Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
I’m a climate currency leakage sceptic
|
I am, I have to finally admit, a climate sceptic. A non-believer, a flat-earther, who refuses to accept the demand to believe in the new religion being propagated by a small group of biased special interests. I reckon it’s all superstition and nonsense and can produce the figures to prove it. I should be more specific, I guess. What I’m specifically sceptical about is carbon leakage. No one has ever seen carbon leakage. It’s an economic theory, as yet unsupported by any real-world evidence. It postulates that any attempt to impose a carbon price ahead of a comprehensive international agreement on emissions trading will simply drive trade-exposed industries offshore, along with all the jobs they create and the greenhouse gases they emit, offshore to a country which has no carbon price. The entire rationale of handing over billions of dollars in compensation under the CPRS is based on “carbon leakage”. Call it faith-based policy. In the last six months, however, a giant experiment has been underway to test the claims of the likes of our minerals sector, and steel manufacturers, and everyone else who argues that a carbon price would make them pack up and head to the nearest developing country. The experiment is the Australian dollar, which has dramatically appreciated, particularly against the US dollar. This morning is was at about 92 US cents. The earnings of most of our minerals sector are denominated in US dollars, so the terrible performance of the greenback this year weighs especially heavily on our mining companies since the Aussie began climbing off a low of 63.2 US cents in February. But the impact of the higher dollar dwarfs any possible impact of a carbon price. Here are some examples. Last month, one analyst estimated that the impact of an appreciation from US$0.67 to US$0.95 would reduce margins on steam coal from $46 a tonne to $8 a tonne. The same analyst calculated the cost of a carbon price on coal-mining emissions would be $12 a tonne. The impact of foreign exchange movements is greater than that of a carbon price by a factor of 3. Bluescope Steel, a persistent lobbyist for more compensation under the CPRS which has warned it will cut production or close altogether, predicted the CPRS would cost it “tens of millions of dollars” in the first year of operation, in reference to the less generous White Paper model. But Bluescope told the Bracks Automotive Review in 2008 that a one US cent appreciation of the Australian dollar cuts its EBIT by $12m. That means Bluescope’s EBIT will be slashed by $360m this year, an effect that will continue as long as the dollar remains high. In April, the greatest of the rentseeking leaches, the Minerals Council of Australia, told a Senate committee that the CPRS would impose costs of $2b a year on the entire minerals sector. To put that bloated and unsourced figure in context, last month ABARE predicted energy and minerals earnings for 2009-10 would fall by about $30b because of commodity price movements and a higher Australian dollar. I asked ABARE if they could separate the impacts but they were unable to given the interrelationship between the Australian dollar and commodity prices. But even assuming 90% of that fall is due to commodity prices rather than the dollar, exchange rates still account for far more than the CPRS, even on the sector’s own apocalyptic forecasts. No one expects the Australian dollar to depreciate significantly against the greenback anytime soon. ABARE forecasts a higher dollar for the remainder of 2010, and there are plenty of analysts who see commodities prices supporting the dollar into 2011 and beyond, driving by commodity prices increases. A higher Australian dollar, even if not in the 90 US cent range where it is currently, looks here to stay for years to come. Somehow, magically, our biggest companies are able to handle that shock to their earnings without bailing out to a country with a weak currency. Yet they claim the smaller impact of the CPRS will send them fleeing to the nearest polluters’ paradise. The appreciation of the Australian dollar has exposed that for the rentseeking try-on it is. |
|
|
52 Comments
Totally agree BK. I’m calling bullshit on the whole argument.
Pity Penny, Kevin and Malcolm didn’t.
This would be a fair comparison if currency movements were of the same type as legislated changes to an industry’s cost structure. They’re not the same, so your comparison doesn’t hold.
Companies experience currency movements as a business risk - an external risk that they can mitigate by hedging by selling product forward at a fixed price or buying currency futures to offset potential losses from exchange rate changes. A sudden, permanent, legislated change to their domestic cost structure that impairs the value of their investment in the resource, land, equipment, people is NOT the same thing. It DOES affect the fundamental value of $billion resource investments, and can’t be trivialized by superficial comparisons to currency movements.
If you continue to peddle such superficially ignorant mistake-ridden analysis, no-one should take you seriously.
Instead of cherry picking arguments that support your case, how about looking at both sides of the argument.
Look at the news that Bridgestone, Australia’s sole manufacturer of tyres, is closing its last plant and relocating overseas.
From The Weekend Australian
“TYRE manufacturer Bridgestone will close its Australian plant in Adelaide with the loss of 600 jobs because it cannot compete with tyres produced overseas.
The company is also closing its tyre factory in Christchurch, New Zealand, where about 275 workers will lose their jobs.”
