologies to burn coal efficiently and capture and store the carbon emissions. Contrary to the view of clean-coal sceptics, Sir Nicholas said the technology was progressing, with working examples in Canada, Algeria and Norway. The challenge now was to demonstrate that the technologies could be deployed on a commercial scale. Sir Nicholas said engineers working on the technology were optimistic that, if proven, it could be put in place fairly quickly.

Such confidence is heartening and gives reassurance that, rather than being an international pariah on climate change, Australia is, in fact, at the forefront of progress towards a realistic solution to climate change. While Australia is criticised for having not signed the Kyoto agreement, it is considered to be in a key position through the AP6 - the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate - to engage the world's biggest carbon emitter, the US, and the world's biggest emerging carbon emitter, China. Australia's faith in clean-coal research is being increasingly vindicated. It ultimately represents a continuation of the way in which developed economies have improved the environmental performance of coal as they have harnessed its economic potential. Such progress supports The Weekend Australian's core belief in science as the pathway to progress.

While ideally placed to pioneer new coal technology, there is no reason why Australia might not also play a role in other areas of research including solar, wind and geothermal power. But there is no reason to assume that Australia must be involved in or invent every new technology. Governments should not attempt to pick winners but should apply public funds according to what has the best chance of success in making a significant contribution to solving the problem. The Weekend Australian supports the Government's commitment to practical, balanced action that will achieve results. This includes the Government's global initiative on stopping illegal logging of forests in Southeast Asia, which has the potential to deliver both climate-change and broader environmental benefits. The Government estimates the potential atmospheric carbon benefits from stopping illegal logging to be 10 times those of the Kyoto agreement.

There is also merit in Kevin Rudd's attempts this weekend to bring together interest groups, including business, to explore solutions. The Opposition Leader faces a daunting challenge in attempting to find answers that will satisfy participants with wildly differing expectations on what is an emotionally charged issue. The Weekend Australian is heartened that among those at the forefront of seeking a solution to global warming there is a growing confidence that tackling the problem at its source, the point of power generation from coal, is likely to be met.

Source