International climate change policy after Copenhagen
February 18th, 2010 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in International, Media, Politics, Polls | 43 Comments
Last night on Lateline, Ross Garnaut pointed out to an apparently taken aback Tony Jones that 57% support for the ETS – as a major reform – was actually extremely impressive. Today in New Matilda, Ben Eltham rightly says that “the Government is not in nearly as much trouble as many believe. It leads in the polls on nearly every issue that matters, including preferred prime minister.”
The clear implication is that this isn’t the impression people would form if they went by the coverage and commentary in the Australian media.
Similarly, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Copenhagen spelt doom for any concerted international action on climate change (despite the fact that the Coalition’s policy is still tied into setting emissions targets, no matter how ineffectual it would be; and that it also provides Liberal moderates some leverage if the Abbott truck hits an electoral blackspot). There’s been nary a word published about the targets that states agreed to submit post-Copenhagen. It’s as if the event’s only significance was its ramifications for Australian domestic politics.
The Economist links to The Sustainability Institute’s interactive Climate Score Card, which enables a picture to be drawn of the probable impacts on average temperature of the various nations’ commitments. The paper also points out that:
countries can express their intentions in different ways, and that many have provided two or more levels of commitment: a low one that they say they will pursue regardless, and one or more higher ones that they will try for if enough other countries are also going high.
For those whose horizon is wider than the prism of the Australian partisan debate, the whole thing, as they say, is worth reading.
Yes, Garnaut was on Radio National this morning. Fran Kelly introduced him as the governments’ “Science Czar”, borrowing from Fox News parlance.
Once again I say this is editorialising, as opposed to vague notions of “bias”.
Professor Garnaut is not the government’s anything. “He is Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow and Professorial Fellow in Economics at The University of Melbourne.” Although I think that’s grammatically incorrect.
Indeed. He was commissioned to write a report for the Government. Presumably the terms under which he was remunerated were via consultancy. He’s not an ‘advisor’ or ‘czar’.
And he makes zero claims to be a scientist (apart from the general bullshit claim that the economics profession makes to being a science).
Gawd Fran Kelly is disappointing these days.
One thing the Monckton debacle demonstrated was that the Media has absolutely no idea when it comes to working out the specifics of anyone’s credentials.
The main positive associated with the Copenhagen Accord is its coverage: The Copenhagen Accord includes mitigation commitments and actions from countries responsible for at least 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which compares favourably with the Kyoto Protocol, which covers countries responsible for less that 30 percent of global emissions.
@Peter, I thought the point made in the Economist piece, as well as the one about Kyoto, that it does make states buy in to some degree to prevent backtracking while negotiations continue was also an important one.
wilful @ 4:
I’ll second that.
Spot on Mark – the neglect of international developments – and especially the EU 20% cuts on 1990 (using an ETS style system to boot) has been especially hopeless, even for our generally lamentable press. Ozmedia FAIL.
Try to focus on this for a second ozmedia: The EU is the largest. economy. in. the. world. Get it?
And oh yes, bad old Indonesia doesnt just send refugees, you know – they’ve stumped up 28% cuts or so.
All that said: is it just me, or has Rudd been letting things slide lately?
When its on a good length, Rudd, you want to get on the front foot, son.
The Professorial Fellow was quoted today as saying any non-market carbon reduction scheme was “delusional” [looking at you, Tone!]
Ambigulous @9, the trouble with arguing that market forces are the answer, is that we have a very recent and very profound example of how they don’t work.
And the economists weren’t all out there in front warning us of impending trouble in their beloved markets. Up to and including the erstwhile revered Greenspan. So their words of wisdom are somewhat in doubt now.
And it is worth noting that Fran Kelly started her questioning of Garnaut this morning on teh ABC by stating that support for climate change action has collapsed, to which Garnaut responded that 57% polling support was very respectable for a public policy shift of this magnitude, much better than any polling support ever recorded for Howard’s GST for example.
Clearly Fran Kelly was not briefed on Garnaut’s appearance on ABC Lateline last night, when Tony Jones was similarly contradicted by his better informed guest.
The ABC really has to lift its game, this is a joke.
