I think Ergas is being misrepresented here.

I’m sorry if that’s so, John H, but I’m not seeing how from your comment. Can you expand?

Roger J, thanks for that. I’ve referred to your comment in my next post, which will appear before the morn.

Brian & chrisl — a price on carbon will not change behaviour much in the short term. But it makes investments in alternative energy production relatively more attractive and therefore speeds up the the time it will take to shift to alternative energy.

It is a long-term solution to a long-term problem.

Once the intent of the carbon price is properly understood it becomes clear that the important issue is putting a price on “dirty” coal. Increasing petrol prices significantly will hurt a lot of people, but is relatively less important in actually solving the issues.

I suspect this is a paper with an unnamed fourth author that is to be published in one of the Oxford Economic Journals (it’s not there yet - just checked).

Material generated by the unnamed fourth author can be found here - it takes unchanged policies to 2030 then begins to mitigate and assesses the risks. Anyhow this details a lot of the India and China growth material.

This work was updated early this year according to the latest International Energy Agency projections and continued unabated to 2100. It contributed to the Garnaut Review - I call it A1FI on steroids.

In a paper with ANU colleagues Frank Jotzo and Stephen Howes, Professor Garnaut warned that under business as usual, China’s carbon dioxide emissions would more than treble by 2030 - when they would make up 37% of global emissions, three times those of the United States.

“With China’s emissions now growing at more than 10% a year, they urged it to adopt the goal of cutting emissions growth to half the growth in GDP - slowing emissions growth to 3% to 4% a year over the medium term.”

I gather the paper by Jotzo et al hasn’t been published yet. Does anyone have any better information?

is there any provable link between a carbon dioxide trading system and saving an eco system

No. There is between reduced emissions and damage to ecosystems (a huge amount of evidence). Some damage cannot be avoided due to the climate commitments of past and near term emissions - that will require some adaptation to reduce any damages, irrespective of future mitigation.

The ability of a trading system to reduce emissions is the point being debated. It worked for sulphates in the US. But so would regulation (The European solution for sulphates). The big plus being attached about trading is that it would reduce costs to the cheapest abater and encourage “technological learning” as competition attempts to undercut the carbon price of other traders.

However, the thought that such schemes may create a merry go round of trading in hot air is why some prefer tax, and some would set technical goals for emissions or schemes like MRET. Some economists are arguing tax on the basis of efficiency and simplicity.

One thing seeems clear - the current prices for CO2 being bandied about and to which many react in horror (e.g. $10-40 per tonne CO2), are way lower than the damages that carbon dioxide will cause.

We are busy debating the detail of what seems in the long run a good deal and this is all about managing the transition towards the economy where energy, agriculture and transport are decoupled from GHG emitting activities.

A smooth transition to ameliorate the short-term costs that takes a gently gently approach to mitigation, will merely displace the damage until later, and magnify it.

Maybe he is trying to protect the value of his real estate

re the adaptation/mitigation “choice” and Henry Ergas’ approach to planetary culinary.

There is no sensible either/or choice to be made between adaptation and mitigation. The track we are on, we are committed to about 90% of the change in 2030 that will occur as a result our current high emissions pathway, even if we pull the stops out in Oz by in 2012 and worldwide by 2015.

Hard adaptation now = benefits now and to 2030 and beyond
Hard mitigation now = 10% risk reduced in 2030, ~40% by 2050 and benefits accrue beyond.

If we don’t mitigate now, we will exceed our limits of adaptation for many sectors, especially beyond 2030. There are a couple of areas (mainly natural ecosystems, perhaps sensitive hydrological systems), where our limits are being pressed now.

Anyone who thinks that hastening slowly will give us the time to reduce the uncertainties associated with action has the wrong end of the risk stick. Acting across the board and learning fast is the optimal approach now.

“The rate of how this should be introduced is the only issue open to debate,”

which is sure to thrill his long time Liberal Party enemy and climate change denialist, Nick Minchin, no end, no to mention the other denialists in his party.

This issue has the potential to split the Liberal party for years, maybe even for decades, the way the EU has split the British Conservative Party.

Labor Party strategists will have taken note.