This s not because of fluctuations in currency, it is because a structural shift in manufacturing costs has taken place, Australia is too expensive to manufacture tyres (and a lot of other things) in.
The imposition of an Australian emissions trading scheme, which is unlikely to be imposed in China, for a variety of reasons, will make Australia’s manufacturing sector even more uncompetitive than it already is.
That is what ‘carbon leakage’ means.
Cherry picking examples to justify your view is pretty lame journalism, rather it shades into opinion writing.
If you want to be an opinion columnist, fine, just don’t go trying to pass yourself off as a journalist.
Hmmm, I call satire.
Evan
Im often left wondering how Malcolm gets bought into this debate.
as an ex banker im sure he loves the idea of a trading scheme, his banker buddies will all retire rich because of it.
but im sure as you would be aware in private and away from populist policies he is a AGW sceptic, infact im sure most Liberal members are…he is prepared to vote for carbon trading because its popular and seen as the right thing to do.
He is in essence giving the people what they want. He should not get the credit for this scheme though and I hope people hold the government to account and dont point to a weak opposition as to reasons why this is bad policy.
Many in the Liberal party think climate change is BS, but they will vote for it because its popular, in the mean time i think Australa’s media needs to take their focus of the opposition and acknowledge they will vote as their constituents require. but i for one minute do not think that they believe it.
thus the failures or successes must fall on the governments head.
Malcolm is largley irrelevent.
This is pretty spurious, Bernard. Of course an operating mine is the ultimate example of an immobile capital resource. You don’t shut down such things at the drop of a hat. But to focus on existing investments is misleading. Further to Paul Davies @ 1:55, it’s decisions on future $billion resource investments that suffer major immediate impact from the onset of sovereign risk factors like the CPRS. This means new mine proposals taken off the table, planned expansions mothballed and, most critically of all, exploration programs shifted overseas to, yes, countries with weaker currencies and ‘polluters paradises’. Not stuff you generally get to hear about, but nevertheless all the things that determine where the mines of the next few decades - not the present, or even next year - will be.
Disclosure: Like most people with some knowledge of an issue, I also have a professional vested interest in it.
First I need to point out that I am not the Michael James of 2.07pm. (Despite multiple appeals, Crikey still will do nothing to disambiguate the two of us.)
I am Michael R. James, research scientist, who has written the occasional article for Crikey, including the one in May from which the following extract is taken:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/06/more-smoke-and-mirrors-from-the-coal-lobby/
“Clearly global events unrelated to climate politics can have much greater impact on the coal industry in Australia. In the context of about 50% drop in the price of coal counterbalanced by the 30% drop in the exchange rate, any effect of a carbon tax in the early years (and ignoring the massive subsidies to the miners proposed by the Rudd/Wong CPRS) is almost a rounding error in any annual profit forecast, at least in short to medium term……”
Good article Bernard but, excepting my denier-sceptic/doppleganger above, you are preaching to the converted at Crikey. It seems the great Australian public have almost been transformed into Americans (and second rate ones at that): they have zero interest in the relevant facts on any of the important issues (look at the boat people hysteria…again) and just react to each thing as children, selfish short-term self-interest to the fore. Really one can hardly blame Rudd for his awful strategy.
Carbon dioxide is one of the main causes of our weather remaining warm, when in reality it should be cooling down. Besides the annual weather cycle there are other longer term weather cycles. The Milankovitch weather cycle is a 100,000 year weather cycle, it is cause by the regular pattern of change of the ellipticity of the earth’s orbit around the sun. We are now entering the Milankovitch Autumn, scientists were predicting global freezing about 50 years ago. This is not happening. The scientists predicting cooling were not stupid.
So why are we not getting cooler and entering an ice age, as should be happening? Its human population levels that are the underlying cause. We have reduced biodiversity on our planet to the point that we are changing our planets weather in the medium term.
Biodiversity balances the effect any single species has on the overall biosphere. By eliminating species that soaked up our wastes and controlled our numbers, we now fill the petri dish with our waste and consume almost all its food content. Technology was the driving force behind our dominance on this little planet, it is also going to bring about our extinction. Technology is a wonderful thing, if rational evaluation of its effects constantly moderate any harm it may cause. A debt money based economy, with greed as the main driver of technology is destructive.
So keep playing with your dollars and cents. You will have plenty of scientists seeking the same, to support and justify your irrational behaviour. Justice does not exist, not on this planet at least. I see all the scientists who claimed Asbestos, Cigarettes, Radiation etc were not harmful to humans, wallowing in their dollar supported affluent retirement.
Best of luck earthlings. I am glad I wont be around to face the weather.
Yeah i agree with Paul and Mark above…Currency fluctuations can be mitigated through the use of hedging and hence do not affect the bottom line as badly. However adding an emissions cost to all production (which will probably cause a huge supply shock in the short run..i.e Oil prices in 1973) will cause a bit of turmoil.
