|
September 25, 2009
It will be realistic to assume that the G20 summit in Pittsburgh will not deliver much by way of regulating the power of global financial capital or reducing global heating. Despite Kevin Rudd’s priority, as part of his “creative middle power diplomacy”, to sell the American foreign policy establishment on the benefits of the G20 as the “driving centre” of a new global framework, little will happen in Pittsburgh.
Its business as usual for finance capital. The big banks feel confident that they can count on the government to bail them out – for who would now risk “another Lehman”? They are too big to fail and they can more or less ignore calls for lower leverage and greater regulation.
The G20 are talking about global limits on bankers’ bonuses and IMF reforms to include China in the context of Europe’s marginalisation, not the grand bargain on climate change. That will be avoided as lowest common denominator politics is back in Pittsburgh Will they have the courage to agree to reduce the subsidies that encourage the use of fossil fuels? Remember the fossil fuel lobby.
In contrast, we have action on energy in California. Ronald Brownstein says in The Atlantic that:
The collapse of the state’s (latest) real-estate bubble has sent California’s economy into free fall. A short list of the state’s current problems would include surging unemployment, struggling schools, and a budget deficit larger than the entire budget in almost every other state. But on energy and climate change, the story is very different. .... The state emits only about half as much carbon per dollar of economic activity as the rest of America. It generates significantly more electricity than any other state from non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and biomass. California registers more patents associated with clean energy than any other state and attracts most of the venture capital invested in U.S. “cleantech” companies exploring everything from electric cars to solar power generation.
Though some of California’s edge can be traced to the state’s natural advantages, particularly a temperate climate that does not require as much heating in the winter or cooling in the summer, the difference is also rooted in conscious policy decisions.California’s experience says the evolution to a lower-carbon, more energy-efficient economy is possible and compatible with economic growth, but that the change requires endurance, consistency, and flexibility.
Says something about Australia doesn't it. It is not accepted that Australia's economy would boom thanks to the push to cleaner technology; nor is it accepted that 33 per cent of that nation's electricity should come from renewable sources by 2020. Australia has shown no interest in "bending the curve,” to reshape how we produce, sell, and use energy by attacking the problem from all angles.
|
That so much of the renewables technology in California was built by Australians also says something about Australia.