Institute of Public Affairs
Institute of Public Affairs
News Article | November 7, 2016
Naomi Klein clashed with Georgina Downer of the Institute of Public Affairs and Liberal senator James Paterson, also formerly of the IPA, when she appeared as a panellist on the ABC’s Q&A on Monday night. Downer and Paterson rejected the assertion of the Canadian journalist and author that climate change undermined the free-market assumptions of centres such as the IPA and the US Heartland Institute. The Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese and the author Don Watson were also on the panel.
News Article | February 18, 2017
Australia’s conservative media commentators have found a new target for their anti-renewables angst, this week launching what was regarded as an almost inevitable attack, on Alan Finkel – Australia’s chief scientist and the man chosen to lead the independent review of the reliability and stability of the National Electricity Market. In line with similar attacks on other independent, government-appointed advisors – think Ross Garnaut – who have failed to toe the party line on coal, Australia’s right is coming out in force against Finkel, whose role leading the NEM review is guided by the view that Australia can, and will, have a high renewable electricity supply in the not-too-distant future. Finkel’s crime appears to be not to have wholeheartedly embraced new coal technology, and to write that there are ready solutions to the challenge of high penetration of renewable energy, they just need to be adopted and the market re-fashioned. Leading the attack against him is former Institute of Public Affairs head of regulatory affairs, Alan Moran, with this article in the right-wing Quadrant journal. Amazingly, it attacks Finkel’s background as an electrical engineer. “Finkel, an electrical engineer with no background in electricity markets, was commissioned to report on the future security of the electricity market,” writes Moran, one of the fiercest critics of renewable energy. “His preliminary report is so ill-grounded on facts and so peppered with fanciful assumptions that a government taking the advice would further grind the economy into the ground. “Nobody can seriously doubt that the malaise confronting electricity is a result of regulatory and tax-forced injections of wind and solar into the market. Not only, as events are proving, is this power source utterly unreliable but it costs three times as much as the coal that its subsidised provision displaces. “Nobody would buy wind and solar electricity unless they are compelled or bribed to do so. Yet the Finkel preliminary report says the market is being driven not by this but by consumer demand and technology. The credibility of the report is zero except to rusted-on ideologues, and the Prime Minister remains unfortunately among these.” The attack is heralded by Far Right blogger Andrew Bolt, and then taken up by another right-wing blogger Tim Blair,who complains that Finkel is to visit countries such as Ireland, Denmark and the US to find out how renewable energy is managed there. “Chief Scientist Finkel’s energy security review should in fact go no further than noting the energy source used for his flights to Europe and the US,” Blair writes. “When their own lives are at stake, even the greenest of green activists would never contemplate using anything besides proven fossil-fuel technology. Until rapid air travel is safely accomplished using something besides predictable and reliable fossil fuel, why the hell should our entire economy consider switching? “Do we really want the whole country to follow South Australia’s example by demolishing coal-fired power plants, installing massive wind farms and then sitting around without electricity when the wind doesn’t blow?” The commentaries comes as the heads of Liberal parties in three states vow to unwind state-based renewable energy targets, and as the controversy over renewable energy reaches new heights. The role of Malcolm Turnbull – who Blair puts in the “rusted-on ideologue” camp – in driving the South Australian wedge into the energy policy debate is also in the spotlight, after the emergence of reports that the PM’s office was “specifically advised” by the electricity market operator that “the generation mix (ie renewable or fossil fuel) was not to blame” for the storm-driven outage. Turnbull, who predicted in his National Press Club address that energy would be a defining issue in Parliament this year, on Monday denied that he had ever pointed the finger at South Australia’s wind farms as the culprits of the state’s major blackout event in September last year. “This is a classic case of misrepresentation by the Labor party and by the left generally,” Turnbull said during Question Time. “Let me be very clear, of course windmills did not cause a blackout, the blackout, as I have said many times, was caused by a storm breaching transmission lines. That is perfectly obvious. That is the only point that was made.” But this is not how things looked at the time. Analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, for instance, expressed concern that the South Australia incident had sparked a blame game from politicians and media outlets against renewables, even though the failure of two fossil fuelled facilities to restart the system had received little scrutiny. “The outage has changed the political discourse about energy in Australia,” BNEF said here; adding that, in particular, it had signalled a change in the approach of Turnbull, who they said was making it increasingly unclear whether his government’s new focus on energy security would result in “innovation of policy or better integrate renewables, or measures to retard renewables.” Buy a cool T-shirt or mug in the CleanTechnica store! Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech daily newsletter or weekly newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.
