Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said...
what exactly? In my previous posting Robert Skidelsky ended his article by quoting Keynes:
'John Maynard Keynes wrote that "practical men who believe themselves to be quite immune from intellectual influences are usually the slaves of some defunct economist".
I have seen this quote and variations of it attributed to Keynes in several places. Does anyone know what he actually said and where? Or perhaps he said the same thing, more or less, several times in different places?
Perhaps starting a search here might help!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Robert Skidelsky mounts another attack on 'Chicago school'- tainted economists
This short article gives a very readable account of why the financial system has gone into systemic failure. Skidelsky contrasts his own analysis with that of 'the "money glut" school. In their view, there was only one cause of the crisis: excessive credit creation that took place when Alan Greenspan was US Federal Reserve chairman. .. This view draws on the "Austrian" theory of booms and slumps, and also Milton Friedman's explanation of the Great Depression. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.'
Unlike many political leaders who have learned to use the phrase 'systemic failure' Skidelsky is able to point to key influences which have given rise to the failure: i.e. economists and economic theory that 'assumes that markets are perfectly efficient. If they go wrong, it must be because of policy mistakes. This view is also self-contradictory, for if market participants are perfectly rational and perfectly informed, they would not have been fooled by a policy of making money cheaper than it really was.
This short article gives a very readable account of why the financial system has gone into systemic failure. Skidelsky contrasts his own analysis with that of 'the "money glut" school. In their view, there was only one cause of the crisis: excessive credit creation that took place when Alan Greenspan was US Federal Reserve chairman. .. This view draws on the "Austrian" theory of booms and slumps, and also Milton Friedman's explanation of the Great Depression. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.'
Unlike many political leaders who have learned to use the phrase 'systemic failure' Skidelsky is able to point to key influences which have given rise to the failure: i.e. economists and economic theory that 'assumes that markets are perfectly efficient. If they go wrong, it must be because of policy mistakes. This view is also self-contradictory, for if market participants are perfectly rational and perfectly informed, they would not have been fooled by a policy of making money cheaper than it really was.
This suggests a more fundamental reason for the economic crisis: the dominance of the Chicago school of economics, with its belief in the self-regulating properties of unfettered markets. This belief justified the deregulation of financial markets in the name of the "efficient-market hypothesis". It led to the spread of financial risk-management models, which grossly underestimated the amount of risk in the system.'
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Some of the best coastline and beaches in the world?
Bemagui on the far south coast of NSW proved a delight and visits to Tathra and Wallagoot Lake revived memories from years ago. Seeing for the first time many of the beaches and inlets as we drove south, including two nights at the marvelously situated Marlo Hotel overlooking the mouth of the Snowy River, it was hard to imagine better beaches anywhere else.
There were also many new birds to be seen on our Easter 'circuit'.
Worth a listen from 'Background Briefing' - MBA: Mostly Bloody Awful!
'Something happened to management culture decades ago and now being a Master of Business Administration, especially from Harvard, is rather on the nose. MBA, it's being said, can also stand for 'Mediocre but Arrogant', or 'Management by Accident'.
This report by Stephen Crittenden features Henry Mintzberg:
'McGill University Professor Henry Mintzberg says what we call a financial crisis is really at its core a crisis of management, and not just a crisis of management, but a crisis of management culture.'
And quotes Russell Ackoff:
'In 1986, when Russell Ackoff, a pioneer of management education, retired as Professor at the Wharton Business School, he was asked what were the benefits of a business education. With savage irony he replied that there were three. The first was to equip students with a vocabulary that enabled them to talk with authority about subjects they did not understand. The second was to give students principles that would demonstrate their ability to withstand any amount of disconfirming evidence. The third was to give students a ticket of admission to a job where they could learn something about management.'
The following references provide further background.
'Something happened to management culture decades ago and now being a Master of Business Administration, especially from Harvard, is rather on the nose. MBA, it's being said, can also stand for 'Mediocre but Arrogant', or 'Management by Accident'.
This report by Stephen Crittenden features Henry Mintzberg:
'McGill University Professor Henry Mintzberg says what we call a financial crisis is really at its core a crisis of management, and not just a crisis of management, but a crisis of management culture.'
And quotes Russell Ackoff:
'In 1986, when Russell Ackoff, a pioneer of management education, retired as Professor at the Wharton Business School, he was asked what were the benefits of a business education. With savage irony he replied that there were three. The first was to equip students with a vocabulary that enabled them to talk with authority about subjects they did not understand. The second was to give students principles that would demonstrate their ability to withstand any amount of disconfirming evidence. The third was to give students a ticket of admission to a job where they could learn something about management.'
The following references provide further background.
Title: The Puritan Gift: Reclaiming the American Dream Amidst Global Financial Chaos
Author: Kenneth Hopper and William Hooper
Publisher: I.B. Taurus 2009
Title: Managers not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development
Author: Henry Mintzberg
Publisher: Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2004
Title: From Higher Aims to Hired Hands:The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession
Author: Rakesh Khurana
Publisher: Princetone University Press, 2007
Title: Business Schools Share the Blame for Enron
Author: Sumantra Ghoshal
Publisher: Financial Times, 17 July 2003
From mountains to coast - travels through a 'green drought'
I do not know the Monaro region of south-eastern NSW well. Travelling from Jindabyne to the coast via Dalgety was a new experience. I could not help but feel as we traversed the dissected but expansive plateau that many landholders must feel themselves trapped by their on-going commitments to farming in that region. Perhaps it has always been so?
An unexpected surprise was a large group of bikers travelling also from Dalgety towards the coast. We encountered them on a stretch of dirt road travelling slowly in single file. Given recent biker-gang violence in Australia I did not feel it prudent to pass them and expose them to my dust, but fortunately they pulled up and we were just able to edge past!
We spent two nights camping on a block owned by friends near Brogo (just north of Bega). We were prepared to enjoy one full night of rain - it is something one cannot complain about!
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Rudd Government's defence of large carbon polluting industries is unforgivable
In 'After Capitalism' Geoff Mulgan argues that '.. the great depression was both a disaster and an accelerator of reform. It helped to usher in new economic and welfare policies in countries like New Zealand and Sweden that later became the mainstream across the developed world. In the US it led to banking reform, the New Deal and the GI Bill of Rights. In Britain depression, as much as war, led to the creation of the welfare state and the NHS.'
Although Mulgan does not say it - nor do many other politicians, least of all G20 leaders - the environmental crisis with climate change adapatation at the forefront, but by no means the only issue, ought to be recognised as THE primary accelerator of reform throughout the 21st century. Instead we have in Australia - and probably other areas of the world - a government committed to supporting and sustaining what are effectively 'sunset industries'. In his excellent, systemic analysis, Guy Pearce in the latest Quarterly Essay (No. 33) Quarry Vision: Coal, Climate Change and the End of the Resources Boom (Black Ink 2009) explains why this is so (see this review). For any one in need of convincing Pearce's essay reveals the extent of the systemic failure of our current governance arrangements. As I have blogged earlier, our governance arrangements can be understood as a 'structure determined system' which does what it is capable of doing - hence the 'capture of government' by the big carbon lobby. Unfortunately what we need at this historical moment is more than current governance arrangements seem capable of delivering.
