Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Garnaut bows to the insanity of growth fetishism
|
The Garnaut report demonstrates how our obsession with economic growth is so powerful that we are unwilling to contemplate sacrificing a tiny amount of consumption now to sharply reduce the risk of climate catastrophe. The report presents modelling results on the economic implications of stabilising atmospheric concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) versus allowing them to rise to 550 ppm. (The pre-industrial level was 280 ppm of CO2 and we have now reached 387 ppm.) The 450 ppm target will be accompanied by warming of about 2°C by the end of the century while 550 ppm is likely to see warming of 3°C. Climate scientists believe that the difference between the two is huge with 550 ppm dramatically increasing the likelihood of catastrophes and runaway climate change – such as an irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet resulting in sea-level rise of 7 metres. That would rule out any chance of returning the atmosphere to a safe level for thousands of years. Yet Garnaut’s recommendation that the Government aim for a 10% reduction over 2000 levels is based on the belief that stabilizing at 450 ppm is politically infeasible and we must reluctantly accept a 550 ppm world. How much will pursuing the 550 ppm target cost us in terms of lost income? Garnaut says it will shave a little more than 0.1 per cent from GNP growth through to 2050. This means that instead of growing annually at, say, 2.5 per cent if we do nothing, GNP per person would grow at “only” 2.4 per cent if we aim at 550 ppm. Aiming at 450 ppm would cost only fractionally more. The welfare cost can best be understood as follows. With an annual real growth rate of 2.5 per cent per person, then with no carbon abatement Australia’s GNP will double by 2040. If from 2012 we aim for the 550 target our GNP will not double until 2042, i.e. we will have to wait an additional two years. And, according to Garnaut’s modelling, if we aim for the much safer target of 450, we will have to wait another six months. To even ask whether this trade-off is worthwhile is bizarre. To conclude that it is not, which it seems the Rudd Government will decide, is madness. Our rationality has been disabled by our growth fetishism. The economic impact of pursuing a target of 450 ppm rather than 550 ppm is so small that it will be exceeded by the normal statistical error involved in measuring GNP growth. Yet it seems that this amount is so large that it renders the safe option politically infeasible. Does anyone believe that Australians would be less happy if they had to wait an extra six months before they became twice as rich? The absurdity of the situation exposes a form of paralysis in our political system where we and our leaders have become imprisoned by a world view that has elevated economic growth to a sublime level. Garnaut himself expresses the trade-off in simple terms. He describes three types of benefits of cutting emissions: insurance against breaching catastrophic tipping points; protection of non-market environmental qualities not reflected in markets (such as the loss of the Barrier Reef); and, avoiding large costs in the next century. He then asks:
He says this is a matter of judgment. Anyone who has to give more than a moment’s thought to this choice must be deluded. No sane person could entertain the possibility that there is more than one answer to this question. |
|
|
11 Comments
Rushing to meet a deadline, and changing the numbers at the last moment to reflect a more realistic outcome, I made a mistake in the figures used in the first edition of this piece. The 550 ppm target would reduce GNP per person growth from 2.5% to 2.4%, not the “1.9%” reported earlier. And this would mean GNP per person would not double until 2042, not “2049” as reported in the earlier edition.
Apologies
CH
Excellent article. My response: http://desert-pea.blogspot.com/2008/09/warning-450ppm-co2-target-would-delay.html
More people need to be exposed to and contemplate the idea of economic growth being a fetish… This way public consciousness relating to climate change could be raised in a way that makes the truly desirable legislatory path (ie the one that is in the best interests of society as a whole) clear and obvious.
The growth fetishism is real and insidious. But, I don’t think it should shape this policy as much as it has done.
Polling and the election result strongly suggest that a lot of people want something done about climate change, with a recent poll suggesting most people would be prepared to pay more.
On the reverse we have the Business Council of Australia representing a bunch of businesses that don’t want to do anything. They will never be happy.
So we have 2 camps: Those who want a fix and those that want to do nothing. One half want change the other wants nothing. Rudd, being the central moderate he is has chosen a line between the 2; do something that amounts to nothing. Since the unhappy half will never be happy, stuff them and have a proper go at the scheme. Why not make the half (much more than half I suspect) that want change very happy and stuff the selfish big business?
