tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/g7-cornwall-105727/articlesG7 Cornwall – The Conversation2021-06-15T16:06:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1627812021-06-15T16:06:01Z2021-06-15T16:06:01ZChina and the west: competing traditions make true friendship highly unlikely – here’s why<p>At the <a href="https://theconversation.com/g7-is-more-united-but-not-effective-enough-to-tackle-the-worlds-biggest-problems-162195">2021 summit of the G7</a>, which was held in Cornwall in the west of England, one person figured prominently in conversations but was not part of the gathering: the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. A fair proportion of the group’s deliberations concerned developing a shared approach to China – the awkwardly named US-backed spending plan, “Build Back Better World” (B3W), which is designed to rival China’s massive “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI).</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/china-and-the-west-competing-traditions-make-true-friendship-highly-unlikely-heres-why-162781&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>There was also agreement on the questions of democracy and human rights, with the meeting’s <a href="https://www.g7uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Carbis-Bay-G7-Summit-Communique-PDF-430KB-25-pages-3.pdf">concluding communiqué</a> stipulating: “we will promote our values, including by calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang and those rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law”.</p>
<p>Hot on the G7’s heels, Nato leaders have ramped up the rhetoric and named China on <a href="https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm?selectedLocale=en">a list of security risks</a>, claiming that “China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order”. </p>
<p>As expected, Chinese officials hit back, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/china-accuses-g7-of-manipulation-after-criticism-over-xinjiang-and-hong-kong">accusing the G7 of manipulation</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-57479969">NATO of slandering its peaceful development</a>. Yet, in the days before the statements from the G7 and Nato, Xi had been calling for China to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-57327177">“expand” its “circle of friends”</a>. Could that circle be made to include those in the G7 and NATO? </p>
<h2>Differing understandings of friendship</h2>
<p>Xi Jinping’s <a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3135672/xi-jinping-wants-isolated-china-make-friends-and-win-over">call for friendship</a> gives us an opportunity to examine Chinese politics on both the domestic and international stage. On the face of it, it suggests the possibility of rapprochement between the rich liberal democracies represented by the G7 and the authoritarian Chinese state. However, despite appearances of a call for a closer relationship, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/irap/article/18/3/369/5042962?login=true">there is more than one way of being friends</a> – and Xi’s idea might be somewhat different to what many in countries attending the G7 might expect.</p>
<p>For most countries in the G7, the understanding of what friendship might mean is based on a Euro-American tradition of thought that understands it as a voluntary and reciprocal relationship of equals. Importantly, on this view of friendship, friends remain together despite – or even because of – their differences. Indeed, differences are seen as productive and enhancing of the friendship. This view is exemplified by <a href="https://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/moralia/how_to_tell_a_flatterer_from_a_friend.htm">Plutarch’s comment</a> that “I don’t need a friend who changes when I change and nods when I nod; my shadow does that much better.” Friends disagree in such a way that they remain friends and, if necessary, disagree again in the future.</p>
<p>However, this is probably not how Xi sees friendship. His understanding might instead fall back on a Confucian tradition – as it often does in his <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-29788802">“great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”</a> that includes “friendship” as one of its <a href="http://en.qstheory.cn/2020-11/18/c_563240.htm">“core socialist values”</a>. In that tradition, good friendship is modelled on the hierarchy of older and younger brother in the traditional family. Here, the younger – or lesser – relation has a chance to grow by emulating the positive example of the more elevated friend. </p>
<p>The importance of the friend as a virtuous example to emulate is so strong that Confucius repeatedly urges in the <em>Analects</em>: “Do not have as a friend anyone who is not as good as you are”. In this tradition, the superior party is duty-bound to care for and correct the lesser party in this process of moral growth, and the lesser party is impelled to heed their advice and direction. </p>
<p>This understanding of friendship is reflected in China’s internal and external political relations. Internally, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sits above other societal actors – those who are mistaken are corrected and improved. This can be seen in initiatives ranging from patriotic education campaigns to mass incarceration in camps on China’s “new frontier”, Xinjiang.</p>
<p>Prominent Chinese intellectuals like <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0392192109102149?casa_token=RbaLInwLs3AAAAAA:Axd9kNyXi_bP1JlsIEHVSdcfYk38taVgaeDd3-GfUUMnv9yJrClkc5xx0XTF7y5-WOGtO8DQREs">Zhao Tingyang</a> argue that the best way for China to “turn enemies into friends” is to lead by example. Xi’s call for friendship is simultaneously a call for the Chinese state to be better at portraying China in a positive light. However, this does not mean that hard power methods are out of bounds if push comes to shove, as demonstrated in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea.</p>
