Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas
Kevin Rudd writes for The Australian:
THE science tells us that continued high levels of carbon pollution have led to global warming and if the world continues on a business-as-usual trajectory the consequences for us all will be significant. The economics tells us that the cost of responsible action is much less than if we as a planet fail to act on climate change now. The longer we delay, the higher the cost.
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
I therefore propose we immediately launch a committee for the purposes of creating a green paper, which will be followed sometime in 2009 by a white paper, which will then be followed by 6-12 months of a commissioning peroid, which will then be followed by … In the meantime I have instructed my minister-for-doing-nothing-about-climate-change Penny Wong to jawbone you into submission with her ultra-measured, ultra-controlled spin.
If we made the appropriate adjustments at rthe time of the last election, the cost would have only been $1 per head per year. That was then, what is the cost going to be if government acts immediately?
My last electricity bill told me that I had emitted 2.o6 tons of CO2 so at $20 a ton in an emissions trading scheme that makes $40.12 per quarter for starters or $160.48 per year.
The cost per head seems to be galloping away. The sooner government gets started the less it will cost us?
Let’s take this seriously for a moment, carbonsink. Are you suggesting that an ETS could be rolled out next month, with enough stakeholders on board, and with all the modelling and design work done? Or what are you saying?
No, Kim, what Carbonsink is saying is that a Carbon Tax could be rolled out next month with out any stock brokers required (cost savings) and contracts for building the first 6 gigawatts of CSP power plant could be in place by the end ot the year. Not to mention a commitment for the first gigwatt pilot geothermal power facility, the design process underway for the countries coast to coast high voltage DC power cables to transport power from solar plants on both sides of the country, and an extention to the network of wind power could be in process.
But what he is also saying is that non of this will happen. Instead we will have paralysis. We will have clean thinking and intelligence sequestration. Then nothing.
Dr. Ross Garnaut is not “science”, he is professor in Australia.
More on this topic: my comment in
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/07/05/garnaut-on-tour/#comment-484723
Kim:
So according to Rudd there is an urgency for the government to act to implement an ETS.
If Australia acted to completely eradicate its contribution to CO2 emissions the global effect would be imperceptible yet we would obliterate our economy.
What purpose would be served to return the proceeds of an ETS in compensation to citizens which will be used to pay for higher energy costs from fossil fueled power stations.
The whole idea of the ETS is to make the continuing use of fossil fuels so painful that there will be a shift to alternatives. The compensation will be spent on higher costs of energy still generated by fossil fuels.
You may think that this is a pressing problem but the people of the developing world especially those in India and China have this issue well down their list of priorities. They will not be commiting economic suicide when they can see the lot of their people improving with the increasing availability of cheap energy.
If India and China do not board your bandwagon what benefit is there for Australia to act when the costs would be huge and the effect barely measureable?
Further on Carbonsink’s behalf, if I heard this correctly, the only thing that the government can in fact do immediately, is apply a Carbon Tax. This is because they can do this immediately without senate approval for up to half a year. Everything else requires full legislative process, which is doubtful in the current parliamentary makeup.
Rudd: “Because the fact is if we do not begin reducing the nation’s levels of carbon pollution, Australia’s economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands.”
The Prime Minister is a barefaced liar. Reductions in Australia’s CO2 output do nothing for global warming.
How does the media and supposedly intelligent people let him get away with it??
This has important implications for what we do until 2012. Australia is more or less on track to meet its Kyoto target, if an ETS used the Kyoto target as the cap then the carbon price will no doubt collapse. So Garnaut discisses the possibility of a fixed “low price” instead, and sees this as a “second-best” approach. (pp 390-392) I don’t know what “low” means.
Conversely, Australia’s per capita emissions are huge, the science is looking increasingly scary, and it is possible that for the world to stabilise at a non-disastrous level, then developing countries may need to reduce their emissions by 25-50% by 2020. It is obvious that if Australia wants to make deep cuts by then then it will be cheaper to make cuts substantially greater than Australia’s very generous Kyoto target. Otherwise we will pay more later.
Interesting that this Op-Ed is nowhere to be seen on The Australian website’s front page, including their spinning ‘Opinion’-ometer…
Thanks for the post Kim, otherwise I would have missed this.