Still it’s going to happen at some stage. The only advantage of an Emissions Trading Scheme as opposed to a carbon tax is hopefully forward contracts for carbon emissions will also be created, helping business mitigate that risk as well…
“…The impact of foreign exchange movements is greater than that of a carbon price by a factor of 3…”
So what?
Is there supposed to be some relationship between these two disparate elements?
“…A higher Australian dollar, even if not in the 90 US cent range where it is currently, looks here to stay for years to come…”
Really.
Says who?
The last time the AUDUSD approached parity (unpredicted by analysts) the price of crude fell all the down way to US$32 a barrel.
Previously those same muppet analysts you are leaning heavily on had said oil would be more than US$200 a barrel.
“…The appreciation of the Australian dollar has exposed that for the rentseeking try-on it is…”
Just like the EPIC FAIL the European Union carbon price scheme was.
And what would your solution be in a global carbon price scenario if the currency moved back toward A$0.50?
More compensation?
A derivatives market?? (LOL)
And of course the other thing companies can do reduce their exposure to a carbon price is…. reduce their carbon emissions.
Bernard,
I suggest that you only write straight, boring, factual columns in future… no humour, no smarty-pants stuff.
Not because I don’t like it, but because of the remarkably bitter and twisted comments that follow.
PS. Despite protestations from ex-bank-persons, industry insiders and other conflicted souls, I enjoyed the piece, agree with at least part of the message and look forward to your next effort.
John Bennetts, you seem to have a different idea, but I read Crikey to be informed as well as entertained. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect articles to have more than a nodding acquaintance with reality, nor to call a correction (‘protestation’ be damned) as I see it. Unlike (apparently) you, I’d prefer the truth rather than something that happens to conform with my worldview any day.
Mark, really, you expect a humourous piece to be factual?
Let’s just clear up any misunderstanding.
Irony is OK by me, as also most forms of writing, except poetry. I just don’t get it. Tried and failed. Something to do with being an engineer?
“Protestations” is a correct usage of the word. I read Crikey for humour, backgrounding, opinion, facts, advance snippets and so forth.
Live and let live, OK Mark?
I’ve yet to see a single point in response that holds amongst all these comments. The advocates of carbon leakage maintain the impact of the CPRS is so great they will close down and move elsewhere, but significant greater impacts from exogenous factors like exchange rate movements are endured regularly. They can be mitigated by hedging, for example, but you can’t hedge against a long-term appreciation of a currency, especially if commodity prices are denominated in US dollars.
Perhaps I should have quoted - again - the GoldmanSachs JBWere analysis that found, even before compensation (i.e. 94.5%/66% free permits) for big polluters, only 4 of the top 100 listed companies faced carbon costs of over 5% of EBIT. Bluescope Steel was 11%, meaning, using Bluescope’s own figure of 75% effective compensation coverage of all cost impacts of the CPRS (Scope 1-3), the impact would be less than 3% of EBIT. The rest were 5% or less.
They will, almost literally, be in Michael James’s words the equivalent of rounding errors. And yet, somehow, they’re supposed to be big enough to drive companies to simply give up their capital investment onshore, replicate it offshore that’s not so far away as to have significant transport costs, and hope that the country they move to doesn’t bring in its own carbon price anytime soon.
I’m calling it a crock until I see some hard facts otherwise. If you object to the argument, produce some facts.
Bernard Keane
Despite your missing the rather fixed nature of most major CO2 emitting assets and the use of hedging, I like the idea of you practising numeracy and logic based on it. It means I expect you to tell us how we can now afford a package from France or the US of off-the-shelf installed-by-2014 nuclear power plant paid for with our US94 cent dollars.
to all the people above arguing against the carbon leakage…yet for the CPRS…are you not contradicting yourselves…
shouldn’t the CPRS actually have an profound effect on business…infact it should cost them something?
I am not an economist specialising in Australia but a few considerations strike me.
Firstly Australian commodities are not generally sold to the US. The massive price movement between the US and Aussie dollar over the past six months are as more to do with the depreciation of the US dollar against all currencies rather than an appreciation of the Aussie dollar against all currencies. The Japanese Yen has apreciated to the US dollar and mildly depreciated to the Aussie dollar in the same period.
Secondly, the short term demand for commodities from Australia is often inelastic especially between contracts, however over time consumers become more responsive to price changes therefore one would not expect the situation for exporters to worsen for a considerable time.
Lastly if the currency was as predictable as BK suggests he, at least, if not us all would be multi-millionaires…….
The whole thrust of the argument is tosh and amounts to a partisan ignoring the obvious: that if prices are raised people buy less of that commodity if a choice exists to buy less or buy elsewhere.
