Penny Wong gave a speech at the CEDA conference the other day. In general terms she took the line that Ross Garnaut has been taking. Facing up to climate change will not be easy or cheap, but not facing up to it will be very expensive and possibly (probably?) catastrophic.
As a small example of the risk facing Australia from climate change, around 711,000 coastal addresses were at risk from future sea-level rise, Senator Wong said.
She said best estimates showed that $25 billion in assets may be at risk from sea level rise and storm surge.
Conceding that energy prices will go up she told The World Today that the Government will
develop measures to help households, particularly those on low incomes, and address the challenges faced by emissions intensive and trade exposed industries.
Coverage needed to be as broad as possible.
And the point is this, the more emissions intensive industries who aren’t making a contribution to emissions reduction through the ETS, the more work that needs to be done by those industries that are making a contribution.
In addition, the more compensation or free permits given to some firms, the harder it is for others. And the more narrow the coverage, and the more compensation or free permits the Government provides, the less capacity we have to assist families.
So none of these decisions are isolated; they are all linked. Giving relative priority to one or another inevitably involves a trade-off.
So it boils down to what is the most economically responsible design. The more we adjust the ETS to suit particular interests, the less robust and credible the carbon market will be. (Emphasis added)
So we should assume that fuel is in. She criticised Malcolm Turnbull, who wants to leave fuel out of an ETS, saying:
This debate will be littered with temptation for the Opposition. And they may chose to continue with the old short-term politics and they will score some points along the way.
Ross Garnaut supports the inclusion of fuel.
SABRA LANE: Can a scheme be effective without petrol?
ROSS GARNAUT: Yes, it could be effective, but I’m on record as saying something that I continue to think is correct, that the costs of mitigation will be lower, the broader the base. So if you exclude anything, it puts a bit more of a burden on other things.
And it’s going to be a hard adjustment task for a lot of parts of the Australian economy, so it’s better to share that right across the economy.
Wong did assert the primacy of the the economy:
I think it’s fair to say that generally and conventionally climate change has been seen as an environmental issue. So let me be absolutely clear: this Government believes climate change is an economic issue and the only way to tackle climate change is through economic reform.
In this, I think she is locking into the narrative the Government is trying to build of being the superior economic manager. I don’t think she is slipping into the Howard mode of only doing what we can afford without inconvenience to the economy.
Wong’s speech was welcomed, it seems, by environmentalists.
Bob Brown thought she was on the right track, but needed to go further in forest policy and banning the Gunn’s pulp mill.
Greg Hunt said there was nothing new in her speech as he went off to jump out of a plane to show his concern for the environment. That’s new.
Peter Garrett got away from light bulbs and stickers on television sets to launch the Centre for Climate Law and Policy at the Australian National University – said to be a world first.
Meanwhile, Martin Ferguson had also addressed CEDA backing projects to convert Australia’s vast reserves of coal and gas to transport fuels.
A man of vision, our Marn. With a bit of luck Cabinet will sort him out, as Hunt suggests.
Comments on this blog have expressed some disappointment with this Government on its climate change actions. As far as I can see, however, they are proceeding to implement the agenda they took to the election. It is important that they build the narrative of responsible economic managers or they won’t be there after the next election. So the way forward is to recognise that dealing with climate change is going to involve pain but to emphasise economic responsibility and the need for the long term view. Wong is indicating the need for government intervention in complex and complementary ways to find a critical path, while maximising the power of the market to work in favour of climate change mitigation policy.
LYNDAL CURTIS: It will be a tough debate for the Government and the closer it gets to the next election, the harder it will be to resist the pleas of those who don’t want to face higher prices or higher business costs.
But Senator Wong wants the debate cast completely in the national interest.
PENNY WONG: So the question for all of us is are we here for short-term political gain or are we here for Australia’s long-term economic future?
On transport fuels, Quiggin calculates that carbon taxes at rates of $20, $50 and $100 per ton of CO2 yield final fuel cost increases of 5, 12.5 and 25 cents/litre. It seems to me that there could be a suite of policies relating to excise offsets, carbon taxes, tariffs and subsidies. Tax gas guzzling SUVs off the suburban roads, for example, but policies devised that allow those who use vehicles for economic purposes to continue doing so while new infrastructure (public transport for example) are installed and new technologies come on stream.
There could be ways of easing us into the pain of higher petrol prices by offsetting a carbon tax with lower excise that don’t compromise the principles of carbon trading while still resulting in price changes sufficient to alter behaviour as the market drives prices higher. That sounds like heresy, but I’d contend it’s not. It’s an option in a broader suite of policies.
In another option the poor could be assisted not by concessions and transfers that relate directly to car use but income support generally. We need some lateral thinking and brain-storming.
There was a fascinating investigative report on the excellent Background Briefing program on Radio National on Sunday (transcript up soon and repeated on Tuesday at 7pm.) There is methane in coal seams all over the place. On the Darling Downs they are poking holes in rich farming lands all over the place. Fortunes are being made on the stock exchange and the world energy giants are bidding for local companies. Official gas reserves only reflect the minor portion of potential resources that are actually proven up.
Surely some of this gas as LNG or CNG can be reserved for national use in transport and power generation as an interim technology at prices that don’t cripple us but still encourage the conversion to entirely renewable sources in a timely fashion.
Update. Before I wrote the post I couldn’t find any of the Minister’s speeches by googling. Since the I’ve found that the trick is to go to the ALP site, click on “News” then click on “Latest news” next to the minister you want. From there it’s easier for some than for others to find their latest speeches. Here are some relevant ones.
Rudd gave a speech to the National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development on 19 May. I outlined some of what he said on Mark’s thread.
Penny Wong’s speech to CEDA is here. To be more specific about Australian coastlines, she said:
There are around 711,000 addresses at risk – that is,
buildings within three kilometres of the coast and less than six metres above sea level.
Peter Garrett’s most recent relevant speech posted was mostly about the Bureau of Meteorology, but had some interesting factoids, like Melbourne is going to have up to 84 more hot days above 35C by 2050, and 32 fewer frost days.
Martin Ferguson’s speech of 5 June is definitely worth a read.
Penny may have got a good reception from the environmentalists but not, according to this [which paul Norton linked to recently], from the emissions polluters.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23781070-5013404,00.html
” May 30, 2008
TENSIONS are emerging between major greenhouse emitters and Climate Minister Penny Wong after a number of hostile meetings before the release of the Government’s green paper on emissions trading in July.”
Which is hardly surprising looking at this statement of intent from the ALP/Penny:
“… the Rudd Government’s election promise of a renewable energy target was “not negotiable”…”
I suspect there will be attacks on the ALP/Rudd/Wong greenhouse policies in the near future. If not already.
So the way forward is to recognise that dealing with climate change is going to involve pain but to emphasise economic responsibility and the need for the long term view.
Very true, and I’m glad to see Wong laying the groundwork for some strong policy here instead of preparing us for concessions to polluting industries. I don’t really want a quickie populist plan, I want to see creative long-term thinking on this issue.
Nice article Brian. I like articles like this that suggest we might be able to rise above our own daily selfishness and see some long term intelligence. Please let it be true.
I suspect that the Fuelwatch push is partly motivated by the trouble big oil is threatening. Just a little reminder that governments govern for the country, not it’s corporations. The government went an awfully long way in to the debate before linking the LP and big oil, almost as if they were offering everyone a chance to back away. Of course the LP couldn’t see past the next Newspoll and big oil decided they wanted to be part of the problem and not the solution.
I think it might be the first big wedge the government has had to resort to?
CLIMET CHANGE U R DOIN IT WONG
Nice post, Brian.
Here’s my take on the politics:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/09/holding-the-tribes-together-in-the-climate-change-age/
What the Rudd Government continues to fail to do is talk about emissions reductions. ETS does not necessarily mean a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or the size of reductions needed to combat climate change. There is also no indication as to whether the Rudd Government will include mandatory GHG emissions reduction targets as part of their overall climate/environment policy. And what has been said publicly by the new Government about GHG emissions reduction targets don’t meet those required to ensure global temperatures don’t rise more than 2 degrees (C). Yet there does seem to be strong contradictions within the ALP about climate and environment policies, especially with the party’s commitment to expanding mining operations in commodities like uranium ore.
Bob Brown was quite right to encourage Senator Wong to go further in their forestry policies.
It is unfortunate though that the ALP still seems to put the economy as the central plank of their policy platform when surely the environment underpins the very existence of our lives and economy.
Marn Ferson recently announced the new continental shelf limits as being rich new resources for Australia on the floor of the sea bed. I think we have many more such resources as methane gases in the layers of the coal seams, and oils in the beds of the oil shale layers.
Policy will be pusued only if it promotes slightly negative positive growth and four wheel drives remain the safest driving option for working families in the non-ferrous metals sector. Tautologies will be invested in every policy. Cognitive dissonance will be overlooked, as doing something about that will hurt someone who votes.
Thank you for the intelligent and straight forward discussion you all offer!
I love tapping in on my quiet Monday nights for a good read.
She said best estimates showed that $25 billion in assets may be at risk from sea level rise and storm surge.