There are markets and then there are markets, Elise.
The CPRS ETS is only a market in name. Fortunately. It should be tightly run by government.
wbb @12: “It should be tightly run by government.”
Would that be run by government according to political expediency, proximity of elections, marginal seats, lobbyist activities, etc? ;)
Thats right Grace – any questions of bias and balance aside, thats just plain incompetent background research.
Elise
I don’t think the Professorial Fellow argues markets are perfect; just more efficient and more likely to guide us towards a low-carbon future more swiftly.
That may sound like a purely metaphysical, faith-based viewpoint to you. But I’m confident he has some empirical backing.
On a tiny scale, I could say that “market forces” (the prices of equipment and running costs) led us to install domestic solar hot water. Others could call it “hip-pocket nerve” or “commonsense” or “preparing for an expensive-electricity future”.
In that case, it wasn’t a ‘pure’ market, because heavy subsidies were paid out. But the economic justification of the subsidies may well have involved “market/budget projections” by State and Federal Govts.
Nothing’s ever that simple, really.
grace, it’s as though the ABC is begging the government to dispose of it on the grounds of irrelevance.
Honestly, it’s like an old friend that you really used to be close to but over the years you or they or something has changed. Now you can’t stand the sight or sound of them.
A purists version of ETS would lead to even more unproductive price increases than the CPRS.
What I am waiting for is a ETS supporter to come up with some examples that show that ETS will give lower price increases than an appropriate form of direct action. Garnaut style waffle about the sacredness of markets doesn’t count.
Ambigulous @15, I’m afraid that I see it similarly to JohnD @17.
As you say: “That may sound like a purely metaphysical, faith-based viewpoint…”
Yep! Along with the metaphysical, faith-based rot about EMH (Efficient Market Hypothesis) and Efficient Frontiers and Portfolio Theory.
Its not that I doubt economics has a lot to offer.
Its just that they do not take enough account of irrational human behaviour. And they make a porridge of risk and volatility, using one as a proxy for the other in developing the theories. These are fundamental items for market behaviour, but they aren’t synonymous, except for short term traders and speculators.
“Nothing’s ever that simple, really.” Yep!!!
I think Rudd has used the word ‘global’ so many times since he has been PM that Australians are beginning to wonder which country he is the leader of. Rudd just seems to love the adventure of global jetsetting and portraying the illusion that he’s the ‘Big Chief’ of the world when in fact he’s creating more problems than were ever there to begin with. He declares war on everything he can’t control and he just labels anyone who outwits him on any issue as he lacks the skill and intelligence to have a gutsy debate. He has perfected the art of runnng from challenges and whimping out of a debate. He has lost all interest in domestic affairs and dons the hard hat simply for photo opportunities. He is incapable of accepting criticism when the opposition takes it on the chin every time and with a smile on their face. He’s a bad sport. He’s the John Macenroe of Australian politics but who lacks the skill of the sport.
“What I am waiting for is a ETS supporter to come up with some examples that show that ETS will give lower price increases than an appropriate form of direct action.”
How about you do some reading for yourself JohnD? Familiarise yourself with the literature?
The reasons why emissions trading (or a carbon tax) delivers lower cost abatement than direct action is that it dosn’t require the central planner to know in advance what the short and long run abatement cost curve looks like. Direct action can be extremely costly in the presence of uncertainty and has no internal mechanism to ensure that abatement occurs at least cost and that society isn’t locked into the wrong technologies.
Seriously, on every post you repeat the mantra that appropriate direct action can be cheaper than an ETS. What evidence do you have to support that proposition? How should we choose between the myriad direct action options? How can you know which low emission technologies will experience the most rapid cost declines over time? How can you know for which firms/sectors abatement costs are lower and hence where most abatement should occur?
I’d suggest you at least show some evidence that you understand markets before you criticise them.
“Direct action” will probably be cheaper but only because it wont achieve much.
Tonne for tonne of CO2 abatement – it’ll far more expensive, especially for govts & taxpayers.
Thats not to say the CPRS is cheap, or without its own problems. But wholesale reduction wont come from an Ekka bag of selective one-off subsidies. The policy is a joke.