This ironically forms the basis of his beloved nonsensical CPRS.
And the CPRS is of course a term which is dishonest in and of itself which completes this circle of inanity.
James, I now understand. You are serious.
Goodness, so are we all.
The problem is our different views of rational behaviour.
If I own a steel works and there is an Australian carbon tax imposed on this company, of course I will try to find another, cheaper, place to do business. If the Government grants me carbon credits, by whatever name, I will accept them.
The logical thing to do is to cash in the carbon credits as and when possible and move my steelworks off-shore, to a country which has no carbon tax.
Easy.
Obvious.
And you were saying what, exactly…?
Bernard, I thought I made it clear the main effects of changes in structural costs on the minerals industry will be felt well into the future. What with the ongoing failure to invent the TARDIS, it’s pretty hard to produce facts from the future of mining investment in Australia.
Moreover, your “our biggest companies are able to handle that shock (A$ appreciation) to their earnings without bailing out to a country with a weak currency” argument is a straw man for its ridiculous absolutism. Of course Rio Tinto and BHP aren’t going to shut down their Australian operations entirely and shift holus bolus offshore. It’s all a matter of degrees. A mine closed here (e.g. Mindarie, a couple of weeks ago), a mine not proceeded with there (e.g. Avebury), and pretty soon you’re talking serious impacts on the industry.
And you need to look at it on an industry-wide basis. Individual companies with Australian mines generally don’t move in response to higher costs, they simply go bust. It’s the investment capital that flies, and is/will be the mechanism for carbon leakage.
So that’s how I reckon you should test your hypothesis evaluating your ‘giant experiment’: compare the stock prices of predominantly Australia-exposed companies versus those with mainly overseas interests, over the period the A$ has been appreciating. Sounds like a job for a professional journalist. Over to you, Bernard.
MadeInAustralia, yes it should cost companies to emit carbon. The point is it shouldn’t matter where in the world they do it; after all the effect on the planet is still the same.
I’ll point out the obvious even to somebody like yourself John Bennetts.
Your last sentence: “And you were saying what, exactly…?” is incongruous and contradictory with your first: “I now understand”
But perhaps you were endeavouring to be ironic which no doubt in this instance would have been intended to be condescending.
If so, in which of the two quotes is the irony?
Both can’t be.
The real irony is of course you demonstrating that you genuinely do not understand.
Bravo.
I don’t really understand all these weird economic dealings we’re inventing regarding to ‘carbon’. I find it strange that we talk about global warming issues in terms of this single element. It seems abstract and simplistic.
Carbon can be found in anything of organic origin including many things we don’t generally think of as ‘organic’, like coal (of course) but also diamonds, graphite pencils and plastics. Burning organic stuff of course releases particulates into the air, as well as gaseous carbon dioxide, which contributes to pollution and global warming. But there are so many more factors involved - sulphur, nitrogen, oxygen and many more elements in various combinations with each other are an equal part of the problem. There are ecosystems and biodiversity and a million cause-and-effect situations to consider.
The Wilderness Society even talks about logging and burning off in terms of ‘carbon’ being displaced from the earth into the atmosphere. To me using ‘carbon’ as code for a multitude of issues clouds the issue rather than clarifies it.
Sorry this isn’t a very clear argument. I just find the idea of ‘carbon’ as a commodity very peculiar. It just seems a way for businesses and governments to look like they’re doing something (e.g. by buying or selling these intagible ‘carbon credits’) when in fact they’re just figuring out new ways to make money and avoid responsibility. I’m sure you’ll all tell me if I’m wrong.
Acannon,
I suggest that you look up (try any reputable on-line encyclopedia) the meaning of CO2-e, ie carbon dioxide equivalent. Google that phrase and you will find a plethora of places to look.
All greenhouse gases can be compared by their effectiveness as compared with carbon dioxide (not carbon).
Be aware, though, that some gases stay in the atmosphere for much longer than CO2; some less. Hence, their effects continue in some cases for much longer - perhaps a thousand years… It is not just this year’s production that matters, but the ongoing accumulating effects till the gas of concern breaks down.
Here is one such reference: http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-resources/calculator.html
Acannon: I think the reason that the term “carbon” is used in all the ways you mention is to do with the fact that most (not all - SF6 and N2O the major exceptions) of the greenhouse gases contain carbon (CO2, CH4, CHC’s PFC’s etc). Also, the issue is tied up with the “carbon cycle” which relates the soil, the biosphere, fossil fuels, the oceans and the atmosphere in the long and short term carbon cycles. In these cyles, the element of carbon is a common denominator. I don’t know this for a fact actually, but I think it must be almost right. Anyone else know if this is wrong?