Apparently compromise is a strength in politics, but in this case I think it’s a weakness. Big Business have the most money and so have the loudest voice, through advertising and self serving media releases. Yet the silent majority want change and have voted for it. My only hope now is that the public will make enough noise once the scheme is in place to further tighten the emissions as we go. Aiming for the catastrophic target is weakness pure and simple, and cheats the electorate of their vote for change.
EB
Clive is right. No sane person would question going for the 450ppm - nor even 350ppm in my opinion -when the cost is so trivial compared to the risks involved.
However instead of dealing with sane people we are dealing with the fossil fuel industry and the banks, who are financing their coal-burning power generators.
They are confirming at every step of this struggle that they continue to control govt policy exactly as they did when facilitated by Howard.
Until the people of Australia re-claim democracy, nothing will change. Govt of the people, for the people, by the people no longer exists in Australia.
This govt continues to serve the ‘Greenhouse Mafia’s interests and put their profits ahead the health of the planet as well as our children’s children.
Growth Fetish preferable to a Policy Gimp Suit
Only sensible approach is ease into this slowly. Politics & decision-making always require compromise.
If you have committed to introducing a scheme do it slowly - can always be ratcheted up if correct (& rest of world follows) or quitely dismantled if we enter the ice age predicted by the world’s eminent scientists in the 1960s (would have thought that is due before this johnny-come-lately global warning thingy).
Plus, this approach most likely to drown out the “Wilfully Stoopid” - that’s you & me JamesK …
Mistakes are made when rushing for a deadline - as Clive himself points out !
Depends how much credibility you put in projected figures.
Actual figures for global warming are not dramatic. We are currently only one half of a degree above average for the global surface temperature, even with the industrialisation of Asia in full swing for several decades, and the effects on the Beijing air we have seen last month.
Does half a degree actual justify shutting down our coal industry, for example?
I wouldn’t want to be a PM going to the next election justifying that sort of action on the basis of someone’s modelling.
Cancer typically outstrips its blood supply and necrosis ensues………
growth for growths sake is the ideology of cancer
Good article - I would expect politics to continue to the left and the green as the ecological reality of this system failure and the next big storm rams the point home.
In fairness to those arguments that Garnaut has had to deal with, Rudd, Wong and Swan have relentlessly bored our proverbial socks off with the moronoically repeated mantra that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action:
“On the question of emissions trading, we on this side of the House know a simple fact and it is this: the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change” (Rudd, June 23)
It is rather egregious and dishonest to now complain because Rudd & Co. have disingenuously supplied ammunition to the opposition Clive Hamilton and as a result Garnaut has had to become practical.
Contrary to the moanings and hair pullings of the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and their sycophants, Australia is in no danger of going out on a limb about dealing with climate change. Australia is being well and truly left behind. Germany has more solar panels generating power than any other country. California is tooling up to meet ever-increasingly stringent legislation to abate carbon. China may buy coal and steel, but also invests in every kind of energy.
Since the 1990s, Australian ingenuity has been being forced offshore because Australian banks would not invest in energy and environment smart technology. Anyone who used to watch Landline back then will remember Australian solar technology going to Germany, water purification to France, among many examples. Our business and economic leaders are too busy wringing the last fat turds of profit out of their 19th century technologies to care about what impact their greed will have on others of all species. When the time comes, they can huddle in their gated communities with their armed security guards and talk to each other by Internet about the good old days. They were happy enough to slash manufacturing jobs by going off shore, singing the level-playing-field mantra. Now they just want to hang on to their cheap coal and iron as long as possible, bleating about how they shouldn’t have to pay.
There are 2 problems with the growth religion. One: the “owners” of the resources have not paid a fair price, and do not clean up after themselves. The terra isn’t nullius, it’s full of rich stuff. Which has been appropriated by greedy people with power and influence. Two: Continual growth is cancerous. Cancer kills. It gobbles up resources and leaves behind a wasteland. I, for one, will miss the pygmy possums and polar bears a whole lot more than I will miss the top 100 CEOs.