Mulgan in his essay promotes the historical analysis of innovation cycles by Carlota Perez, a Venezuelan economist. He says: 'One implication of Perez’s work, and of Joseph Schumpeter’s before her, is that some of the old has to be swept away before the new can find its most successful forms. Propping up failing industries is in this light a risky policy.' Australian Labor seems well disposed to taking policies and practices (both good and bad) from UK Labour so let's hope that Senator Wong and PM Rudd take on board this advice from Geff Mulgan in respect to creating the conditions for transformation of our own economy and society.
Mulgan argues, following Perez, ' that we may be on the verge of another great period of institutional innovation and experiment that will lead to new compromises between the claims of capital and the claims of society and of nature. In retrospect these periodic accommodations are as integral to capitalism as financial crises—indeed it’s only through crisis and institutional reform that capitalism adapts to a changing environment and rediscovers the moral compass that is so vital for markets to work well. ' Thus, the key to transformation, it appears, is in the creation of new institutional forms. I would also argue it involves understanding existing institutional complexity and how institutional innovation exacerbates, or not, systemic complexity including increased transaction costs. Unfortunately Australia is not well endowed with institutional economists nor does government appear to have well developed policies or research in place to address the institutional reform that is warranted!
In 'After Capitalism' Geoff Mulgan argues that '.. the great depression was both a disaster and an accelerator of reform. It helped to usher in new economic and welfare policies in countries like New Zealand and Sweden that later became the mainstream across the developed world. In the US it led to banking reform, the New Deal and the GI Bill of Rights. In Britain depression, as much as war, led to the creation of the welfare state and the NHS.'
Although Mulgan does not say it - nor do many other politicians, least of all G20 leaders - the environmental crisis with climate change adapatation at the forefront, but by no means the only issue, ought to be recognised as THE primary accelerator of reform throughout the 21st century. Instead we have in Australia - and probably other areas of the world - a government committed to supporting and sustaining what are effectively 'sunset industries'. In his excellent, systemic analysis, Guy Pearce in the latest Quarterly Essay (No. 33) Quarry Vision: Coal, Climate Change and the End of the Resources Boom (Black Ink 2009) explains why this is so (see this review). For any one in need of convincing Pearce's essay reveals the extent of the systemic failure of our current governance arrangements. As I have blogged earlier, our governance arrangements can be understood as a 'structure determined system' which does what it is capable of doing - hence the 'capture of government' by the big carbon lobby. Unfortunately what we need at this historical moment is more than current governance arrangements seem capable of delivering.
Mulgan in his essay promotes the historical analysis of innovation cycles by Carlota Perez, a Venezuelan economist. He says: 'One implication of Perez’s work, and of Joseph Schumpeter’s before her, is that some of the old has to be swept away before the new can find its most successful forms. Propping up failing industries is in this light a risky policy.' Australian Labor seems well disposed to taking policies and practices (both good and bad) from UK Labour so let's hope that Senator Wong and PM Rudd take on board this advice from Geff Mulgan in respect to creating the conditions for transformation of our own economy and society.
Mulgan argues, following Perez, ' that we may be on the verge of another great period of institutional innovation and experiment that will lead to new compromises between the claims of capital and the claims of society and of nature. In retrospect these periodic accommodations are as integral to capitalism as financial crises—indeed it’s only through crisis and institutional reform that capitalism adapts to a changing environment and rediscovers the moral compass that is so vital for markets to work well. ' Thus, the key to transformation, it appears, is in the creation of new institutional forms. I would also argue it involves understanding existing institutional complexity and how institutional innovation exacerbates, or not, systemic complexity including increased transaction costs. Unfortunately Australia is not well endowed with institutional economists nor does government appear to have well developed policies or research in place to address the institutional reform that is warranted!
Australia has a mountain range
Until our Easter travels took us from the upper Murray across to Khancobin and thence to Thredbo and Jindabyne I did not really feel that Australia could claim to have a 'proper' mountain range - rather an elevated tableland. This view (final photo below) from Scammell's Spar lookout has made me change my mind.
Storms across the Snowy Mountains gave rise to nostalgic smells (as only rain in Australia can) and great variations in light.
Economics, economists and differing perspectives
A few friends and colleagues have been politely (thus far) taking me to task for some of my postings about the role of economics, and thus certain types of economists, in relation to contemporary crises (notably the financial one, but more importantly the environmental one). It has been pointed out to me that as I write economics (or more correctly John Geanakoplos, of Yale University) is contributing fundamentally important new ideas. Time will undoubtedly tell how fundamental and important this new idea is. But contrast this perspective with that of Anatole Kaletsky (editor-at-large of The Times and Chief Economist of GaveKai Research).
His article in Prospect was reproduced in the Financial Review yesterday under the banner ' Never let the facts get in the way of a good economic theory'. Kaletsky opens by making the point that by today's standards Adam Smith, Keynes, Ricardo and Schumpeter would not be regarded as economists and certainly would not be published in top ranking economics journals. He suggests that if any applied for a top post at a University today they would almost certainly be rejected.
In relation to the financial crisis he goes on to say:
'But in general how many academic economists have had something useful to say about the greatest upheaval in 70 years? The truth is even worse than this rhetorical question suggests: not only have economists, as a profession, failed to guide the world out of the crisis, they were also primarily responsible for leading us into it.'
Kaletsky has a strong critique of the focus that has emerged in 'mainstream economics' on quantification, forecasting and predicting, arguing that:
'economics should recognise that, as a discipline, it cannot be about predicting, but is instead about explaining and describing.'
The failure, and thus complicty of academic economists in the financial crisis, began, he argues, in the 1970s 'about “rational” investors and “efficient” markets'. .......And on those two reassuring adjectives, rational and efficient, the victorious academic economists erected an enormous scaffolding of theoretical models, regulatory prescriptions and computer simulations which allowed the practical bankers and politicians to build the towers of bad debt and bad policy.'
'So what is to be done?' he asks: 'There are two options. Either economics has to be abandoned as an academic discipline, becoming a mere appendage to the collection of industrial and social statistics. Or it must undergo an intellectual revolution. The dominant research programmes must be recognised as failures and instead of using oversimplified assumptions to create mathematical models that purport to give precise numerical conclusions, economists must re-open their subject to a range of speculative approaches, drawing insights from history, psychology and sociology, and applying the methods of historians, political theorists and even journalists, not just mathematicians and statisticians. At the same time, they must limit their ambitions to explaining only what the tools of economics allow you to understand.'
He thus argues the need for more heterodox approaches, something sadly lacking in Australia, because:
'they reject the ideological orthodoxies of rational expectations and efficient markets and the equally stifling methodological demand that economic insights must be expressed in mathematical formulae.'
My motivation in making the postings I have about the role of economics in our contemporary world is grounded in my own experience. From this experience I could not have expressed a better conclusion than Kaletsky's that:
'Economics today is a discipline that must either die or undergo a paradigm shift—to make itself both more broadminded, and more modest. It must broaden its horizons to recognise the insights of other social sciences and historical studies and it must return to its roots. Smith, Keynes, Hayek, Schumpeter and all the other truly great economists were interested in economic reality. They studied real human behaviour in markets that actually existed. Their insights came from historical knowledge, psychological intuition and political understanding. Their analytical tools were words, not mathematics. They persuaded with eloquence, not just formal logic. One can see why many of today’s academics may fear such a return of economics to its roots.'