News Article | November 7, 2016
Naomi Klein delivered a stinging rebuke to Australia’s approach to refugees and climate change, as well as criticising interventions from the Institute of Public Affairs, in a fiery episode of ABC’s Q&A on Monday night. The Canadian journalist, author and winner of the 2016 Sydney peace prize appeared on the panel alongside two panellists from the free-market thinktank the IPA, as well as Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese and writer Don Watson. A dispute on climate change policy was provoked by a question from audience member Jim Stanford, an economist with the leftwing thinktank the Australia Institute. Sandford asked James Paterson, a Liberal senator and former deputy executive director of the IPA: “When will your government accept once and for all the energy system has to change and start to lead that change rather than standing in the way of it?” Paterson responded by saying he thought Australia should “take an agnostic approach to energy sources”. Klein interrupted Paterson and asked, “Do you believe climate change is real?” to which Paterson said he did. Klein continued: “How can you be agnostic about which energy source you use if you believe in that?” She continued, laying into the IPA itself: “I asked you if you believe in climate change and I asked you that because you’ve been associated with IPA. We have two people from this thinktank and this is the foremost organ in Australia for spreading climate change denial and doubt. You may personally not agree with that but the IPA publishes discredited climate change deniers, this year, in your facts book, and this is slowing us down.” Georgina Downer, an adjunct fellow at the IPA, responded, saying: “The IPA is absolutely committed to research and discussion of the facts.” She then went on to question how settled the science of climate change is. Downer said: “The IPA is, we don’t have an IPA opinion on climate change per se. We have a committed line of research into the facts.” But Klein, who has written widely on the role of free-market thinktanks and neoliberalism in stopping the world acting on climate change said: “The reason that free markets thinktanks like IPA are so determined to raise questions, raise doubts about this issue, where there is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real … If it is true, your whole world view collapses. This whole idea of pushing deregulation and privatisation and ‘government get out of the way’ falls apart because we need to manage this decline.” Klein said Australia was virtually alone in its inaction on climate change. “Among wealthy industrialised countries, Australia now stands alone raising the middle finger to the world and saying that we’re not going to act and we will build massive new coalmines, huge natural gas pipelines in the Northern Territory, opening up vast fracking fields. These are carbon bombs. This is unburnable carbon. ” She said the public “have to stand up to the extraordinary power of coal, oil and gas”. Watson, an author and former speechwriter for prime minister Paul Keating, had a dry take on the same issue. “It’s fairly simple to explain,” he said. “You do have a problem with the fossil fuel industry. No one wants to take them on. So you don’t. That’s it.” Klein won applause for her rebuke of Australia’s policy on asylum seekers and refugees also. Following a discussion of Donald Trump and his plans to build a wall on the border wiht Mexico, she said pointedly: “I think that Donald Trump talking about building the wall with Mexico is insane and racist. But I think what Australia is doing on Manus and Nauru is as well.” Klein said: “I think it’s outrageous. The New York Times called this proposal cruel, short-sighted and shameful. I hear this, I hear this argument that it’s ‘We can’t send a message to the people smugglers’. What about the message you’re sending to refugees around the world? What message are you sending about Australia? And the implication that the only way people die is at sea. They die in war zones when they can’t flee. That’s why we welcome refugees.”
