Australia’s refugee problem has attracted global attention. This from the New York Times.
Garnaut’s target so low, the sea level will rise above it in a year
|
Driven by the remorseless logic of what is achievable internationally and that it is too late to avoid substantial impacts on Australia from climate change, the Garnaut Review today recommended a low emissions reduction target — one that is heavily dependent on an international agreement to achieve a dangerously high level of atmospheric carbon. Declaring that Australia should establish its emissions reduction framework on an atmospheric carbon level of between 450-550 ppm, Professor Garnaut recommended a set of moderate options likely to have minimal impacts on the Australian economy in the event no international agreement can be reached next year on what will follow the Kyoto Agreement. An initial fixed carbon price. Garnaut wants an emissions trading scheme to kick off in 2010 with a carbon price of $20 per tonne, rising each year by 4% plus CPI. From 2013, the role of an international agreement becomes crucial. Garnaut recommends that Australia advocate, and be willing to sign up to, an international agreement based on stabilising atmospheric carbon levels at 450ppm. However in Garnaut’s view, an international agreement on 450ppm isn’t going to happen — one at 550ppm is more likely, and probably the first step toward, eventually, 450ppm. Under such an agreement, Australia would aim to reduce its emissions by 10% on 2000 levels by 2020, and 80% by 2050. 450ppm would require a 25% reduction by 2020. In the absence of any international agreement of any kind — which Garnaut described as “not a good world to be in” — he recommends aiming for a 5% reduction by 2020. A “waiting game” option, the lowest of the lot, would simply keep the 2012 carbon price, inflated by 4% plus CPI. The costs of these options is shown here (LINK ) and demonstrates the importance of an international agreement. Notice the carbon price under the 5% option, in the event there’s no international agreement — $52.60 a tonne in 2020. But the cost of carbon under the 10% option if there’s an international agreement is far lower — $34.50 — because even though there’s fewer permits available, there’s also the opportunity for Australian businesses to trade permits internationally. In fact, the 450ppm option under an international agreement (25% reduction) is not significantly more expensive than a 5% reduction. As we discussed earlier this week (Crikey, Wednesday, item 1 “Garnaut target falls desperately short”) and as Garnaut himself readily acknowledged today, even the 550ppm target countenances the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and other iconic features of the Australian environment. Even 450ppm would see significant wildlife extinction levels. Garnaut indicated that he thought there was a case for 400ppm, but that it was simply impractical internationally. His final report at the end of the month will contain several chapters on adaptation, because in his view Australia is too late to avoid “substantial impacts” which will, as he said in his dry economist’s tone, require “major adaptation.” Garnaut had discussed his targets with Nicholas Stern, he told this morning’s briefing. Stern had indicated he thought the targets were appropriate for Australia, and that we’re crucial in forging an international agreement given most of the biggest emitters — China, India, Indonesia — will be in our region. You can bet Kevin Rudd will thinks the targets are appropriate too. They’re so low that even Rudd and Penny Wong will find it difficult to undercut them. And they should also leave the Opposition without much room to go backward — this is more or less the Greg Hunt-Malcolm Turnbull position converted into numbers. It’s all, to be blunt, profoundly depressing stuff. Garnaut has explained with logic and clarity why we’re in serious trouble on climate change and unlikely to get out of it, even if a reasonable international agreement is forged. The only small positive comes in the GDP figures in the costs table. Have a look at the comparative GDP impacts of the 5% option — where we go it alone — and the 25% option, under an international agreement — it would only cost us an additional 0.3% of GDP to aim higher, in the event some sort of international agreement is struck. Addressing climate change, Garnaut says, costs about 0.1% of GDP p.a., until we reach a tipping point in the future where the damage from climate change outweighs the costs to GDP of a carbon price. If Copenhagen or subsequent meetings manage to produce an agreement, even around a dud figure like 550ppm, there’s a strong case for Australia to aim itself for 450 and even 400, given the overall cost impact will, over the course of a decade, be barely noticeable. |
|
|
20 Comments
“It is no use saying, “We are doing our best.” You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary” - Winston Churchill
But “we” are not even trying to do our best, we’re just doing what is ‘reasonable’ and ‘balanced’.