A few friends and colleagues have been politely (thus far) taking me to task for some of my postings about the role of economics, and thus certain types of economists, in relation to contemporary crises (notably the financial one, but more importantly the environmental one). It has been pointed out to me that as I write economics (or more correctly John Geanakoplos, of Yale University) is contributing fundamentally important new ideas. Time will undoubtedly tell how fundamental and important this new idea is. But contrast this perspective with that of Anatole Kaletsky (editor-at-large of The Times and Chief Economist of GaveKai Research).
His article in Prospect was reproduced in the Financial Review yesterday under the banner ' Never let the facts get in the way of a good economic theory'. Kaletsky opens by making the point that by today's standards Adam Smith, Keynes, Ricardo and Schumpeter would not be regarded as economists and certainly would not be published in top ranking economics journals. He suggests that if any applied for a top post at a University today they would almost certainly be rejected.
In relation to the financial crisis he goes on to say:
'But in general how many academic economists have had something useful to say about the greatest upheaval in 70 years? The truth is even worse than this rhetorical question suggests: not only have economists, as a profession, failed to guide the world out of the crisis, they were also primarily responsible for leading us into it.'
Kaletsky has a strong critique of the focus that has emerged in 'mainstream economics' on quantification, forecasting and predicting, arguing that:
'economics should recognise that, as a discipline, it cannot be about predicting, but is instead about explaining and describing.'
The failure, and thus complicty of academic economists in the financial crisis, began, he argues, in the 1970s 'about “rational” investors and “efficient” markets'. .......And on those two reassuring adjectives, rational and efficient, the victorious academic economists erected an enormous scaffolding of theoretical models, regulatory prescriptions and computer simulations which allowed the practical bankers and politicians to build the towers of bad debt and bad policy.'
'So what is to be done?' he asks: 'There are two options. Either economics has to be abandoned as an academic discipline, becoming a mere appendage to the collection of industrial and social statistics. Or it must undergo an intellectual revolution. The dominant research programmes must be recognised as failures and instead of using oversimplified assumptions to create mathematical models that purport to give precise numerical conclusions, economists must re-open their subject to a range of speculative approaches, drawing insights from history, psychology and sociology, and applying the methods of historians, political theorists and even journalists, not just mathematicians and statisticians. At the same time, they must limit their ambitions to explaining only what the tools of economics allow you to understand.'
He thus argues the need for more heterodox approaches, something sadly lacking in Australia, because:
'they reject the ideological orthodoxies of rational expectations and efficient markets and the equally stifling methodological demand that economic insights must be expressed in mathematical formulae.'
My motivation in making the postings I have about the role of economics in our contemporary world is grounded in my own experience. From this experience I could not have expressed a better conclusion than Kaletsky's that:
'Economics today is a discipline that must either die or undergo a paradigm shift—to make itself both more broadminded, and more modest. It must broaden its horizons to recognise the insights of other social sciences and historical studies and it must return to its roots. Smith, Keynes, Hayek, Schumpeter and all the other truly great economists were interested in economic reality. They studied real human behaviour in markets that actually existed. Their insights came from historical knowledge, psychological intuition and political understanding. Their analytical tools were words, not mathematics. They persuaded with eloquence, not just formal logic. One can see why many of today’s academics may fear such a return of economics to its roots.'
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Easter travels and the state of the countryside
We left Melbourne on Good Friday travelling north up the Hume Highway to Beechworth and thence to Jingellic on the upper Murray. The countryside is very dry and in many cases I have never seen paddocks so overgrazed. Other places seem to have been destocked and look better. Many of the stock are in poor condition so close to winter. Lake Hume (a major dam on the Murray River) was not to be seen - essentially empty from our vantage points. On the bright side as we headed over the range through Mt Granya State Park we had a cloudburst that made driving difficult, but was none-the-less very welcome rainfall. The rain continued on into the evening but I am not sure how widespread it was. Despite the poor season the Murray Vallley had many scenic turns.
We spent a very comfortable first night at the Jingellic pub (pictured) and admired the variety of birds on walks along side the Murray.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
The saga continues - but a review may be in sight: 'Secret computer deals that are costing the taxpayer billions'
The Times reports that:
"It is costing the taxpayer almost as much as the autumn bank bailout. But the huge amounts being spent by the Government on information technology - £16 billion this financial year - are barely noticed. With no central regulation by one ministry, civil servants enter into contracts worth billions with a few select companies. The details are protected by confidentiality agreements and periodic progress reviews in Whitehall are kept private, despite calls by MPs and anti-privacy campaigners for their disclosure. The cost of most large projects balloons. The Government admits that only about 30 per cent are completed on time and on budget.
An investigation by The Times and Computer Weekly shows that the overrun of the largest IT projects totals £18.6 billion. Those include a controversial plan to computerise all NHS patients' records, originally estimated to cost £2.3 billion over three years but the cost of which has grown to £12.7 billion. Two companies have dropped out of the project, which is already four years behind schedule. Hospitals left with obsolete equipment have had to up-grade on their own. Yesterday Whitehall sources told The Times that the NHS programme, which aims to link more than 30,000 GPs to nearly 300 hospitals, would be reviewed. Non-foundation-trust hospitals would be allowed to opt out and buy from smaller providers. . ."
The Times reports that:
"It is costing the taxpayer almost as much as the autumn bank bailout. But the huge amounts being spent by the Government on information technology - £16 billion this financial year - are barely noticed. With no central regulation by one ministry, civil servants enter into contracts worth billions with a few select companies. The details are protected by confidentiality agreements and periodic progress reviews in Whitehall are kept private, despite calls by MPs and anti-privacy campaigners for their disclosure. The cost of most large projects balloons. The Government admits that only about 30 per cent are completed on time and on budget.
An investigation by The Times and Computer Weekly shows that the overrun of the largest IT projects totals £18.6 billion. Those include a controversial plan to computerise all NHS patients' records, originally estimated to cost £2.3 billion over three years but the cost of which has grown to £12.7 billion. Two companies have dropped out of the project, which is already four years behind schedule. Hospitals left with obsolete equipment have had to up-grade on their own. Yesterday Whitehall sources told The Times that the NHS programme, which aims to link more than 30,000 GPs to nearly 300 hospitals, would be reviewed. Non-foundation-trust hospitals would be allowed to opt out and buy from smaller providers. . ."
Monday, January 26, 2009
Recent coups - some reflections
One of the meanings of the word coup is 'a stroke or move that one makes especially a notable or strikingly successful move'. Even the word 'coup d'etat' has meant 'any sudden and decisive stroke of State policy'. Why this reflection on what a coup may or may not mean? Well I was reminded yesterday by arguments in an article by Guy Rundle (Morning in America) about the nature of the Bush, or more precisely, the neo-conservative ascendancy. He says, for example that:
'The plain fact about the Bush/Cheney — more exactly, Cheney/Bush — era was that it represented the most substantial counter-revolution against the principles that America understands itself as living by that has occurred since the Republic was founded.