<h2>Can China and liberal democracies be friends?</h2>
<p>Given these views of friendship, what chance is there for rapprochement and friendship between liberal democracies and authoritarian China? The Chinese model suggests a way of living in harmony with China. Chinese leaders and citizens generally do not see China as being a threat to other countries, but a generous and cultivated friend. Chinese leaders <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c0kN86Yz7SrRRuI3_Jc-tuq6_B4q4vk9/view">responded to the NATO communiqué</a> by telling NATO to stop “hyping” the idea of a “China threat”. But for liberal democracies, a friendship where the senior partner directs things and the junior partner must change to be more like them is not the sort of friendship they want – especially when they might be cast as the “junior” partner.</p>
<p>In contrast, the Anglo-European tradition of thinking about friendship emphasises equality and cooperative difference. However, the rhetoric and actions coming from the G7 and NATO appear far from extending friendship based on any such appreciation of a real diversity and difference of culture, approach, and values. As clubs of the likeminded, they see China as a threat precisely because they can only conceive of being in a friendship with “people like us”. Friends can be different – but only within liberal democratic parameters. </p>
<p>These differences mean that both China and the liberal democracies could forever be estranged, locked in a contest for superiority. A friendship could be possible between China and liberal democracies. For this to happen, liberal democracies would need to be true to their traditions of equal but different friendship, allowing for genuine difference. Based on its own traditions, China may well find such relationships difficult to accept.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The idea of friendship means very different things in Chinese and Euro-American traditions.Astrid H. M. Nordin, Lau Chair of Chinese International Relations, King's College LondonGraham M Smith, Associate Professor in Political Theory, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1627032021-06-15T11:47:15Z2021-06-15T11:47:15ZClimate change: what G7 leaders could have said – but didn’t<p>The four-day G7 summit in Cornwall ended with little cause for celebration from anyone worried about climate change. Most of the pledges that emerged were relatively old news, with the UK repeating its promise of £500 million for ocean conservation efforts and the group reaffirming its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/21/richest-nations-agree-to-end-support-for-coal-production-overseas">commitment to end support</a> for coal production abroad. </p>
<p>The leaders of (supposedly) the world’s richest democracies <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/09/rich-failing-help-fund-poor-countries-climate-fight-warns-un-chief-antonio-guterres">failed again</a> to agree to new funding to help poorer parts of the world invest in green technology and adapt to extreme weather. </p>
<p>But more interesting than these pledges and non-pledges were the things that weren’t mentioned at all. One of the greatest unmentionables at climate summit after climate summit is just how badly we keep track of contributions to global warming.</p>
<p>It’s the elephant in the room at any gathering where the leaders of rich countries discuss climate change: historical responsibility. Everyone knows that G7 nations have contributed disproportionately to the global warming that has already happened. But exactly how much more? </p>
<p>If you <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=which+country+has+caused+most+global+warming&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB945GB945&oq=which+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j0i433j0j0i131i433j0i433j69i60.8119j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">search online</a> for which country has caused most global warming, you find a list of how much countries emit each year. Delve deeper, and the next thing you find is how much they have reduced their emissions since 1990. This flatters mature economies, whose emissions are declining. But for carbon dioxide – the effects of which last almost indefinitely (and to an only slightly lesser degree, nitrous oxide, a byproduct of fertiliser production and use) – it’s accumulated emissions over time that determine a country’s contribution to global warming, not emissions in any given year.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406449/original/file-20210615-3862-hjwvvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A graph comparing cumulative emissions from G7 nations with India and China." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406449/original/file-20210615-3862-hjwvvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406449/original/file-20210615-3862-hjwvvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406449/original/file-20210615-3862-hjwvvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406449/original/file-20210615-3862-hjwvvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406449/original/file-20210615-3862-hjwvvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406449/original/file-20210615-3862-hjwvvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406449/original/file-20210615-3862-hjwvvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cumulative CO₂ emissions indicate national contributions to CO₂-induced warming. Contributions to total human-induced warming are needed to track progress on Paris goals.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ourworldindata.org/faqs#how-should-i-cite-your-work">Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser/Our World in Data</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Focusing on current emissions is particularly kind to the G7’s host. The UK’s emissions have declined sharply since 1990, but the country did start <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx85qK1ztAc">belching carbon dioxide</a> out of its dark satanic mills almost 100 years before the rest of the world caught on. A tonne of carbon dioxide emitted by an English cotton mill in 1800 is having exactly the same impact on global temperature today as a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted by a Vietnamese power station in 2021.</p>