I find this fascinating, the case for AGW is further collapsing on a daily basis, but that aside, even if AGW did exist the IPCC is forecasting a trivial 20cm sea level rise over the next century, and even the claims for increased storm intensity are being discarded by AGW proponents.
Where did Penny’s “best estimate” figures come from? What does “may be at risk” mean?
Thanks onimod, Mark and julianna.
hannah’s dad, I missed that link. Sometimes when I’m out working posts fall off the side-bar. Whatever.
In the Science Show on the weekend they were saying that the recent business leader’s forum (probably the CEDA State of the Nation Conference) was contemplating emissions cuts of 95%. From what Penny Wong says, she seems to say that the Business Council of Australia and the ACCI are on board with a comprehensive ETS scheme. I’d say that if the major polluters try to push her around they may be miscalculating.
Roger, you are very cynical, but perhaps have good cause to be.
Alex, they are very much talking about reducing emissions. This is from Garrett:
Wong mentioned it also, including the 60% by 2050 target. I’ll sure we’ll hear a lot more when interim targets are set after the Garnaut Report comes down.
Before I wrote the post I couldn’t find any of the Minister’s speeches by googling. Since the I’ve found that the trick is to go to the ALP site, click on “News” then click on “Latest news” next to the minister you want. From there it’s easier for some than for others to find their latest speeches. Here are some relevant ones.
Rudd gave a speech to the National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development on 19 May. I outlined some of what he said on Mark’s thread.
Penny Wong’s speech to CEDA is here. To be more specific about Australian coastlines, she said:
Peter Garrett’s most recent relevant speech posted was mostly about the Bureau of Meteorology, but had some interesting factoids, like Melbourne is going to have up to 84 more hot days above 35C by 2050, and 32 fewer frost days.
Martin Ferguson’s speech of 5 June is definitely worth a read. I assumed he might have something to do with the Clean Coal Fund ($500 million), but was surprised toi find that his Department looks after both the Renewable Energy Fund ($500 million) and the Energy Innovation Fund focussing on solar technologies and hydrogen ($150 million).
As part of the latter he’s committed $15 Million to “second-generation biofuels” whatever they may be.
He’s definitely keen on coal to liquid and advises us:
That’s a worry, frankly and expect more of the same when he finishes the
countingcats, by sheer coincidence my concentration was interrupted just now by the squalling of an invading cat outside my den and the sound of our dog barking in alarm.
So go away, no-one is going to take any notice of you here. If you want information from Senator Wong, I suggest you ask her.
Brian,
I am sorry you take that attitude. On anything I may have to say I am at all times prepared to provide references, links and data. However, what I see, time and again, on warmist sites is assertion and supposition, and seldom if ever a willingness to talk hard evidence.
I question AGW on the basis of reported observed behaviour, and no other. And the more I learn of the science, the more questionable I regard it to be. It is my opinion that the case for AGW, rather than improving as the quality of the data sets improve, is instead worsening. And as, apart from an occasional petrol pump discount on a woollies voucher, I have never received a single payoff from an oil company, I have no special interest axe to grind.
My background is science and software engineering, and hard data and precision in both thought and presentation are core to my approach. If policy is going to be built around AGW it is my position that the data must be better than a few highly questionable and arguably falsified computer models. I am sorry if I may have come over as antagonistic, not meant, but scepticism is, after all, the correct position to take in any scientific enquiry or discussion, by definition. Although many people take umbrage when asked to justify their assertions.
As a BTW, you, personally, are one of the few people I have found willing to talk numbers.
It is my understanding that the IPCC are anticipating a ~20cm increase in sea levels over the next 100 years at an ~85% confidence level, pretty much the same increase we saw over the last 100 years. If, as you say, Ms Wong is regarding up to 6 metres as the risk height then that would imply the equivalent of the total catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice sheet or the Ross Ice Shelf, which no one outside Hollywood is predicting. I think anyone would be justified in wondering how she arrived at her numbers.
As a BTW – Second Generation biofuels is the production of fuel from biomass which currently has little value, stalks, husks, etc, the stuff left over once the food component has been removed as well as other non edible biomass. As opposed to first generation, which is made from what would otherwise be edible – not a good idea.
There’s something to be said for the government not being seen to automatically embrace Garnaut’s report as well. If there are parts they claim not to like, they increase their credibility when the go and impliment it anyway. They can be seen as having had to compromise in order to get the policy up.
countingcats, the previous Government set in process establishing a research-based adaptation centre, which I understand is based on Griffiths University. Dollars to donuts Wong got her information from there.
In any case it confirms an ABC investigative report done in March last year, where the figure was 700,000. The idea is not 6m of sea level rise, but the degree of vulnerability when you have a storm surge on top of a king tide on top of sea level rise. The sea level rise assumed at the base in that report was one metre (plus or minus half a metre) nominated by Barrie Pittock, who has better scientific credentials than you. I’ve since seen Pittock say “at least one metre”.
Pittock is almost certainly quoting a paper by Stefan Rahmstorf* who cut his teeth on relativity physics and could be held to be mathematically literate. He was leading author for the paleoclimate chapter in the latest IPCC report, so he knows what’s happened before.
Rahmstorf based his calculations on a linear projection of historical obsevations, which include loss from ice sheets, albeit as a minor factor.
You quote the IPCC as about 20cm for the next century. This is where you are either being sloppy or acting in bad faith. The range given in IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM is 18-59cm. They specifically state that they have assumed no increased loss for ice sheets, although such loss has doubled in recent decades, because ice sheet loss is currently impossible to model and probably always will be.
That IPCC document was so misunderstood that the IPCC in the SPC of the Synthesis report published in November included the note that the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100, and that it’s complete disintegration would contribute about 7m. They thought that Antarctic was quite stable.
This is in the face of the paleo evidence 125kya when the sea level was 4-6m higher with a temperature of 1-2C above “present” and CO2 less than 300. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate reckons the current estimate is that 125kya Greenland and Antarctica contributed about equally.
Rahmstorf has picked apart the differences between the TAR and the IPCC AR4 calculations in some detail at RealClimate.
The real problem with ice sheet disintegration as everyone knows is that as some points it becomes discontinuous rather than linear. Hansen has focussed on this aspect. We can’t sit around and just observe how things are going to work out when the paleo evidence indicates that with 5C of warming above present there will be no ice sheets and the sea level will be about 75m higher. 25 m inundates over a billion.
Hansen has also worked out that taking into account long term feedbacks the temperature is likely to increase by 6c from a BAU increase to 550ppm of CO2e within the century.
He’s done this in several papers by taking the long view of what happened in the last 65 million years. And I have to say that the story is coherent, it makes sense. I’d refer you to his ‘trace gases’ paper (large pdf) and his exposition for laypersons in the Iowa testimony (bigger pdf).
The important thing is what we are committing ourselves to in multi-century terms, at what point the discontinuity starts and at what point we might reach a tipping point of no return.
Hansen doesn’t know the answers, but he says the signs are bad. When you are facing uncertainties and horrendous risk your best course is to ask the opinion if those who have their heads into the problem. Hansen talks at length about the scientist’s dilemma and natural reticence under these circumstances, and warns that such reticence could do us in.
But he is very aware of what’s happened before and that we are forcing the planetary system about 30 times as hard as happened 55 mya when the result was a 6C warming.
What you have to do is assemble science to to tell a story of greater scale and coherence than what has been done by real scientists, then engage in attribution modelling to show an alternative story.
I can’t argue the science, simply present the science I’ve found. The bottom line is that this, however interesting, is thread derailment and outside our comments policy. I have the choice of letting your stuff stand, with an implication that I agree with it, or putting foreword a response.
The situation is that you are currently ‘in moderation’, so your comments won’t appear unless I decide to pass them. It’s a judgement call and it’s not our policy to turn a thread into a debate about the comments policy.
[Corrected from Stephen to Stefan. He's echt Deutsch.]
domino, I should have given a link to Garnaut’s most recent paper.
The evidence is, I think, that he and the Government are pretty much in cahoots. He’s doing his modelling with Treasury. It’s clear that on the science he’s not going to go one out, but base his modelling on the average reduction target of advanced economies. He even says that this is about the same as the Government position.
On exceptions for polluters he is quite strong. Here’s a grab, in haste:
He’s undertaking a modelling for the world and for Australia for the next century, which he says in in advance of anything attempted so far. But he reckons the models didn’t fall over, so we with with great expectations.
The tensions between Wong and the large polluters are a very good sign indeed than Wong might get things right. Previous designs of emissions trading schemes in Australia have been undermined by handouts of billions of dollars worth of free emissions permits to “existing generators who will be disproportionately affected” like brown coal fired power stations and so on.
The most important test of whether the government gets climate change policy right will be whether it chooses a cap that leads to deep cuts in emissions by 2020.
Spot on, I think, Peter. Guy Pearse warned about the Greenhouse mafia, how determined they were and how far they had penetrated the system. He said they would be no pushover for Labor if it won government.
Petrol has to be included in emissions trading.
To address the problems of climate change and environmental degradation, developed countries have to address their over-consumption, and developing countries have to consider the impact of their growing populations.
If developed countries don’t try and “do their bit” by taking greater steps to curb consumption, they’ll just look even more like hypocrites.