'the use of "presidential signing statements" and restrictions on information flow'.
The obvious question is why had I not seen this reported before? Certainly I may have missed it - but if it was just not reported then it raises some pretty profound questions about the journalist profession.
Having been a close watcher of the happenings of Downing St in the Blair years and the rise of New Labour I have for sometime held ...and occasionally espoused ... an analysis that argued that the rise of New Labour could be considered as an internal Labour party coup mounted and maintained, even in government, by a small group around Blair. In office they maintained the sort of group think that gives rise to a 'coup' - and ultimately this was their undoing. The same dynamics appear to have been played out in the rise and fall of the neo-cons in the USA. For this reason the transparency and lobbying restrictions imposed by Obama are to be welcomed - they are key checks to the unfettered powers that can be assumed by the executive in our still very flawed democratic forms. As Rundle notes, Obama's changes 'for those wanting to contest such a policy' .... 'changes the nature of what is to be contested to a realpolitik, more open in its aims and motives, more open to criticism, challenge and dissent, and less bound up with grand schemes of dominance and global transformation, less need to make Mosul into Missouri.' This may not make for easy politics but the reward that can be reaped is genuine transformation.
One of the meanings of the word coup is 'a stroke or move that one makes especially a notable or strikingly successful move'. Even the word 'coup d'etat' has meant 'any sudden and decisive stroke of State policy'. Why this reflection on what a coup may or may not mean? Well I was reminded yesterday by arguments in an article by Guy Rundle (Morning in America) about the nature of the Bush, or more precisely, the neo-conservative ascendancy. He says, for example that:
'The plain fact about the Bush/Cheney — more exactly, Cheney/Bush — era was that it represented the most substantial counter-revolution against the principles that America understands itself as living by that has occurred since the Republic was founded.
Torture, detention, illegal wars, lies were simply the surface effect of the Cheney/Bush era's deep and abiding aim — to realign the separation of US powers sufficient to give the executive arm of government, the presidency, an overwhelming authority that effectively destroyed the checks and balances of the three branches of government.'
I was somewhat amazed to read, for the first time, that this was largely achieved through:'the use of "presidential signing statements" and restrictions on information flow'.
The obvious question is why had I not seen this reported before? Certainly I may have missed it - but if it was just not reported then it raises some pretty profound questions about the journalist profession.
Having been a close watcher of the happenings of Downing St in the Blair years and the rise of New Labour I have for sometime held ...and occasionally espoused ... an analysis that argued that the rise of New Labour could be considered as an internal Labour party coup mounted and maintained, even in government, by a small group around Blair. In office they maintained the sort of group think that gives rise to a 'coup' - and ultimately this was their undoing. The same dynamics appear to have been played out in the rise and fall of the neo-cons in the USA. For this reason the transparency and lobbying restrictions imposed by Obama are to be welcomed - they are key checks to the unfettered powers that can be assumed by the executive in our still very flawed democratic forms. As Rundle notes, Obama's changes 'for those wanting to contest such a policy' .... 'changes the nature of what is to be contested to a realpolitik, more open in its aims and motives, more open to criticism, challenge and dissent, and less bound up with grand schemes of dominance and global transformation, less need to make Mosul into Missouri.' This may not make for easy politics but the reward that can be reaped is genuine transformation.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
An open letter to my Federal MP
Thank you for making time to see me last week. Like you I am sorry we only had 30 minutes to discuss some very complex matters - that gave us roughly 15 minutes 'airtime' each! I was not encouraged by our conversation. My motivation to meet with you came from what I considered to be the government's totally inadequate response to climate change as embodied in the recent white paper. Nothing you said changed my mind on this matter; in fact I experienced affirmation of the points I made in an earlier posting to my Blog. Many matters germane to the discussion were not said or not fully explored, such as:
* population growth and current government policies;
* mismatch between your pre-election rhetoric/promises and current actions;
* the amount of money going to the carbon polluting industries;
* the intellectually and morally questionable over-hyping and over- investment (by government) in so-called 'clean coal' and carbon sequestration;
* the perverse effects built into the new Federal solar rebate system - recent articles and editorials in The Age expand upon my points;
* whether government policy is driven more by tax revenues from the carbon intensive industries than any other consideration;
* the perverse and systemic impacts that are now arising from earlier decisions by governments to privatise public utilities;
* failure to reformulate institutional arrangements - for example we now need utilities where 'profit' is driven by the delivery of socio-ecological goals rather than the sale of physical materials such as water or energy i.e. de-materialisation.
I was struck by arguments that a government could only go where the electorate was - and that Melbourne was atypical. Also your perspective on surveys! I liked the ideas on household audits.
Overall I could relate to some points but not the overall message that comes from them - because ultimately it is a message that perpetuates a sort of group think and a vicious circle.
The vicious circle I extrapolated from our conversation goes something like this: (i) the electorate are only prepared to do so much (very little in fact) in relation to climate change; (ii) this is particularly an issue (as is political support) in the main electorates where carbon-polluting industries are located (Gladstone, La Trobe Valley, Hunter etc) ; (iii) therefore we (Labor) cannot take decisive leadership; (iv) therefore we pursue policies that have minimal impact on the lives of the electorate - and little overall impact on Australia's gross carbon pollution, so (v) the current undertandings and practices of the majority of the electorate stay much as they are (and as shaped by the reactionary Howard years); (vi) so we cannot lead.
I suggested Labor's reponse was a bit like if Billy Hughes, when PM, had introduced legislation to reduce the worst excesses of horse shit pollution, by providing subsidies to stables, buggy manufacturers and smithies! Your response suggested the government was not really prepared to invest so as to be out in front - through new technologies and investment models, new ways of doing work and providing services, such as green entrepreneurship. Instead government actions tie us to the same old horseshit or its equivalent! This is not to say that government does not have responsibilty for assisting in building and managing a safety net for those most affected by the global transformations that will most surely occur. However I do not see a long term safety net in the government's current strategy - only an 'all eggs in one basket' gamble with Australia's long term future.
On Saturday I was still mulling over my concerns and wondering what if anything I might have said differently...as well as considering how much more there was to be said. Then I came across the article by Jonathan Schell in The Age which said, in terms far more eloquent than I, what I would want to say to you and the Rudd government. Let me draw your attention to the following points in particular:
'A fourth crisis is the ecological one, comprising global warming, the human-caused annihilation of species, population growth, water and land shortages, and much else. Like nuclear danger, the ecological crisis threatens something that has never been at stake before our era: the foundations of life on which humans and all species depend for survival. Economic and military ups and downs are for a season only. Extinction is forever.'
Does this strike a chord with our PM and his commitment to espoused moral positions?
'political pragmatism in current circumstances may be real folly, as it was on the eve of the Iraq War and in the years of the finance bubble preceding the crash. Smooth sailing down the middle of the Niagara River carries you over Niagara Falls.'
Schell mounts strong arguments, as if more were needed, for the current government to break out of the intellectual and political traps it has set for itself, and to raise the stakes for us all, just as Barack Obama has done for those 80% or so of Americans who, if tested in focus groups, are unlikely to have positioned themselves with where their President sets out to take them. Australia by contrast is being led into a coal-de-sac!
