This post isn’t quite as long as I thought it might be, and I think that’s a good thing. There’s no doubt the Garnaut Report [link to pdf] is seriously big as well as eminently serious, and I suspect a lot of the blogosphere’s climate change wonks are waiting to digest it rather than rushing in to write insta-commentary. Although the report is a very serious piece of policy work, its release is also a political event par excellence, and taking the time to understand the report’s arguments and proposals is a template that could usefully be applied to other big political happenings – including but not limited to the Budget – even if it goes against the grain of the 24/7 media cycle. It’s also worth noting that these sort of issues really lend themselves to the power of aggregating distributed knowledge – given the number of seriously informed people out there participating in the climate change debate – and therefore the comments threads are possibly more important than some of the posts themselves – which informed the approach we took at LP on Friday by posting an open thread.
So, what has the blogosphere had to say about the Garnaut Climate Change Review interim Report? Gary Sauer-Thompson at Public Opinion duly reminded us on Friday that the Report is only an interim one, and only examines the economic effects of climate change which are readily quantifiable – the final report due in September will take the analysis further. John Quiggin noted the fact that the Report has reframed the debate and cautioned the opposition:
Whether or not the government ultimately follows Garnaut’s proposed model, there’s no doubt that the Review has shifted the terms of debate substantially. Those (like the Federal Opposition) who are tempted to play the issue for short-term political gain will pay a big price in the end if they succumb to that temptation.
Quiggin promises more on the Report’s substantive recommendations soon.
As one might expect, the Greens were quick to react, with Christine Milne posting an initial analysis at GreensBlog, which emphasised what Garnaut had got right, but cautioned that the Report was still “the work of a conservative economist”. Milne feels that Garnaut’s policy recommendations are “completely out of step with his science”:
When we were looking for a transformative vision to take Australia into the post-carbon world, we got an incrementalist approach with a slow start and even a step backwards on the 2050 target.
At Tree of Knowledge, Tim Watts focuses on the opposition’s reaction, noting the irony that Brendan Nelson invoked Rupert Murdoch in his response to the Report, as if seeking legitimacy, and going on to look at how the statements of Nelson and other frontbenchers demonstrate a continued disarray in the opposition’s economic policy thinking:
But given that the design of a national ETS is the biggest economic policy debate going in Australia at the moment, isn’t it more than a little embarrassing that the Leader of the Opposition and the Environment Spokesman seem to be contradicting each other on a basic economic question underpinning the design of the policy?
Doesn’t this call their economic credentials (further) into question?
Econoblogger Peter Martin has a plethora of Garnaut posts at his site, examining Garnaut’s strategy, extracting some of the scary numbers from the Report, and explaining how and why we should read Garnaut.
Part of the reaction to Garnaut will, of course, be the views of industry, and Gary Sauer-Thompson at Public Opinion reminds us that a lot of this will be self-interested special pleading disguised by expressions of in principle support. The same might well be said, he argues, about state governments.
I’m sure this isn’t a complete list of interesting blogosphere reaction, and I’m also sure there’s more to come, so I’d be very grateful if people could post any ommissions and updates in the comments thread.
Update [by Kim]: John Quiggin explains the difference between tradeable permits and a carbon tax, and No Right Turn gives us the view of Garnaut from New Zealand.
Update [by dk.au]: Guy Beres comments on Nelson and the Prisoner’s Dilemma
But the coalition is still in denial re Greg Hunt and petrol pricing they must be living on another planet or all spend their weekends in la la land.
It would be interesting to know if there are any parallels with imposing an ETS on a predominantly capitalist economy and the problem the new Russia faced in the early 1990’s with imposing a capitalist system on a rigid command economy. I doubt that Gorby/Yeltsin had the benefit of a Garnaut blueprint, but then they didn’t have the threat of a diabolical failure – they seemed to just muddle through.
While we think a supreme logic will be followed, with perhaps some political allowances toward getting re/elected, ultimately my guess is that somehow we will muddle through. Mistakes and misdirections, some will get filthy rich others compensated after a fashion. We just have to make the plunge or we’ll all be losers. And the sooner the better.
At the superficial level, it will be so much easier to run the ’scare campaign’. Machievielli would attest to that.
Nevertheless, ‘going for broke’ means exactly that. Then again, Nelson has few options.
What ever happened to the ‘terror’ narrative?
Your links posts on specific topics are excellent, Mark, I’m sure the next six months will provide extremely interesting reading from LP.
It struck me today that this – CC – is an incredible story. Not to cast too simplistic a shadow over it: goodies retain character among sacrifices seen as folly as much leading light, baddies find redemption for themselves, while trying to save the planet. The very future is at stake.
It struck me also that the story of it might be a way to engage a deeper public interest. We all love a story. Our humanity is built upon them. A story is a far more powerful way of embedding a message than the best professional account of precise writing wrapping around numbers could ever be.
It’ll happen. Wait until the storytellers of our time get hold of this, and you can take the new out of brave new world. One good story will bring it on. In months, the new world will have arrived.
I saw Rudd on Insiders this morning, their message doesn’t seem too clear, and they really need to distill it down to a couple of sentences that they can repeat over and over….learn form the “war on terror”….with a few sentences, axis of evil, wmds, hating our freedoms governments managed to convinced people to go to war against those who posed us no danger….this should be easier as the danger is real……there is real danger so we don’t ask u to give up ur life in battle but to consume less, pay more for electrcity etc…….and emphasise that what u can do to stop climate change is not just individual action, but to support the big measures that might make you a little poorer (maybe) might mean u have to give up a few things in life but means a chance to avert something that seems to be really quite scary…….
Mark, you forgot to mention the reaction among the Inconsequential Right.