<p>Brazil promoted an <a href="https://unfccc.int/files/methods/other_methodological_issues/application/pdf/match_summary_report_.pdf">effort</a> to quantify country-level contributions to global warming in the 2000s, but it was quietly allowed to die. At present, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main forum for international climate action, only requires countries to report their contributions to emissions, not warming. And everyone else, from corporations to personal carbon footprint calculators, follows suit. </p>
<p>“Isn’t that the same thing?” you might ask. Sadly, no. The method the UNFCCC has settled on to report emissions reflects their effect on the balance between the energy the Earth absorbs from the Sun and the energy it emits back into space over the 100 years after the date of the emission. This is somewhat related to their effect on global temperature, but it is a very long way from the same thing. </p>
<p>For emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere over decades to centuries, like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, the distinction doesn’t matter. But for methane, and a host of other climate pollutants that persist from only a few days to a couple of decades, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-methane-should-be-treated-differently-compared-to-long-lived-greenhouse-gases-97845">it matters a lot</a>. Any country contemplating setting up a fracking industry (<a href="https://theconversation.com/methane-is-a-potent-pollutant-lets-keep-it-out-of-the-atmosphere-103055">notorious for leaking methane</a>) can be quietly confident that it will be 100 years before the warming effect of their fugitive methane emissions will be accurately reflected in their reports to the UNFCCC. </p>
<h2>Landing the plane with one eye shut</h2>
<p>In the <a href="https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf">Paris Agreement</a>, the world set itself a very ambitious goal. The headline goal is not about emissions, but to limit the rise in global average temperature to “well below 2°C”, pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C if possible.</p>
<p>That’s a good thing. By and large, the effects of climate change depend on how much we warm the planet overall, not warming by any given date, or the rate of emissions and warming at any given time, and certainly not planetary energy imbalance summed over an arbitrary time horizon. But right now, it is impossible to take stock of progress towards this temperature goal because countries, in their plans for 2030 and beyond, only report aggregate emissions using this rather odd accounting system that doesn’t reflect the effect of these emissions on global temperature. </p>
<p>If rich countries like the G7 are serious about stopping global warming, a good start might be clarifying who and what is causing it. There is no prospect of the UNFCCC changing its accounting <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-way-of-comparing-greenhouse-gases-could-help-us-meet-paris-agreement-goals-161603">system</a>, but it does allow countries to report additional information if they deem it relevant.</p>
<p>And what could be more relevant than actual contributions to global warming? At COP26, the Glasgow climate conference in November 2021, the G7 nations could step up and declare they will henceforth report, in addition to their emissions, how much warming they have caused already, how much they continue to cause, and how much they propose to cause in future. </p>
<p>All the information exists. Warming contributions can be calculated using precisely the same <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/chapter-8sm-anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing-supplementary-material/">formulae</a> used for the UNFCCC’s own emissions reporting. It is simply a matter of putting the numbers out there and encouraging everyone else to do the same.</p>
<p>This isn’t just about outing the guilty rich. Acknowledging what is causing warming should focus minds on what it will take to stop it. And if we add up the G7’s planned contributions to future warming – never mind the contributions from China, India and the rest – it will soon become clear that we don’t just need to stop causing global warming as soon as possible, but we also need to be able to reverse it by taking carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere and storing it, <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-arent-enough-trees-in-the-world-to-offset-societys-carbon-emissions-and-there-never-will-be-158181">safely</a> and <a href="https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/faqs/carbon-storage-faqs">permanently</a>, somewhere else. Which is another topic they prefer to avoid at climate summits.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162703/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Myles Allen receives funding from UKRI and the European Commission. Oxford Net Zero is primarily funded by the Strategic Research Fund of the University of Oxford.</span></em></p>If the G7 is serious about stopping global warming, it could start by acknowledging who and what is causing it.Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science, Director of Oxford Net Zero, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1625982021-06-14T02:20:30Z2021-06-14T02:20:30ZG7 showed that post-Trump, the world has shifted<p>What a difference a year makes in international diplomacy.</p>
