Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Clive Hamilton v. Paul Kelly: climate death match
|
At least Dennis Shanahan doesn’t pretend to be impartial. Paul Kelly’s splenetic attack on the media in yesterday’s Australian confirmed that he has seamlessly shifted from chief apologist for the Howard Government’s do-nothing approach to climate change to chief spruiker for a Rudd Government do-as-little-as-possible approach. “The Professor” variously accuses the rest of the media (read Fairfax and the ABC) of, in his words, feeding myths and lies to the public, working furiously to conceal the truth, engaging in pro-green bias and deliberately belittling Australia. Kelly flays them for being hypocritical, intellectually vacuous and delusional, concluding that “the media should … be put on trial in any contest about honesty and integrity”. The hack who wants to put fellow journalists on trial for dishonesty works for the newspaper that will run any old anti-science clap-trap dished up by discredited climate sceptics, all on the spurious grounds of “balance”. In truth, Kelly’s spray could be used as an exemplar in a course on how to use debating tricks to try to win a losing argument. First up, he claims that those who argue that rich countries like Australia should lead the way by cutting their emissions first do not accept that developing countries need to cut their emissions too. Kelly cannot name one person who does not believe that developing countries will have to cut their emissions, because there are none. Everyone knows that developing countries must slow then cut their emissions. The question is not whether it should happen, but how best to get it to happen. Kelly insists that poor countries must cut their emissions at the same time as rich countries. Anyone with any sense of the history of the global negotiations — or who opens their ears to what China and India are saying right now — understands that there is a powerful moral argument for rich countries to cut their emissions first. The strident demand for developing countries to start cutting now, after years in which leading rich countries have refused to act responsibly, is in fact the best way to destroy the delicate rapprochement between rich and poor countries that has painstakingly been built over the last three years. Kelly is either obtuse or malicious. Secondly, Kelly praises Ross Garnaut for adopting a per capita convergence principle and chastises the “media-scientific-green position” (note the way he tries to discredit the science by squeezing scientists between the media and greens) for criticising this approach. In truth, Garnaut lifted the contraction and convergence proposal lock stock and barrel from London’s Global Commons Institute, which has been pushing the idea hard since 1995. As a long-term goal, equal per capita emission entitlements has enjoyed strong support from greens for years. I have been advocating it since 1997. In his report, Garnaut gave virtually no acknowledgement of his debt to the GCI and has been writing and talking as if he invented it the idea, allowing Kelly to claim that greens oppose it. Garnaut’s relentless self-promotion — which has seen him attach his name to the inquiry, the various reports, the book and even to model runs — suggests he wants to be remembered as the man who came up with the plan to save the world. Our saviour’s name appears 459 times in the final report. In his recommendations, Garnaut has selected one of a range of possible paths that could see the world converge to equal per capita emissions. Surprise, surprise, it’s the one that sees Australia do less in percentage terms than anyone else. In a blunder in his draft report, Garnaut himself wrote that his “per capita approach protects Australia’s position”, a declaration that sounds horribly familiar. In fact, Australia is in a position to do much more than other rich countries since we have not yet bothered to pick the low-hanging fruit in the form of energy efficiency measures. If for a decade Australia has done less than everyone else, it is not unreasonable for the world now to expect us to do more. The Howard Government may have gone, but the nation lives on. Besides, Australia’s high level of population growth — Garnaut’s rationale for a lenient target — is a choice we make through high levels of immigration. Why should we ask the rest of the world to exempt us from some of the costs of this policy (higher greenhouse gas emissions) while we enjoy the benefits? Thirdly, Kelly says “the problem is now caused by the developing nations”. As an exercise in cheap blame shifting, this really takes the cake. If Kelly understood the first thing about global warming, he would know that it is caused by the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not by annual emissions. After burning fossil fuels for two centuries, rich countries are responsible for some 75% of increased concentrations. It will be several more decades before developing countries account for half of the increased concentrations. Yet Kelly thinks 200 years of pollution debt should now be wiped from the slate and all blame must be shifted to the inscrutable yet guilty Chinese, even though they each emit around one tenth as much as Australians. Finally, as if to highlight his miserable understanding of the global ethics of climate change, Kelly wheels out the favourite whine of the Howard Government — we only account for around 1% of global emissions so what we do is irrelevant. Yes, and Kerry Packer accounted for less than 1% of Australia’s total tax revenue, so it did not matter that he avoided paying his taxes. Kelly’s defense of Ross Garnaut, whose early reports stood out for their clear-eyed assessment of climate science, shows how Garnaut has been captured by climate conservatives who accept the science of global warming only reluctantly and want Australia do as little as possible about it. As a conventional economist, Garnaut has reverted to type. |
|
|
17 Comments
“On average an immigrant to Australia is responsible for double the greenhouse gas emissions they would have emitted had they not emigrated. See https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node/16. It’s pretty obvious when we remember that most people emigrate to Australia to increase their incomes and higher incomes tend to be associated with higher emissions.”
