Comments on: Kohler: Garnaut — the beadle and the dietary

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“Politicians around the world are calling it an ETS to try to make it seem like it’s not their fault — that some all-powerful deity called The Market is making us pay for carbon emissions. And patsies like Ross Garnaut are being set up to take the blame.”

I rather suspect Keth, that in reality, and contrary to your obvious belief, Alan has got the wood on you in terms of intelligence.

By: john newton

john newton — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

When are we going to start reducing emissions and not just talk about trading them?

By: Keth Bedford

Keth Bedford — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

You are not as bright as I thought Alan, world science saysthat we have limited time to stop emmitting CO2. Professor Garnaut comes up with a way to do it and you haggle. Australia is per person the largest emiiter in the world, it is also the counrty that will suffer the most due to climate change. The reference to some tin pot dictator in Africa where the contriubution to greenhose gas in minimal does not impress me. We need to convince the Americans and the Chinese and the Indians to do someting, the Europeans have already done something. If we can get them to change especuially the Americans then we have a chance. Howard and Bush thought it was not happening and we lost 12 years we need to do something now urgently and what better place to do so than at home.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I seem to remember this same kind of drivel being written by the likes of Kohler about CFC's. Oh doom, oh gloom they all muttered darkly. If we don't keep using this toxin in our fridges and air conditioners the sky will fall.

What everyone forgets is that other nations have managed to do this for years which has forced the use of renewable sources or people simply have no power. It is Kohler and his ilk who should learn something before they spew out nonsense.

The reality is that people and business in particular will have to find better ways to do their energy because the costs will be prohibitive if they don't. Got that?

By: ex kohler fan

ex kohler fan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Kohler’s analysis has all the signs that he is taking a lot of advice from Warwick McKibbin, and not consulting wider sources.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Why oh why are economists and those who write about finances given oxygen to reduce everything to the dollar cost ?

“It is quite disconnected from the real world, and will be almost completely ignored” ??-there won’t be a real word Mr Kholer if we contine as we have-that’s the whole point !.

What’s happened to people’s sense of tackling a probelm and solving it ? Is this planet to be doomed to it’s end because of the friggin economy of the world is more important ?. That’s why people like Kholer have to come and board and be part of solution-not bitching on the sidelines.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It worries the s*it out of me when people start invoking the ‘China Syndrome’. A reason to do nothing is because the Chinese will keep adding to their own pollution and ultimately it will all drift down here. So let’s knock that one on the head. China’s black cloud-if anyone here went to Chongquin recently they would know what I’m talking about-eventually drift’s down to Oz, where our, by then pristine sky, will be b*ggered with this evil black cloud. Yep; but maybe it’s better than forming our own black cloud so that it can join up with the one coming from the north.

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I was about to start sledging mr Kohler from pillar to post but it appears everyone else has done it for me. Thankyou one and all.

I add my 2c though. What unqualified rubbish, to suggest that "Gas, wind and solar will not do it." How on earth can he possibly stand by that comment? These are proven technologies that exist in a great number of different installations. While simultaneously suggesting 2 lines before hand that some ridiculously energy intensive CO2 timebomb that hasn't even had a pilot plant built will solve the problem. Madness.

Also, to suggest that Mr Garnaut's report is doom and gloom is nonsense. No-one has seen the report, all we've seen is the dire predictions made in the popular press about the report, all seeking to play on the fears of the people and sell more papers. Shame on you all.

EB

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Plenty of jeremiads in Kohler’s piece but no answers, as far as I can see, unless you count the wishful thinking embodied in the argument that CCS “must be made to work” (and this from someone who generally argues against the idea of picking winners). Kohler does not know how quickly renewable energy options can be developed - how could he know, when the imperatives for the technological and market developments needed here are not yet even in place? The coal industry has done its propaganda work well: we don’t know whether replacements for coal can cut it in the real world, so let’s assume they can’t. Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s assume CCS can, even though such indications as are out there on this are not even close to being optimistic. About the only thing we know from our economic history that is of any use in this area is that any prior predictions about either the speed or the nature of a technological shift - whether it was the advent of the motor vehicle, the development of the electrical power grid, telecommmunications, computers, the internet and so on - have never been even close to what actually happened. Now, however, that rather obvious fact is in the nature of being an inconvenient truth for the coal sector and other large emitters, and their spokesmen.

Kohler doesn’t have much more to stand on when surmising that the US and China are a long way from joing the climate mitigation club; and that there is little anyone else could do about that. If we can’t fix Mugabe, he suggests, how would we fix them? This looks all very hard-nosed and realistic until you think about it. If - and it is no longer as big an if as it was even a few years ago - most developed nations of any size join up to a serious post-Kyoto program, are they just going to sit around if some serious players do not? Some slack will be cut for China and India - although not for long - but very little to the US. It is much more likely that the US will see this coming, join the crowd, and then apply the trade instrument hard and heavy to whoever (after a decent interval to think about it) does not join. Why do all commentators - especially those who seem only to see problems, rather than opportunies, in the climate change issue, continue to ignore the trade implications?

By: Kevin Cox

Kevin Cox — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

There is a solution to carbon emissions and it is not trading nor is it carbon taxes. It is investing in renewables or in ways to remove carbon when we produce energy The issue is NOT collecting the money to invest - it is working out the best way to invest in renewables. The solution is through a market. The solution to the making a market in investment opportunities in renewables is to create some money that can ONLY be used to invest in ways to reduce emissions. There are simple practical ways to do this and this should be the debate. That is how do we spend the money collected in whatever way - not on how to collect it.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Some science and facts: Energy consumption drives GDP, we use energy instead of man power and horse power as an input to production. To have our lifestyle we have to burn around 8 tonnes of coal equivalent (toce) per person per year. Some developed countries are more efficient burning around 5 toce, whilst the USA is the most inefficient at 11 toce. China, India and Asia are all progressing up the development curve starting at around 1-2 toce per capita, and they will continue to increase consumption as their governments fulfil their sovereign duty to their citizens. (Year 2000 data when I last looked)
The actions are simple: use non-emitting energy sources (hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, geo-thermal) for electricity generation and lower-emitting fuel for transport (natural gas, 1 carbon to 4 hydrogen; rather than 1 carbon to ~2 hydrogen in petrol).
So why are we talking about emissions trading and permits (seems like a lot of fun for traders, bankers and administrators) and not just talking about a straight carbon dioxide tax that will build an investment fund to pay for transition arrangements in the affected industries, e.g. all cars and truck by 2020 to be gas fuelled, no new coal fired power stations rather capital and operating subsidies for alternative electricity generators, etc.
With a higher energy input costs, our global competitiveness will decrease in energy intensive primary industries like resources and farming and manufacturing like aluminium and cement. Bit of a bummer that. Meanwhile, China, India and Asia (not to mention Africa) will choke us to death. Sigh... But we will have done something. Hurrah...