<p>A year ago, then-US President Donald Trump was obliged to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-20/trump-cancels-g7-at-camp-david-over-coronavirus-fears/12074404">abandon his plans for a G7 summit</a> at the presidential retreat of Camp David outside Washington.</p>
<p>Various excuses were advanced by participants, including the inadvisability of travelling across the world in the midst of a pandemic. But in reality few, if any, G7 leaders wanted to associate themselves with Trump in what was hoped would be the last days of an ill-starred presidency.</p>
<p>A year later, these same leaders gathered at an English coastal retreat – in the shadow of a persistent COVID-19 pandemic – to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/11/world/g7-summit">celebrate the end of a disruptive chapter in diplomatic history</a>. Relief was palpable in the interactions of representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406062/original/file-20210614-13-1mts26d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406062/original/file-20210614-13-1mts26d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406062/original/file-20210614-13-1mts26d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406062/original/file-20210614-13-1mts26d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406062/original/file-20210614-13-1mts26d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406062/original/file-20210614-13-1mts26d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406062/original/file-20210614-13-1mts26d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Another year, and a new US president, have made a significant difference to international diplomacy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Jack Hill</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>America was back, not in its “America First” guise, but as the proclaimed <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/06/13/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-conference-2/">leader of the free world</a>, to use an old-fashioned description.</p>
<p>However, in the four years of the Trump presidency, during which Washington <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-foreign-policy-is-still-america-first-what-does-that-mean-exactly-144841">effectively abandoned its global leadership role</a> in favour of an inward-looking posture defined by its embrace of an America First doctrine, the world had changed, and shifted dramatically.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-scott-morrisons-quest-to-be-a-biden-bestie-162533">Grattan on Friday: Scott Morrison's quest to be a Biden 'bestie'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/27/g7-ise-shima-leaders-declaration">G7 summit in Japan</a> focused on the issue of climate in the wake of the Paris Agreement <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-agreement-signing-ceremony-at-a-glance-58221">signed in April of that year</a>. Its other priorities were disputes in the South China Sea and, interestingly enough, the need to strengthen a global response to pandemics in light of experiences with the Ebola virus in Africa.</p>
<p>That global response has been found to be inadequate. This prompts the question: what notice did global health authorities, principally the World Health Organization, take of the G7’s 2016 communique?</p>
<p>Five years later, the challenges identified in the 2016 document have been vastly magnified. This has been brought about by a combination of lack of US leadership on issues such as climate, and a broader global failure to manage China’s rise.</p>
<p>In 2016, China’s activities in the South China Sea in <a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/how-china-bending-rules-south-china-sea">defiance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)</a> were a growing concern, as were signs of its increasing assertiveness under its nationalist leader, Xi Jinping.</p>
<p>But the consensus view then was that China’s rise could be accommodated without undue disruption to a rules-based international order. That has proved a significant miscalculation.</p>
<p>Fast-forward to the 2021 G7 in Cornwall, where concerns about <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/13/world/g7-summit">China’s rise in its various dimensions</a> stalked the round-table discussions and bilateral meetings. No other issue came close to matching worries about China: not climate change, nor the ongoing challenges of the pandemic.</p>
<p>In the end, the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/13/carbis-bay-g7-summit-communique/">G7 communique</a> was relatively restrained on China. This reflected differences of opinion among participants about how to manage a difficult situation. The US and Canadians would have liked stronger language. The Europeans favoured a less hawkish approach. Japan was somewhere in the middle.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406060/original/file-20210614-73826-mzf7wi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406060/original/file-20210614-73826-mzf7wi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406060/original/file-20210614-73826-mzf7wi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406060/original/file-20210614-73826-mzf7wi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406060/original/file-20210614-73826-mzf7wi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406060/original/file-20210614-73826-mzf7wi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406060/original/file-20210614-73826-mzf7wi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There was a palpable sense of relief that international diplomacy had been restored to something like normal at this 2021 meeting.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Leon Neal</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>References to China were nevertheless pointed, in contrast to previous G7 communiques, which have danced around the issue of Beijing’s challenges to a rules-based global order.</p>
