The government’s green paper on the ETS postpones discussion on actual emissions targets, and says nothing about the government’s negotiating position on a post-Kyoto agreement. While Garnaut’s draft report has similarly postponed discussion of domestic targets, he does have a fair bit to say about how targets might be allocated amongst nations in such an agreement, and how those targets might be structured in a way that actually drags the the big developing countries in.
According to Chapter 12, the world has essentially decided on a path where each participating nation will have targets allocated to it. Nations unable to meet their target will be able to buy permits from nations that go under theirs. But the key question is, of course, how these targets should be set, whether all nations should face the same form of targets, and what form of carrots and sticks would apply to encourage countries to meet the targets.
Garnaut briefly examines some other options for allocating emissions targets - including allocating reduction targets according to historical past emissions - and concludes that the only feasible approach is “contraction and convergence”, where present emissions are taken as a starting point for initial targets, but gradually the world converges towards equal per-capita allocations over the next few decades. As I’ve pointed out many times in the past, such a scheme would result in Australia needing to make far greater emissions cuts than the 60% by 2050 already announced. But the silver lining for Australia is that a population-based target takes into account our population growth, which is far faster than most other developed nations; it also suits the United States.
But an equally difficult question is how to get the developing countries to sign up to targets, and this is where Garnaut mentions something rather clever that I’d not heard before. While he thinks that the sheer scale of China’s emissions requires persuading it to accept binding emissions targets as soon as possible (a binding agreement featuring the developed world and China covers three quarters of global emissions) , other middle-income countries (such as Brazil, India, and South Africa) can be dragged into the scheme using carrots rather than sticks. One-sided targets would allocate a target for each such country, but impose no penalty if the target was exceeded. However, if the country produced less greenhouse emissions than its target, it would be permitted to trade emissions credits internationally for profit.
Garnaut proposes that the middle-income countries would transition to binding targets in 2020, and that the least-developed countries would be introduced to the one-sided target scheme around the same time - though one wonders whether the world’s worst hellholes are ever going to develop sufficiently functioning governments to allow them to participate.
It’s hard to get a real sense of where the negotiations are heading internationally (and if anybody’s got some good pointers, please let’s have them in the thread). But Garnaut’s broad outlines strike me as a model that a) might actually work, and b) has reasonable prospects of being accepted by enough countries to matter.
In addition to measuring a country’s CO2 emissions should we also be measuring how much CO2 they absorb and take that into account as well?
Chris, any comprehensive accounting system will include sequestration. So any country with lots of spare land could be busily reafforesting to generate tradeable credits.
Not a lot of developing countries will be able to do this credibly however. Thankfully a lot of it can, or will be able to be, remotely sensed, for verification.
In all seriousness the biggest hurdle I can see is one you touched on. Given the critical governance issues of the majority of 2nd/3rd world countries who will be happy with transferring money to the odd African/middle eastern despot (Mr Mugabe/house of Saud springs to mind).
Many of those countries have low emmisions not because of wise environmental stewardship, but precisely because of kleptocratic and regressive regimes.
And the thought of the UN being relied on as an “honest broker” for the transfer of the credits gives me the hebbie jeebies. It showed itself unable to run a sanctions regime of a fairly limited scale with a few participants (AWB and others), why would it do any better with a much larger one?
At the moment im extremely uneasy at the thought that Chinas figures are being accepted as accurate. It wouldnt suprise me if their actual output is half what they claim it is. That both rewards them politicly when they join the scheme (”oh look Chinas on board”) and economicly when they announce drastic reductions in output. It would also give them a huge buffer for futher growth.
I realise this game can be played by any country signing up, however the more autocratic the regime, the less transparent any data gathering is going to be.
Good point about rigged figures, Mole. However, a) we can’t do much about that, and b) if their emissions are much lower, that’s actually a good thing. Yes, they’ll be able to cheat the rest of the world out of permits or profits, but less emissions is the goal, not fair play.
fewer
Indeed. Or “less emission”.
Also: “putting the ‘no’ into Garnaut” is a gag in want of a better author than me.
It’s not hard to get reasonably accurate estimates of CO2 emissions from remote observation. Coal and oil transportation is pretty obvious from satellite photos.
…concludes that the only feasible approach is “contraction and convergence”, where present emissions are taken as a starting point for initial targets, but gradually the world converges towards equal per-capita allocations over the next few decades. As I’ve pointed out many times in the past, such a scheme would result in Australia needing to make far greater emissions cuts than the 60% by 2050 already announced.
We need to be looking at 80-95% by 2050 anyway. The most recent science shows that 60% reductions by 2050 by the developed countries won’t ne sufficient to avert the risk of dangerous climate change. In Australia’s case, we also have more “low-hanging fruit” (easily achieved energy efficiency gains, etc.) left unpicked than most OECD nations, which makes a tougher target for Australia less painful to achieve than might otherwise be the case.
I’m increasingly of the view that we need more carrots and fewer sticks both in developing and developed nations. In developed nations governments are unwilling to use sticks that hurt enough that behaviour changes, and in developing countries, sticks won’t be considered for many years.