The one bit of direct (regulative) action we need most is to tell the coal industry that time’s up. We have a policy for better or worse that we won’t build nukes. We should have a policy that we won’t build any more coal-fired power stations.
Then we need a policy on phasing out existing coal.
Instead we have manipulated (or Rudd’s mob have) the design of a market to let coal survive for at least 20 years.
adrian @16 and others. I’m pleased to see I’m not alone in being horrified at Fran Kelly 2010. Whatever the Oz punditocracy line of the day is, Fran gives it a good uncritical run. The bizarre beatup about solar cell installations was lapped up and Fran kept banging on about it in her morning borefest with Michelle Grattan. What’s going on here – is Fran perhaps setting herself up for a spot on Fox News, or maybe an arm of the Murdoch empire closer to home?
The thing about examples of an ETS being cheaper in the long run is that an ETS affects the entire economy, you can’t readily predict this versus that. Whereas with picking winners, you can easily identify that taxes will be raised (or services lost) across the board, because of subsidies to (for example) inefficient and expensive solar powered plants.
Er Brian, coal is Australia’s biggest export earner. When Clive Palmer said he had a $60 billion coal deal with China last week, Anna Bligh couldn’t wait to announce the glorious economic sunshine ahead for Queensland.
Australia won’t be shutting down the coal industry. Ever.
Addendum to @18: “Its not that I doubt economics has a lot to offer.” Should also read “As has finance.”
Carbonsink @25: “Australia won’t be shutting down the coal industry. Ever.”
Maybe that should read “Australia won’t be shutting down the coal industry. Until demand declines, prices collapse and the mines go broke.”
How so? Because the rest of the world has progressively moved to cleaner fuels over the next couple of decades, reducing the demand for coal.
Meanwhile we will have rested on our coal laurels, and developed no Plan B other than fairytales about CCS, and taxpayer support for handouts (via CPRS) to keep trade exposed export industries going.
Thankyou Rudd/Wong for your far-sighted plans, which will keep Australia at the head, err make that the back of the pack. :(
I’d like to add my name to the chorus of people here complaining about Ms kelly’s utter witlessness. It goes beyong being lazy. Her on-air oeuvre plays like someone who really isn’t interested in her subject matter at all and is happy for the guests to say what they like, as long as they agree with the latest tabloid slogan.
I don’t like Conroy, but she and here bimbo friend Grattan, seemed unable to work out that the networks were giving up spectrum – a valuable and merchantable asset — and that as a general rule, one doesn’t acquire assets except on just terms. Auctioning that spectrum will probably be worth a lot more than 250 million dollars.
She also missed the point that being required to do Australian content dfoesn’t affect what content you provide. Producing sport and big brother and cooking shows is Aussie content, but it’s cheap as chips. If you require people to produce content they will tend to produce what is cheapest. That’s a given. Prejudice their cost model and that’s damn near certain. As Conroy pointed out, IPTV won’t have to have any Aussie content.
Much as I hate to repeat myself, Fran Kelly is merely a symptom of a greater malaise at the ABC, which extends to just about every corner of their news and current affairs division.
For example, Deborah Cameron on Sydney mornings gives the impression of someone who joyfully parrots the latest press gallery/coalition talking points with as little critical thought as possible, same as Fran Kelly.
And now we have them uncritically trumpeting Abbott’s latest bizarre statement complete with the obligatory beach picture. Most of us remember the confected furore that arose when Rudd made an innocuous comment involving a sauce bottle. I particularly remember Cameron and Alison Carabine discussing this for five minutes one morning with the usual snide insinuations.
No doubt Abbott claiming he’s a potential murderer will continue to be interpreted in a positive light.
carbonsink @ 25, @ 22 I was talking about the coal power industry. That should have been obvious from the context of the first paragraph rather than cherry-picking the first sentence.
But as Elise @ 26 says, we need a policies that get us away from our dependency on export coal also, especially in Queensland, as Clive Palmer opens a whole new coal basin, (Galilee), creating according to him 70,000 new jobs and ‘rescuing’ the Qld economy.
hmmm, so 57% of people support Rudd/Wong’s ETS, yet I’ve seen research (qualitative) where virtually no-one’s been able to explain it, even in concept, let alone execution.
