The big question mark over this is that date, 2050. There’s no particular reason to use 2050, and putting the convergence point 40-odd years into the future is particularly advantageous to Australia. Developing countries may well argue the convergence point should be a fair bit closer to the present.

You may be interested in what higher convergence rates imply for Australia’s 2020 target. I did a submission to the Green Paper on this today and I came up with a ballpark estimate of 8-10% deeper targets for 2040 convergence compared to 2050 convergence, and 12-17% deeper targets for 2030 convergence compared to 2040 convergence. If one uses Garnaut’s per-capita targets, then Garnaut’s emission reduction targets are on the low (ie. weaker) side of the range obtained from the latest ABS population projections for Australia.

As to your example, if our jet-setting 4WD-driver buys a surplus of permits – and the forest does remain untouched, a huge concern – the net result is a win for the environment. Isn’t it?

Depends upon your metrics. If its something which has been done vs what would have been done then yes its a net win. But is it the best thing to do ? Is that what needs doing ?

I feel that companies will choose the least cost option, to meet the legislated requirements. “funny that” I hear you all say. Spending a smaller amount to avoid a fine and leave future obligations to the future.

On the longer term, If the paying for the forest delays R&D into stuff which we’ll eventually need, then no its not that much of a net win.

What i dont quite like about the ETS is that there is a big section of “Magic happens here”. Dont just have an ETS, put out heaps of R&D money, make sure to add zero emission generation to the grid and make sure it will work by running simulations of likely future grid makeups.

Have the NRET so that we dont just achieve least cost abatement by turning off around 60% of the power stations etc (well that’s a valid way to achieve a 60% reduction isnt it?).

Things like methane from ruminant animals, soil carbon, and so on, seem ripe for figure-fudging and consequent rorting.

I’m not sure anyone really needed to have what you said explained. Your vicelike grasp of two or three historical incidents is not in question – the coherence of these into some kind of message relevant to the topic of the thread is.

If what you want to say is “kill yourselves to reduce population and that will solve global warming”, then come right out and say it. Tulip bubbles and Rupert Brooke are of, at best, tangential relevance.

His hope is that when the world realizes a) how serious the downside of climate change is, and b) that mitigation isn’t nearly as hard as it’s been made out, that the world will be prepared to do a lot more of it.

I agree that 450ppm and 2050 are not really going to help much. Is Garnaut right in assuming we can increase our commitments later? I’d think that it’d be better to go hard at first, get the large changes (and screams from big polluters) out of the way and then fiddle with the small details later. Then again, I’m the kind of person who rips off band-aids instead of peeling them off slowly

2 – ‘The Great South Sea Bubble’ – invest in the age of discovery and take a share in the possibility of exploiting new and exotic lands – where as it turned out was nothing much but water.

A by-blow was KorvettenKapitan Cook coming later to OZ – but by then the bubble had burst and much money was fritted away.
Clearly Django relates that to what he sees as an emerging ‘Carbon Bubble’ that once much money has been ‘invested’ and diverted – will cause galloping inflation and then – ‘pop’again.

It is clear he means that very few people have thought the trading of carbon through and related the topic to past incidents.

Further he speaks of certain ideas the elitists quietly put about about drastically reducing the population burden on the planet. He suggests that wars managed that in past generations and his – “‘Carbon Sink’ in some foreign field?” – paraphrases the death of a British soldier on overseas service – “some small part of a foreign field shall forever be England” – or something like that.
“Seppuku” – ritual suicide.
Might just be, Nick, that Django knows his history and expects others to use their imagination, read some history, or go ‘Google’ if they cannot understand.
Gruss Gott -
Knopke