Piers Akerman dismissed the report as “little more than a fearmongering document designed to bolster the age-old socialist agenda of wealth redistribution.” Of course, to a man who still believes Howard is in office, anyone presenting an informed opinion would be a socialist.
As usual, Tim Blair based his refutation of AGW around criticism of a Tracee Hutchison column. Trivial, perhaps, but his winged monkeys had a field day.
Not sure about Andrew Bolt’s response, but it probably included some graphs and climate statistics from the previous 10 years, proving that the planet is actually cooling.
Prediction: Mark Steyn will soon write a comprehensive and stricly scientific rebuttal to the Garnaut Report, in between his review of the North Carolina Theatre Company’s production of A Doll’s House, and his DJ commitments.
You’re welcome.
Ratamacue, I suspect we don’t count Akerman, Blair and Bolt as bloggers. News Limited attack dogs maybe, on a quixotic denialist mission.
We seem to be headed for an economic re-structure as profound as the Hawke/Keating reforms of the 1980s – and about as painful, and about as long, as about as delayed to see the benefits.
Not fun, and extremely vulnerable to political opportunism.
I’d hope that the government will put much of the Garnaut-related policy to an election in 2010. I know they went to the last election saying they’d target an ETS for 2010, but that’s an intention, not a policy – people didn’t really know what they were voting for. They could literally take it to the next election and say “here it is folks, in all it’s gory detail, and it can start three months after the election if we’re returned”.
Rudd has in this term built the reputation of keeping his election promises. So whatever they take to the next election will be very credible indeed – if they promise it, the public will expect it to happen, based on past performance.
They have time to build the case with the electorate. If there’s a case to be made, they have two years. If they can’t convince the electorate in that time, it doesn’t deserve to be implemented. But if they impose this without a further vote, I suspect it will end up being Rudd’s WorkChoices.
I’m witholding all judgement until I get the CEC analysis.
I don’t see the logic of that, Mercurius. Hawke actually did almost the opposite of what he’d promised in economic policy in 83, and no one suggested that there needed to be an election before the dollar was floated, etc. Rudd set out the timetable very clearly last year. Governments are elected to govern, not seek constant plebiscitary mandates. The only good reason for having an election on the climate change measures would be a double dissolution to let the Libs know that short term-ism isn’t electorally rewarded. We’ve got the rest of this year before all the pieces are put in place – and I’m sure we’re not going to be short of either opportunities to debate what’s going to happen or for that matter influence it.
I don’t think we can afford to wait. The case for waiting is the case being made by those who want to protect their own narrow self-interest by having more time to rant and rave about how we’ll all be rooned if dirty coal isn’t compensated, or whatever, and for the forces of darkness to score populist political points. Global warming doesn’t wait.
What laughs you kids provide. Is there anyone here who actually lives in the real world?
The real world where human behaviour has no consequences you mean? Where anthropogenic warming can just be wished away? I think you’re looking for the faith based community, boyo.
Indeed. And it’s too serious to risk taking as an election issue. Never ask the people to vote on a scientific matter. When you do you get bad teeth, empty dams, burnt astronomers etc.
I have started taking a careful read through, but you are spot on when you suggest it is going to take some time to digest – there’s two short novels in there!
What laughs you kids provide. Is there anyone here who actually lives in the real world?
I love the invocation of the ‘real world’. Everybody can read whatever they want into the phrase. I mean, who ever suggests they live in an imaginary world?
But, more pointedly, WTF are you on about?
The real world is aplace where you eat $2 for breakfast and $10 notes for lunch, because you can’t grow food anymore because of global warming.
ParlW,
Suggest you look up some historical accounts of famine if you want to know what the real world is like. Try famines + history on Google. I haven’t Googled it, but I’m sure you’ll come up with some corkers that will scare you back into the real ‘real’ world. (There were a few particularly nasty ones in 18c France, from memory, and in early 20c Russia.
Update [by Kim]: John Quiggin explains the difference between tradeable permits and a carbon tax, and No Right Turn gives us the view of Garnaut from New Zealand.
I’m waiting for a break in a hectic schedule to comment fully on the beastie that Garnaut spawned (and, having read the thing twice now, I’m still working out where exactly he substituted logic and science for blind faith). To be honest, I shouldn’t blame Garnaut – his terms of reference were terminally flawed. Neither 550 nor 450ppm are viable or livable options, so we shouldn’t really expect him to come up with anything particularly useful for actually stopping runaway climate change.
Until then, suffice to say that the Greens are more or less on the money, albeit a fair bit soft. And the Socialist Alliance NO (hi Paul!) will be puting out a fuller response as well, hopefully this week.
Until then, my take more or less accords with this: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/757/39141
wombo @ 18,
Good one, Comrade!
Deacons Legal services have put out this response.
http://www.deacons.com.au/legal-services/environment-planning/climate-change/legal-updates/legal-update.cfm?objid=6504
One thing that Garnaut is proposing that I find very worrisome is his proposal about how we tighten trajectories (16.2.2, pp 365-366; pp 394). He is proposing that if we decide to tighten our trajectory then we wait five years before we do it. That
may have been a good idea 20 years ago but we no longer have the luxury of that amount of time. Garnaut suggests we can maintain our international commitments by purchasing more international permits but that is making assumptions about what sort of international framework will emerge. The fundamental international issue is resolving the prisoners dilemma and five year delays are the last thing that we need when it comes to facilitating international cooperation.
Peter, perhaps the five years notice of tightening of caps would not be so bad if national governments were not so far off the pace. I think he’s saying that investors planning to build power stations need that kind of notice.
Wombo at 18, I look forward to what you and Renfrey Clarke at Green Left Weekly come up with. Be sure to let us know.