Actually what I’m saying is Rudd talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. I don’t care if its a carbon tax or ETS, I just wish he’d get on and do something beyond symbolic gestures, green papers, white papers and committees.
here, here, Carbonsink.
Andos, yep, I noticed it wasn’t all that visible on the website.
On the other point, this thread is perhaps a good example of the problem with this debate - in that there are in fact three positions being articulated:
(1) Rudd should act now with a carbon tax and other measures.
(2) Rudd will bring in an ETS along the timetable and according to the process laid out before the election.
(3) Rudd should “wait on the world” lest economic disaster descend on Australia.
(2) is Labor’s position, and (3) is the Coalition’s. While I’ve got a lot of sympathy with the frustration that leads to (1), (2) is what’s going to happen, and I think it’s important to try to influence how it happens - make sure what comes out of the sausage machine is the best possible model not some populist gobbledygook with all sorts of exemptions and an effective free pass for polluters and argue against (3) at the same time.
Having said all that, I’m about to leave for my holidays, so I’ll leave you to it!
Come off it, PaulW. Rudd and Garnaut both understand the international dynamics on this one.
The Europeans want to be in front because it gives them first mover advantage to have their companies carbon lean and to have appropriate effort on new technology. Plus they want to avoid dangerous CC. Plus they know that the only way of getting India, China etc on board is if they show not just practical intent and promises, but action.
Garnaut says China must come on board with concrete reduction targets or we’re all done for. Garnaut hopes to convince the Chinese that this is in their own interests. He knows a thing or two about China, because he was ambassador there when Rudd was in his office.
Garnaut also sees ‘contraction and convergence’ as the only possibility in bringing China etc on board.
Rudd said he wanted to lead internationally on CC, but he wants to be in the front peloton(?) to use a cycling analogy. He and Garnaut see the futility of Australia going one out.
But Australia is being watched with extreme interest internationally by both the developed and the developing world. No-one should underestimate the influence we have on this one.
All that being said, I do think with carbonsink that we should be spending money on geothermal, on concentrated solar and on a high quality grid infrastructure, not just leaving these things to the market.
I’d disagree with the idea that a full policy process is not doing something, and is somehow a symbolic gesture.
Green papers and white papers and committees serve a specific purpose; to explore and define the appropriate areas of effect and desired outcomes of a certain policy, to canvass and debate ideas for the most effective way to introduce a policy to achieve said outcomes, to identify possible oversights and secondary implications of the policy when implemented, and to set out the specifics for drafting and introduction of legislation to enact the policy through Parliament.
An example of an alternative to this method is The NT Intervention, or the original $10 billion Murray Darling Basin Scheme. We all know what sterling examples of effective policies these were.
Surely the most important, wide reaching and fundamentally revolutionising reform of the Australian economy ever, which is what I think most people would agree this Cap and Trade system amounts to, should go through the proper processes to ensure that it is effective, timely and not riddled with unforseen implications?
It is clear that Kevin Rudd is personally committed to implementing this reform.
Kim:
Option 2 (ALP position): Australia will blow its brains out while the rest carry on regardless.
Option 3 (Coalition position): Australia will blow its brains out as long as everyone else agrees to do the same.
Suppose, the Rudd response is to say that to relieve the pain on working families from an ETS, he will scrap the 10% GST on domestic electricity and gas. The precedent is already there with water - and it can be argued that electricity and gas are just as essential as water. He would not need to scrap it for any businesses, which can claim their GST back and also can claim tax deductions for the electricity and gas used to generate their income. I’d like to see the Coalition oppose that in the Senate.
Precisely. We’re setting a policy which is going to change our energy, transport, and agricultural industries more profoundly than anything since the introduction of the motor vehicle, and we’re trying to decide on a policy which will last more than 40 years. I think we can afford a few months to make the best call we can.
amortiser:
You mean the rest except Europe right?
i think bernard keane nailed it when he writes about trying to influence China nd India: “Sit back and declare “we’re doing nothing until you do something”? Or develop a world’s best practice trading scheme that shows they can work without causing massive economic dislocation and in fact benefit emerging technologies?”
It takes courage to get one’s head out of the sand.
contrapunctus:
You said “except Europe”.
