Climate Change 1: Wrestling the debate back from Wall St
|
The other week we applied greenhouse denialist arguments to the financial meltdown, mainly for a lark, but also to illustrate the point that while we were expected to drop everything to deal with a crisis in capitalism, people were still inventing excuses to ignore the less immediate but far more economically damaging issue of climate change. Since then, climate change — hitherto a dominant issue in the political debate as well as in the minds of punters, has been reduced to the policy equivalent of cleaning the gutters. In fact, the financial crisis and climate change share some fundamental characteristics. Both are about risk and how it is priced and managed — and the consequences when risk management goes badly wrong. One of the core beliefs that led to the crisis was the notion that a near-magical formula had been found for diffusing risk to negligible levels. Rather like an end-of-the-world movie, we discovered too late that this had in fact spread and amplified that risk. And that’s the same approach we’re adopting to the longer-term but more significant risk of climate change, except that rather than slicing and dicing risk and spreading it, we’re simply ignoring it. The risk of climate change is being priced at zero. The consequences, however, will be the same. If the financial crisis illustrates that you can’t ignore the laws of economic gravity forever — lending to people who can’t repay eventually means they default – climate change is, if you believe the vast majority of credible scientists, every bit as certain. Both crises also share a need for coordinated international action. One-out action has no effect. The response must be international. But a lack of coordination will also inflict costs and undermine the effectiveness of each country’s individual efforts. We’ve all been forced into guaranteeing bank deposits courtesy of the actions of one country. That’s all well and good, sceptics will say, but climate change will occur years and decades and centuries and the financial crisis is right now. Jobs and money are being lost now. This is fundamentally flawed reasoning — and untrue, anyway. The long-term nature of the risk makes the case for early action even stronger, because the costs of mitigation can be minimised that way. And all the evidence suggests we’re starting to see positive feedback loops that are rapidly accelerating climate change. As Garnaut noted in his final report, even within the space of the period in which he undertook his work, some worst-case scenarios moved into the mid-range of probability for climate change impacts. To delay a decision on climate change, Garnaut correctly noted, is to make a decision – not to act. Nevertheless, however flawed, it’s powerful reasoning. And it hasn’t been countered by Bob Brown saying that climate change will dwarf the financial crisis. People probably think that’s true, but for them it’s not the point — those costs are in the future, and therefore discounted. Accordingly, we need some creative thinking from those of us who want urgent action on climate change. Here are some thoughts: For starters, the issue of business certainty must be addressed. The Government should stop talking about an “ambition” for a 2010 start and commit to a kick-off on 1 July 2010, and it should adopt the Garnaut model of a fixed price until 2012 at least — and specify that price. It might be a soft start, but it would bolster the case put by the likes of Mitch Hooke that business needs certainty for investment planning purposes, rather than further delay. It would also reduce the sovereign risk faced by exporters who might find that, say, Europe adopts measures against economies that have not commenced significant carbon abatement measures, or that their originating in such a country proves a competitive disadvantage with environmentally-conscious foreign consumers. Just ask the wool industry how quickly foreign-organised boycotts can damage you. Second, we have to depart a bit from economic orthodoxy. After all, everyone else is doing that. Here’s a personal backflip: rather than using the ETS to get rid of other climate change measures like mandatory renewable energy targets, let’s supplement the ETS with them. The Greens have already lost the extremely brief battle — if it occurred at all, it was probably between 8.15 and 8.16 on Monday morning — for this week’s economic stimulus to be directed toward energy efficiency measures. But the Government is still talking about a December infrastructure statement – funded god knows how, since there won’t be any surplus left. If there’s to be more infrastructure investment, why not direct it toward energy efficiency measures in households, which yield ongoing savings as well as curbing energy usage, and mass transit options, particularly for suburbs poorly served by public transport? Once world growth returns to normal, the price of oil will resume its long march northward and we’ll again by wondering why we didn’t use a lull in the oil price to get our transport act together. Achieving energy efficiencies will require significant investment, which in a period of lower profits will be a more difficult business case for carbon-intensive industries. We could further increase certainty for business by adapting the HECS model and providing interest-free loans to large emitters for investment in carbon reducing technologies, which could be recovered through the ETS starting in 2010. This would bring forward considerable investment into the next two years and enable businesses to reduce their liability under the ETS once it kicks off. Not to mention the minor benefit of actually reducing emissions. And — deep breath — let’s deal with job leakage concerns about an ETS. As an ardent anti-protectionist it galls me to say it, but we should consider carbon tariffs on countries — especially developed countries — unwilling to take serious action to reduce emissions growth. Not to do so when they’re competing with Australians businesses that operate under an ETS amounts to a subsidy of their contribution to climate change. This is a slippery slope to protectionism and, at a time when governments around the world will come under inordinate pressure to protect jobs, even slipperier than normal. But the principle of legitimate protection against subsidised imports is already enshrined in Australian economic policy in our — admittedly much-abused — anti-dumping provisions. While anti-dumping provisions simply prevent consumers from benefiting from a foreign manufacturer’s decision to sell below cost, a carbon tariff would provide a small incentive for foreign governments to join Australia in addressing climate change seriously. The environmental movement needs to get back in the game and try to shape the debate. We can’t afford to wait until economic growth takes off again before wondering what to do about emissions. Governments have shown a capacity to change their thinking in response to the financial crisis. The environmental movement needs to do the same. |
|
|
|
20 Comments
Peter T a “rocket scientist”. LOL. Bureaucratic crank and examplar of why the AGO never accomplished anything, more likely . As a rocket scientist you’re probably well placed to explain why the Earth is in fact flat and how the moon landings were staged as well.