<p>From an Australian perspective, the communique’s reference to China’s resort to economic reprisals to punish those who found themselves at odds with its policies will have been welcome:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With regard to China, and the competition in the global economy, we will continue to consult on collective approaches to challenging non-market policies and practices which undermine the fair and transparent operation of the global economy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On human rights, the G7 was commendably forthright:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We will promote our values by calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang and those rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong enshrined in the Sino-British joint declaration and the Basic Law.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Significantly, Taiwan made its way into a G7 communique for the first time. Here, the world’s leading democracies issued a fairly blunt warning to Beijing not to further destabilise relations across the Taiwan Strait:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We underscore the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues. We remain seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas and strongly oppose any unilateral attempt to change the status quo and increase tensions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Predictably, Chinese commentators <a href="https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1225486.shtml">dismissed the G7 process</a> as a sideshow, claiming “the world’s economic and political centre of gravity had shifted”, as the nationalist Global Times put it.</p>
<p>Morrison, as an official guest, will have been relieved the G7 did not reach a consensus on the timing for a phase-out of coal for generating electric power. On the other hand, he will not have overlooked strong language in the communique calling for a commitment to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible”.</p>
<p>Australia will have had no issue with other G7 initiatives such as calls for a global minimum tax to ensure greater global equity. Nor will it object to a proposal for liberal democracies to contribute to an infrastructure fund to compete with <a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/understanding-belt-and-road-initiative">China’s Belt-and-Road initiative</a> in the developing world.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406061/original/file-20210614-64042-bzm9kn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406061/original/file-20210614-64042-bzm9kn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406061/original/file-20210614-64042-bzm9kn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406061/original/file-20210614-64042-bzm9kn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406061/original/file-20210614-64042-bzm9kn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406061/original/file-20210614-64042-bzm9kn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406061/original/file-20210614-64042-bzm9kn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scott Morrison met with several world leaders, including the summit’s host, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Kirsty Wigglesworth</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Morrison will no doubt have been disappointed he did not have a “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/morrison-meets-biden-for-first-time-but-not-one-on-one-as-planned-20210613-p580l7.html">one-on-one</a>” meeting with US President Joe Biden. Instead, he had to make do with a three-way conversation involving the summit’s host, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It is not clear whether this was a snub, but those briefing journalists in advance of the G7 should not have raised expectations.</p>
<p>In one respect, Morrison will have found the Cornwall G7 awkward. No other leader of a Western liberal democracy had aligned themselves as closely with the Trump White House.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/spot-the-difference-as-world-leaders-rose-to-the-occasion-at-the-biden-climate-summit-morrison-faltered-159295">Spot the difference: as world leaders rose to the occasion at the Biden climate summit, Morrison faltered</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In his attempts to position himself alongside Trump, Morrison echoed the then US president’s antagonism towards international institutions, broadly summed up by the Morrison’s reference to “negative globalism” in a <a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/2019-lowy-lecture-prime-minister-scott-morrison">Lowy Institute speech in 2019</a>. These were sentiments the former US president used to promote his version of an America First policy, in contrast to the multilateralist tendencies of his predecessors.</p>
<p>Morrison’s adoption of this Trumpism, now quietly discarded in his public statements, sits uncomfortably with the new president’s emphasis on Washington’s global leadership in partnership with like-minded countries and institutions.</p>