As I understand it you have young children: when they ask what it is that you did under these circumstances what is it that you would wish to answer?
Thank you for making time to see me last week. Like you I am sorry we only had 30 minutes to discuss some very complex matters - that gave us roughly 15 minutes 'airtime' each! I was not encouraged by our conversation. My motivation to meet with you came from what I considered to be the government's totally inadequate response to climate change as embodied in the recent white paper. Nothing you said changed my mind on this matter; in fact I experienced affirmation of the points I made in an earlier posting to my Blog. Many matters germane to the discussion were not said or not fully explored, such as:
* population growth and current government policies;
* mismatch between your pre-election rhetoric/promises and current actions;
* the amount of money going to the carbon polluting industries;
* the intellectually and morally questionable over-hyping and over- investment (by government) in so-called 'clean coal' and carbon sequestration;
* the perverse effects built into the new Federal solar rebate system - recent articles and editorials in The Age expand upon my points;
* whether government policy is driven more by tax revenues from the carbon intensive industries than any other consideration;
* the perverse and systemic impacts that are now arising from earlier decisions by governments to privatise public utilities;
* failure to reformulate institutional arrangements - for example we now need utilities where 'profit' is driven by the delivery of socio-ecological goals rather than the sale of physical materials such as water or energy i.e. de-materialisation.
I was struck by arguments that a government could only go where the electorate was - and that Melbourne was atypical. Also your perspective on surveys! I liked the ideas on household audits.
Overall I could relate to some points but not the overall message that comes from them - because ultimately it is a message that perpetuates a sort of group think and a vicious circle.
The vicious circle I extrapolated from our conversation goes something like this: (i) the electorate are only prepared to do so much (very little in fact) in relation to climate change; (ii) this is particularly an issue (as is political support) in the main electorates where carbon-polluting industries are located (Gladstone, La Trobe Valley, Hunter etc) ; (iii) therefore we (Labor) cannot take decisive leadership; (iv) therefore we pursue policies that have minimal impact on the lives of the electorate - and little overall impact on Australia's gross carbon pollution, so (v) the current undertandings and practices of the majority of the electorate stay much as they are (and as shaped by the reactionary Howard years); (vi) so we cannot lead.
I suggested Labor's reponse was a bit like if Billy Hughes, when PM, had introduced legislation to reduce the worst excesses of horse shit pollution, by providing subsidies to stables, buggy manufacturers and smithies! Your response suggested the government was not really prepared to invest so as to be out in front - through new technologies and investment models, new ways of doing work and providing services, such as green entrepreneurship. Instead government actions tie us to the same old horseshit or its equivalent! This is not to say that government does not have responsibilty for assisting in building and managing a safety net for those most affected by the global transformations that will most surely occur. However I do not see a long term safety net in the government's current strategy - only an 'all eggs in one basket' gamble with Australia's long term future.
On Saturday I was still mulling over my concerns and wondering what if anything I might have said differently...as well as considering how much more there was to be said. Then I came across the article by Jonathan Schell in The Age which said, in terms far more eloquent than I, what I would want to say to you and the Rudd government. Let me draw your attention to the following points in particular:
'A fourth crisis is the ecological one, comprising global warming, the human-caused annihilation of species, population growth, water and land shortages, and much else. Like nuclear danger, the ecological crisis threatens something that has never been at stake before our era: the foundations of life on which humans and all species depend for survival. Economic and military ups and downs are for a season only. Extinction is forever.'
Does this strike a chord with our PM and his commitment to espoused moral positions?
'The contemporary crises are interwoven, forming a kind of Gordian knot. The world does not have the luxury of dealing with them one by one. Consider the relationship of the collapsing economy to the collapsing environment. Economics Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has noted that economists are wondering if the graph of the financial crisis will eventually prove to be V-shaped or U-shaped; but he argues it will be L-shaped.
Indeed, there can be neither a V, a U or any other upward-turning graph if the remedy does not include a green revolution and a sustainable-energy program. A dirty recovery, even if possible, would be worse than no recovery. It would be the quickest path to a bigger bust. The just-crashed "successful" economy, excellent as it was in producing cheap goods, was also producing environmental catastrophe.'
Stigliz's arguments echo my suggestion to you - that the only way forward in the current so-called crisis is to frame it as an opportunty - an opportunity to position our future as more viably coupled to our environment through pursuing different forms of 'economic activity'. I agree with Schell when he says:'political pragmatism in current circumstances may be real folly, as it was on the eve of the Iraq War and in the years of the finance bubble preceding the crash. Smooth sailing down the middle of the Niagara River carries you over Niagara Falls.'
Schell mounts strong arguments, as if more were needed, for the current government to break out of the intellectual and political traps it has set for itself, and to raise the stakes for us all, just as Barack Obama has done for those 80% or so of Americans who, if tested in focus groups, are unlikely to have positioned themselves with where their President sets out to take them. Australia by contrast is being led into a coal-de-sac!
As I understand it you have young children: when they ask what it is that you did under these circumstances what is it that you would wish to answer?
Monday, January 19, 2009
'Warning that we can no longer ignore' headlines are not shifting the 'ignoring' fast enough!
In today's Age an article by Dominic Waughray, head of environment initiatives at the World Economic Forum, reports some of the main points made by '700 international experts in Dubai in November to discuss the world agenda for 2009'. 'Their conclusions were startling' he says!
'we face an environmental security problem that is deeper, more fundamental, more complex and much more systemic than the financial crisis; 2008 could merely be the precursor to a perfect economic storm, the like of which we have never seen before.'
Some of the 'chilling observations' include:
'■ If present trends continue, nearly 4 billion people will live in areas of high water stress by 2030. Simply augmenting water supply is no longer possible in most places — historical approaches to water use will not work in the future.
In today's Age an article by Dominic Waughray, head of environment initiatives at the World Economic Forum, reports some of the main points made by '700 international experts in Dubai in November to discuss the world agenda for 2009'. 'Their conclusions were startling' he says!
'we face an environmental security problem that is deeper, more fundamental, more complex and much more systemic than the financial crisis; 2008 could merely be the precursor to a perfect economic storm, the like of which we have never seen before.'
Some of the 'chilling observations' include:
'■ If present trends continue, nearly 4 billion people will live in areas of high water stress by 2030. Simply augmenting water supply is no longer possible in most places — historical approaches to water use will not work in the future.
■ The International Energy Agency predicts an expansion in world energy demand of 45% by 2030, with coal accounting for more than a third of this overall rise. The agency say these energy trends are "patently unsustainable, economically, environmentally and socially". A new energy paradigm for both developed and developing countries is urgently required.
■ The world will need to double food production in the next 40 years to meet projected demand. Our ability to meet current and future production needs is seriously challenged by increasing water scarcity, climate change, and volatile energy costs and supplies.
■ Humanitarian assistance will increase to unprecedented scale if, as commentators foresee, large-scale migration results from climate change and water scarcity. The International Red Cross estimates that there are 25 million to 50 million climate change refugees already, compared with the official refugee population of 28 million. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that 150 million environmental refugees could exist by 2020. Currently in international law there is no such thing as an environmental refugee.'
One has little confidence that policy scenarios of most Governments are equipped to deal with these challenges.Sunday, January 18, 2009
Send this to all the politicians you know
An easy to follow, well made case for why taking no action or minimal action in response to climate change is the wrong choice.
