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 focuses on stuff that might work
|
There’s something to offend everyone in Ross Garnaut’s final report – except, possibly, the Rudd Government, which has been provided with a rigorous but moderate way forward for addressing climate change. That looks awfully convenient, but the logic that drives Garnaut’s recommendations is far stronger than any political considerations. Little has changed in the final report from previous iterations. He has not been swayed by the arguments either of industry or of environmentalists. For Garnaut, the case for addressing climate change remains a conservative, economically cautious one. There is only a small chance that the anthropogenic climate change thesis is incorrect, and it would be a gross dereliction of public responsibility to fail to act. And in reaching that conclusion, almost in passing, he uses specially-commissioned analysis by ANU econometricians to demolish the claims put forward by right-wing bloggers (and the likes of dolts like Ron Boswell) that the planet is currently cooling. Moreover, the evidence is mounting that things are worse than we feared. But the same caution and conservatism also drives his recommended approach, which is what will frustrate environmentalists. Garnaut’s approach is to work out what is the most likely approach to obtain the maximum value of mitigation versus the costs of climate change. It is an economist’s approach, and it leads him to examine what he believe will actually work, rather than what would be ideal. An international agreement is essential to addressing climate change and an agreement aimed at 450ppm is, in Garnaut’s view, very unlikely. Indeed, at his press conference today he commented that many thought an agreement aimed at 550ppm was unlikely. He bristled at the suggestion that he supported 550 over 450, saying he was strongly in favour of 450, but simply didn’t believe it could be reached in an international context at the moment. The same approach also urges him to recommend models that are practical and likely to maximise the chances of acceptance – in particular, the need to address equity both in an international agreement and domestically. The flipside of Garnaut’s caution is that — and this is the key addition to the final report — we have modelling on the likely costs of unmitigated climate change. This has been absent from the debate so far as industries and peak bodies like the Business Council of Australia have bleated about the costs to industry of emissions trading. The final report puts this whingeing in context. On the absolute most conservative case possible, the Report estimates real wages will be 10% lower than otherwise, and GNP 7% lower by the end of the century. Non-modellable (if that’s a word) costs are estimated to be about another 30% of direct costs, increasing GNP loss to 9% and driving real wages down 12-13%. This is based on cautious climate change scenarios. Garnaut also discusses, but doesn’t quantify, the costs of more damaging scenarios, which when he started his review were considered unlikely but are now, in his view, no longer improbable. These aren’t modelled. There’s no need to. He simply describes these as “catastrophic”. Not “catastrophic” in the meaning meant by Australian business when they say that the impact of an emissions trading scheme on their sector will be catastrophic, but in the real sense of the world. Such changes would, Garnaut notes drily, “not lead to a marginal reduction in human welfare [but]… would destabilize virtually every aspect of modern life.” In this context, the costs of an effective emissions trading scheme are small beer. Not, industry might say, to the workers who lose their jobs or the businesses that have to close. But that’s one of the core problems with our approach to climate change. Our businesses and politicians are focussed on the immediate impacts, the consequences over the electoral cycle. Garnaut’s inconvenient focus is on the rest of the century, which is being shaped by every decision we take right now. |
|
|
10 Comments
Those people who claim the earth is really cooling are hilarious. Don’t they think the climate scientists might have noticed a little fact that utterly contradicts everything they’ve been talking about for the last fifteen years?
The BCA (and all the people who comment on The Land website) need to be dealt with exactly as above. Don’t argue with them about whether the future of the planet should be compromised for the sake of their profit margin. Just point out that climate change is fundamentally an economic issue - and that addressing it head-on is the least bad solution.
Lucy, can you please direct me to the evidence and facts for proof, not the theory based comments you make.
If you look at real evidence you may just find that the earth has in fact been cooling for some years now. The climate change scientists you refer to keep ignoring it to suit their own agendas/jobs.
If you think the scientists who have the facts regarding the cooling are hilarious, I suggest you do some actual study on the issue rather than sprouting the new religion and the joke being on you.
Lucy, can you please direct me to the evidence and facts for proof, not the theory based comments you make.
If you look at real evidence you may just find that the earth has in fact been cooling for some years now. The climate change scientists you refer to keep ignoring it to suit their own agendas/jobs.
If you think the scientists who have the facts regarding the cooling are hilarious, I suggest you do some actual study on the issue rather than sprouting the new religion and the joke being on you.
I tend to agree with both comment authors above - there probably is a little bit of a cooling effect from an elevated anthropogenic upward trend. And I think I know why - particulate pollution out of China and Asia generally as rough dirty industrialisation takes it’s course causing some enhanced global dimming. Which is like foot on climate change accelerator and brake at the same time. Something is bound to break. That would be our planet …
Carrying on about whether or not the planet is cooling this week, or hotter the last year is a misnomer and not really relevant. The link between high CO2 levels and high temperatures is very strong, essentially irrefutable. CO2 levels are currently as high as they’ve ever been. Ergo, it will probably get hotter IN THE LONG TERM.
The problem comes from modelling a complex system. I recommend everyone takes a course in Dynamics and Control, or read James Gleick’s “Chaos”. In a driven system, ie one where energy is being input, it is very difficult to predict the movement of the system in the short term. What this means for the climate is that it might cool in Australia for a year, or get hotter for a month somewhere else, but ultimately, over the 50 year time frame Garnaut is discussing, the average will go up.
Unless it goes back down, because the rising temperature has caused the Greenland ice sheet to fail and stop the Gulf Stream. Which is another possibility. But that’s another story.
Right on Lindsay! You know, my neighbour was telling me that he had to wear a cardie TWO MORNINGS IN A ROW last week, in the LAST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER! He reckons this global warming business is a load of bunk too.
Can someone smarter than me, take Miranda Devine down!….
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/act-hastily-roo-the-scare-tactics/2008/10/01/1222651169023.html
Why am I seeing a correlation between christianity and denialism?
Last month 60 Minutes (ch 9) visited the North Pole, very nearly sailed right over what used to be an expanse of ice. Last week, the Courier Mail carried a story about the bumper summer crop of wheat being grown in Greenland. To the people who believe that the Earth is cooling, I have a question. What proof do you have? It seems that even the mass media cannot support your position.
Lucy, you wrote “Those people who claim the earth is really cooling are hilarious. Don’t they think the climate scientists might have noticed a little fact that utterly contradicts everything they’ve been talking about for the last fifteen years?”
Isn’t the reason that the term ‘global warming’ has been replaced by ‘climate change’ evidence that scientists believe that there is cooling in places as well as warming? (similar to what has been going on for millions of years)
Lucy, i know its hard to imagine how so much media - including this website, could be telling lies and selling hype to us all. However, Lindsay is right, the evidence proves they are doing just this.
Here is the antichrist to al gores doco - google video search “global warming or global governance”…it debunks gore and the basics of mass media climate evidence frighteningly well. Have fun