For farksake! If Winnie had followed the advise of those who feel we should be ashamed of trying to exercise a bit of leadership, we’d all be speaking German and not enjoying Seinfeld’s weird new Microsoft ad.
The fact that we are the largest per capita carbon polluters puts us in the position where the only moral and ethical thing to do is to show some leadership.
Bernard, you’ve been in the business long enough to know that politics and policy is just a game. I know it’s positive to keep faith but since when has any party, politician or government been trustworthy. Everyone - even Garnaut has clearly got the message about erring on the side of caution - or pay the penalty.
The government elected to take a lead in tackling this massive problem now look to have accepted the death of the Murray River and the loss of the Great Barrier Reef as some kind of collateral damage in maintaining life as we know it at any cost. In doing so, of course they are eroding the foundations of that way of life … this really is a triumph of cowardly compromise.
Sigh.
The table I was linking to is Table 9.1 on p.47 of the report.
(http://www.garnautreport.org.au/reports/Garnaut%20Review%20-%20Targets%20and%20trajectories%20-%20Supplementary%20Draft%20Report%20-%205%20Sept%202008.pdf)
How much did the sea level rise last year?
How much will it rise this year?
There IS a link missing Evan and we’ll fix it on the website in a jiff.
I think we all know the missing link is James K
Why the angst people ?
The world changes, always has, always will. The world may or may not be warming, it may or may not be man-assisted.
IF it is man-assisted, well, we have all implicitly made a faustian pact - scientific advances, less disease, more comfortable lifestyles and so on in exchange for a little heat. I don’t imagine that the the people screeeeching about the end of times are living statue-like in caves and have avoided leaving “a carbon footprint” - so if greens & fellow travellers are now unhappy with the deal / or are feeling a little guilty / or feel like leading from the front - then the only responsible & logical thing to do for the good of the planet is to top themselves ! I can see Bob Brown introducing an optional “green the globe” euthanasia program into the senate next week.
By the way - talk around australia being a “per capita” offender is based on a fallacy - it fails to take into account government action / cultural attitudes towards population control. If you want per capita improvement then Australia can easily achieve through a mega-baby boom !
Fuggit.
It’s a bad day.
Here’s the link cut off in the previous comment
http://www.garnautreport.org.au/reports/Garnaut%20Review%20-%20Targets%20
and%20trajectories%20-%20Supplementary%20Draft%20Report%20-%205%20Sept%202008.pdf
Garnaut’s response is sensible. He has found a way to balance Australia’s “need” to show leadership and reduce ghg emissions without crippling the economy. Keane should be ashamed for implying that Australia can solve this global issue on its own.
This planet is doomed. Why oh why did I do a zoology degree. If only I had done literature I could have remained blissfully ignorant of the 2 billion year old story of evolution on this planet about to be decimated.
By the by if you read the Hansen paper on exponential increase in ocean levels from a tiny 1 mm per year at an increasing rate you get to about 25-30 metres sea rise (like all good exponential progression is wont to do) by about 2100: Just like doubling a rice grain on the second square of the chess board and so on. Like gravity, exponential rate of change is a cruel master. In this case very f*c*ing cruel.
Dr Andrew Glikson (Crikey editorial today) extrapolates a worst case scenario from palaeoclimate studies, however there are reasonable grounds not to expect this to come to pass. See the (currently ongoing) discussion at
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/03/a-warning-from-the-ghost-of-climate-past/
Internationally recognised soil scientists (IPCC lead authors) have calculated that changing to proven sustainable management practices on the planet’s 5 billion hectares of seasonally dry grazing land could remove almost 7 BILLION tonnes of CO2e from the atmosphere every year for the next 20 years.