Do what it says - send it around!
An easy to follow, well made case for why taking no action or minimal action in response to climate change is the wrong choice.
Do what it says - send it around!
Are systemic understandings of climate change being censored?
David Wasdell makes the case that they are in this short video. As a result they have set up the Apollo-Gaia Project. The case is made that one of the main understandings that is being censored is that concerning the implications of non-linearity and positive feedback processes - see the material under: Feedback Dynamics and the Acceleration of Climate Change.
You might like to see David Wasdell explain how feedback processes work through his climate escalator analogy...or parable as he calls it. Or in other YouTube videos.
David Wasdell makes the case that they are in this short video. As a result they have set up the Apollo-Gaia Project. The case is made that one of the main understandings that is being censored is that concerning the implications of non-linearity and positive feedback processes - see the material under: Feedback Dynamics and the Acceleration of Climate Change.
You might like to see David Wasdell explain how feedback processes work through his climate escalator analogy...or parable as he calls it. Or in other YouTube videos.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
News from Triarchy Press
Michael Thompson has been on BBC Radio 4 and talking at the James Martin Institute, the London School of Economics and the RSA about Cultural Theory and its application to the Credit Crunch, Climate Change and other matters of moment. If you want to know more, his new book 'Organising and Disorganising' is available from Triarchy. Or learn more about him.
Andrew Carey's book on the recent innovation project at The Economist magazine is part corporate anthropology and part management guide. One reviewer remonstrated that he had to have an encyclopaedia open whilst reading it. We hope that's better than dumbing down. You can read parts of 'Inside project Red Stripe' online or order it from us at www.triarchypress.com
Edward Lloyd-Jones warned us that another scandal like that of Victoria Climbie was bound to happen soon in England because of recent developments in the children's justice system. Days after publication of his pamphlet, news came of the Baby P tragedy. 'The Forward March of Children's Justice Halted' explains what's gone wrong. Read more at www.triarchypress.com
Edward drew extensively on John Seddon's 'Systems Thinking in the Public Sector' - a diatribe against government attempts to fix the public sector with targets and 'deliverology'. If you haven't seen it, get hold of a copy from us [or your favourite bookshop]. It's an exhilarating read.
And, finally, Cambridge Strategy (a Triarchy Imprint) has new self-assessment audits in the pipeline for next year, but I thoroughly recommend using their existing audits to see how well your organisation handles The Shadow Side, Innovation, Leadership, Customer Satisfaction and Training & Development. See all the audits.
Michael Thompson has been on BBC Radio 4 and talking at the James Martin Institute, the London School of Economics and the RSA about Cultural Theory and its application to the Credit Crunch, Climate Change and other matters of moment. If you want to know more, his new book 'Organising and Disorganising' is available from Triarchy. Or learn more about him.
Andrew Carey's book on the recent innovation project at The Economist magazine is part corporate anthropology and part management guide. One reviewer remonstrated that he had to have an encyclopaedia open whilst reading it. We hope that's better than dumbing down. You can read parts of 'Inside project Red Stripe' online or order it from us at www.triarchypress.com
Edward Lloyd-Jones warned us that another scandal like that of Victoria Climbie was bound to happen soon in England because of recent developments in the children's justice system. Days after publication of his pamphlet, news came of the Baby P tragedy. 'The Forward March of Children's Justice Halted' explains what's gone wrong. Read more at www.triarchypress.com
Edward drew extensively on John Seddon's 'Systems Thinking in the Public Sector' - a diatribe against government attempts to fix the public sector with targets and 'deliverology'. If you haven't seen it, get hold of a copy from us [or your favourite bookshop]. It's an exhilarating read.
And, finally, Cambridge Strategy (a Triarchy Imprint) has new self-assessment audits in the pipeline for next year, but I thoroughly recommend using their existing audits to see how well your organisation handles The Shadow Side, Innovation, Leadership, Customer Satisfaction and Training & Development. See all the audits.
Beyond Bourke - scenes from forty years ago
In a posting last year I described a trip I had made with my brother and nephew to Bourke and Enngonia. My first visit since 1956. Here are some images from the first trip.
The W. Ross Ashby Digital Archive
Recent message: ‘it is with great pleasure that we can now officially announce that The W. Ross Ashby Digital Archive is available at http://www.rossashby.info We would be delighted if you would take the time to have a look at the digital archive web site, and where appropriate, help to spread awareness of its availability, by mentioning it and linking to it in any mailing lists, newsletters, or web sites that you are involved in.
Heathrow decision - hypocrisy in action
The decision just made by the UK Labour Government to proceed with expansion of Heathrow Airport exemplifies the well known phenomenon in political life of not 'walking the talk'. Or, put another way, it demonstrates the common mismatch between what people espouse and what they do (as explained by Chris Argyris and Donald Shön). The Labour Government has done much, perhaps more than most governments, to espouse policies relating to sustainable development and to climate change mitigation and adaptation. This descison however higlights the extent of the mismatch between espousing and acting - it thus holds itself open to the charge of systematic and entrenched 'greenwashing'.
There is nothing moral, intelligent, courageous, ethical or wise about this decision. I hope that the decision is never enacted - whether by change of government, dissent within the Labour Party or civil, non-violent, protest.
The decision just made by the UK Labour Government to proceed with expansion of Heathrow Airport exemplifies the well known phenomenon in political life of not 'walking the talk'. Or, put another way, it demonstrates the common mismatch between what people espouse and what they do (as explained by Chris Argyris and Donald Shön). The Labour Government has done much, perhaps more than most governments, to espouse policies relating to sustainable development and to climate change mitigation and adaptation. This descison however higlights the extent of the mismatch between espousing and acting - it thus holds itself open to the charge of systematic and entrenched 'greenwashing'.
There is nothing moral, intelligent, courageous, ethical or wise about this decision. I hope that the decision is never enacted - whether by change of government, dissent within the Labour Party or civil, non-violent, protest.
Are the carbon and energy footprints catching up with the networked world?
I was interested to see (at last!) that my friend John Naughton has picked up on issues relating to the carbon footprint of the networked world - or at least that part of it generated by the act of 'Googling'. I would agree with him that this is an issue for which the time has come - I too expect it to run and run during 2009 ... as I hope will all attempts to understand carbon and energy dynamics in whole - of - system analyses associated with any innovation or decision.
This does not seem to have been the case with recent Environmental Impact assessments of the planned desalination plant for Melbourne.
I was interested to see (at last!) that my friend John Naughton has picked up on issues relating to the carbon footprint of the networked world - or at least that part of it generated by the act of 'Googling'. I would agree with him that this is an issue for which the time has come - I too expect it to run and run during 2009 ... as I hope will all attempts to understand carbon and energy dynamics in whole - of - system analyses associated with any innovation or decision.
This does not seem to have been the case with recent Environmental Impact assessments of the planned desalination plant for Melbourne.
The Rudd Government response to climate change: GetUp sums up the situation pretty well
My email from GetUp said:
'We need to act fast. Hidden in the fine print of Prime Minister Rudd's woefully inadequate 5% climate target announcement on Monday was over $130 million for an 'information campaign' to sell us his sparse climate package. Doesn't it remind you of the kind of climate policy John Howard would have announced?
