Top StoriesMay’s sharp fall in jobless numbers added to the greenness of the ‘recovery’ (or less bad) thesis; overnight June’s unemployment figures were so awful that they could have stunted at least, the wavering shoots.
Garnaut, treasury and the high cost of complacency
|
The Garnaut Review will come to a somewhat quiet end tomorrow morning when the final report is handed to the Prime Minister at 9.30am. For Australians convinced of the need to do something drastic about climate change, it’s been a rollercoaster ride. The interim and draft reports earlier this year spelt out an unassailable case that Australia faced a major long-term crisis because of its exposure to climate change. But the Supplementary Draft Report earlier this month severely disappointed many, with its recommendation of relatively soft emissions targets under an emissions trading scheme. Throughout the process, Garnaut’s logic has remained the same. Climate change will inflict major damage on Australia — and there’s not a lot we can do about it unless the rest of the world agrees to seriously tackle the problem. Maximising our chances of enabling a global agreement thus became the focus of the review’s recommendations about Australia’s targets, but it remains unlikely — very unlikely — that we will be able to prevent serious economic and environmental damage. The review outcomes are elegant testimony to how we and most of the world have waited far too long to take climate change seriously. The long-awaited Treasury modelling will also be released tomorrow, which should provide a welcome corrective to much of the hysteria generated by modelling commissioned by rentseeking industry groups. The delay in Treasury’s numbers has permitted self-interested parties like the Business Council to fill the vacuum with their own invented data. But expect the worst-case scenarios from the Treasury to get much more airplay than the rest. When he released the supplementary report on 5 September, Garnaut said the final report would contain a much more extensive discussion of adaptation. On Garnaut’s logic, this is where the debate in Australia has to move next, even as we try to establish an emissions trading scheme. Adaptation necessarily – in the absence of limitless funding — means prioritisation and sacrificing some things — industries, environmental icons, jobs. We haven’t even started having that debate yet, probably because most of us don’t want to. Greenhouse denialists don’t think it’ll happen, and optimists hope it can be avoided. In case you hadn’t noticed, Garnaut’s review has not been exactly been big on optimism. Except in one area. Garnaut is convinced the real costs of climate change won’t be felt until next century. But there is evidence that the planet is warming faster than even the worst scenarios predict. With any luck, we might have much of this century to adjust to climate change, but there’s a chance we’ll only have a decade or two. Adaptation will cost a lot. And it will be required at the same time as an ageing population is putting our fiscal position under historic pressure. Currently we’re better placed fiscally than pretty much any other developed country, and the continuing growth of China and India will probably keep us there, regardless of the best efforts of the world’s investment bankers. But we also face higher costs from climate change than pretty much anyone else. The Government needs to switch at least some of its attention to the problems of implementing and paying for an adaptation strategy, otherwise we’ll start to look like the proverbial frog in the saucepan. More than we do already. |
|
|
15 Comments
Abba Eban said it all - “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives”.
http://www.soilcarbon.com.au
“But there is evidence that the planet is warming faster than even the worst scenarios predict.” May we know what is this evidence, and the level of credibility that attaches to it. Some of us are available to be convinced, but by science not drama queens.
Garnaut has achieved a high level of credibility despite being an economist rather than a scientist, and I am not as disposed as Mr Keane is to flick his “optimism” - if that is what it is.
Its clear that Prof. Garnaut has never heard of SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats). He has focussed almost entirely on W and T. Australia has the potential to become a powerhouse for global warming and climate change research. We have the same problems that half the world faces, but more so. If we develop technologies such as clean coal, which we can bundle up with or manufacture from our dirty coal, we will gain immense leverage, because we will be offering other countries an ‘out’ from their problems and making a heap of money in the process.