All those people who floated along on the feel-good cloud of ratifying Kyoto last year now have to “walk the talk”…
Note this comment from Ross Garnaut: “It’s Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong’s job to decide what they can manage. But I can’t see any good reason for excluding transport.” Peter Martin, Saturday Forum: Garnaut’s Woes http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2008/06/saturday-forum-garnauts-woes.html
Marn Ferguson is Andrew Bolt’s new hero:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ferguson_defies_rudds_control#34457
Like Alex said, Labor is not doing anything to reduce emissions.
I don’t think there has been much significant action from Labor on climate change apart from ratifying the protocol, which of course does not reduce emissions without further steps being taken.
I see the current major issues of concern being:
* No moves to protect old growth forest carbon stores (Garnaut may address this)
* No moratorium on building new coal fired power stations (at least two are planned)
* Over $1b of unqualified funding for coal research and development
* A federal means test on the solar panel rebate – which has led to a drastic cancellation on installations – and will compromise meeting the 20% MRET.
* Victorian Labor’s feed in tariff is only paid on net metering and has a 2kW array cap. Which means basically nobody will get paid the tariff. This is not legislated yet, but the press releases indicate this is what they will pass this Catch 22.
* No confirmation on the emissions trading scheme details – major emitters could yet be gifted permits – recent comments by Wong hopefully indicated this won’t happen
* No systemic consideration of sustainable transport options – ongoing federal funding for roads and nothing for public transport or cycling. In fact we are witnessing an auction to the bottom on petrol prices, as if they can stop them going up . . . nitwits!
* Labor’s 2050 60% target is based on science that is now out of date. The latest science indicates cuts in the order of 80-90% by 2050 are indicated, and at least 40% by 2020. Penny Wong has ruled out “any change to Labor’s election commitments on targets”.
* No removal of perverse fossil fuel subsidies, as summarised here
A lot will hinge on Garnaut’s report, but what really matters will be the policy responses to it.
Penny Wong is also on record as saying “Garnaut’s report is just another input for government to consider”, which does not auger well.
On the positive side, there has been some action on promoting energy efficiency, but I am not sure how effective this has been.
No upgrades to building energy efficiency standards are under consideration as far as I know. They should be set nationally at 6 stars for commercial and residential, on track for 7. Currently, standards between States are dog’s breakfast.
And Ferguson still want’s to burn the 80% of our logged/destroyed native forests that and up as woodchips as “biofuel” for electricty generation. So we lose our carbon sinks – the only real recent carbon stores we have – and turn them into greenhouse gases. Brilliant. It’s Orwellian.
Peterc, I agree that there is not the proper sense of urgency. But on the other hand they are doing very much what they promised to do.
I do agree that Ferguson is a worry. Having read Garnaut’s latest speech and Wong’s, linked to above, I think they are singing from the same song sheet. In fact the Government is probably relying too much on Garnaut and the ETS for an emissions reduction strategy. Wong did argue that 60% was a huge ask when you consider that the economy is predicted to grow by 2.4% a year to 2050. But I doubt she knows that 60% is not enough.
Peterc, I don’t have time to find the link, but there was an opinion piece in the CM this morning mainly about smart cards used in public transport (ours aren’t very smart) that mentioned that Rudd had put public transport on his agenda about a month ago.
We live in hope. Quite a bit has been done in Brisbane here in recent times with dedicated busways, T2 and T3 lanes and bikeways everywhere.
Somone tell me how the maths works out. Sure there are genuine evinironmental concerns noted above, but the justification for this plan seems rather odd.
$25 billion at risk
over 100? years
but at a cost of 1% of global gdp at year zero (and Australia is a highly interdependent, small, open economy).
Australian GDP is close to $1 trillion
Economic growth averages 3-4% p.a
Please show me why we need to tax everyone to protct the assets of probably some of the highest per capita carbon emitters in the country?
Mark H, I suggest you read Garnaut’s latest especially how he looks at costs of mitigation, adaptation and BAU. Then have a look at what he says about risk and uncertainty, especially what he says about Weitzman and fat tails. Then have a look at Weitzman himself.
Then reflect that our responsibility is not just for the next 100 years, which is a mere nanosecond of Earth-time. It’s for the time it would take to repair what we do, which could be something like 100,000 years, if the PETM event is any guide. That’s about the best example from the paleoclimate history for what we are doing now under BAU.
After that I’ll be really interested in what you have to say.
I just want someone with superior accounting skills to reconcile those figures supplied by Wong and the ABS. I’m not interested in refuting Garnaut etc. I am a bit confused how that Garnaut paper was meant to inform me at all with regards to my query. It isn’t directly relevant.
Mark H,
the $25 billion was meant as a small part of what was at risk from climate change. The whole of economy figures for damages are the most uncertain number in climate science. They would be significantly larger.
The second point is that the damages are global, while GDP numbers are national, so one would not expect national costs and benefits to reconcile, even if in theory one could account for that (there are fundamental reasons as to why formal cost benefit analysis will not work, although it is sensible to make those comparisons while also accounting for environmental and social risks). That said, Australia is a developed country that is most at risk.
The work CSIRO did for their Energy Futures Forum in 2006, the results of which were somewhat overshadowed by Stern, show that an investment of 1.6% globally by 2050 is very likely (>90%) to pay off in pure monetary terms by 2100, without accounting for added social and environmental benefits. This was with some discounting (3.5% declining to 3% over time).
1% of GDP reduced from a 3% growth rate regime would be a delay of four months. The penalties with acting and getting it wrong are much smaller than those associated with acting too slowly and too late.
Even if traded CO2 reaches a price of $40 per tonne, this trading price is well below the likely social cost of carbon damages (although some economic modellers will dispute this number, there are fundamental reasons to expect it to be quite high). So I think we will externalise carbon costs into a trading regime that are below the externalities of the long term cost of those emissions.
The key point in a trading regime whether the permissable emissions are set low enough to reduce the risk over time. This is not a question directly relevant to the internal operations of a trading scheme, but is why it is there.
Why does the consumer ultimately have to pay? Because the cost reflects something closer to the true cost of having an energy system.
Thanks, Roger.
Mark H if you are interested in the costs and benefits of our options in relation to climate change as distinct from a bit of pointless point scoring in a carefully circumscribed portion of the territory to suit your purpose, then you should be interested in Garnaut.
You might also have a look at Wong’s speech linked to earlier. The $25 billion coastal property thing was just one example of several she gave to illustrate the expected impact of climate change on our natural environment. If perchance you put a dent in that specific item it doesn’t mean that the whole argument falls apart.
I’ve got to go out to work now, so I can’t continue this chat.
The discounting rate is at times less than the official inflation statistic. It isn’t discounting much at all. What is missing from justifying intervention is three part: i) ignoring the private provision of public goods (while perhaps being insufficient to deal with the problem doesn’t render them non existent), ii) the depth of carbon based energy subsidies (take alumina smelter electricity subsidies for example) iii) a realistic discounting rate and iv) justification of a discounting rate that makes sense over 100 years. Stern’s modelling of income elasticity over 100 years simply doesn’t cut it. “How price sensitive are real wages over 100 years?” , err, very. Stern’s modelling was always going to bias the discount rate down towards zero.
I hope Garnaut uses a better rate and theory than that. I suggest the real tax adjusted average corporate cost of capital – it reflects the real costs firms face as they shift their production technologies over.
“1% of GDP reduced from a 3% growth rate regime would be a delay of four months.”
Show me the maths of a 1% GDP loss over 100 years. Keep in mind much world GDP is generated in first world countries and Australia is highly integrated with the rest of the world. A GDP loss will also affect growth rates over time. It simply cannot be subtracted away and put away as a “negative saving”.
“Even if traded CO2 reaches a price of $40 per tonne, this trading price is well below the likely social cost of carbon damages (although some economic modellers will dispute this number, there are fundamental reasons to expect it to be quite high).”
There doesn’t need to be that much pain. On petrol, we already pay a specific excise of 41.92 cpl. That prices carbon (on petrol) over $100 per tonne. All we should do at worst is set the tax flat on all sources, compensate with income tax cuts and remove subsidies to carbon users.
I am deeply concerned about the use of industry policy. It rarely increases welfare, so why would it enhance welfare with respect to externalities?
There might be justification for a carbon tax. Emissions trading is unworkable as in Europe, there was too much of an incentive to cheat.
Industry policy has no justification whatsoever.
Following on from posts by Alex Schlotzer # 6 and Peterc # 20
Here’s a quote from Alan Wood’s article in The Australian this morning: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23844014-5013578,00.html
Australia and other developed countries have to lead by example and reduce consumption of fossil fuels etc and encourage new technologies. However, in reality, the impact of Australia (population 21 million) cutting its emissions isn’t going to do a lot to reduce global warming.
If “developing” countries which started off their developmental phase with an enormous population base don’t try to keep the lid on emissions too, it’s pointless.
Another quote from Alan Wood today: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/OXREP_paper_2-05-08/$File/OXREP_paper_2-05-08.pdf
And
According to the US Census Bureau, China’s current population is 1,330 million. It is tipped to grow by another 123 million to 1,453 million in 2025. India’s current population is 1,148 million and is estimated to grow by 301 million to 1,449 million by 2025 (i.e. just 17 years away).