Bernard Keane
There is another point to make on top of those by JamesK and Mark Duffett in relation to exchange rates and hedging. When have $US/$AUS exchange rates been other than sufficiently volatile to justify hedging rather than deciding that the change, like the effects of the CPRS, is long term and predictable enough to justify investing in a different country?
Hedging protects against not knowing what currencies are going to do. Businesses know what the CPRS is intended to and almost certainly will do to them - and the hedging point is: so do the potential counter-parties.
I can think of 3 previous occasions when the Government has changed regulations, all for health related issues, which would have enormous impact on the bottom line of various businesses;
Lead in petrol
Asbestos products
CFCs as propellants
Is there any evidence that companies moved sales of lead paint off shore to make use of lax regulations, or did they just change their process? Were they compensated for changing their process? Lead was used because it was cheap, didn’t they just pass the costs on?
Was James Hardie compensated for banning of their asbestos products? Quite the opposite I’d say.
What about CFCs? Was there any compensation for change of manufacturing processes and having to use more expensive compounds?
Like Bernard, I think the effects of carbon leakage are greatly overstated; sure as a theory it may occur, but I think the companies involved are deep in some classic rent seeking. The disparity between their shareholder reports and the reports given to Government bare that out. I also think the theory ignores some other potent motivators for doing business in Australia; a stable political climate, huge amounts of resources and abundant cheap energy. Only the last one will change, making it one of many pieces in the puzzle, not the whole game.
Don’t see why steel companies should pay for carbon, they practice carbon sequestration. :^) << — note tongue-in-cheek emoticon!!!
@GregB.
I had thought most everyone even alarmists understood that calling an ETS the CPRS was and indeed still is a cynical device to associate one of nature’s key organic molecule ‘CO2’ with particulate carbon constituted by another molecule called carbon ‘C’ aka soot and smog. Interestingly our modern electricity generators no longer pollute the environment with carbon unlike say China’s:
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
CO2 thus becomes the polluting enemy instead of an organic molecule absolutely indigent to and necessary for life.
Come on, Evan@9:03, that whole analogy is just silly, exemplified by the notion of “companies moved sales of lead paint off shore”. If you can demonstrate just how they could do that, you can a) become very rich, and b) collect a Nobel Prize for economics.
Yeah, I stuffed that up, but the over riding point is; were they compensated for having to change their production process?
No, I’d still say the situation is fundamentally different, in that in each of your cases the new rules applied equally across the board to all companies wanting to sell to consumers. That’s not the case with the CPRS, because it only applies to production operations in Australia. The root of the problem is that we want to have our CO2-e reduction cake and eat it (i.e. continue to consume all the products of CO2-e emission) too.
Europe has an ETS that has been up and running. Has there been “carbon leakage”?
Simple question.
The mining industry getting worked up is just silly. They make heaps of money. If they slow expansion somewhat that doesn’t reduce the value of future income, if anything it increases it (see Saudi Arabia constantly holding back oil supply).
The industry that does matter is energy intensive refining/manufacturing. This actual means smelters. However they are sensitive to energy prices and security of supply, not just carbon. The new smelters were always going to be built in the middle east or places with lots of hydro capacity (Canada/Norway/Siberia). Bahrain is offering almost free electricity to locate there (since they sit on the biggest gas reserves in the world, way more than they can possibly export).
The problem I have with the figures quoted (specifically the JBWere analysis) is that it is only over the short term.
I have had some problems finding the report (if you could post it, that would be great); people refer to it, but no one seems to have posted the actual report. Reading the “Ethical Investor” website about it however, it appears 2 things determine a future carbon liability. The amount of emissions produced in the future (hard to determine) and the cost put to those emissions in the future.
The way Andrew Gray (the analyst) figured it out was based on disclosure information about carbon emissions from the JBWere Carbon Disclosure Project (or survey of ASX200 companies, only 73% participate) and the cost of carbon implemented at the start of the CPRS (a fixed price of approx $10). I hope he has also accounted for the time value of money by throwing in a discount factor as well..The EBIT used was 2007 figures.
So the analysis is based on a number of potential figures rather than hard data..though through the use of trending (survey’s been running for 4 years), he could find out whether companies are increasing their emissions or decreasing them. (though no errors or SD have been reported either)
My question is what happends in 2012 when the cost of carbon emissions reverts to a market driven price (roughly $20-$25 according to speculation)? Might increase the effect on EBIT a little bit more I would say.
Look, I am a fan of the CPRS…I think it needs to happen. I think it will solve a lot of issues and over the really long term be beneficial to the Australian environment (and even the economy). But everyone should understand why companies are a bit reluctant about it and why cash handouts may be necessary to get them to the party. And we will see pain in the first few years.