News Article | October 28, 2016
You might have noticed that all of a sudden, Australians are supposed to be appalled by foreign interests getting in the way of us digging up as much coal as we want, thanks very much. Last weekend the Australian newspaper started running stories based on a “revelation” from the inbox of John Podesta, the chairman of Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton’s election campaign. One email forwarded to Podesta showed the philanthropic group the Sandler Foundation, based in San Francisco, was a funder of Australian group the Sunrise Project. The emails were published by WikiLeaks. Sunrise, run by the former Greenpeace campaigner John Hepburn, has been involved in supporting some of the court cases brought against proposed coal projects – chiefly, the massive Adani coalmine in Queensland. According to an editorial in the Australian, “thinking Australians” should be “appalled” by this news. On the back of these stories, there have been shouts for more transparency, while Turnbull government ministers have used the coverage as a pivot to call for environment groups to be stripped of their charitable status. The climate change impacts of burning coal, meanwhile, have been summarily discounted or ignored. So let us count the ways that Australians should not be “appalled” and, on the way, examine some of the bald hypocrisy that has been on display this week. We should start with the way that while the “foreign influence” of a US philanthropic organisation concerned about the impacts of climate change counts as “appalling”, apparently the “foreign influence” exerted by the Indian-owned mining company Adani doesn’t. This, despite the way Adani has cajoled, wined, dined and lobbied the Queensland government. Both the Minerals Council of Australia and its regional counterpart the Queensland Resources Council have also been “appalled” at the foreign influence, despite both groups having a board with directors from foreign-owned mining companies and taking annual membership fees from foreign-owned companies. The Queensland Liberal National party MP George Christensen said he found it “concerning” that Sunrise was getting funding from a foreign source. “What are their motives? I just think something stinks about this,” he told the Daily Mercury in Mackay. So Christensen is concerned about foreign funding to support environment groups fighting fossil fuel expansion but is more than happy to have the US-based Heartland Institute pay for his flights and hotel so that he can hang around with climate science deniers in Las Vegas? Brendan Pearson, the chief executive of the MCA, wrote in the Australian that: “This episode should prompt a rethink of the oversight of environmental groups that operate as charities and that have tax-deductible recipient status.” Why only “environment groups”? Why not take a look at the tax-deductible recipient status of all charities, such as the Institute of Public Affairs? I’m picking on that particular Melbourne-based “thinktank”, because it has been producing reports of questionable quality about the “life-saving potential of coal” and, this week, released research claiming legal challenges brought under the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act had cost “up to $1.2bn” since 2000. If we want to pick reports from thinktanks to bolster arguments, then we could point to the Australia Institute’s Great Barrier Bleached report suggesting that about $1bn in tourism income could be lost every year in Queensland if severe bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef continues in the years ahead – bleaching clearly linked to the burning of fossil fuels including coal. None of the Adani cheerleaders seem bothered about where the IPA’s funding comes from, or how it uses its charitable status. Like the Australia Institute and most other thinktanks, the IPA does not reveal its funders (because it doesn’t have to) but one supporter is reportedly Gina Rinehart, who holds a stake in another proposed Galilee basin coal project. Meanwhile, the IPA is using its tax-deductibility status to raise cash for a third edition of its climate science denial book Climate Change: The Facts, with contributions from US-based and UK-based contrarian scientists, alongside the likes of Clive James and Bjørn Lomborg. Tax breaks for climate science denial? Sure. Tax breaks for fighting the causes of climate change? No way. One of the fundamental things about climate change and an aspect that makes it such a diabolical bugger is that it does not discriminate. Once you’ve burned the gas, oil or coal, the waste carbon dioxide mixes in the atmosphere and hangs around for a century or more, impacting people around the globe in all sorts of generally unsavoury ways. In short, it’s a global problem. That means that “foreign interests” have a legitimate concern if Australian governments want to support the rapid expansion of fossil fuel exports, as they clearly do. The very existence of United Nations conventions on climate change, to which Australia is a signatory, is the most obvious example of this global interest. Either the coal boosters really do want to turn Australia into some sort of North Korea that cuts itself off from the rest of the world, or we find ourselves agreeing with the words of George Christensen. Something really does stink, and it’s appalling.