Ross Garnaut’s paper Emissions in the Platinum Age: The implications of rapid development for climate change mitigation, makes the point that:
Nicholas Stern makes a similar point in his latest report, Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change when he states: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2008/globaldeal.htm
How are countries like China and India going to be able to keep their emissions low when they are starting off such an enormous population base which continues to increase in the hundreds of millions?
There’s no comparison between developed countries which developed over a period of 200 years with much lower populations.
Garnaut sums thing up in his Measuing the Immeasurable paper: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/MeasuringtheImmeasurable-TheCostsandBenefitsofClimateChangeMitigation,ProfessorRossGarnaut/$File/Measuring%20the%20Immeasurable-%20The%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Mitigation,%20Professor%20Ross%20Garnaut.pdf
It’s pretty scary to think how this is all going to pan out…
Garnaut tries to stay optimistic when he says:
But then again, maybe James Lovelock is on the money: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
Elizabeth, it seems to me that Stern underestimates what has to be done on target emissions reduction.
Mark H, thanks for the comment.
I keep hearing that emissions trading in Europe is going better now.
We are told that Garnaut is a very skilled economist and good at strategy. But I’m afraid I can’t get too excited about the economic arguments because I think the physical situation is more serious than economists are modelling for. So serious that their plans are going to be simply irrelevant.
It really worries me that so much development has been allowed on the outer fringes of our cities where people on low or middling incomes have been encouraged to move, and where their only access to employment is via the car. For one thing, these peoples lives could go seriously pear shaped if we do the right thing and NOT subsidise petrol. And I don’t think we should just shrug our shoulders and let them go to the wall because they are not personally responsible for the bad choices of government (led by the road and fossil fuel lobbies!) But on the other hand, it’ll be all too easy for the Marn Fersons to try and paint any attempt at squashing fossil fuel demand as an attack on these folks and on social equity. What to do?
Helen,
Petrol isn’t subsidised. It is already specifically taxed at well over $100 per tonne of carbon emitted. ($10 per tonne = 4 cpl tax).
I meant cutting fuel exise, sorry, or taking other measures to ease the pain of fossil fuel costs, not subsidies. I hope you understood what I am saying though.
Yes, Helen, unfortunately it’s possible to take the excise right off fuel before adding a carbon tax and still claim ideological purity.
On Mark H’s point I believe that tax on fuel in Europe is equivalent to about $400 per ton of carbon and their roads are still choked.
Eh, Brian, I’m not sure you got the point of my comment # 29…
Maybe it was a bit obtuse, but it was something along the lines of here we are, a nation of 21 million people getting worked up about our carbon emissions and how we’re going to curb them, and there’s developing countries China and India, current combined population of 2,783 million (with subsidised fuel), with forecast combined population growth of 424 million in the next 17 years, and what’s that going to mean emissions wise, sustainability wise etc?
Never mind…
Elizabeth, your point is the same one John Howard kept making; that Australia’s emissions don’t matter because they are dwarfed by India’s and China’s. This, however, is a morally bankrupt position.
Australia, as a developed carbon intensive nation, has a moral obligation to demonstrate how we can cut our profligate emissions (highest per capita in the world) so that developing nations can follow. This means, among other things, more sustainable transport options than routinely burning thousands of tonnes of oil, and leaving coal in the ground while we transition to renewable energy sources.
The crime on petrol excise is that the huge amount of funds generated go into consolidated revenue and pork barelling for elections, than to R&D for sustainable transport options?
Who is surprised that petrol now costs $1.65 per litre? It will be $2 by year end, and most likely $3 by the end of 09. Demand up, supply down.b And all our bozo politicians can do is argue about “taking 5c off per litre” and “its price inelastic”. Rudd even thinks we can “improve supply”. This is very short term thinking.
I am riding my bike more. It’s exercise elastic.
Peterc
Here’s a quote from my earlier comment # 18:
Yes, I understand we have a “moral obligation to demonstrate how we can cut our profligate emissions (highest per capita in the world) so that developing nations can follow.” (Although I’d still like to know how the emissions (including those from land use change and deforestation) of ALL countries are objectively assessed).
But I’m still wondering, how are countries like China and India (both currently in an intensive developmental phase), going to be able to keep their emissions low when they are starting off from such an enormous population base which continues to increase in the hundreds of millions? We’d all better get working and collaborating on those new technologies pronto! (And that means developed and developing countries cooperating together rather than continuing with the “blame game”).
As mentioned earlier, there’s no comparison between developed countries which developed over a period of 200 years with much lower populations. Also refer to Garnaut’s quote, mentioned earlier, re the huge increase in human output and consumption from the “Measuring the Immeasurable” paper: (Here’s the correct link this time: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/MeasuringtheImmeasurable-TheCostsandBenefitsofClimateChangeMitigation,ProfessorRossGarnaut/$File/Measuring%20the%20Immeasurable-%20The%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Mitigation,%20Professor%20Ross%20Garnaut.pdf )
I know I’m not an expert on Kyoto, but it seems our “global” warming agreement, with its dichotomy between developed and developing countries, was so focused on per capita emissions from fossil fuels in developed countries, that it seems to have overlooked the impact of continuing population growth, particularly in developing countries (not to mention other important environmental problems, like deforestation).
While the population of the developed world is expected to remain virtually unchanged over the next 40 years, around 1.2 billion, the UN report World Population Prospects suggests that, if recent fertility rates remain constant, the population of the developing world could grow to 10.6 billion by 2050. (Can we increase funding for family planning do you think? And yes, I know about Harradine/Howard.) This would mean a global population of nearly 12 billion by 2050, heading towards doubling our current population of 6.6 billion.
I guess something’s going to blow before then, but I wonder what global emissions and the environment will be like in 2050? I’m sure Australia will be doing its bit (keep up the cycling Peter), but will that be enough to save the world as we know it? I don’t think so…
Anyway a la James Lovelock, I’m off to enjoy the next 20 years…
Tooodles
Elizabeth, I don’t think I failed to understand you, but I may have responded in a way that made you think that I didn’t. If you want a dramatic graph on population, try this one. Anyone can see that we are in a population explosion that in nature usually leads to a population crash. Maybe we’re clever enough to avoid it, but maybe not.
Then there’s this one which highlights the developing world versus the developed world.
There’s another graph which I’d have to do a screen shot and edit (then I don’t know how to upload into a comment like tigtog and Kim) which shows that 70% of the increase in emissions is coming from the developing world. This wasn’t the case back in the time when Kyoto was being put together, but it’s urgent now that the developing world gets on board in some way. Peterc is right that we need to show leadership and India for one is expecting this of us before they are going to get serious.
A possible way around this is to decide on a target ppm level for CO2e, develop a world budget or emissions (x gigatonnes of CO2e) then divide that by projected population in relation to a future target date to give you an equitable GHG budget for each nation. Then you all aim for that in what’s called “contraction and convergence”.
This gets you into 90-95% cuts for developed countries for a stabilisation target of 450ppm.
I think Garnaut in his draft report earlier this year showed that he was going to consider this equitable carbon budgetting and contraction and convergence strategy as a way of bringing the developing countries on board. If he outlines that strategy convincingly, then it’s progress.
In his most recent paper in the section on discount rates he says he is going to model pessimistic outcomes as well as the median outcome, which he says will be scary.
Weitzman says that scary is really scary and the odds of really scary are too great to ignore. He says that if you admit what he calls the ‘Dismal Theorem’, ie that the future of civilisation and perhaps the species is in play, then discounting goes out the window. Fixing the environment becomes absolutely front of mind and easily takes priority over some dream of continued economic growth.
Just before that section on discounting in Garnaut, he makes reference to the preferred target adopted by Stern of 550ppm, which is implicit in the target of 60% by 2050. He also mentions the more stringent 450ppm which has currrency to stay below the famed 2C safety rail, but I don’t think there are policies to make that a realistic outcome, with an acceptable degree of risk.
But while everyone was arguing in Bali last December James Hansen was giving a briefing at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union saying that we need to get CO2e ppm down to 350 in the first instance and see where we go from there. It was reported here for example.
At the same time the Climate Code Red report was being worked on and came out in February 2008. It took account of Hansen’s work and recommended a target of 320ppm. I think that may have been included in their earlier “The Big Melt” but I’d have to check.
Hansen is now saying that 425ppm (plus or minus 75) will commit us to an ice-sheet free world. The implication of what Caldeira is saying is that we should get right back to 280ppm, which has been my ethical position from the outset.
Garnaut has given no clue yet that he has taken account of Hansen, Caldeira and co. The problem with Hansen is that people are reluctant to go with him, even mainstream climate scientists, but when they look back to what he said 10 years earlier they have to admit that on the important stuff he was on the money.
Actually Lovelock is a bit the same, except he has less science behind him and he is given to making eye-catching extreme statements, like residual breeding pairs in the Antarctic.
Peterc # 36
Peter, re your comment: “Elizabeth, your point is the same one John Howard kept making…”
I’m not sure that Nicholas Stern and John Howard are best mates, but it looks like Stern is coming round to Howard’s point of view.