Reducing future emissions is just half of the picture - removing the excess already up there is the other half.
We can do something about this- see http://www.soilcarbon.com.au for more information
Rudd has f-cked with Garnaut’s head?
Thanx jeebus I had thought “willfully ignorant” was an oxymoron but then you went on to say: “Why not set up a national bond offer for energy infrastructure in the style of the T1, T2, T3 share offers?”…… and then I thought may be not……
However nanoseconds later I resolved my confusion and realised that it was simply that jeebus is an opinionated airhead……although I would have thought that was an oxymoron too but evidently not…..
It’s disappointing to see the issue of climate change so thoroughly muddied by people who have read a few articles and declared themselves scientific experts. I’m not going to waste time refuting willfully ignorant fools like JamesK and Jack, but I will say this to the current government - stop behaving like cowards. Australians voted for you because you offered vision and pledged solutions, but your myopic focus on taxing away the carbon economy is a very poor way to frame the national dialogue, and only panders to the skeptics. We know it’s going to be expensive, but polling continually tells you that Australians are prepared to pay the investment costs in transitioning to a clean economy. Why not set up a national bond offer for energy infrastructure in the style of the T1, T2, T3 share offers? It could be an exciting way to rally the population around this vital investment in their own future.
Regardless of how you plan to raise the money, the people are only interested in how that money will be tied to tangible investments that solve the problem.
“We are too late” - to go for the agressive target we need, Garnaut said.
Why is that? Because Howard and the Greenhouse Mafia made sure of it for the last 10 critical years. And now they’re doing it again!
How come we to;erate this? Because the main media won’t condemn either Howard or their fossil fuel mates.
So we are condemned to repeat history.
jeebus: I like facts. I like logical action taken on facts. I dislike spin, I dislike “wheel-spinning”.
I like to giggle at earnest idealism….I also like your “wilfully stoopid” tag !
I am very concerned for the believers getting hysterical about climate-change. Because if their fears do materialise then the nightmare will only get worse.
The real elephant in the room is population growth - 6bn plus peoples and counting. Whether the believers like it or not the developing world does not give a fig about the sea level going up a metre over the next 100 yrs because they are really, really HUNGRY.
And the scary thing is Australia can do nothing about it. Reason being, these 6bn plus people also want decent housing and a medicare card. And if some carbon hits the skies then so be it.
We must set the example I hear you say - the developing world demands it. Well, besides appearing very “19th century colonial”, the developing world will respond with - thankyou for setting the example & making basket-weaving your only economic activity - but we will keep developing our economies until we have reached the same level of development as the Western world. We believe we have the same rights to pollute as you have done UP UNTIL 2008 !
*sound of uncomfortable silence as the believers work out that greenhouse concerns - right or wrong - don’t matter to the billions of people just after a square meal every day*
Where I see some hope for those worried about climate change is that while wants are unlimited, resources are not - cold comfort for those who are less fortunate than most Australians and go hungry every other day though…
Jack: Of course the ‘elephant in the room’ is the world’s populations’ constant reproduction. But how is one to reach the impoverished to educate them in birth control? It is impossible because the world’s churches tell everyone to multiply themselves into extinction.
It is unthinkable to deny the aspirations of the people mired in despair, or the right to a decent life. It is ironic that by constant breeding the ‘rich nations’ will end up as impoverished, and the poor nations will end up…poor. The planet, of course, will be reduced to the level of the outskirts of Cairo. It is all ‘La ronde’, with the planet the over-worked engine. Sooner or later the engine will give up. And no one gives a stuff.
Bernard, there’s a link missing up the top:
“The costs of these options is shown here (LINK ) and demonstrates the importance of an international agreement. Notice the carbon price under the 5% option, in the event there’s no international agreement — $52.60 a tonne in 2020.”
EB