<p>Pointedly, the G7 communique reiterated liberal democracies’ commitment to “multilateralism”.</p>
<p>If nothing else, Australia’s prime minister should have concluded in Cornwall that his own personal investment in a Trump presidency was not the most prudent course. The world has shifted.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162598/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Walker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scott Morrison may have found the meeting of the leaders of the world’s liberal democracies that aligning himself so closely with former US President Donald Trump was not the most prudent course.Tony Walker, Vice-chancellor's fellow, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1622812021-06-10T09:44:21Z2021-06-10T09:44:21ZG7: why major economies are delaying a break with the fossil fuel industry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405375/original/file-20210609-14885-1xgmwwg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2828%2C2121&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/picture-burning-oil-gas-flare-458462812">Glovatskiy/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The climate crisis is certain to be a hot topic at the <a href="https://theconversation.com/g7-is-more-united-but-not-effective-enough-to-tackle-the-worlds-biggest-problems-162195">G7 summit in Cornwall</a>. While the leaders of the world’s richest countries agree in theory on the need to reach net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest, they remain <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/fdae5476-28b8-4a81-96b7-55a660f24558">faithful to a fossil fuel industry</a> reluctant to substantively change its business model.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050">report</a> by the International Energy Agency, a <a href="https://theconversation.com/iea-report-worlds-leading-energy-adviser-was-founded-to-protect-oil-supplies-now-it-wants-to-ban-new-fossil-fuels-161247">typically conservative advisory body</a>, argued for an immediate ban on new fossil fuel projects. But investments by oil, gas and coal companies into finding new sources <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shell-announces-deep-water-discovery-in-the-us-gulf-of-mexico-301287976.html">continue</a>, as does industry <a href="https://www.greenhousepr.co.uk/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-during-covid-19/">lobbying to undermine regulation</a>. </p>
<p>The environment ministers of the G7 countries committed to end funding for <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c9e68bec-cb73-4804-9a49-c3497645cf5a">new overseas coal projects</a> by the end of 2021. But 51% of their <a href="https://learn.tearfund.org/resources/policy-reports/cleaning-up-their-act">COVID-19 economic recovery funds</a> – a total of US$189 billion (£133 billion) – paid between January 2020 and March 2021 were earmarked as financial aid for the fossil fuel industry. Worse, US$8 of every US$10 dedicated to non-renewable energy was paid with no conditions on these companies to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/02/g7-nations-committing-billions-more-to-fossil-fuel-than-green-energy">reduce their emissions</a>.</p>
<p>Why does it seem so hard for G7 leaders to match their words with action when it comes to the fossil fuel industry? </p>
<h2>Betting on the long-term business case</h2>
<p>Despite setbacks in volatile markets and oversupply risks, there is still <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/">a lot of money</a> to be made from extracting, producing and selling hydrocarbons. <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2020/demand">Demand for coal has plateaued</a>, but oil and gas demand is predicted to rise at least for the <a href="https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2020.pdf">next 15 to 20 years</a>, particularly in emerging economies such as China and India. </p>
<p>This puts G7 leaders in an awkward position. On the one hand, governments need to reboot economic growth after the pandemic slowdown – a profitable energy sector nourished by rising demand abroad is welcome, even though hydrocarbon extraction can be especially polluting <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jul/23/rich-countries-pushing-dirty-energy-africa-report-claims">in developing countries</a>.</p>
<p>Governmental support for the industry in the form of subsidies or tax breaks artificially inflates the <a href="https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/fossil-fuel-clean-energy-subsidy-swap.pdf">profitability of fossil fuels</a>, in turn making renewables a less attractive investment. Put simply, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/25/big-oil-companies-profit-green-renewables-fossil-fuels-net-zero">it is less risky and more profitable</a> to – at least for now – invest in oil and gas.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/shell-ordered-to-cut-its-emissions-why-this-ruling-could-affect-almost-any-major-company-in-the-world-161754">Shell ordered to cut its emissions – why this ruling could affect almost any major company in the world</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Carbon lock-in</h2>
<p>The fossil fuel industry continues to shed <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2018.0615">public support</a>, but it can rely on the fact that it’s embedded within a complex system of consumers, suppliers and contractors, politicians and the media. The cause-and-effect relations that define such an intricate system often produce unintended outcomes. </p>
<p>This interdependency is referred to as <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421500000707">carbon lock-in</a>. Economies have evolved in such a way that they perpetuate an energy landscape dominated by fossil fuels and plagued by an inability to radically change. </p>