So, if we need more carrots, what should they be, and will they be effective? Any ideas? Here are few that popped into my head…
- Lower capital gains tax for green investments
- Tax deductibility of green power
- Rebates for energy efficient cars and appliances (to reduce purchase price)
Sounds good to me Carbonsink - provided its backed up by a crushing and punitive regime of carbon fines!
Yeah, but it won’t be, and that’s the point.
The politicians aren’t willing to use measures that actually hurt, change behaviour, and costs them votes. So if they won’t use sticks, they have to use carrots.
I reckon the only way forward is to engineer a cleantech investment boom/bubble with a range of outrageous incentives that investors simply can’t ignore.
I actually agree CS - but I do feel the threat of crushing and punitive fine regimes should ideally remain in the air, to make those carrots looks appealing.
Put simply: We need to make it fantastically profitable (and tax effective) to go clean and green.
I’m with Lefty E. Carrots and sticks should always go together. One or the other by itself is not nearly as effective in changing behaviour.
Melaleuca I agree, but my point is, the politicians aren’t willing to use sticks (or sticks that actually hurt), so that’s why the only option is bigger carrots.
A politician may well ask, where are the votes in higher electricity prices, higher petrol prices, higher airline tickets? There ain’t any. But, I reckon there are votes in lower electricity prices if I can deduct my GreenPower electricity bills –OR– I can buy a Prius for $5,000 less –OR– I don’t have to pay CGT on my investment in Geodynamics.
“But, I reckon there are votes in lower electricity prices if I can deduct my GreenPower electricity bills –OR– I can buy a Prius for $5,000 less –OR– I don’t have to pay CGT on my investment in Geodynamics.”
I’m a great believer in Keep It Simple, Stupid. A carbon tax would be far simpler. The money gained could then be given back to the public with a minimum of churning via tax cuts and increased welfare benefits. The sticks could then be turned on the major carbon emitters.
I agree with every word of that, but where are the politicians that will actually do it? Its not Rudd. Its certainly not Nelson. The Greens would, but they’re never going to form government.
Its simply not going to happen, especially when the government is so dependent on coal money. How can you possibly take the ETS seriously when government is ploughing money into new coal infrastructure, new coal-fired power stations, new roads and new airports.
They know nothing is going to change.
To help consolidate a globally numerate understanding of C&C as a ‘proportionate response’ to climate change, GCI has put this C&C briefing at this address: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf
What Prof Garnaut correctly calls the *diabolical* challenge of climate change, is that we have to solve it faster than we cause it.
C&C is a science-based way of getting to grips with the scale of the contraction requirement along with a simple rights-based way of internationally sharing the contraction requirement in a non-random manner; see: - http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe
carbonsink
I was discussing with the old man how irrational I thought the share market was being in light of the increased costs they were likely to cop if a dinkum regime came in.
Surely if the market believed it was genuinely going to affect business (esp miners) there would have been a massive downturn in the prices?
Early days Mole early daze. The market will want to see Treasury figures due out soon (delayed) and perhaps waiting for Brendans’s mob to determine a position.
Re measurement of emissions.
Quote from James Connaughton’s White House press briefing on 7 July 2008: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080707-1.html
Quote from Declaration of Leaders’ Meeting of Major Economies, 9 July 2008: http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/doc080709_10_en.html
Talking about the “international perspective” and per capita emissions etc, I wonder if the new global climate change agreement will focus on other important factors, as well as fossil fuel emissions – e.g. the impact of population growth…?
Some quotes from an article on Human Population Growth and Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
7.1 billion people in 2100? That seems rather optimistic considering that by 2050 the “UN Predicts 12 Billion if Family Planning Falters” http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43156
An extra 5 billion would have quite an impact on emissions and other environmental damage…
And yet the current climate change agreement only seems to focus on fossil fuel emissions, and doesn’t properly address the impact of continued population growth.
Given the impact of continued population growth, it is shocking that the “benefits of family planning remain out of reach for many, especially for those who often have the hardest time getting the information and services they need to plan their families.” Apparently, the US is withholding funds for international family planning programs for “domestic political reasons”. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43156
I suggest that if the new climate change agreement continues to ignore the impact of population growth, as did the Kyoto Protocol, it will be a failure. It’s about time consideration of the impact of population growth was put high on the climate change agenda.
Elizabeth, population is a challenge.
On your comment at 21 it must be understood that part of James Connaughton’s job is to give the impression that important work is being done and that progress is made. In fact his highlighting of thing’s that are necessary but nowhere near sufficient is in part an exercise in masking that progress is not being made on the things that really matter.
In fact it may well be worse than that. Quiggin reckons that the US has been working behind the scenes to encourage Indian and Chinese intransigence to ensure that no inconvenient agreements are reached.
Yes, population is a challenge Brian.
On a domestic level, check out this article: Population time bomb ticking on emissions.
Oh well, Nature will sort it all out in her own way in the end… Species come and go, humans are just another blip in the Earth’s long history.
For info, here’s another article on James “I reckon there are about 80 per cent more people than the world can carry” Lovelock’s views.
I rather like this quote from far-sighted, wise old John Stuart Mill (Principles of Political Economy, Book IV, Chapter VI – The Stationary State, published in 1848):