In Stern’s latest climate change report, Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change (30 April 2008) he states: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2008/globaldeal.htm
Good to see population gets a mention in the new Stern report. This issue seems to be a taboo subject, but it has to be acknowledged, particularly if there’s the risk that developing countries might actually account for up to 10.6 billion if fertility rates don’t decrease.
Stern also addresses the problematic developed/developing country dichotomy when he recognises:
Stern makes the point that:
It would be helpful if more was done to encourage and foster a more cooperative and collaborative relationship between all countries, “developed” and “developing”, to achieve a fair and effective new climate change agreement. After all, we’ve only got one world and we all have to look after it.
Brian, thanks for your response # 38. I have to go out and haven’t time to read it now, but will do so later.
I must acknowledge a mistake in my earlier comment # 35. When looking back to population figures in my comment # 29, I carelessly added together China’s current population to its projected 2025 population instead of India’s current population. Sorry about that, I’m hopeless with figures. Hope I’ve got it right this time…
So, China (1,330 million) and India’s (1,148 million) current combined population is 2,478 million (corrected). China’s forecast population increase to 2025 is 123 million and India’s forecast population increase to 2025 is 301 million, making a forecast combined population increase of 424 million in the next 17 years, taking their combined forecast population to a total of 2,902 million in 2025.
Also, while we hear a lot about China’s “one child policy”, it is interesting to note that, according to the US Census Bureau, China’s current fertility rate is 1.8 births per woman, and it is estimating this will stay constant through to 2025 (interesting?). And, for information, the Bureau states that India’s current rate of fertility is 2.8 births per woman and it estimates this will decrease to 2.2 by 2025 (population will still increase of course).
For info, here’s a link to the US Census Bureau International Data Base – Country Summaries: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/summaries.html
Brian, a rather belated response to your post # 38.
You say that “anyone can see that we are in a population explosion…” as the graphs you provided illustrate.
But why isn’t this crucial issue high on the climate change agenda?
For example, Tony Blair has just launched a new report Breaking the Climate Deadlock – A global deal for our low-carbon future which he has submitted to the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit.
While I am delighted this report contains promising news for preserving the world’s forests, it’s disappointing that it ignores the issue of population growth. While the report acknowledges the world’s population is projected to grow to 9 billion by 2050, it fails to analyse the implications of this growth for the environment or suggest building on family planning programs to reduce population growth.
I’m fascinated why population growth is such a taboo subject and why it was ignored in climate change negotiations. I’ve gathered up a stack of population books to read whenever I can get round to it…
An excellent paper by resources and environmental lawyer, Brett Simpson – Participation of Developing Countries in a Climate Change Convention Protocol (Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2002 – link not available) gave me some background. (This paper is a very useful overview of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which was established at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) back in 1992, and subsequent climate change agreement negotiations, particularly the evolution of the developed / developing country split.)
I was particularly interested to read that during negotiations:
So that’s how “the underlying population increase driver of environmental destruction worldwide” was left out of the climate change agreement….
Rather incongruously buried away in footnote no. 134, Simpson notes:
Brian, you referred to Contraction and Convergence in your post # 38. Simpson notes that:
As you say, Ross Garnaut also refers to Contraction and Convergence and population implications in his draft report
The Global Commons Institute website notes:
I’m concerned that “Annex One Countries” (i.e. developed countries) are treated as stable from 2000 onward, and that Non-Annex One Countries (i.e. developing countries) are treated as stable from the “Convergence” year forward (in this case 2045).
According to the UN report World Population Prospects over the next 40 years the “population of the more developed regions is expected to remain largely unchanged at 1.2 billion and would have declined were it not for the projected net migration from developing to developed countries, which is expected to average 2.3 million persons a year after 2010.” (p. 5)
The UN report suggests that future population growth is going to be driven by “the less developed regions, whose population is projected to rise from 5.4 billion in 2007 to 7.9 billion in 2050.” (p. 5)
Significantly, the report also notes:
So by the “Convergence” year of 2045, if fertility rates don’t decline, it is possible developing countries could be heading towards doubling their current population to 10.6 billion, while the developed world’s population is predicted to remain fairly stable at 1.2 billion.
Am I interpreting this incorrectly or is there a problem here, particularly if there is a possibility that the population of the developing world could grow to 10.6 billion?
The UN Report World Population Policies 2007 notes that:
Can we get the topic of population growth / family planning on the climate change agenda?
In fact, can we also get a number of other important environmental issues on the agenda? The Kyoto Protocol has been seen as THE environmental agreement, “the only game in town”. But its focus on global warming/climate change and emissions from fossil fuels is too narrow.
Most significantly, the constant arguments about the validity or otherwise of global warming and emission targets has stalled action on obvious environmental problems such as over-population, forest and biodiversity destruction, water and food shortages and other environmental and sustainability issues.
We need a more broad-ranging and effective global agreement on environmental and sustainability issues.
PS: Tony Blair’s report doesn’t appear to mention Contraction and Convergence. Have we moved on? Refer to Chapter 2 – Developing the Framework for a Global Deal, Point 4 – Developing World Contributions. (pp. 42-43), e.g.
Brian, further to my last post, here are some links to articles about population growth for information:
Environmental campaigner speaks out on population: http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3311
Overpopulation drives energy and food costs: http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/696822.html
The Malthus blues: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11520695
What condoms have to do with climate change: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1739253,00.html
Family planning to reduce emissions: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22436608-23289,00.html
Population, development and poverty reduction: http://www.populationandsustainability.org/papers/LSseminar.pdf
The shadow that looms over our planet: http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2502target=_blank
The green issue that dare not speak its name: http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2497
(Note: I think the article in the Economist, “The Malthus Blues”, has an overly optimistic conclusion)
Also, on the topic of emissions, here’s a link to an article, The road from Kyoto, written by Gwyn Prins and published in The Guardian in April. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/climatechange.carbonemissions
It discusses a paper published in Nature recently (“Dangerous Assumptions”, NATURE, Vol 452, 3 April 2008).
Here are a few quotes:
and
Elizabeth, it’s going to take me some time to fully consider what you’ve written. Nevertheless you quote Garnaut as saying:
That’s pretty difficult to get around, because of it’s inherent logic and the politics of the situation. That is unless as suggested in this article from the Thaindian News. They quote climate scientist Stephen Schneider as saying:
I don’t have any idea whether this is true:
That’s a big call. I’d suggest you need a lot of knowledge about what’s happening in the developing world across the whole range of issues to make that judgment.
The question of C&C and population dynamics is IMHO erroneous. C&C is a constitutional (and ethical) resolve to population based contribution to emissions and can be credibly adjusted by convention and in proportion to any census deviation.
It is at it were, the least of the problems, further substantiating that ‘as a protocol’ Beyond Kyoto it is still streets ahead of any other option.
Contraction and Convergence [C&C] and Population Growth Trends.
The C&C model has a feature enabling users to set any population base year [even years only] between 2002 and 2050. Users can choose whatever date they prefer. We do not specifiy what it should be.
‘Pre-Distribution’ of permits is far more sensitive to the date of convergence chosen this can be set anytime between 2002 and 2100.
This is the reference statement: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf
Contraction and Convergence in ‘Tony Blair’s’ Report
In fact the Report came from the ‘Climate Group’ who in turn based their section on ‘International Agreements’ on a recent report from Nicholas Stern, who in turn based his advice on GCI’s Contraction and Convergence proposals.
Initially unwilling to, Nicholas Stern has finally acknowledged this: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/correspondence/CUP_McBeth_Reply_Final_250608.pdf
http://www.gci.org.uk/Stern_U_Turn.pdf
Here’s how we are using this in the context of the UK parliamentary debate at this time: -
Challen – the pull of Samson Aubrey Meyer
Jun 28, 2008 01:12 PDT
This C&C letter appeared in Saturday’s Guardian [28 06 08] in response to the story on Thursday [26 06 08] about Nicholas Stern and “its now 2% of GDP needed”: -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/26/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange
Guardian Letters
“Stern joins UNDP’s “emerging consensus” of halving global emissions by
2050, also stressing the “pragmatism” of the equalisation of per capita
emissions globally by then. This is the global principle of contraction
and convergence.
It is now widely supported and with early day motion 1795, many of our
MPs are urging the government to support the principle openly. They
point out that contraction and convergence was clearly advocated to
government in the royal commission on environmental pollution report on
which the UK climate bill is based.
Doubling the spend of GDP to achieve this is neither here nor there. As
the costs of failure are without limit, the only cost-benefit ratio
relevant to this whole process results from understanding that we have
to solve the problem of climate change faster than we are causing it.”
Aubrey Meyer
London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/28/renewableenergy
The Guardian cut the final comment which said, “ . . . and this may well
be faster than the rate suggested by Sir Nicholas.” In other words we
must double the rate of C&C so doubling the spend is less irrelevant.
This is germane as two positions emerge either side of C&C: –
SAMSON AND THE PILLARS
1. – PILLAR ONE
Tony Blair with the Climate Group, UNDP, Nicholas Stern and many others
now argue Pillar One – i.e. ‘500 ppmv’ or global emissions halved by
2050 with Developed Countries cutting by 80%. This is where Stern now
says the equalization of per capita by then is ‘pragmatic’.