But there’s the rub, isn’t it? What this amounts to is an argument for keeping most of the world poor as a response to climate change. That is not acceptable. Solutions must improve (or at least not reduce) ALL people’s well being as well as reducing their emissions, and that is what per capita as a basis for comparison and negotiation facilitates. If Hamilton has been ‘advocating this (per capita) approach since 1997’, this is a very strange way of going about it.
To answer Mark Duffet’s question about other countries in the efficiency stakes. Let’s try Portugal (tidal energy) Spain (solar farms) and Denmark (wind energy) and that’s just for starters.
Mark. Hal Turton and I calculated the numbers a few years ago. On average an immigrant to Australia is responsible for double the greenhouse gas emissions they would have emitted had they not emigrated. See https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node/16. It’s pretty obvious when we remember that most people emigrate to Australia to increase their incomes and higher incomes tend to be associated with higher emissions.
This is pure polemics.
It is outrageous tabloid journalism to characterise the debate as being about science vs anti-science. For a searching scientific critique of the global warming hypothesis, see Bob Carter’s paper ‘Knock, knock: Where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming”, in Economic Analysis & Policy, Vol. 38 No 2, September 2008. Available now from: http://www.eap-journal.com/
Go read the science, Clive - all of it, not just the bits you agree with!
Colin Jones: Renewable Energy is not Energy Efficiency.
Energy Efficiency is the number one first thing that should be done, and isn’t being done, to reduce emissions. EE strategies have been around for years but are not implemented. Sad.
“The hack who wants to put fellow journalists on trial for dishonesty works for the newspaper that will run any old anti-science clap-trap dished up by discredited climate sceptics, all on the spurious grounds of “balance”.”
An analysis by a totally unbalanced commentator who will villify anyone whose position is different from his. How dare he use terms like “anti-science” “discredited” etc to describe any line that does not fit with Dr Hamilton’s jaudiced view.
Go take a shower in recycled water Clive!!
Mark and Matt, developed countries with limited domestic energy resources have historically pursued energy-efficient technologies (often in conjunction with nuclear power, since fuel imports are a small fraction of the cost): examples are Switzerland, Denmark, Israel, Japan, Korea, France, Sweden, Finland. In these countries the energy consumption per dollar of GNP is much lower than that in comparable countries with rich domestic energy resources such as the USA, UK, Norway, Canada and Australia. Likewise, different US states have dramatically different energy intensities — energy-poor California uses half the energy per dollar of “state product” that energy-rich Texas does, for instance.
Public environmental conscience as well as cost-consciousness in countries such as Germany and Denmark has led to them pursuing efficiency alongside renewable energy. Effective insulation in typical German houses, for instance, means they leak a tiny fraction of the heat that otherwise-comparable British houses do. German factories also have been quick to adopt energy-efficient technologies such as industrial cogeneration (combined heat and power), and high levels of recycling mean German manufacturers consume less energy processing raw materials than factories elsewhere. Government has supported these initiatives all the way for decades.
Mark, Clive Hamilton does not advocate continued poverty for citizens of developing countries while we prosperous Westerners pollute. Like any sane environmentalist, he favours expensive pollution-reduction measures in developed countries like Australia, at the same time as advocating aid to poorer countries for clean development.
In a sense, material wealth *is* energy consumption. Convergence of emissions necessarily implies convergence towards similar consumption and income levels. In this context, immigration only speeds up the process, it doesn’t alter the outcome.