I think a lot of people are missing the point on climate change. Global warming, more violent weather patterns, etc. are not consequences - they are symptoms of a wider malaise. Anyone who has read any of the Gaia books by James Lovelock will understand that our livable biosphere is underpinned by a large number of processes all providing negative feedback (i.e.encouraging stability) to one another and global warming is like a thermometer, indicating that the overall system is becoming substantially overstressed. The problem with positive/negative feedback systems is that if they break down, the system will collapse into a new state of stability, often in a catastrophic manner. It is thought that after such a collapse, the system may not support human life at all (though Professor David Suzuki has suggested that cockroaches might have a good chance of survival). The problem is, we just don’t know where the tipping point is and by the time we do know for sure, it will be too late to change things. Analogies have been made to the software scares in 2000, which proved to be a bit of a damp squib. Of course, we had to do what we did, because we didn’t know then. We must now do what we have to do, because we DON’T KNOW NOW.
Graeme Lewis writes that he is still waiting for evidence. As I see it he and the other so called sceptics just don’t give a hoot for evidence, they just don’t want to be convinced. There are as many “scientists” ready to say that we just happen to be going through a normal weather pattern cycle as there were scientists who told us that smoking tobacco was not only harmless but it was attractive and sexy to smoke. My gripe is that we are throwing billions of dollars at the coal industry and we’ll get nothing but glib promises in return. They’ve had thirty years notice to clean up their act and they’re still mouthing off about “clean coal” and carbon sequestration. Clean coal isn’t going to happen, it’s just the coal industry stalling for time to make more money before the axe finally falls. Burying CO2 is a short term solution to a long term problem, just like running sewers into the rivers and dumping garbage out to sea. It has to be sorted for the long term.
Oh that people like Professor Garnaut would say also: ‘the other side of global warming is population explosion’. If ever man can face the problem of his astonishing fecundity, brush aside the Catholic church, and their stone age shibboleths: ( ditto all other religions who inculcate hatred of women into slack-jawed, credulous males.) At this stage the Neanderthals are doing it in a canter. Perhaps the two sides of the coin should receive the same attention.
Of course Professor Garnaut is pessimistic. If we do not fix it we or our children and their children would have to live in a very hot world. Fourty percent of the natural world would not adapt and there is no going back. We either bite the bullet or let the world complete the experiment that started with the industrial revolution and complete the destruction of our world. This is a risk that is not worth taking because the consequences are so dire. But due to the naysayers since 1996 we are doomed to take it I think and I suspect Garnuat also thinks this. So so long and thanks for all the fish is what our generation will have to say.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that taking the position of Climate Change Skeptic is a declaration of one’s own stupidity and ego, and a misunderstanding about the difference between being ‘revolutionary’ and ‘obstinant’.
Firstly, for virtually everyone in the world, you actually can’t have an opinion on whether or not there is such a thing as climate change. You’re not qualifieed. In the same way that I can’t have an opinion on the mass of the Higgs Boson. I don’t know enough to comment. On the other hand, the 3000 IPCC scientists that have agreed that the climate is changing are able to comment. They’re genuine scientists, climate scientists at that. There is so much peer reviewed evidence that the we’re changing the climate now that disagreeing is pointless obstinance. You either believe in Climate Change, or you have no respect for scientific process. That’s okay, but just know, not believing in CC doesn’t make you smart. Which is my next point.
A lot of denialists seem smug in their denial, daring you to challenge their revolutionary ideas. Going against the grain is pretty cool isn’t it? I’ve heard a few denialists sight Copernicus as a ‘revolutionary’ who was labeled a heretic, and look at how history viewed him! Well, there’s a difference; Copernicus knew he was right and had plenty of evidence to back it up. You’re not smarted than the rest of us, seeing through some global conspiracy. You’re a fool blinkered by your own stubborness and perceived intelligence.
Debating about what/if to do anything about it is a different story, a values judgement where we can compare which values are more important. Climate Change though is cold, rational science, and there’s no room for debate.
EB
As I said - science not drama queens. And out they came. Against the 3000 ICCC scientists came 30,000 others who said clearly that climate change is happening, but they are not convinced that humans either caused it or can fix/stop it.
