Comments on: Where did Garnaut's targets come from?

By: Sacha

Sacha — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:25:37 +0000

Thanks for the summary Robert, it’s interesting to know especially as it’s useful for my work.

Cheers

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:11:57 +0000

Darren: I honestly don’t know.

Certainly, Australia has SFA ability on its own to push for “450 world”.

It would take pretty much a united front from the developed world – and a preparedness to make some possibly unpalatable compromises with China and India – to have any hope of doing better. As a very small example, squeamishness about sending uranium to India would have to go out the window.

Frankly, even assuming an Obama win and solid Democratic majorities in both houses of the US congress, you can count on senators from Virginia (coal) and Michigan (cars, manufacturing) making the passage of any deal through the US Senate exceedingly difficult.

As you might gather, I think, given Australia’s strong interest in the best deal possible, that Australia should aim for “450 world” targets, even if “550 world” is the obligation, to demonstrate that we’re really serious about wanting the rest of the world to go the extra step.

By: Darren Lewin-Hill

Darren Lewin-Hill — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:03:44 +0000

Robert, I think you're being too soft on Garnaut. To lead on this issue, Australia must take a courageous position into the 2009 Copenhagen talks, not a watered-down wait-and-see position that comes nowhere near the CO2 levels scientists such as James Hansen believe are necessary to avert the worst impacts (350ppm). Garnaut himself has previously argued the benefits of early action, and his Friday media release states that 'there would be no point in global action which was not geared at avoiding the substantial climate change impacts'. That's exactly the kind of action he's basically put forward as his pragmatic likely best case - '550 world'. What signal is this sending to the international community, and might not '550 world' become a self-fulfilling prophesy? This would be a pity given the opportunities we have with renewables, not to mention our particular vulnerability to climate change. Meanwhile, the Minerals Council is predicting economic demise even if even the 10 per cent cut by 2020 is adopted.

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 06:18:58 +0000

I don’t know. From a pragmatic point of view, the Chinese and Indians are going to like C&C. The USA probably will too, when considering the alternatives. The only significant ones that won’t are the EU, Japan and Russia (Russia’s population is declining rapidly), because it means that they can’t rely on demographics to do much of the job for them.

Getting the USA and the developing countries (also throw in Indonesia there) on board with a deal is probably going to be a bigger challenge than the EU.

By: pablo

pablo — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 05:51:25 +0000

In qualification, Stern agreed with Garnaut that the targets were appropriate for Australia. But it is still worth asking the question, what will Copenhagen regard as appropriate?

By: pablo

pablo — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:54:04 +0000

What can be said about current negotiations on targets, contraction/convergence and high emitters R & D in relation to 2009 in Copenhagen?
My impression was that Bali 2007 saw agreement on the need for 30% reduction by 2020 with some of the Europeans prepared to go for 40%. Do we have any way of knowing what positions will be adopted leading up to Copenhagen?
Garnaut said he had had a positive response from Stern for his targets. Does that mean the Europeans will be potentially accepting of Garnaut’s realpolitic (10%) figure?

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:48:38 +0000

PeterC: I don’t think you’ve been entirely fair to Garnaut either. He’s taken a fairly conservative line on the science, but the review has made it abundantly clear that even on the basis on that conservative line the world is headed for disaster – even at 550ppm – and we’d better do something about it.

By: Spiros

Spiros — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:36:08 +0000

Garnat is right. The most important thing to do now is to get the framework and institutions in place for cutting emissions. That is the really difficult part. Once they are in place, they are there forever and the targets can be ramped up as needed. But if you go into international negotiations with high targets, nothing will be agreed on the framework and we’ll be stuck where we are now.

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:48:49 +0000

PeterC: Garnaut’s view is, essentially, we can’t reach an international agreement that will save the Murray and the reef in the current round of negotiations.

The only hope is that we get an inadequate agreement now – but at least get the principle and the machinery of cutting emissions going – and down the track sign something that will do the job.

Much and all as I hate to concede the Tories anything, they’re quite right when they say that what Australia does on its own is largely irrelevant in terms of its direct effect on climate. It’s only relevant in the context of what effect is has on the chances of a global deal.

By: Peterc

Peterc — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:39:07 +0000

I thought Garnaut was primarily taking an economic view on targets, along with some advice from scientists. It appears the weak reduction targets he recommends have been sized with politics (both locally and internationally) as a primary consideration.

Unfortunately, this is ignoring the latest science which puts us in the midst of a climate crisis. Business as usual politics should not constrain our actions on addressing climate change. Garnaut’s targets will write off the Great Barrier Reef and most likely snow in Australia. And he is silent on the opportunity to reduce our emissions by 15% by immediately protecting forests from logging.

Economists and politicians between them are putting on us firmly on the eve of destruction. When the reality of the magnitude of the problems finally bite they may just get it, but will it be too late by then? We are already facing catastrophe in the entire Murray Darling basin.