In a messy way, it is C&C but the rates are too slow to avoid dangerous rates
climate change.
The Climate Group Report, which says [p 19]: –
http://gci.org.uk/climategroup/BTCDJune08Report.pdf
“Another way to think about this is that in 2005 emissions were about 8
tonnes per person per year. Advanced economies ranged from 10 tonnes per
person for Japan and the EU, to 23 for Canada (Exhibit 5). Developing
countries range from very small amounts for the poorest countries to
under 2 tonnes per person for India and 6 for China. Assuming the
emissions cuts above and world population growth to 9 billion people,
such a scenario implies a world average of approximately 2 tonnes per
person by 2050. [Reference Stern and quoting the UNDP graphics that UNDP
call C&C] . . .
The DAVOS leaders’ statement in the name of “clear and succinct honesty”
[p8] http://www.weforum.org/documents/initiatives/CEOStatement.pdf
. . . and uses another of Stern’s statements that says: -
“Current annual global emission flows are around 40-45 Gigatonnes of CO2
equivalent (GtC02-eq). About 45% of current global emissions come from
developing countries and this is set to grow. A 50% reduction in global
emissions by 2050 equates to an aggregate annual flow of around
22GtC02-eq. As there will be around 9 billion people in 2050, this
implies per capita emissions per year of about 2-2.5 tonnes CO2-eq.
Currently, US emissions are more than 20 tonnes of CO2-eq per person per
year, Europe and Japan 10-15 tonnes, China 5 or more tonnes, India
around 1.5 and most of Africa much less than 1 tonne CO2- eq per person
per year. The consequence is that rich countries will have to take the
lead and demonstrate strong cuts. Since around 8 billion people will be
in currently developing countries, those countries will also have to be
in the range of 2-2.5 tonnes CO2-eq by 2050, otherwise the world average
for the total would be unachievable. The size of their economies will,
we hope, grow strongly. This means that emissions per unit of output
will have to fall very strongly in all countries by 2050 if we are to
avoid dangerous climate change.”
http://www.gci.org.uk/Stern_U_Turn.pdf
2. – PILLAR TWO
James Hansen, 350, K2 et al who variously argue the Pillar 2 position –
i.e. ‘350 ppmv’, which it can be argued will be fast enough to avoid
dangerous rates of climate change. However, these positions avoid C&C
reasoning as they say all you need to do is to tax, or auction, or
hand-out permits equal to the international upstream fossil fuel
production [numbers for oil coal and gas and/or institutional methods
for administering this not specified] and variously hand-out, pay out or
pay back the ‘dividend’ to individuals or causes unspecified.
C&S say they are a ‘special case’ of C&C which ‘insists’ that the
hand-out of the fossil fuel production permits and the new Energy-Backed
Currency Units to match, must be equal per capita globally immediately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The MP Colin Challen strategy pulls to the middle ground between these
pillars, simply calling for C&C at rates that are meaningful.
Perhaps he’s in the position of Sampson – he must pull these pillars
into the middle as an international C&C agreement at rates which solve
the problem of causing dangerous rates of climate change faster than we
are creating it.
Further to that, all MPs have received a personal written invitation
from GCI/APPGCC to support EDM 1795 calling on the Government to join
with the support for C&C. The EDM is quoted in the document and is at
this link: – http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/MPs_C&C.pdf
Contraction & Convergence [C&C] has been described recently by the Head
of the United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] as the ‘emerging
position’. He was recently joined in this by Sir Nicholas Stern who has
described the need for C&C as ‘pragmatic’. Please will you consider
seriously supporting Colin Challen’s EDM [1795] welcoming the newly
stated support of President Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel for C&C.
Please write you MP and ask them to support EDM 1795.
One of the better proposals that I have seen is in a paper CLIMATE CHANGE: Equity and Greenhouse Gas Responsibility Science 29 September 2000:
Vol. 289. no. 5488, p. 2287. It proposes a global cap and trade system where each country is allocated the same number of permits, countries which want to emit more, buy the permits from countries that emit less. Obviously many African countries would substantially benefit. Simple and equitable.
If you are worried about a perverse incentive to increase population then use the population levels from a fixed year (e.g. 2008) to calculate the population when calculating “per-capita”.
According to the paper:
I think that Prof Garnaut is essentially saying that people have other things on their minds when they are making babies than whether their country is going to earn extra carbon credits. If so I’d agree with him.
Elizabeth, you’ve stirred this one to life again with some unexpected results.
Blair, Aubrey, Peter, interesting comments. Aubrey at 46, I think Hansen, whose recent work I summarised in this post is better at analysing the problem than suggesting practical actions to mitigate it. I think that his target of 300-350ppm is far better than the higher one in Pillar One because it avoids committing us to an unacceptable chance of the worst outcomes in relation to sea level rise and other effects. Nevertheless, it still puts us in line for some distinct unpleasantness as I attempted to show in this post on sea level change.
One of my criticisms of the Blair report (I’ll call it that for convenience) is that there is some inconsistency and confusion in the facts given on page 16 about temperature and sea level change.
Hansen and others tell us repeatedly that during the Eemian interglacial when the temperature was 1-2C higher than now (”now” for Hansen is 2000 or 0.7C above preindustrial) sea levels were 4-6m higher. Blair has taken the temps down a bit, but added considerably to the sea level rise at 5-13 meters.
Similarly the statement that when the world was 3 to 4C higher sea levels were 25 meters higher. Hansen said 2-3C above now, which should read 2.7 to 3.7C above preindustrial.
This might seem like nit picking, but Blair follows with the statement that 4C warmer (than what? – presumably preindustrial, but it’s not stated) is higher than it’s been for 65 million years. This seems wrong, and is definitely wrong in relation to the PETM spike of 55mya. The implication is that with 4C the world will be ice free. So somehow we get from 25 meters of sea level rise to 75 meters in the space of nothing.
I think it’s valid and logical to link CO2 levels with temperature rise and sea level rise, at least going back 3 million years when the continents were in virtually the same place, the ocean basins were the very close to the same shape and the ocean circulation patterns should have been similar.
But I’m not a scientist so probably I’ve missed something obvious. Anyway I’ve set down the relationships that Hansen has identified as follows from the above-linked post on sea level rise, referenced to preindustrial temperatures:
The last is probably a bit wobbly as the planet’s surface was configured a bit differently 35-40mya.
I reckon, Stern, Blair and you guys should be telling us why there’s no need to worry, and it’s perfectly OK for the CO2 levels to be over 300ppm. Especially since Hansen now reckons that climate sensitivity with the ice sheets in play is 6C rather than 3c, AND the momentum commitment is 2C rather than about 0.5C. Please tell us where he’s wrong!
Furthermore I don’t think the Blair position pays sufficient regard to ocean acidity or cactussed carbon sinks. But that’s another story.
Brian – You are correct to come back on the numbers this way. I am with you.
The only trouble with the Hansen figure is that its one thing to up the ante on concentration [350 not 450 ppmv etc] its another to attach the emissions budgetting. The 350 campaigners [all strength to them] don’t want to do that because [as I was told] ‘it complicates things and people won’t understand . . . !’
Here’s a piece of modelling showing the global emissions contraction rates required now just to achieve 450 ppmv – see IPCC AR4 WG1 Cahpter 10 ‘coupled-models’. Because of sink failure, what was thought 15 years ago to give a 350 ish outcome now looks more like a 450 outcome . . . .
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe
Here’s yet another letter to the Guardian [so far unpublished] trying to get this point across: –
In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined its objective as halting the rise of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas below the level that causes dangerous rates of climate change.
This is no small-ask as the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations is like a tap to a bath: – to stop the bath overflowing, you have to turn the tap right off – it means that emissions must fall to zero globally to achieve the UNFCCC objective.
This was in response to the first IPCC report [1990]. The science group of IPCC has been informing the world for twenty years that climate change is a huge policy problem and for this reason. Yet its policy group has become a show-case for warring economists. The trap is that rising GDP is closely indexed to the rising emissions [tap] that are causing concentrations [bath level] to rise.
During this period alone, CO2 concentrations rose from 353 to 386 parts per million [ppm], a total of 40% above pre-industrial levels. Yet while the problem became more and more acute, economists became vaguer and more erratic as to how to meet this challenge. Nicholas Stern, Tony Blair’s ‘Climate-Group’ and others now argue for a global climate deal that allows for a further rise of around 100 ppm in CO2 concentrations, while scientist James Hansen has just launched a campaign to have them fall back to 350 ppm.
To avoid dangerous rates of climate change, Stern et al see global emission merely halve by 2050, while Hansen et al require them go to zero asap – avoiding the extra odd trillion tonnes of CO2 emissions, saying the sooner the better.
This is a contest between too much too soon and too little too late. Either way a full-term emissions contraction and convergence event is required. Considering Dr Pachauri knows and supports this, his article is rather vague.
Aubrey Meyer
GCI
For information/consideration along with the Garnaut draft report, an update of the “McKibbin-Wilcoxen Hybrid” (i.e. policy re long-term emission permits) is available on the Business Spectator website.