So then Mark, I take your point; anything imported into Australia had to meet the guidelines.
So why not do that instead? Rather than compensating our businesses, which in my opinion discourages any actual innovation on their part, tax imports that are from countries that don’t have a scheme. An advanced tariff I guess. Sure there’ll be some administrative headaches, but the current system is chock full of them as well. Then, our businesses have an incentive to decrease their emissions.
It’s a large criticism I have of the system; there are is so much compensation that there’s no incentive to improve. In some cases there’s even a disencentive.
I also wonder if the reverse might occur. The EU banned imports of GM foods. There is some precedent that something similar might happen with imports from countries without an ETS or similar. It has not been mentioned here in the debate, but I would consider it a risk of not having a scheme; penalties in the form of trade restrictions from other countries in the future.
Not a bad idea, Evan @ 12:34 pm, but I think the main problems would be diplomatic rather than administrative. Australia generally benefits from free trade; anything that looks like we’re trying to be protectionist in certain areas is bad for our trade negotiations. The practical effect of your proposal would be to put up tariff walls against the poorest countries in the world; not a good look.
Re; John Bennetts
the “effectiveness ” of Co2 after saturation = ZERO
Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document foe Endangerment Analysis
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
the “effectiveness ” of Co2 after saturation = ZERO
_________________________________________________________
“perhaps a thousand years? = how about 5 to 10 Days ?
The lifetime for CO2 is the order of 5 to 10
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lifetime.jpg
OR
The real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
_______________________________________________________
“ongoing accumulating effects” ? = how about ZERO,zilsh,
OR;
Dr. Roy Spencer’s 0.6 C warming for a doubling of CO2.
OR;
Miskolczi`s New Greenhouse Law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykgg9m-7FK4&feature=player_embedded#t=98
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT HAS NOT INCREASED IN THE LAST 100 YEARS!
_________________________________________________________
The common misconception is;As we add more and more carbon atoms so more heat is retained by the increasing number and reflection of heat also increases
You missed the point regarding the fact that once the upgoing radiation that CO2 can capture
has been absorbed there’s none left for additional CO2 to have any further influence - it’s a
logarithmic effect i.e. the more CO2 you add the less the effect until there’s virtually no effect
at all. And as you stated “reflects heat in all directions” - that’s out into space as well. This
“greenhouse” has no roof.
The fact that that Co2 was many times higher in the past during extremly cold periods proves
the point.
A simple way to explain it is;If you add extra blinds to a window the second has little effect and the third next to zilsh and so on.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
Miskolczi`s New Greenhouse Law
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/united-nations-environment-programme-uses-unreviewed-graph-from-an-anonymous-wikipedia-author-for-official-report/
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The following chart comes courtesy of Climate Researcher Alan Siddons and illustrates the
theoretical pattern logarithmic CO2 forcing would assume at each of these four sensitivity
levels. Needless to say, the difference when allowing for negative feedback is staggering.
ZILSH GRAPH
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/the_planet_cools_while_romm_bu_1.html
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
Mistakes in IPCC Global Warming Calculations
http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
As for your link;
Just like the IPCC the ABC the CSIRO or any Government funded agencies with $-grant-$
monnies’s why would they bite the hand that feeds them and not give them a pre concieved
biassed outcome ?
“The latest example is in Queensland where the CSIRO is given $2 million to help the
government fight global warming.”
http://www.countryman.com.au/article/2397.html
— — — —
The EPA even tried to suppress evidence.
Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document foe Endangerment Analysis
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
the “effectiveness ” of Co2 after saturation = ZERO
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Sun has been more active recently than for the last 8,000 years.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=1
http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/solter/ihy2007/topics.html
Solar Radiation during the 20th Century
http://www.john-daly.com/solar.htm
New Discoveries from Denmark
In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the
climatological world with a paper in “Science” describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle
length and global temperature (IPCC version). “Science” writer, Richard Kerr described it as
“one dazzling correlation”.
Fig 5. Solar Cycle Length and Global Temperature (surface)
(The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length)
As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the
solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
The Sun has X-been-X WAS more active recently than for the last 8,000 years.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=1
http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/solter/ihy2007/topics.html
An educated person knows that Sunspot cycles and ‘temperature’ or ‘climate’ are near perfectly correlated.
http://cce.890m.com/solar-gcr/images/sunspot-cycle-length.jpg
http://cce.890m.com/solar-gcr/images/fcl.jpg
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
— — — -
Now lets include the bad correlation of Co2 as well.
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_vs._CO2.jpg
http://www.kowabunga.org/images/pictures/misc/sunspot.gif
There needs to be a considderation taken into account, there is a LAG period well after because of the fact Oceans take time to cool.