What I want to understand simply is the Bernard Keane statement that “there is evidence that the planet is warming faster even than the worst scenarios predict.”
I accept the adage from Abba Evan. But the doomsayers can go back to sleep unless my question to Mr Keane has an answer.
The most important issue here is that the effects of climate change must be managed with equal priority with the issues of renewable energy which could slow whatever change is to happen. And can somebody tell me the virtues of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on “clean coal research.”
This is simple. If the other high polluters do nothing then the earth is (some other race’s) history. If we do something (other than token) they MAY take notice. I want to go down fighting.
I’m sure the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning will be pleased to note that Evan and Bernard Keane are both taking their Soma whilst apparently sleep-walking the nightmare of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
Unfortunately Evan there are respected scientists who are sceptical of AGW.
So sceptics, as the term is used in relation to climate change, have no serious doubt that the planet is warming.
Ironic too that you accuse the sceptics of being smug. Bernard is smug all the time pontificating on this topic and he is certainly not a sceptic.
For example, I note he is still using the ‘denialist’ tag. Now that is smug.
I am happy to see the topic of adaptation raised although I suspect rather different understandings of the term in relation to a desirable and maximally effective response to climate change.
Global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not a scientific fact.
For 20 odd years we have been searching for data to confirm this hypothesis. For a time it appeared that the data was confirming the hypothesis, but then it was shown that the most convincing data set put forward had been fudged.
Next, with the best part of ten years worth of data not only failing to support the hypothesis but casting doubt on the hypothesis we are offered a new hypothesis which tells us to ignore this lack of proof.
There used to be rules for science. This “science” does not meet them.
So why the hysteria? There has to be an as yet unstated purpose in all this nonsense. Who is driving it? What is their purpose?
Those who tell us “there is evidence that the planet is warming faster than even the worst scenarios predict” are off this planet. Show us your evidence and its source.
And the cost? Inflation has already started to spike as a result of Australia’s declaration of intent to go it alone with an EFT. Australia will not go it alone with this carbon tax because long before 2010 the damage caused by this policy will have been too great for even this crew of madmen to persevere with it.
NOTE TO ALL COMMENTATORS:
WE APPEAR TO BE WINNING……
It’s clear that JAMESK thrives on the limelight……any limelight………even that afforded to a witless, right wing, racist bigot such as he.
The best way to eliminate Tiny Jimmy’s facile commentary, or at least reduce it, is not to mention his name at all, or respond to his silly arguments….AND I NOTE THAT LESS OF US ARE DOING SO…
Hopefully this tactic will rid us all, both left & right wing commentators, of his increasingly tiresome, low rent ramblings.
PS: I get the impression that Mini Jimmy sees himself as a big-time ’ player’ ……….yes… really!!!!! You know the type……the one who thought that by bombarding political science tutes with his silly views, he would be seen as a stand-out student
NOTE TO ALL COMMENTATORS:
WE APPEAR TO BE WINNING……
It’s clear that JAMESK thrives on the limelight……any limelight………even that afforded to a witless, right wing, racist bigot such as he.
The best way to eliminate Tiny Jimmy’s facile commentary, or at least reduce it, is not to mention his name at all, or respond to his silly arguments….AND I NOTE THAT LESS OF US ARE DOING SO…
Hopefully this tactic will rid us all, both left & right wing commentators, of his increasingly tiresome, low rent ramblings.
PS: I get the impression that Mini Jimmy sees himself as a big-time ’ player’ ……….yes… really!!!!! You know the type……the one who thought that by bombarding political science tutes with his silly views, he would be seen as a stand-out student
So much for sane debate! The drama queens want to win by weight of numbers - not science. Come on you lot - I’m listening and waiting for some sense and scientific logic. Thanks James and Ted for your balance and good sense.
…surely skeptics n believers alike can agree, becoming completely sustainable just makes good, solid sense….