So we're planning to make waves this Summer by landing the first blow during the Boxing Day cricket Test.
The Boxing Day Test is the biggest TV event of the season, and our team has been working day and night to get our own climate ad ready for it. Watch it now and help us raise the urgent resources we need to get our ad on the air as families around the nation tune in [to]:
GetUp's Spot The Difference campaign!
Kevin Rudd made climate change one of his major points of difference during the election, and was elected on a promise of real climate action. Yet, as John Howard's former Chief of Staff Grahame Morris said "he's not too far away from where Howard would have ended up".
We know it feels like the fight is over for the year - but it's not. The Government has teams of pollsters monitoring public reaction to Monday's announcement. They're hoping, as it's Christmas, people will tune into the cricket and turn off. We need to respond now to show them strong climate action is non-negotiable.'
I hope the adds made some difference. I am off to see my Federal member about the matter.
My email from GetUp said:
'We need to act fast. Hidden in the fine print of Prime Minister Rudd's woefully inadequate 5% climate target announcement on Monday was over $130 million for an 'information campaign' to sell us his sparse climate package. Doesn't it remind you of the kind of climate policy John Howard would have announced?
So we're planning to make waves this Summer by landing the first blow during the Boxing Day cricket Test.
The Boxing Day Test is the biggest TV event of the season, and our team has been working day and night to get our own climate ad ready for it. Watch it now and help us raise the urgent resources we need to get our ad on the air as families around the nation tune in [to]:
GetUp's Spot The Difference campaign!
Kevin Rudd made climate change one of his major points of difference during the election, and was elected on a promise of real climate action. Yet, as John Howard's former Chief of Staff Grahame Morris said "he's not too far away from where Howard would have ended up".
We know it feels like the fight is over for the year - but it's not. The Government has teams of pollsters monitoring public reaction to Monday's announcement. They're hoping, as it's Christmas, people will tune into the cricket and turn off. We need to respond now to show them strong climate action is non-negotiable.'
I hope the adds made some difference. I am off to see my Federal member about the matter.
The trap. What happened to our dream of freedom?
In 2007 I posted a blog about the series of three programs written, directed and filmed by Adam Curtis under this title. If you have not seen them they are worth watching - now accessible on Martin Flanagan's web site (originally aired on the BBC in March 2007, you can now watch the programmes via Google Video).
In 2007 I posted a blog about the series of three programs written, directed and filmed by Adam Curtis under this title. If you have not seen them they are worth watching - now accessible on Martin Flanagan's web site (originally aired on the BBC in March 2007, you can now watch the programmes via Google Video).
Friday, January 16, 2009
Systemic understandings, policies and practices could avoid the tragedies of Gaza and Sri Lanka
It is to be hoped that under the new US administration governance and international relations possibilties based on systemic analysis and understandings will be developed and deployed. Two good examples of what I mean appeared in the media during the week.
The first was entitled: 'Why the conflicts in Gaza and Sri Lanka will continue' by Damien Kingsbury of Deakin University.
The other was published posthumously. Unlike Damien Kingsbury the journlist and editor of The Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunga, who was killed last week, did not live in a state where freedom of speech and protection of life are guaranteed. In fact all the evidence suggests he was the victim of state-based terrorism.
I have been disheartened by the response of the Australian Government in relation to both Gaza and Sri Lanka - the statements seem more attuned to Bush-Howard era doctrine than they do to any renaissance positioning that may, hopefuly will, come to pass. As on many issues of recent times I find the analysis of former PM, Malcolm Fraser, more systemic than most.
It is to be hoped that under the new US administration governance and international relations possibilties based on systemic analysis and understandings will be developed and deployed. Two good examples of what I mean appeared in the media during the week.
The first was entitled: 'Why the conflicts in Gaza and Sri Lanka will continue' by Damien Kingsbury of Deakin University.
The other was published posthumously. Unlike Damien Kingsbury the journlist and editor of The Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunga, who was killed last week, did not live in a state where freedom of speech and protection of life are guaranteed. In fact all the evidence suggests he was the victim of state-based terrorism.
I have been disheartened by the response of the Australian Government in relation to both Gaza and Sri Lanka - the statements seem more attuned to Bush-Howard era doctrine than they do to any renaissance positioning that may, hopefuly will, come to pass. As on many issues of recent times I find the analysis of former PM, Malcolm Fraser, more systemic than most.
State of the Environment Report - Victoria
Dr Ian McPhail and his staff are to be commended on their excellent State of the Environment Report. I only wish it were moving and shaking policy quicker than seems to be the case. Taking the recommendations in this report on board as quickly as possible seems more urgent than ever given recent headlines such as:Victoria
'In December I released the first Victorian State of The Environment Report...... The material presented in the report will be useful as a resource for environmental educators, and for students.
The Report is a 'stocktake' of Victoria's environment and covers a broad range of contemporary issues including climate change, materials & waste, energy, water and biodiversity. Indicators of environmental health are presented in the context of the drivers of change and direct pressures on the environment. The consequences of the condition of the environment are considered in the context of contemporary economics and government decision making. Current management responses to the issues are described and recommendations for improving Victoria’s environment are made. Under legislation, the Victorian government is required to respond to the recommendations within 12 months. The report received excellent feedback from commentators, academics and environmental NGO's, including this editorial in The Age.'
In addition to the main report, a SUMMARY and a series of FACT SHEETS are also available. In addition to the online resources available at Ian advises that he is ' more than happy to provide presentations to post-graduate seminars, professional development sessions on the structure, content and purposes of the report, delivered by a member of my office. In addition, and subject to the availability of staff, the office may be able to deliver guest lectures to students as part of their course'.
MORE ABOUT THE REPORT
The report is published in five main parts, each available from the website.
• Part 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the content, introduces some key concepts, and describes roles and responsibilities for managing Victoria’s environment.
• Part 2, Driving Forces, considers some of the main drivers that influence environmental change.
• Part 3, Production, Consumption and Waste investigates our consumption patterns and identifies how our use of resources acts as a direct pressure on the environment by examining our use and management of energy, water and materials.
• Part 4, the State of the Environment, presents the current state of the natural environment in four chapters, Atmosphere, Land and Biodiversity, Inland Waters, and Coasts, Estuaries & the Sea.
• Part 5, Living Well Within Our Environment, considers the complex interactions between issues covered throughout the report and presents some recommendations for future action by government and the community.
The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability is situated at Level 16, Marland House, 570 Bourke St, Melbourne, Vic 3000.
The media reporting on this report has been excellent but too often journalists seem to lack any critical or systemic appreciation of the arguments leading to simplistic spin on the part of ministers and advisers being reported. This is particularly the case on matters pertaining to per capita performance and gross performance. Per capta gains mean little if gross demand or output, of say carbon, continues to grow via population growth, housing expansion etc or in the case of Victoria, there is a failure to move away as quickly as possible from the main carbon pollutant, brown coal.
Dr Ian McPhail and his staff are to be commended on their excellent State of the Environment Report. I only wish it were moving and shaking policy quicker than seems to be the case. Taking the recommendations in this report on board as quickly as possible seems more urgent than ever given recent headlines such as:
'In December I released the first Victorian State of The Environment Report...... The material presented in the report will be useful as a resource for environmental educators, and for students.