<p>Not only does carbon lock-in result in inertia, it causes a <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/climate-change-is-a-fourfold-tragedy/">tragedy of the commons-type problem</a>. Big oil companies such as BP, Exxon Mobil and Shell are unlikely to make meaningful changes until the rest of the system acts in unison. National oil companies and smaller privately owned fossil fuel companies comprise the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/secretive-national-oil-companies-climate">bulk of known fossil fuel reserves</a>. But they often evade the spotlight and so can operate with more freedom. For a big oil company to make high-risk changes to its business model while others enjoy a free ride would be seen as a bad business decision.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Gas tanks and flare tower owned by Petrobas in Brazil." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405380/original/file-20210609-14971-1p27vvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405380/original/file-20210609-14971-1p27vvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405380/original/file-20210609-14971-1p27vvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405380/original/file-20210609-14971-1p27vvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405380/original/file-20210609-14971-1p27vvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405380/original/file-20210609-14971-1p27vvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405380/original/file-20210609-14971-1p27vvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">State-owned entities tend to slip under the radar.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/manaus-amazonas-brazil-april-02-2012-1927992071">Paralaxis/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lock-in, as the name suggests, is very difficult to break. That said, G7 members are powerful nodes within this complex network. <a href="https://www.wri.org/climate/expert-perspective/breaking-carbon-lock-through-innovation-and-decline">Strong leadership</a> – such as divestment from fossil fuels and strong support for renewables – would cause reverberations throughout the whole system. But strong commitments coupled with counter-intuitive policies only send a signal that meaningful changes aren’t coming.</p>
<h2>Identity crisis</h2>
<p>People working in the fossil fuel industry often stay in the sector for their entire career – starting off as students of engineering or geoscience in departments <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/russell-group-universities-received-ps60m-in-funding-from-coal-oil-and-gas-sector-in-last-five-years-b1761160.html">funded by the industry</a>, working all over the world and then heading into management positions.</p>
<p>The industry’s identity is predicated on certain values that have existed since the early days of hydrocarbon exploration, including, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-017-3733-x">as one study found</a>, a deep trust in the potential of science and technology to further humanity’s control over nature and to drive progress and economic development.</p>
<p>The ideological commitments of leaders in the fossil fuel industry will take a firm challenge from governments to overcome. It’s clear from financial decisions in the lead up to the summit that G7 leaders aren’t quite up to that test yet. But the meeting in Cornwall is their opportunity to signal that that cosy relationship is finally coming to an end.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162281/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Rhetoric is hardening, but government policies still honour the special relationship with fossil fuels.George Ferns, Lecturer in Management, Employment and Organisation, Cardiff UniversityMarcus Gomes, Lecturer in Organisation Studies and Sustainability, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1623572021-06-08T12:39:29Z2021-06-08T12:39:29ZScott Morrison says it’s vital to get to the bottom of COVID-19’s origins<p>Australia is still pursuing the origin of COVID-19, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison strongly supporting US President Joe Biden’s efforts to get to the bottom of the outbreak.</p>
<p>In a speech ahead of his trip to the weekend G7 summit, which will discuss the pandemic, Morrison is set to say that “having led calls for an independent inquiry, it remains Australia’s firm view that understanding the cause of this pandemic is essential for preventing the next one”.</p>
<p>“I strongly support President Biden’s recent statement that we need to bolster and accelerate efforts to identify the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic”. The prime minister will also “lend Australia’s weight” to achieving a “more independent” World Health Organization with stronger surveillance powers.</p>
<p>Australia’s push for an investigation into COVID-19’s origins infuriated the Chinese. The eventual WHO-sponsored inquiry was inconclusive.</p>
<p>Biden asked the US intelligence community to examine whether COVID-19 evolved from an animal or a laboratory accident. Late last month, he said he wanted efforts redoubled, with a report within 90 days.</p>
<p>In Wednesday’s speech outlining “areas of Australian advocacy and agency” in advance of the G7 meeting, at which climate change will feature, Morrison vigorously defends Australia’s record.</p>
<p>A draft of his speech has been released ahead of its delivery in Perth. </p>
<h2>Standing firm on emissions</h2>
<p>Morrison repeats Australia is committed to achieving net-zero emissions “as soon as possible, preferably by 2050”, but will not formally embrace the target, which is supported by the G7 countries.</p>