Surely you jest. The EU introduced a carbon trading scheme which issued credits to business that totalled more than EU carbon emissions. It was a joke and when the market woke up to it, the carbon market tanked.
It’s all piss and wind.
You should know…
For some reason my computer doesn’t like links to some places, the ABC and the Australian included. Dunno why, good judgment perhaps? But eventually my computer relented and let me see Rudd’s article.
And I have to admit, cos I’m very sceptical about Rudd/ALP, that it seems straight forward to me. A simple statement of what is and what needs to be done.
A good summary of the bleedin’ obvious.
So the main issue remaining is when will the necessary be put into action? Maybe it will go the slowly slowly route but I am pleased that at least the first 2 expected impediments have been overcome, the admission that there is a problem and that action is required. Time will tell.
This contrasts strongly with t’other mob who don’t know which end is up and are still trying to choose between populist vote catching whilst bending over forwards for those sectors of our society that are causing the problems.
My very mild optimism has gone up a very small notch.
And I was amused by this bit at the end of the article:
“Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister of Australia.”
I suppose that might be necessary information for a large chunk of the readers of the Australian.
amortiser
As Europe is well down the path and is now the largest economy I find your position very hard to comprehend.
amortiser
I also read your comment 20, I think you should actually go to Europe and see what is happening, it is a very different place to what it was 10 years ago.
Robert M
If the opposition and one senator chose to oppose what ever it is that Labour comes up with (except a tax) it will take an election to get that course active. And there is no certainty that an election would resolve the issue. The Greens could well be a sticking point here as they would certainly prefer a very strong course of action that Labour is totally unlikely to put forward. Labour’s gamble to delay any action other than signing Kyoto until Garnaut released his report, conveniently after the Senate changeover could well back fire for them, and every body.
This is all bad politics being played out with a life and death situation. I can say that having seen the plight of the West Timorese. Rudd’s “steady as she goes” approach to this issue is entirely wrong.
amortiser, everybody knows what the flaws were with the EU’s first round system. That’s why they, and us, aren’t going to repeat the mistake.
Unless you live in some la la fantasy world where every policy has to be 100% perfect and is then immutable.
Wilful,
I don’t see any great intelligence in what is being put forward. What I see here are very well disguised weasel words. You are right, though. Australia is not going to make the same mistakes as the EU, we are going to make entirely new….and different mistakes. And look just a stupid.
Oh come on Rob, it won’t be months it will be years. Whatever they come up with will be knocked on the head by that idiot Fielding anyway, so there will have to be DD election. Why not put forward some legislation based on Garnaut’s recommendations and send it up the Senate next week? Let Fielding do his nutty Stop the Petrol Tax Rip Off routine and bring on the election. Lets face it, Rudd’s not getting any more popular. If he goes soon he’d probably win. If he goes in two years time when petrol costs God knows what, he may well lose, and we’d be stuck with Brendan.
Why sooner rather than later?
Well it’s going to be a bit of a pot calling kettle moment when we decide to control China/India’s emissions by seriously jacking the price of coal on them and we’ve made no serious progress on becoming a low carbon economy ourselves.
Of course we’d never use a lever like that now would we…surely not.
Hmmm…more money for us and less carbon in the atmosphere. It’s got sooo many downsides.
The policy stagnation of the last decade here and in the US is really hurting now.
i think it is better to wait for other people to find a good model and adopt that. let the early adopters do all the hard yards.
I like the way that the Libs talking points find there way directly into these threads.
If Australia develops an ETS then it will go a long way towards coercing other nations to do the same.
China is already looking into adapting their manufacturing sector so as to reduce carbon emissions. I guess they forgot to copy Brendon Nelson to the relevant emails.
ominod, look here to see where all the coal is in the world, and then here to see who’s digging it up. We may not have as much leverage with India and China as you imagine.
As mick says, a bit of leadership might go a long way. We might be able to earn consultancy fees then as well as the Brits.
A carbon tax right now would be much simpler than ETS, particularly after 2.5 years of lobbyists nipping away at it, as they are already doing. Petrol out, cars out, next it will be gas out followed by coal out. We will left putting a cap on wood fires and trading the charcoal.