And the “urban heat effect”. D’oh! They forgot to put the thermometers far enough out in the country. Those climate scientists are such dills. They probably, like, put them in volcanoes as well.
Don’t wrap the tinfoil too tight Pete.
This is a well-argued and thoughtful contribution to the debate. The only comment I would like to make is that there are funds available for infrastructure investments. Our superannuation funds are designed for long-term savings, for long-term investments, in order to fund long-term drawdowns, during long-lived retirements.
Ted O’Brien’s point on the basis on which one determines “which scientists are credible” is a very difficult but very important one. This should be a scientific debate but is now highly politicised.
As an example on Arctic sea ice who would you believe?:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
or
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=13&fy=2007&sm=10&sd=13&sy=2008
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/09/sea-ice-extent-recovering-quickly/
Is James Hansen a fervent partisan politician or a climate scientist?
Prof Bob Carter, an Australian climate scientist said:
“Hansenist climate hysteria is driven by relentless, ideological, pseudo-scientific drivel, most of which issues from green political activists and their supporters, and is then promulgated by compliant media commentators who are innocent of knowledge of true scientific method. Opportunistically, and sadly, some scientists, too, contribute to the Hansenist alarmism. Sir Roderick Carnegie was quite correct when he formerly identified such environmental lobbying and emotional propaganda as a greater threat to our society and way of life than, in its heyday, was communism.”
What is clear, if nothing else, is that the IPCC’s super confident predictions have been questioned by at least some reputable scientific opinion.
PeterT, most of the C02 is being emitted from countries in the northern hemisphere. Recent atmospheric studies have revealed a chemical equator that protects Antarctica from the polluted air of the north -
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14792-chemical-equator-protects-antarcticas-clean-air.html
Scientists have discovered a “chemical equator” just north of Australia that divides polluted air from South-East Asia from the largely uncontaminated atmosphere of the Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica.
The discovery will help researchers create accurate simulations of how pollutants move in the atmosphere and assess their impact on climate.
The polluted air of the northern hemisphere and the clearer air of the southern hemisphere tend not to mix. A mobile cloudy belt known as the Intertropical Convergence Zone that runs around the globe roughly at the level of the equator is thought to form a meteorological barrier between the two.
It is too late to avoid climate change, the Tipping point is thought to have been several years ago. Whatever our planet does now or into the future is merely going to delay the inevitable ending of the world as a habitable place for humans to live.
We should just enjoy life while we can and cherish every last day we have.
Peter t,
Why don’t you do some bloody research? Antarctic ice is increasing because it’s a continent not an ocean. There’s your starting point…now try 10 minutes Googling without your head in the sand.
Your Bolt et al claim that scientists are apparently ignoring Antarctic ice increase is hilarious considering 1) They’re not, they’re watching it keenly, and 2) It’s a very large indicator of global warming.
Bernard: What’s ‘string’ theory?
Why do people insist on claiming Bob Carter is a climate scientist. He’s a geologist. Why not ask him about strong theory as well?
Most of the people who matter, politicians, business leaders and influential sections of the media, still hold the view that we exist in an economy, not an environment. Unfortunately it will likely take environmental or ecological catastrophes equal in scale to the current financial meltdown, for governments world wide to act decisively. By this time we may well be beyond the point of no return. The cost of doing nothing or delaying action I fear will be a lesson learnt the hard way.
Another gee-up for the climate-change-caused-by-human-behaviour lobby. Crikey, I thought you’d be doing some real investigative reporting, instead of being a PC patsy.
How about some meaning ful questions like:
Why is Antarctic ice increasing?
Why are we paying ovr $1.50 per litre for petrol when the price is down to $75 a barrel?
Oh, of course, we should feel good about being gouged on petrol prices if we are good environmental citizens.
…And the oil companies continue to fund the climate change propaganda as they laugh all the way to the bank.
The bank? Oh yes, they just received lots of government (our) money.
Crikey, get it together!
Why do people insist on claiming Bob Carter is a climate scientist. He’s a geologist. Why not ask him about string theory as well?
String theory, not strong theory. Arg.
Disgraceful post Bernard, id expect baseless abuse like that from a neo-conservative pundit on FOX news but not here. Aggression like that is a classic defensive giveaway to the fact that you have no facts at all to support your ‘party line’. I did laugh i must say.
Petert well done, consider that a victory for you, i agree and so do many other rational readers out there.
Oh and Bernard - the moon landings were a hoax and 911 was an inside job - get with the program
” if you believe the vast majority of credible scientists”.
On what basis have you determined which scientists are credible and which are not?
“And all the evidence suggests we’re starting to see positive feedback loops that are rapidly accelerating climate change.”