<p>In a pointed reference to some countries urging trade measures against high emitters, he says: “working cooperatively on clean technologies, rather than combatively through protectionist measures, will ensure that emissions abatement doesn’t come at the cost of growth and jobs”.</p>
<p>“It’s important that nation states be accountable for charting their own path to net zero based on their unique economic structures and energy sources.</p>
<p>"Australia does not support setting sectoral targets or timeframes for decarbonising particular parts of our economy or setting false deadlines for phasing out specific energy sources.</p>
<p>"Australia will continue to be a strong voice for a technology-focused approach, and for countries to work together to drive down the cost of low-emissions technologies.”</p>
<p>Australia is not a member of the G7 but is among several countries invited to attend the meeting, being held in the United Kingdom.</p>
<h2>Reforming the WTO</h2>
<p>For Morrison, the issue of China will be central, and the G7 countries’ response to its increasing assertiveness, including its aggressive response on trade, which has seen it impose restrictions on Australian products as payback for Australian criticism and policy stances.</p>
<p>In his speech, Morrison says he has been greatly encouraged, in his discussions with other leaders, by “the support shown for Australia’s preparedness to withstand economic coercion in recent times”.</p>
<p>He says the most practical way to address economic coercion is to restore the World Trade Organization’s binding dispute settlement system. </p>
<p>“Where there are no consequences for coercive behaviour, there is little incentive for restraint.”</p>
<p>He says the G7 meeting gives an opportunity to point a way forward on reforming the WTO’s appellate body when the WTO’s ministerial conference meets in November.</p>
<p>The appellate body is the final decision maker on disputes brought to the WTO. Its effective functioning is particularly important to Australia because of our trade disputes with China. The Trump administration vetoed appointments and it now has no members, so it cannot hear appeals. This means the WTO is unable to impose penalties on nations which have broken its rules.</p>
<h2>Meeting with Biden</h2>
<p>One focus of Morrison’s discussions in his bilateral meetings (which include a first face-to-face meeting with Biden since he became president) will be “enhanced cooperation for global security and stability”.</p>
<p>“The simple reality is that Australia’s strategic environment has changed significantly over recent years. Accelerating trends are working against our interests. The Indo-Pacific region – Australia’s region – is the epicentre of renewed strategic competition,” he says in his speech.</p>
<p>“The risks of miscalculation and conflict are growing. And the technological edge enjoyed historically by Australia and our allies is under challenge,” he says.</p>
<p>“We must intensify our cooperation with others to meet the complex security challenges we face.</p>
<p>"Australia has been working hard in our region, building cooperation with the United States, Japan and India. Stepping up in the Pacific. Supporting Southeast Asia and engaging ASEAN as a steadfast partner.”</p>
<p>In relation to keeping supply chains open, Morrison says one priority in his talks will be the development of secure and diverse supply chains for minerals essential for clean energy technologies and military applications.</p>
<p>“At present, the supply chain for rare earths is not diverse - a single nation [China] currently accounts for about 85% of the world’s refined rare earths products.</p>
<p>"Given its endowment in critical minerals, Australia has a responsibility to contribute to greater diversity of critical minerals supply, as far along the value chain as possible.</p>
<p>"The same can be said for lithium.</p>
<p>"That effort will yield both a strategic and economic dividend for Australia.</p>
<p>"I also look forward to discussions on broader supply chain issues as they relate to our economic, health and social resilience.</p>
<p>"Australia is a keen advocate of efforts to keep supply chains open, transparent, competitive, trusted and diverse.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia is still pursuing the origin of COVID-19, with Scott Morrison strongly supporting President Joe Biden’s efforts to get to the bottom of the outbreak.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1623522021-06-08T07:55:40Z2021-06-08T07:55:40ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Word from The Hill<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405007/original/file-20210608-21-14izjdo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3994%2C2000&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p>As well as Michelle Grattan’s usual interviews with experts and politicians about the news of the day, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where all things political will be discussed with members of The Conversations’s politics team.</p>
<p>In this week’s episode, politics + society editor Amanda Dunn discusses with Michelle current issues and what’s coming up. </p>
<p>The pair dive into Speaker of The House Tony Smith’s efforts to reform Question Time, Scott Morrison’s agenda for the G7 Summit - taking place this weekend in the United Kingdom, and Victoria’s slow emergence out of lockdown.</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score/Lee_Rosevere_-_The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score_-_10_A_List_of_Ways_to_Die">A List of Ways to Die</a>, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162352/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses politics with politics + society editor, Amanda DunnMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.