Our release of gasses is minute compared to a warmed Ocean and 3 million+ under sea Vents
and Volcanoes which there are 85 times more of than land based Volcanoes.Besides there has
been a rise in the intensity of World Earth quakes that correlates with Mona loa curve
I think there’s not much mystery about the past warming really,It’s the Massive 3 MILLION?
Under-sea thermal and volcanic activity under the Arctic AND the warm currents also from the ring of fire that enter the Arctic which would ALL originate from an unballanced world from CME Magnetic disturbances causing above normal sizemic activity and thus extra heat entering
the Ocean and then to the atmosphere.
— — — — — — -
climate sensitvity for a doubling of CO2
Here is a summary of some of the recent determinations climate sensitivities or warming for a
doubling of CO2:
0.4 C (Idso)
0.5 C (Lindzen)
0.6 +/- 0.2 C (analysis above)
0.65 C (Schwartz without aerosol masking)
0.98 C (Modtran)
1.3 C (Schwartz with aerosol masking)
1.3 C (Shaviv)
2.2 C (Schwartz with aerosol masking and using incorrect ocean warming values)
I’ll just quote Roy Spencer’s latest finding on climate sensitivity at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/epa-endangerment-finding-my-submitted-comments/
where he finds a 0.6 C warming for a doubling of CO2.
_______________________________________________________________
perhaps a thousand years? = how about 5 to 10 Days ?
the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
the lifetime for CO2 is the order of 5 to 10
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lifetime.jpg
http://newsbyus.com/index.php/article/2116
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, presented ‘smoking gun’ analysis
showing UN IPCC models ‚significantly overstated climate sensitivity to human climate forcings’ - June 17, 2008
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reid Bryson say’s you could go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon
dioxide.
UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of
the science of modern climatology.”
http://www.cordina.org/page2/page2.html
Evan Beaver stated
“I can think of 3 previous occasions when the Government has changed regulations, all for health related issues, which would have enormous impact on the bottom line of various businesses;
Lead in petrol
Asbestos products
CFCs as propellants
Is there any evidence that companies moved sales of lead paint off shore to make use of lax regulations, or did they just change their process?”
Ask yourself , the next time you are at your local Bunnings, just how many different paint brands there are on show, then check where they were manufactured.
I believe that you will find the vast majority were manufactured overseas, simply because the costs of manufacturing paint in places like China, and then shipping it to Australia, is still cheaper than manufacturing here.
That long term shift from a manufacturing economy to a services economy, is hastened when the Government imposes long term cost increases through structural manipulation of costs to local manufacturing.
Look at what happened to our tyre manufacturing industry, or our car manufacturing industry, or our white goods manufacturing industry, or our electrical item manufacturing industry or even our clothing and underwear manufacturing industry.
You can, they are all on sale, many with the same branding, but manufactured in China, by Chinese, with the profits going overseas to support overseas jobs.
Good article Bernard, followed by some trenchantly ignorant comment. The CPRS, even in a form that would actually achieve something as opposed to the joke currently being played out, is an infinitely smaller long term adjustment for industry than say;
- currency movements
- the GFC
- the emergence of the internet,
- any number of technological advances over the past 1000 years,
- a pretty standard change of government and the overturning of employment laws every 5-10 years.
And all have the hanrahan shrill of we’ll all be rooned. Surely the worst example of this is the complaints of the owners of the brown coal burning electricity generators. Apparently they weren’t aware there was a debate about climate change emerging, although somehow everyone else was.
Industry in all its forms has had to work with bigger manifestations of change introduced more quickly than a 10-15 year roll-in of carbon credits. No public debate in my lifetime has been more disingenuous, no industry sector immune to the siren song of rent seeking
Industry is in a headlong battle with agriculture to win title of champions of “Socialise the losses and privatise the profits.”
@Andrew Lewis
Humpty Dumpty words is one thing, maybe entertaining, though “trenchantly” attached to “ignorant” is presumably not intended to divert attention from your wish to be offensive rather than informative or usefully analytic. But Humpty Dumpty facts goes too far in wasting people’s time.
Couldn’t you make the effort or give the time to thinking of [causes of] “long term adjustment” that weren’t so quintessentially short-term as currency movements and the GFC? Let it be noted too that you are apparently insouciant about adjustments which involve the end of businesses or whole industries. Creative destruction maybe but the destruction usually hurts many and your best point would have to be made with a cogent argument that when you buy something from government, e.g. Victoria’s brown coal powered generators, you should know that government may turn round and tell you that it is now illegal to use the asset.
And your point? Because business has been faced with big changes that have had little or nothing to do with government it shouldn’t complain when the government thrusts costs upon it in a way which, without adjustment or compensation, could put it at a disadvantage in rewarding effort and ownership and for having made investments in good faith, often encouraged by government, compared with those of other business investors in Australia, and, more to the point, overseas.