The Report is a 'stocktake' of Victoria's environment and covers a broad range of contemporary issues including climate change, materials & waste, energy, water and biodiversity. Indicators of environmental health are presented in the context of the drivers of change and direct pressures on the environment. The consequences of the condition of the environment are considered in the context of contemporary economics and government decision making. Current management responses to the issues are described and recommendations for improving Victoria’s environment are made. Under legislation, the Victorian government is required to respond to the recommendations within 12 months. The report received excellent feedback from commentators, academics and environmental NGO's, including this editorial in The Age.'
In addition to the main report, a SUMMARY and a series of FACT SHEETS are also available. In addition to the online resources available at Ian advises that he is ' more than happy to provide presentations to post-graduate seminars, professional development sessions on the structure, content and purposes of the report, delivered by a member of my office. In addition, and subject to the availability of staff, the office may be able to deliver guest lectures to students as part of their course'.
MORE ABOUT THE REPORT
The report is published in five main parts, each available from the website.
• Part 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the content, introduces some key concepts, and describes roles and responsibilities for managing Victoria’s environment.
• Part 2, Driving Forces, considers some of the main drivers that influence environmental change.
• Part 3, Production, Consumption and Waste investigates our consumption patterns and identifies how our use of resources acts as a direct pressure on the environment by examining our use and management of energy, water and materials.
• Part 4, the State of the Environment, presents the current state of the natural environment in four chapters, Atmosphere, Land and Biodiversity, Inland Waters, and Coasts, Estuaries & the Sea.
• Part 5, Living Well Within Our Environment, considers the complex interactions between issues covered throughout the report and presents some recommendations for future action by government and the community.
The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability is situated at Level 16, Marland House, 570 Bourke St, Melbourne, Vic 3000.
The media reporting on this report has been excellent but too often journalists seem to lack any critical or systemic appreciation of the arguments leading to simplistic spin on the part of ministers and advisers being reported. This is particularly the case on matters pertaining to per capita performance and gross performance. Per capta gains mean little if gross demand or output, of say carbon, continues to grow via population growth, housing expansion etc or in the case of Victoria, there is a failure to move away as quickly as possible from the main carbon pollutant, brown coal.
Back from Blogger leave!
December in this part of the world was one of the coldest for some time. It was also the first time we had been camping in years! Courtesy of friends David and Meredith we had three nights at Wilson's Promontory National Park (Tidal River camping ground in the lee of Mt Oberon). This is the most southerly point on the Australian mainland ...and it felt like it. A beautful spot but good at delivering four seasons every hour! The Rosellas, Superb Blue Wrens and wombats were a particular delight.
Despite some recent rain and the scuddy showers whilst we were there few if any of the streams in the park were flowing and the tree ferns were really stressed. So these ecosystems are still very short of water. Water supplies for Melbourne are still critical with a major campaign being run by the Victorian Government to reduce per capita water consumption to 155 litres per day.
The cool period lasted into the first week of January which we spent at Red Hill on the Mornington Peninsula south of Melbourne. A great spot.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Open University's RAE performance is worth noting
'The Open University has climbed 23 places to 43rd in the UK’s latest Research Assessment Exercise (RAE 2008), securing a place in the UK’s top 50 higher education institutions.
'The Open University has climbed 23 places to 43rd in the UK’s latest Research Assessment Exercise (RAE 2008), securing a place in the UK’s top 50 higher education institutions.
Vice-Chancellor Professor Brenda Gourley said “I am delighted with this major improvement in our research rankings, the second largest improvement in the UK top 50, which provides further evidence of the quality and stature of the University and allows us to celebrate 40 years as a major UK institution that delivers world-leading excellence in teaching, research and knowledge transfer”.
The results show over 50% of the University’s research is ‘internationally excellent’ (3*) and 14% is ‘world-leading’ (4*), as determined by the 2008 RAE’s expert and peer review process. The quality of our research is matched by its breadth - with units submitted from all seven faculties.
Professor Brigid Heywood, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise, commented “The results justify our strategic decisions to nurture key strengths, build a rich and sustainable research environment and develop and grow centres of excellence across a wide discipline range”.
The University’s design group – spanning areas from design thinking, to sustainability and complexity - ranks third in the UK out of a field of 71. The Centre for Research in Computing at the OU has jumped 33 places to joint 19th place, just below York, Bristol and Bath.
The strength and excellence of the research supported by the OU Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space and Astronomical Research was also acknowledged with over 70% of its multidisciplinary submission deemed internationally excellent and world-leading, achieving 3*/4* rankings.
Another strategic success is the placing of Development Studies at equal 4th with Bath University; the work of this group underpins our programme of activities in Africa.
The improved placing of the OU’s Social Work submission, coupled with our signature successes in both Education and Sociology, exemplify the quality and breadth of the University’s research and reinforce our international reputation for innovative and rigorous research that influences policy and enhances practice.
Overall, the University has seen significant improvements in a number of key discipline areas, with notably strong performances in two new subject units and, in the challenging and competitive environment of the last few years, it has enhanced or maintained its 2001 ranked positions in most disciplines. A 75% growth in competitively awarded research income over the last five years is another robust measure of our increasing research excellence. '
Despite the systemic distortions of exercises such as the RAE all those involved in the OU's submission are to be congratulated. Perhaps one day we will have an institution-based model for research quality that cultivates difference and diversity and allows the fostering of inter and transdisiplinary areas such as Systems!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Acknowledging uncertainty is a moral position
Argues Robert Skidelsky in an excellent article in today's Age. I have been arguing for some time now that the best way to deal with 'wicked problems' such as climate change, river catchment management etc ..... is to abandon certainty or to put it another way to acknowledge uncertainty. Skildesky makes the excellent point that 'the key theoretical point in the transition to a debt-fuelled economy was the redefinition of uncertainty as risk. This was the main achievement of mathematical economics. Whereas guarding against uncertanty has traditionally been a moral issue, hedging against risk became a purely technical question. .... The abolution of uncertainty abolishes the need for moral rules'.
He goes on to observe that the 'monstrous conceit of economics has brought the world to the edge of disaster'.
Argues Robert Skidelsky in an excellent article in today's Age. I have been arguing for some time now that the best way to deal with 'wicked problems' such as climate change, river catchment management etc ..... is to abandon certainty or to put it another way to acknowledge uncertainty. Skildesky makes the excellent point that 'the key theoretical point in the transition to a debt-fuelled economy was the redefinition of uncertainty as risk. This was the main achievement of mathematical economics. Whereas guarding against uncertanty has traditionally been a moral issue, hedging against risk became a purely technical question. .... The abolution of uncertainty abolishes the need for moral rules'.
He goes on to observe that the 'monstrous conceit of economics has brought the world to the edge of disaster'.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Travelling in the wake of the great financial crash – vignettes
I am encouraged to learn that the UK Sustainable Development Commission is sponsoring work under the banner 'Prosperity without Growth'. But equally discoureged to have reports that the thinking of many of the senior civil servants who are also economists have not had their thinking (paradigms?) challenged by recent events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)