You’ll need to register to access the report (it’s free)
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-McKibbin-protocol-G74NT?OpenDocument
McKibbin gave a lecture at ANU today, my understanding is that he will be releasing some sort of updated “report/blueprint” in a couple of weeks.
Aubrey
What did you think of George Monbiot’s article in The Guardian on Tuesday, particularly these comments?
Refer to Monbiot’s article: This economic panic is pushing the planet right back down the agenda http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
Monbiot’s piece creates a diversion.
The point at issue is between UNFCCC and Oliver Tickell’s [OT] K-2 – the attack is on the UNFCCC itself.
Using George Monbiot and his Guardian column to now attack C&C, Oliver Tickell [OT] uses the space to propagate his Kyoto-2 tenets.
Yet OT is wholly unwilling to defend them. It needs to be said now openly that the reason for this is simple: – he can’t, because he hasn’t really thought through what he is doing.
OT has recognised – like many people – that the UNFCCC ‘is’ in trouble [whether 'it' likes it or not] and ‘is not’ succeeding in organising ‘enough soon enough’ to make the difference needed and we are in danger of losing the game; – even people fairly conservative people like Ross Garnaut have started making statements to this effect.
There is really good reason to be worried and even a little frightened about this. I now get a fair amount of email from people I regard as friends and veterans from all over the place saying, “its all too late . . . the ‘katastrophe’ is becoming unavoidable . . . ”
The issue is and always has been, *power-politics*.
That means that we are all stuck now in the North/South politics of Mutually Assisted Suicide or MAS [read the US and China] that replaced the MAD of the Cold War [read the US and the former USSR].
No matter how much one points out that Parties/signatories to the UNFCCC are countries and not corporations, this K-2 lobby simply behave as though that wasn’t/isn’t relevant. Monbiot should know better; he’s been round the block a few times. Acting as though the UNFCCC must deconstruct itself and join up with what in reality [power-politics] amounts to right-wing coup in favour of extra-nationally vested interest, is worthy of the Fukuyama’s “The End of History” – i.e. OTT, also daft and-stupid.
K-2’s recipe is to offer an amount of de-institutionalized and unmediated political power to the financial and the corporate power sector, that would make even Milton Friedman, Patrick Minford, Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan blush.
It is a measure to me of the naivete of Oliver Tickell and Mark Lynas [another journalist who has changed trains on this] that they appear not to realize this and now advocate – more in desperation than steady thought – this OTT agenda.
This is different from the ideological crassness attending George Monbiot on the roller-coaster he has now chosen to ride. He claims great experience and vision, which at least so far the others don’t.
In the larger frame, there’s nothing to deal with here. K-2 etc won’t see the light of dawn, let alone the day. But right-wingers around the place have already started using the ‘woo-hoo; Monbiot’s turned turtle’ argument to attack C&C consensus where it exists e.g. NZ.
Mainstream politicians here in the UK, many of who now actively support and argue C&C in parliament, say cyncically that Monbiot’s abandoning C&C will raise support for it; well maybe, maybe not.
However, just as the UK Green Party was forced to face, losers don’t need to win, they just need to make sure nobody else does either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
K-2’s Assumptions: –
1. It is possible to aggregate oil coal and gas into a homogenous carbon unit resolving all factors of carbon-intensity, and production off-set differentials: [technically difficult - politically improbable].
2, This can be done consistent with 350 ppmv atmospheric CO2:
Note: -
[a] IPCC’s 1994 modelling for 350 ppmv was zero emissions globally by 2050 [path-integral 250/300 GTC] with indefinitely negative emissions thereafter. This scenario was ‘removed for this reason’ by IPCC from 1995 onwards [SAR];
[b] IPCC’s 2006/7 modelling in AR-4 is, because of sink-failure and the ‘coupled modelling’ of this path integral, is estimated to give nearer a 450ppmv [than a 350 ppmv] outcome . . . . note [!] . . .
[c] To achieve ‘350′, now requires something like zero fossil fuel production/consumption [path integral ~ 150 GTC] globally by ~2020/30 and negative emission thereafter . . . . . . note [!!] . . . .
{In other words, ‘wall-to-wall nonsense’ – we’ll be fortunate indeed to keep below 450 . . . ].
Back to K-2’s Assumptions: –
3. Political will is available to resolve all tensions between the oil, coal and gas sectors and within sectors – i.e. an aggresive cartel of producers, highly differentiated by status, geographical locale and political patronage; [experience tells me this has ~/zero probability]
4. All these issues can however, be resolved subordinate to points one and two above, *without recourse to an international C&C framework* and effectively therefore this requires the deconstruction of the UNFCCC process itself. [This will have *a lot of people* fuming].
5. Drastically cutting through all known supplies of conventional crude oil and gas, never mind the ‘exotics’, etc . . . . [refer the production/consumption arithmetic of 350/450/550 – ‘rising risks’ posted at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Poster_Oil_Coal_Gas_350_450_550.pdf
unbracket . . . . to put it politely, these are K-2’s meta-heroic assumptions . . . . .
Aubrey
Aubrey
Aubrey, it seems to me that what you call PILLAR ONE was finally constructed in early 2007 when Angela Merkel had the presidency of the EU and with very useful help from Tony Blair established the EU approach. Merkel as chair of the G8 also had to cut Bush off at the pass, who was hell-bent on another path, shall we say. She was only partly successful in this.
It’s hard enough trying to get the rest of the world to take the EU position seriously when it is increasingly apparent that the EU approach comes up short.
Anyway, I’d like to compliment you on the good work you are doing over there. More power to your arm!
Brian Thank You.
You’ll be please perhaps with the Garnaut contribution just out: -
Garnaut on C&C
“transparent, fair, pragmatic . . ”
Jul 04, 2008 02:13 PDT
Ross Garnaut’s latest Climate Report to the Australian Government is the
longest and strongest C&C endorsement ever published by serious
government source.
Not only does he comprehensively make the case for C&C as ‘pragmatic’
[noting recent converts to it], he takes on the arguments of C&C’s
critics . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Full Report at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Garnault/Climate_Change_Review_Draft_Report_040708.pdf
Full C&C section at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Garnault/Garnaut_C&C.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[sample]
“The per capita approach is generally referred to as ‘contraction and
convergence’ (Global Commons Institute 2000) and has figured in the
international debate for some time. It has been promoted by India and
has been discussed favourably in Germany and the United Kingdom (German
Advisory Council on Global Change 2003; UK Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution 2000). Recent reports have shown increasing
support for this approach internationally: see, for example, Stern
(2008) and the Commission on Growth and Development (2008).5
Under contraction and convergence, each country would start out with
emissions entitlements equal to its current emissions levels, and then
over time converge to equal per capita entitlements, while the overall
global budget contracts to accommodate the stabilisation objective. This
means that emissions entitlements per capita decrease for countries
above the global average, and increase (albeit typically at a slower
rate than unconstrained emissions growth) in countries below the global
average per capita level. Importantly, emissions entitlements would be
tradable between countries, allowing actual emissions to differ from the
contraction and convergence trajectory.
The per capita approach addresses the international equity issue
transparently: slower convergence (a later date at which per capita
emissions entitlements are equalised) favours emitters that are above
the global per capita average at the starting point, while faster
convergence gives more emissions rights to low per capita emitters. The
convergence date is the main equity lever in such a scheme.”
Aubrey
What is your response to these statements on the Optimum Population Trust website? http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.climate.html
(Note: This text had some links embedded, which don’t seem to have transferred across. Click on the link above and scroll down the page to “Contraction and convergence” to access links.)
The debate seems pretty simple to me. In 20 yrs the most sought after commodity on the planet will be clean food. If you’ve got clean air, you’ll have clean water. Clean water = clean food. Will someone please inform Ackerman and Bolt of this overly simplistic fact so they can advise Rupert accordingly.
Re the Garnaut draft report…
Pragmatic response from Michael Costa in The Australian this morning: Garnaut report a first step that falls short
David Burchell is also worth a read for another perspective: Act yes, but consider real costs
Needless to say, I think John Cosco makes a very pertinent point in “Letters to the Editor” when he raises the issue of the impact of developing world population growth.
I would not describe Costa’s response as pragmatic, he states:
There are two issues here, the science of the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on the Great Barrier Reef, and question as to whether Australia should be a “free rider” and leave climate change mitigation to the rest of the world.
The science of the impact of climate change and ocean acidification is clear. Unfortunately the Barrier Reef will most probably be lost or seriously degraded with less than 2 degrees C of warming (see for example here. Maybe if the rest of the world drastically reduced emissions and Australia did not adopt an ETS and did little else, the Barrier Reef might be saved. This would entail Australia being a “free-rider” in a global prisoner’s dilemma. Australians are among the worlds worst per-capita greenhouse gas emitters, so free-riding would seriously undermine global climate change policy. It would be hard to come up with a more abominable policy position.