News Article | November 18, 2015
West Australian energy minister Mike Nahan said the electricity industry is in the process of being “Uber’d” by battery storage technology, which would fundamentally change the nature of the system. Nahan also announced that battery storage installations in the state would be allowed to export back into the WA grid from December 1, reversing what he had described as a major error from the state-owned electricity utilities. Speaking at a battery storage conference in Perth, Nahan said it was up to authorities to allow technology to challenge “the existing paradigm” of investment. “In other words, the electricity industry, like the taxi industry, is getting Uber’d,” Nahan said, Business News reported. “Technology, innovation, entrepreneurship love monopolies because they love to attack them and that’s what’s happening.” Nahan’s comments follows those earlier this year when he said that solar would become the dominant technology in the WA electricity market, meeting all daytime demand within a decade and pushing out coal-fired generation. That represents a major turnaround from the former head of the Institute of Public Affairs, who had a skeptical view of renewable energy, as well as climate change. The transformation of the grid through solar, however, will be put to the test by the ability of the government to allow technologies and new investors to challenge its state-owned utilities. The first piece of the puzzle would be the introduction from both Synergy (the retailer) and Western Power (the network operator) of “non reference” services that would allow exports from battery storage back to the grid. The two utilities had been under pressure to move on the issue of battery storage, after earlier attempting to shift the blame to the state regulator for the ruling. Nahan said in a statement that it has been a “significant inconsistency” that customers were able to export electricity onto the SWIS from residential rooftop solar systems, but not from a battery or electric vehicle storage facilities. “This arrangement now means eligible customers can install battery storage or EV facilities to complement their solar PV systems and export unused electricity onto the network,” Nahan said. “This is an important development given the emerging future trends which forecast widespread installation of solar PV, plus storage systems.” Synergy is to start selling rooftop solar panels to its customers from mid next year – well behind its eastern state rivals – and will follow this up with battery storage by the end of 2016. Nahan also spoke of the Alkimos Beach housing development, where a 1.1MWh battery storage system is being used in a new housing estate trial to test the integration of solar and storage into the local grid. Nahan said the trial would study the implications of subdivision-scale battery storage, which along with small-scale storage promised to not only help households but also relieve pressure on the grid during peak demand periods. “Some day this will be the norm,” Nahan said. WA Greens energy spokesman Robin Chapple said battery storage is clearly “the way of the future”, and said the party was reviewing its state vision for energy, Energy 2029, to incorporate the technology. “Battery storage systems are going to completely revolutionise the way that we use energy, offering West Australians the opportunity to simultaneously save money and cut their household emissions,” he said. Reprinted with permission. Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report → “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” Come attend CleanTechnica’s 1st “Cleantech Revolution Tour” event → in Berlin, Germany, April 9–10. Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.
News Article | December 16, 2016
If you can hear what sounds like a faint drumroll coming from across the Pacific then it’s the sound of millions of jaws dropping on hard surfaces. President-elect Donald Trump is a phrase journalists are regularly typing into their keyboards. That was jaw dropping enough, even for some Republicans. But, adding to that drumroll has been the climate science community, the renewable energy industry, the conservation movement, federal environment regulators and climate change campaigners. Trump has been nominating positions to the Environmental Protection Agency and other key government agencies and departments. To a man (because they’re almost all men), Trump’s picks are climate science deniers. His choice for secretary of state and lead diplomat is ExxonMobil boss Rex Tillerson. Jaws have been dropping all over the place. In the US, there is a large and well-funded network of so called “free market” thinktanks that pumps out manufactured doubt on climate change science with the help of funding from the fossil fuel industry. Trump has been picking many his advisers from these groups, sending in climate science deniers to key agencies to prepare the ground for his administration. Many, such as Trump’s pick to lead the EPA, the Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, have launched multiple lawsuits against the agency they’re going to soon be working for. Trump also refuses to accept the thousands and thousands of scientific papers going back decades showing how burning fossil fuels is changing the climate. He recently said he had an “open mind” on the issue – a position that’s about as intellectually redundant as having an open mind on heliocentrism. Sometimes minds are so open that the brain is in danger of falling out. Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, ran the hyper-partisan Breitbart website that runs stories claiming climate change is a hoax and the “biggest scam in the history of the world” while denouncing people who accept the science as “pure scum”. Trump has also appointed a team to prepare the ground in the EPA for the incoming administration. Leading that group is Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Agency, alongside lawyers such as David Schnare and Christopher Horner – two individuals who have used the courts and FOIA laws to try and get access to the inboxes of climate scientists and, yes, administrators at the EPA. Viewing this part-reality show, part-Shakespearean tragedy from Australia, some might think our own climate debate looks relatively sane. It’s not and it hasn’t been for a long time. For well over a decade now, Australia’s climate policy has been battered, torn and held back by climate science denial and a broader antipathy towards environmentalism. The same interests and ideologies that have worked for decades to reach the current crescendo in the US have been doing the same thing here. Neatly connecting Australia and the US is the One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts, who earlier this week met with a who’s who of the climate science denial industry in Washington DC, including Ebell. Think we’re immune to the Trump denialism? You haven’t been paying attention. When Malcolm Turnbull lost the Liberal party leadership to Tony Abbott in 2009, it was Turnbull’s then refusal to back away from pricing greenhouse gas emissions that turned the party room against him. From that point onward, pricing carbon became a no-go zone for the Liberal party. A chief architect of that leadership coup was the then South Australian senator Nick Minchin, who, a month earlier, told ABC’s Four Corners he didn’t accept that humans caused climate change. Rather, Minchin considered the issue a plot by the “extreme left” to “deindustrialise the world”. After the ABC program aired, the journalist Sarah Ferguson said Turnbull had refused interview requests because he “didn’t want to face the sceptics”. You might think Turnbull would have learned his lesson. But, from his latest meek surrender to the deniers in his party, it seems not. He still won’t take them on. Earlier this month, the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, said a review of Australia’s climate change policy would include a look at an emissions trading scheme for the electricity sector – the biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the Australia. Within 24 hours, Frydenberg backed down and, soon after, Turnbull said carbon pricing was not party policy and this would not be considered – even though all the expert advice tells him that it would be the cheapest way to cut emissions and would likely deliver billions of dollars in savings on power prices in coming years. That capitulation was another example of Turnbull giving in to the deniers in the right of the party – in particular, another South Australian senator in the form of Cory Bernardi. Bernardi, too, refuses to accept the mountains of evidence that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. The recently appointed chairman of the Coalition’s backbench environment committee is the Liberal MP Craig Kelly – another climate science denier. Going further back, Abbott’s position on climate science was heavily influenced by the mining industry figure and geologist Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth – a tome packed with contradictory arguments, dodgy citations and errors too numerous to count (actually, celebrated mathematical physicist Dr Ian Enting did count them and found at least 126). Cardinal George Pell, Australia’s most senior Roman Catholic, also took his lead from Plimer’s book. And who can forget Abbott’s business adviser Maurice Newman and his claims that climate science is fraudulent and acting as cover for the UN to install a one-world government – the exact same position taken by Roberts and other fake freedom fighters. Another Coalition MP seen as influential is the Queensland Nationals MP George Christensen. Like Roberts and Bernardi before him, Christensen has attended US conferences of anti-climate science activists hosted by the Heartland Institute (that group has been heavily funded by the family foundation of Robert Mercer, the ultrarich conservative hedge fund manager whose millions helped get Trump elected and whose daughter Rebekah is a pivotal member of Trump’s transition team). Just like the US, Australia too has its own “free market” conservative groups pushing climate science denial. Look no further than Melbourne’s Institute of Public Affairs (which only last year was called in to “balance” a climate science briefing to Kelly’s committee). How about the media? Rupert Murdoch’s outlets the Wall Street Journal and Fox News help to push themes that climate scientists are frauds, that action to cut greenhouse gas emissions will wreck the economy and that renewable energy can’t keep the lights on. The stable of flagship commentators working on Murdoch’s News Corp Australia, led by the likes of Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Chris Kenny and Terry McCrann, are all happy to repeat and embellish those same talking points. On the radio, the US has popular conservatives such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh pushing climate science denial. In Australia, we have Alan Jones and his stable of shouty Macquarie Radio colleagues. At this point, some will argue Australia and the rest of the world is investing heavily in renewables. The US, like Australia, is seeing strong growth in the renewable energy sector. That’s all true. Also true is the progress made through the international agreements made in Paris, even though the climate pledges that make up the deal still fall well short of averting dangerous climate change. But there’s little doubt that climate science denial is on the march, backed by a conspiracy culture that’s rapidly gaining audiences online. Trump is climate science denial’s greatest propaganda victory so far. Australia is not immune.