Show me this evidence. The only new evidence which supports the hysteria that has come to my note is a new hypothesis which tells us we should ignore all the evidence which in recent times does not support the original hypothesis of GW.
“This is a slippery slope to protectionism”. Indeed it is, all the way to Central Planning. And you know what, that is right up Peter Garrett’s alley. And who else’s?
“Jobs and money are being lost….This is fundamentally flawed reasoning — and untrue, anyway.”
Bernard, your fundamentals are in the wrong place. You are not alone there. Gough Whitlam’s universities decided thirty years ago that Australians were born so smart that they could delete the first five chapters out of all the text books, the chapters which contained the fundamentals.
The fundamentals, Bernard, are the tangible goods and services available for consumption. Note that word tangible.
Your cited example of wool is an outstanding example of this lack of understanding. Wool was wiped out not by any problem with wool the product, nor by any adverse changes in the marketplace, nor by PETA. Wool was wiped out by abominable management by Australian governments which showed a very poor understanding of the most fundamental rules of marketing, backed up by the same incestuous big business club which created the financial meltdown.
Just a few months back the last members of a doomsday cult were driven out of a cave in Russia by the stench of their dying mates. We don’t have a cave big enough to hold this GW cult.
Bernard, I can ease your fears. To monitor the progress of GW, keep an eye on the sea level at Fort Denison
Martin (17th Oct). Couldn’t a major part of enjoying life be having as clean an atmosphere as possible to enjoy it in?
PeterT (18.10) You don’t believe humans had anything to do with our mucked up planet: that it’s just another stage in the world’s continuously changing weather cycle? If there was any chance that you could be remotely correct, surely to ‘square’ the situation is criminally insane and flies in the face of regarding all things being maintained in balance. Previous civilizations turned fertile forests into deserts. Have we made so little progress that right wing thinking “If it moves, shoot it. If it stands still, chop it down.” Is once again the raison d’etre for human existence? Also, any article emananating from the OZ has become so tainted by the newsheet’s radical right-wingism, has to be suspect. It’s as if you saw an article written by Neville Bolt, and it appears in the Herald Sun, why would anyone whose is not a masochist, study it when everyone regards Andrew Bolt to be as thoroughly reprehensible as they come.
Everyone else: Would it be possible to acknowledge the person-by date perhaps-to whom you are addressing your comment. It would make for less confusion? It’s just a suggestion. That’s all.
Nick, this brief summary of an article in THE AUSTRALIAN, September 24, 2008 may help you. It’s by Dr David Evans, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005. The full article is on their website.
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
Since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Many land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the “urban heat effect”.
4. Past temperature rises occurred beforerises in atmospheric carbon.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politian’s assertion.
So… the cause has merely been asserted, not proven.
You say ” lending to people who can’t repay eventually means they default – climate change is, *if you believe the vast majority of credible [sic] scientists*, every bit as certain”.
The trouble is, who are the “credible scientists” and how do you assess their credibility? Unless they have the serious mathematical competence of, say, a particle physicist, and have actually applied their high level skills to making or closely examining and testing the models which have to be relied on for the IPCC so-called consensus view, why should they have any credibility. Many are those with philosophical or quasi-religious prejudices who have been drawn to contribute to a rather fuzzy “environmental” or equivalent science or are the great and good who must be seen to have bien pensants opinions. Consider the case of the likeable and admrable Tim Flannery. Why does anyone take him seriously on the subject of global warming/climate change and its causes just because he talks a lot about it and regurgitates with some eloquence secondhand material? Is he the type of credible scientist you refer to?
Here it is again. Corrected. I’ve forgotten how to write since I died last week.
Well ‘climate corruption’ goes on and the ‘climate change’ problem on everyone’s lips aint getting smaller BUT the fix is not affordable anymore with everyone going broke.
This good Dr will tell you its now ‘natures’ turn. Smarter than us humans by far (always so until we get carried away with our own self-importance and smartness and live in our own invented La La land). I can bet your plethora of experts can’t even begin to think what I might mean (so long dissociated from nature).
Take a look at the presentation given by Hunter Lovins to Google recently on youtube - it is titled “The business case for protecting the climate” and includes the classic line - “a dynamic growing industrial economy unleashing sustainability”.
The jobs of the future are waiting for us all - but they are not in the industries of the past.
Well ‘climate corruption’ goes on and the ‘climate change’ problem on everyones lips aint getting smaller BUT the fix is not affordable anymore with everyone going broke.
This good Dr will tell you its now ‘natures’ turn. Smarter than us humans by far (always so until we get carried away with our own selfimportance and smartness and live in our own invented La La land). I can bet your plethera of experts can’t even begin to think what I might mean (so long discociated from nature).
Remember the old cliche about a voice crying in the wilderness???
Rudd and Swan would have been far better advised to apply the $10.4 billion to the development of renewable energy, and the reduction of the use of hydrocarbons in this world. If only someone said that that amount of money was available to be spent in this finacial year, something real might happen.
It wouldn’t stop climate change or whatever it is, but it would generate spending in useful areas for the future good of this stressed planet of ours.