Biff!!Bang!!Pow!!
Our population growth rate is driven by immigration, and new Australians also contribute to our “natural” birth rate. Our leaders measure their “success” largely by our population growth and “pleasing” fertility rates. However, the compromise on our environment is being ignored. While we are negotiating a reduction in carbon emissions, taking more people into Australia, often head-hunted from developing countries, negates any effort to reduce emissions and protect our environment from further impacts. We are vulnerable to climate change in Australia, and so are is our agriculture. A constantly increasing population is NOT sustainable, and is compelety avoidable. Our population growth is for the benefit of few people, but reduces the liveability of most.
To quote Monica Oliphant daughter in law of Sir Mark Oliphant and president of the International Solar Energy Society (she would wouldn’t she!), at the recent Sydney Conference: Australia is only 1.22% but in context is ahead of 193 other countries of similar and below levels. When totalling these 193 countries we get fully 30% of total global emissions.
30% is alot. And Australia for quite a few decades has been something of an honest broker example to the other 193 countries … at least up to the Iraq war. If they see well to do Australia abrogate it’s historic challenge they will all nod their head and say it’s a fizzer. But if we help set the standard in retooling our energy sector, they might just give us the respect we want and used to have.
And we might just get some self respect back too. I agree the GFC is actually an opportunity because we have alot less distractions from boom windfall resource profits and will be coming at this from a comparatively lower base than a few months ago. If as a country we are going into some grovel lets make it wholesome honest grovel cleaning up our energy sector. That’s economics we can believe in.
“In fact, Australia is in a position to do much more than other rich countries since we have not yet bothered to pick the low-hanging fruit in the form of energy efficiency measures.
If for a decade Australia has done less than everyone else”
Could you please give some examples of other countries that have been doing substantially more in the efficiency realm?
To complete the international summary - according to Monica Oliphant there are 193 countries below and up to Australia in the rankings of GHG emissions and 15 countries are above. This big 15 make up 70% of the total. If all 193 little to medium countries take Australia’s example then 1/3 of the problem goes AWOL. That is obviously untenable. It’s one in, all in for the small medium countries.
“On average an immigrant to Australia is responsible for double the greenhouse gas emissions they would have emitted had they not emigrated. It’s pretty obvious when we remember that most people emigrate to Australia to increase their incomes and higher incomes tend to be associated with higher emissions.”
An amazingly puerile statement without any apparent logic whatsoever. Maybe you can be more informative. Maybe they went from no car to two cars - no lights to several.
Perhaps you are saying that pauline hanson was right after all!
By the way there’s new science on its way on this subject and the same old crappy pathetic scepticism will try and devour the opportunity and hope it will bring.
“Why should we ask the rest of the world to exempt us from some of the costs of this policy (higher greenhouse gas emissions) while we enjoy the benefits?”
Because the planet doesn’t care if the CO2 is emitted in Adelaide or Addis Ababa. Unless you’re saying that living in the former rather than the latter emits more CO2? But to say that, you’d have to calculate per capita emissions in each place…which is precisely what Kelly is calling for.
Overall you’re on the money, but on this particular issue you’re way off beam, and Kelly has a good point.
It’s good to hear media getting off about media dishonesty as there’s plenty of that about and damage as a result.
Very good scientists with their honest scientific intellect focused on getting their hands on the truth are a very different creature and easily damaged by the opinion makers and setters (i.e. media) who rarely really understand what a scientist really understands about his message and take ownership in the name of commonsense which science is not.
Garnaut and others like him are not scientists although they could make huge contributions working properly with them and their own skill sets are very valid.
Right on, Clive. I laughed out loud at 540am yesterday when I sat, bleary eyed, reading Kelly’s piece.
The Oz CMS didn’t let me write a letter response, so here’s my second try:
How hilarious to read Paul Kelly lecturing the media for revealing an agenda and then throwing around terms like “myth” and “narrative” to describe the green debate!
And then today’s front page says Al Gore is a “self-proclaimed climate guru”. What about his Nobel Prize?
Meanwhile, Germany’s Deutsche Bank just issued a new report stating that a massive stimulus package investing in renewable energy will help bring economies out of recession…massive new wind farms announced in China.. Etc. Etc.