Much of Costa’s argument is that owners of highly greenhouse gas intensive power stations should be compensated for the loss of asset value. Generators are able to pass on most of their costs onto consumers, so even small amounts of compensation can result in windfall profits. When I buy shares, they are likely to earn more than if I put the same amount of money in the bank. This is because I take a risk – if I lose money I am not entitled to compensation. People have known that greenhouse pollution causes climate change for a very long time. Forcing polluters to internalise these costs may decrease their share price, just like attempting to reduce smoking and taxing it may decrease the share price of tobacco companies. Compensating greenhouse polluters for their loss of asset value is as silly as compensating tobacco companies would be.
At the moment Costa wants to privatise NSW electricity generators. He knows he will get a better price if the costs of mitigating climate change are shifted away from the assets that he is trying to sell. Costa’s arguments about climate change are a rent seeking exercise. It seems that Costa is engaging in rent seeking by crying wolf about closure of brown coal fired power stations.
Bravo Ian McLaren, well said.
To clean water and clean food I would add clean energy.
This is really what we need to focus on.
During Ross Garnaut’s launch of the draft report at the National Press Club, Paul Buongiorno asked a question about Australia taking a “leading role” in discussions in Copenhagen.
Garnaut responded:
Actually, Australia took a leading role in addressing a serious environmental problem when it launched the $200 million Global Initiative on Forests and Climate back in March 2007. Amongst other actions, it also hosted the High Level Meeting on Forests and Climate in July 2007, and hosted APEC in September, where the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership was launched and the Sydney Declaration acknowledged the importance of forests. I suggest these actions were useful in raising the profile of the deforestation problem and probably influential in Bali, where delegates agreed to consider including forest protection mechanisms in the new global climate change agreement.
The $200 million Global Initiative on Forests and Climate has now been renamed the International Forest Carbon Initiative. According to correspondence I have received, funding remains at $200 million. Australia’s contribution has now been overtaken by countries such as Norway and Germany http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINL2873254120080528
In my submission to the Garnaut Review, I suggest prime minister Kevin Rudd should join a formal international alliance of world leaders to address the problem of global deforestation, particularly during the period 2008-2012 while forests remain unprotected by the Kyoto Protocol.
Garnaut’s draft report notes: (Chapter 13 Deepening International Collaboration, 13.7 Forestry-related emissions, p. 328)
Sounds like a good argument for Australia to put a lot more money into its International Forest Carbon Initiative…
I also used my Garnaut submission as the basis of a letter on this issue to Tony Blair in April. (Actually, Brian encouraged me to lobby Tony Blair during our discussions on the Rainforests and emissions-shifting blog earlier this year.)
It is heartening that the Blair/Climate Group report indicates that this issue is being taken seriously. I hope avoided deforestation will be a major topic of discussion at the upcoming G8 and Major Economies meetings.
The economic drivers of deforestation, in particular the complex problems which arise from over-consumption in the developed world and the growing population in the developing world have to be addressed urgently. It is difficult to know how this sustainability problem is going to be solved, as the global population is tipped to grow to over 9 billion by 2050 and could even approach 12 billion if fertility rates in developing countries remain constant at recent levels. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/English.pdf
During the draft report launch, Garnaut said that “developed countries need to play the leading role” at the critical negotiations in Copenhagen.
It would be an excellent demonstration of leadership if an alliance of world leaders could table a progress report on their efforts to reduce global deforestation at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009.
Elizabeth
OPT – they appear to have engaged with the slogan/jargon-rubric of C&C and not to have actually engaged with C&C i.e. the calculating model itself. The option to set a population base year effectively deals with that argument. Tis has been pointed out in the past. Perhpas the institutional memory isn’t working well. C&C is actually the only model that specifically engages with ‘population’ – the source of OPT’s complaint is elsewhere.
Aubrey
Further to my comment # 61.
I am delighted to see that world leaders have formally recognised the need to address the problem of deforestation.
Point 6 of the Declaration of Leaders Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change notes:
As I outlined on the rainforest and emissions-shifting blog, since early last year, I’ve written many letters to both major parties re the problem of deforestation. I wrote more letters again earlier this year, including a letter to Kevin Rudd registering my concern that the budget continue to include funding for the $200 million Global Initiative on Forests and Climate announced by the Howard government last year, and a letter to Penny Wong asking her to raise the issue of deforestation at the Major Economies meeting held in Hawaii at the end of January.
On 24 March I sent another letter to Kevin Rudd to:
I also asked:
I copied the letter to Brendan Nelson, Penny Wong, Greg Hunt and Bob Brown.
I subsequently used this letter as the basis for my submission to the Garnaut Review and my letter to Tony Blair.
In May, I received a letter from the Department of Climate Change thanking me for my letter, and saying “the government shares your concerns” etc and “this is why the government announced the $200 million International Forest Climate Initiative” (?!)
While I was delighted the government had maintained funding for the forests initiative, I was rather amused at this “new” announcement… The letter also advised that the funds were “available for use in the period 2008 – 2012”.
In late June, I received a letter from Greg Hunt advising he had made representations on my behalf to Penny Wong, and he enclosed a letter from her which noted “current mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol do not provide incentives for action on avoided deforestation.” Curiously, although the letter from Penny Wong acknowledged that “the Australian Government is actively involved in international efforts to reduce deforestation” it didn’t mention the $200 million International Forests Carbon Initiative. Also, while the letter mentioned “my department has previously responded to Ms Hart on these issues and I attach this correspondence for your information” a copy of the letter sent to me in May describing the International Forest Carbon Initiative was not attached.
Since the Coalition announced the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate in March 2007, the profile of the global deforestation problem has been raised considerably. Norway in particular rose to the occasion in Bali when Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg announced his country was going to provide $US500 million a year to address deforestation. http://www.norway.org/policy/environment/avskoging_eng.htm
While Australia had been a world leader last year with its $200 million forests initiative (which the Rudd government has advised me is going to be spread over four years), Norway’s Jens Stoltenberg certainly upped the ante with his announcement.
During the Convention on Biological Diversity recently, Angela Merkel told delegates that Germany would spend an additional 500 million euros on a network of protected forest areas until 2012. After that, Germany would boost spending to 500 million euros per year from an annual 200 million now. http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINL2873254120080528?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
Recently Jens Stoltenberg and Britain’s Gordon Brown announced a joint $US211 million initiative to conserve rainforests in the Congo Basin. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0624-congo.html
In The Autralian yesterday, Kevin Rudd argued that:
Addressing the other 15 leaders of the major economies at the Hokkaido summit today, Kevin Rudd “indicated that Australia wants to see a new grand bargain, a new grand consensus between developed and developing countries so that we can act together to bring down greenhouse gas emissions in order to save the planet,” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23994000-601,00.html
So what are we waiting for?
Kevin Rudd should immediately increase funding for the International Forest Carbon Initiative and join a formal alliance of other world leaders to address the problem of deforestation. After all, the famous Stern Review notes that:
The Garnaut draft report also notes that:
I received a letter from Christine Milne yesterday in which she stated:
Senator Milne also noted:
I look forward to seeing Senator Milne taking decisive action on this. Hopefully both she and Greg Hunt will encourage Kevin Rudd to substantially increase funding for the International Forests Carbon Initiative and join a formal alliance of other world leaders to address this problem.
When he addressed the other major economies leaders today, Kevin Rudd said:
This sounds like a man who wants to take decisive action…
I look forward to Kevin Rudd and other world leaders providing a progress report on their practical and effective actions to reduce global deforestation at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009.
Elizabeth, thanks for posting this. You’ve clearly been working on the problem for some time. What does ‘decisive action’ constitute, short of violating the sovereignty of Indonesia, Brazil etc. or throwing money at people?
dk.au
You ask:
Did you actually take the time to read my post # 63? Yes, I know it’s probably a bit long, but I’m trying to make a constructive argument for positive action. It would be great to see some real action rather than the endless political point-scoring and unresolved arguments about emission targets.
Ross Garnaut keeps telling us we’ve wasted the last ten years (I watched his National Press Club speech and went to his presentation in the Adelaide Town Hall on Tuesday), so let’s get on with it. We can do something NOW by addressing the problem of deforestation.
I posted Point 6 of the Declaration of Leaders Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change :
This declaration was agreed by the leaders of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
You might notice this list includes Brazil and Indonesia.
Point 6 is a big paragraph isn’t it? I’ll try and break it down for you into more easily digestible chunks…
All of these world leaders agreed on taking action to address deforestation and forest degradation.
They also agreed to:
This is where richer countries such as Australia, Norway, Germany, Britain etc can come in and offer assistance. (Refer my posts # 61 & 63.)
Other highly influential people such as Nicholas Stern, Ross Garnaut and Tony Blair/The Climate Group also support richer countries helping poorer countries to avoid deforestation. If you want to know more, read their reports.
So, just to clarify, world leaders have acknowledged that:
I reiterate the main thrust of my post # 63:
In light of the Major Economies Leaders Declaration, Kevin Rudd should immediately take decisive action and substantially increase funding for the International Forest Carbon Initiative. He should join a formal alliance of world leaders to cooperate and develop an urgent strategic plan to address global deforestation, particularly for the period 2008 – 2012, while forests remain unprotected by the Kyoto Protocol.
I look forward to Kevin Rudd and other world leaders providing a progress report on their practical and effective actions to reduce global deforestation at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009.