Andy’s “trenchantly ignorant comment” has been a sudden and spectacular revelation. My worthless respiration merely adds to the CO2 pollution that is choking the planet whilst I dare to question the genius that is Bernard Keane.
I withdraw……. defeated but better for having been rapiered by that other trenchantly brilliant genius that is Andrew Lewis.
I both apologise to and grovel thanks to this coruscating Einstein.
Dear CHUGG@2:51 27th October.
Do you really expect any of us to read your dense, impenatrable cr_p? You have apparently copied and pasted a lot of stuff from another site and now expect us to work our way through it, and accept it as original work, relevant, and useful.
It is not.
For a start (and I choose to go no further today, the sun having set long ago), consider the following.
1. You choose to argue that additional CO2 after saturation has zero effect. This may be so, however saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere is not what is being discussed. The actual CO2 fraction of the atmosphere is and should be kept at, a fraction of the saturation concentration, which is poisonous to all life on earth, rather like sticking the exhaust pipe of a car into your mouth. CO and CO2 are both poisons. O2 is not. To keep this world inhabitable, we need to keep our gas mix (air) withjin reasonable limits. You, sir, are most certainly off your rocker and not reasonable at all.
2. Where the dickens did you get the notion that I said somewhere that CO2 reflects heat in all directions? Not from this site, or any other. Sure that you haven’t just imported cr_p from somewhere else and accused me of being the source?
3. After about four screen of diatribe, I have formed the opinion that you are in need of adjustment to the real world, because your current opinions are totally unreal. I have also detected that you need a job. 2:51pm is not an indication that you are gainfully employed. Perhaps you are paid to attend a workplace but choose to waste the bosses’ time. Either way: get a real job. You need one.
4. The quoted examples and arguments have all been answered many times by better than I. Essentially boring, now - old hat. You have swallowed enough hogwash to keep the pig population of Denmark clean and shining like a new penny for a couple of years.
Dream on.
With respect to Julius’s contribution. I am left in wonderment.
Did the horse give way to the car a hundred years ago? Were there government adjustment packages (Horse shit compensation)?
Did people buy and breed horses, expecting to make a profit, only to see their world view collapse as a better way was found to do things?
Of course, they didn’t receive compensation, or HPRS (Horse Pollution Reduction Credits), or anything else. They were simply forced to adapt, just as a mollusc on a rock shelf has to in the face of rising tides.
The captains of industry seek to remove risk from their dealings. That is evident from the past year’s collapse of the financial sector, where the public of a hundred nations have been called upon to save the businesses of the rich and famous from collapse. Nice work if you can get it, but not the way of Nature.
I see no reason to now socialise the losses which accrue due to the carbon economy or to privatise the profits which might be made by further rorting the system. Carbon chemistry and atmospheric physics may not be understood by said captains of industry or other commentators on this subject, but when the world turns, they have absolutely no rational reason to be offered the public tit as recompense.
Get over it, move on and change your business are the only words of advice which apply here.
As for brown coal… if the purchasers have not yet made a profit from burning this wet, low grade, stinking Victorian mess, then they never will. They have had enough time for us to refuse them our sympathy. Besides which, we are too busy dealing with the emerging world to worry about the finer points of offering a decent burial to those left behind.
That would be the famous government legislated invention and introduction of the motorised carriage at the turn of the former century together with tax breaks to motorised carriage purchases and taxing of horse feed?
JamesK, did that really happen? or are you just stirring the pot?
What….Horse Pollution Reduction Credits or the infamous Horse Feed Tax ?
@John Bennetts: If I look I can find posts from you between 9-5, so this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Pot and kettle? Mate, I am semi-retired. Done my bit for the workforce and now average a couple of days per week.
I was assuming that my target was still adolescent, if not absolutely infantile, like some of his contribution.
Oh yeah. My excuse is http://xkcd.com/303/
@ JOHN BENNETTS
As my reference to “creative destruction” would have indicated I don’t have much enthusiasm for easing the mortal pains of out of date businesses with my money even as taxpayer but I don’t like sloppiness like Andrew Lewis’s contribution either.
I have paid little attention to what deals are being made to ensure that the CPRS is total hypocritical humbug and c*ap as, even if the scientific foundations are sound, almost everything else is wrong or sub-optimal. But what about the compensation for the lower income earners - all ten times as rich as most of the people I see on my annual visits to a Third World country?
They are nearly all voters and responsible as citizens who did or did not take any part in civil society or political life for what our country has done to exacerbate or not counter AGW. Why should they [we] not pay for our collective failure and, at the same time, be given an incentive to reduce CO2 emissions?
Register now to join the conversation instantly, or log in to post a comment now.