Yes, and Australia’s coal exports equate to an additional 24.6 tonnes of CO2 per person in Australia [link] which means we are not only the largest domestic emitters, we are by far the largest “exporters of emissions” too.
This explains the desperate flailing around to pretend CCS is viable.
Bring on a carbon tax and cut the spin and waffle. Time we grew up, accepted our pivotal global role in the production of CO2 emissions, and did something about it.
Petrc, that’s a quote from your link. It’s my impression that China and India are mostly burning coal that they dig up in their own back yard. Also that we export little to them but quite a lot to Japan and Korea. Do you perchance know?
The point you make has more force if it’s based on facts. I’m not sure that the facts are right. It’s the bit in bold I’m concerned about.
Brian,
Checking up on a claim by a Pakistan blogger that Pakistan held 20% of the worlds coal reserves http://www.gsp.gov.pk/resources/seminars2.htm
, if this information is correct then the blogger may well be correct and your link may not show the very latest picture. Pakistan claim to hold 218 billion tonnes against Australia’s 78 billion.
Brian
I’ve no doubt you’re right (on coal)and for the sake of short posts my point is simplistic in the extreme.
The world has plenty of levers. I guess my point is that the idea that business will go on ‘mostly as usual’ while we tinker with just a few things that seems palatable right now could be completely false.
As we get deeper and deeper in to this mess things that seem extreme now may not be so within a lifetime. What if the responsibility is moved from those on the demand side to those on the supply side? Without supply those on the demand side will have their hand forced, instead of the nice polite requests we see at present.
amortiser:
Surely this is a self reflexive comment. As pointed out by #23,24,26. Perhaps tone down the colourful metaphors and look at what’s running now. Whatever scheme is introduced, market forces will affect it and change it.
superdonk:
The problem with the let other people do the hard yards is missing out on benefiting from possible emergent tech opportunities for industry in this country. There are already examples of Aussie tech expertise heading overseas.
Brian, info on coal exports is available here:
[link]
Australia exports significant coal to India, and a little to China.
Top counties exported to are:
1. Japan,
2. Korea (Rep)
3. Taiwan
4. India
5. China
Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world with 28.9% market share (in 2004).
So carbonsink you want Rudd to ‘do something’. Is commissioning the Garnaut Report while in Opposition doing something? Is releasing a Green Paper to detail the Government’s response to Garnaut doing something? Is the planned community consultation on the Green Paper to inform the preparation of a definitive White Paper doing something? If not, please tell us what they are, and please don’t insult our intelligence by saying this is all just empty symbolism.
No one, even the sceptics, thinks global warming is a simple problem; no one thinks responding to it will be easy. So why would we not want an informed, and if necessary protracted debate about the problem and the best approach to address it? Anyone who understands systems theory realizes that the global warming debate needs to take into account the myriad of interwoven factors that contribute to it if we are to get within reach of a sensible response, which in itself requires the consideration of complex and often conflicting actions.
You contribute little to sensible debate when you imply inaction and demand Rudd ‘do something’. Let’s hear more from you about what YOUR approach would be.
Ad astra,
Labour had 11 years with their feet up to contemplate all of this, and have a ful working plan. But they didn’t. The Greens have a fully developed agenda. Labour is still waiting for…what ever it is that comes to mind. I find it incredibly convenient that Garnaut releases his report just weeks after Senate access has been shut off and there is no way that any significant action can get through. That was all just a bit too cute.
BilB
The Coalition had 11 years in Government to contemplate this, but inhibited by climate change denial, did nothing until near the end when it seemed politically opportune to become ‘a believer’. It was Government members who had their feet up.
Rudd has been leader for less than 20 months. Within months he commissioned the Garnaut Report. It was never contemplated that Garnaut would be the final word and that legislation would rapidly follow. So the Senate rising for the Winter Recess will not delay progress. Your reading of this as a ‘cute’ move is implausible. If Rudd were to try to rush legislation through without his Government’s response to Garnaut, Treasury modelling and other inputs, there would be outrage. So Labor is not waiting for something to come to mind. It is doing what we ought to expect of a sensible, economically conservative government; it is gathering the best data available and consulting widely to ‘get it right’ as Brendan Nelson insists.
Er, no. Are you Penny Wong by any chance?
Like BilB said, the ALP had 11 years to formulate policy. Why do they need several more?