News Article | December 8, 2016
The rise of contract and casual work means a shorter working week and universal basic income should become serious policy options, the Green Institute says. The institute’s report Can Less Work be More Fair? said the loss of permanent full-time jobs in areas as diverse as cleaning services and academia was making work highly precarious and increasing the divide between those who were overworked and those who were underemployed. Tim Hollo, the Green Institute’s executive director, said he hoped the paper expanded the acceptable boundary of conversation for left-of-centre politics, as the Institute of Public Affairs and Sky’s Andrew Bolt did for free-market and right-wing politics. He said the Green Institute “unambiguously” supported reducing working hours with no reduction in working conditions by exploiting technology to share work more evenly and reduce inequality. “The Keynesian ideal of a 15-hour working week used to be uncontroversially positive. It should be again,” the paper says. “We need to reclaim the idea that, while work is important, while we should all contribute our abilities, ideas and skills, a prosperous society should not force the majority of its people to work immensely long hours in order to scrape by.” The institute said it remained agnostic on whether universal basic income (UBI) – which would provide every resident with a regular and unconditional subsistence wage – would be appropriate in Australia. “However, we believe a conversation on the idea, in the context of the need to grapple with the inevitability of less and less paid work in an ever more unstable world, is vital to our politics,” he said. The paper’s contributors include left-of-centre economists and academics Jon Altman, Eva Cox, Elise Klein, Greg Marston, Godfrey Moase, Clare Ozich, Frank Stilwell, Louise Tarrant and Chris Twomey. Klein, from the University of Melbourne, wrote that the idea of a universal basic income stretched back to Thomas More’s Utopia in 1516, and was carried by thinkers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell. Ben Spies-Butcher, from Macquarie University, said it could be part of a broader drive for social change, even though working for more affordable housing and better provision of universal health and education might be more important. Frank Stilwell, emeritus professor from the political economy department at Sydney University, argued UBI would need to be examined in greater detail before being considered for introduction in Australia. Hollo wrote: “We hope that this paper can contribute in its own small way to an open, honest conversation in our politics, media and society about how to make a future with less paid work a more fair, more connected, more caring future.” The Green Institute is the Greens’ equivalent of the Liberal party’s Menzies Research Centre and Labor’s Chifley Institute. It receives federal funding, but its work is published independently of the Greens party hierarchy. According to the 2016-17 budget, the Green Institute received $84,000 in funding this year, rising to $92,000 by 2019-20. By comparison, the Menzies Research Centre and Chifley Research Centre each received $228,000 in 2016-17.
Quirk T.,Institute of Public Affairs
Energy and Environment | Year: 2010
The role of methane in the atmosphere has been emphasised by the IPCC to the point that many governments regard methane as almost as important as carbon dioxide amongst the greenhouse gases. The IPCC emphasis has resulted in emissions from natural gas pipelines, coal seams and agricultural livestock being included in schemes to limit the growth of greenhouse gas concentrations. Analysis of changes to atmospheric methane within the last one hundred years suggests that the annual increases from 1930 to 1970 were due to losses from the production, transmission and distribution of natural gas. Further, the substantial reduction in these losses from 1970 to 1990 has brought the annual increases back to the rate seen at the start of the twentieth century. Measurements over the last fifteen years show only natural variability. They provide no justification for any attempts to reduce methane from industrial or agricultural activity. While methane variability remains restricted to natural causes, the best policy is to do nothing.
Babajanian B.,Institute of Public Affairs
Central Asian Survey | Year: 2015
This article examines the extent to which the World Bank's community-driven Village Investment Project empowered people to influence the choice of local investments (micro-projects) and to exact accountability from their leaders. It is based on qualitative interviews and group discussions in 16 rural communities. The research demonstrates that the project provided an effective mechanism for responsive infrastructure delivery to address local priority needs. However, it did not improve accountability either within or outside the micro-project boundaries. The project's bottom-up development model was not by itself sufficient to enable people to exercise power over local government officials and informal leaders in the absence of effective horizontal accountability institutions within the state. © 2015 Southseries Inc.
Quirk T.,Institute of Public Affairs
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences | Year: 2012
The apparent leveling of the global temperature time series at the end of the 1990s may represent a break in the upward trend. A study of the time series measurements for temperature, carbon dioxide, humidity and methane shows changes coincident with phase changes of the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations. There are changes in carbon dioxide, humidity and methane measurement series in 2000. If these changes mark a phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation then it might explain the global temperature behavior. © 2012 Korean Meteorological Society and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.