Do people actually believe the government will somehow get it ‘right’ if this process drags on for a few more years? Surely the lesson from the GST is that the final policy will be political compromise that’s tolerable to the broadest range of views. It won’t be the best policy or the ‘right’ policy, it will be a cobbled together compromise.
Anyway, as I said above, the government can spend another two years generating papers of various colours, and consulting community far and wide, but whatever they come up with it will almost certainly be knocked on the head by Nelson and Fielding.
So lets just get on with it, and bring on the DD election!
carbonsink
No I’m not Penny Wong. I’m older and male.
Please tell us all what it is that we should ‘get on with’. I for one don’t want a half-baked approach to this complex problem. You can argue that we should be much further advanced than we are. And we might have been if the Coalition had moved on this several years ago, as it should have. But given that we’re in the position we’re in, let’s get it as right as we can.
You may be right that a DD will be required to get the necessary legislation through, but that would not be the case if the Coalition was willing to participate in a bipartisan approach. But that’s not possible now that Nelson has decided that political opportunism is the only way to resuscitate his flagging leadership. To hell with the national interest.
The ETS legislation. Send it up to the Senate ASAP.
Its going to be a half-baked, cobbled-together, negotiated mess whether you like or not. If it goes to the Senate soon we’ll know whether Nelson and Fielding will negotiate, or reject it out of hand. If its the latter there will be a DD election, and the sooner Rudd goes the more chance he has of winning. If they negotiate (unlikely, but possible), the policy details will have to be worked in consultation with the sane elements of the Liberal Party (Turnbull, Hunt etc).
Either way we’ll save ourselves a couple of years of green papers, white papers, and Penny Wong’s mind-numbing spin.
carbonsink
I agree with your mentality entirely, but I’m also self aware enough to know that my viewpoint causes shock in the general community, and I’m unlikely to ever lead a group larger than I can count on one hand. I also understand why this is, and what’s more I understand and work in the fields of cultural change.
You will not succeed long term if you do not get a majority of people on the bus before driving off.
There are a bunch of well informed souls discussing the issue of policy stagnation at present. Regardless of any input from the present government we will, as a country, continue to pay for the last 10 years of conservatism, dearly.
You can rail against it as much as you like, but it’s done, and you’re better of cajoling people on to the bus at this stage rather than trying to round them up with a stick.
Save your energy for when we really so need stick-wielders, but don’t lose the cynicism.
Hell yeah. Looking forward to The Hollowmen tonight!
So here is the Greens position:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/browns-chilling-vision-of-our-fate/2008/07/09/1215282928003.html?sssdmh=dm16.323452
…and the libs have said that they will not support anything before 2012 (after the next election when they expect to have power again).
Stalemate.
with regards when to implement a tax/ETS.
I think its really important that any taxation or trading system is up and running before the next election to head off coalition scare tactics next time round. The reality of a low carbon price that Garnaut’s recommended in the short term (say $10 a tonne) is far less damaging politically than the fear of economic collapse the coalitions peddling!
A logical extending of an Aussie-style professor’s advice: tax on babies
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/baby-carbon-tax-47121014
Just fiction of, no science and practical engineering left in places where biologically motivated protectionism rules.
Politicians and economists are not going to tackle or solve climate change. They have presided over the creation of the problem. Now we need to find new ways, methods and processes to fix it.
Just look at Nelson and Turnbull ducking and weaving with “we are committed, but not to Rudd’s agenda - it is important that we get it right”. Which is code for more delays and populist nonsense.
I actually don’t think it is incredibly complex issue - its just that lots of vested interest and money is threatened and they will do anything to protect the status quo for as long as possible.
We should price carbon with a tax and introduce mandatory efficiency measures immediately. And put a moratorium on building new fossil fuel power stations.
Oh I think you’ll find it is. We need to study this further, perhaps leak a “six point plan” to the media, or maybe “a raft of measures”. We need to do some more polling, more focus groups, let the stakeholders have their say, and generate several more papers of various hues. If the public service fast tracks things we might get it done in nine months, but they’d prefer 12 to 18.
In the end, we’ll probably get an awareness campaign.
Sounds like we’re on the same page. Can I borrow your pen carbonsink?