So 57%, well, 56% of people are very trusting souls?
ww
ps
I agree about Frank Elly. She’s lost her bite, rolls over and wants her tummy patted. Not even worth a bottom sniff these days.
Woof, I doubt that a focus group on the Fair Work Australia Act, for instance, would find that most people are across the detail. The general parameters of policy, its resonances, what people think it will do, what it’s not – all those things tend to coalesce into public support or opposition rather than the detail, or even the exact concept.
There is a peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in July 2009 accessible here:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
Professor Robert Carter comments on the study as follows:
“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.
Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation..”
http://tinyurl.com/mezelc
No scientist asserts that there is any scientific basis established for any role of human emissions in global warming. There is not one scientist, who backs anything but “what if “ suppositions about AGW.
The “very likely” guess of the IPCC, in relation to AGW, must not only be discounted for having no scientific basis, but totally relinquished, on the basis of this study, which accounts for the warming which the IPCC had initially hoped could be attributed to human emissions, to back up its unsupported assertion of “very likely”.
The IPCC seem remarkably reluctant to acknowledge that there never was any basis for their scare campaign, aimed at defrauding western economies.
Regards.
Jock Lenehan
Jock @32: “The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature…”
Errm, Jock, would you care to explain how ENSO, which is a cyclical phenomenon, explains a continual increasing trend in global temperature?
If the two were joined at the hip, so to say, then global temperature would be cyclical too, wouldn’t it?
Or do you have some special explanation that ENSO is a form of spring-wind-up system? And the end-game is…??? ;)
Labor outsider@20: Power generation and the fuel consumption of cars account for over 50% of our emissions. Equally to the point, there are commercially available technologies being used right now to reduce both of these emissions by over 90%. So it is not unreasonable to suggest that, if there really is a case for ETS or carbon taxes (vs direct action) you or some of your fellow travelers could manage to produce some supporting estimates?
I have taken the effort to compare the effectiveness of ETS, carbon taxes and versions of direct action on a number of occasions including guest posts at LP and a more details in this submission to the senate climate committee
Maybe someone has got some hard figures that will be prove me wrong but when you say:
the engineer in me sees this as waffle. Keep in mind that ETS will spur investments based on current perceptions of the best technologies and relative costs.
An example with figures would be nice.
Elise@33
I was quoting Professor Carter, who gives ENSO as one of three factors.
He is one of three scientists who produced this study.
Your query does not make sense to me, and I suspect it is because you have not read my post properly.
I have given the web address of the peer reviewed paper, which may clarify it for you, if you first achieve comprehension of my post, which is much simpler than the study.
Jock, I’ve googled around a bit. That is a particularly smelly pile you’ve left here which I thought was buried long ago by the people who attend to these things. The shorter story is that they’ve found no trend because they used a statistical device that took the trend out of play. No kidding. That’s what they did!
Just think about it for a minute.
Their focus seems to be on the period from mid-20C on (see their Figure 7.)
Last time I looked we were living and growing our food on the surface of the planet. Why have these guys taken tropospheric temperature, where, I understand, you don’t have decent global data before the satellite record? Before 1980 it depended on a few sites around the world sending up balloons. But I’ve seen no discussion as to why we are talking about tropospheric temperature.
In the real world you have graphs like this, which show real warming in the last half century. From your post Carter says:
I’ve shown you temperature going up, now here’s a multivariate index of ENSO. There is a change from the mid 1970s, but why are we now in the present decade getting La Nina years that are warmer than all previous El Ninos? But according to your second link that’s supposed to be 80% of the story. It doesn’t make sense.
Major volcanic activity can affect global temperatures, but the effect, which is in any case a cooling one, washes out after a few years. Again a contribution from that quarter to the long term trend doesn’t make sense.
With solar you get this sort of pattern. I can’t see that explaining why your current La Ninas are warmer than your 1980s El Ninos. There must be something else going on, surely. Monckton reckons it’s the clouds, affected by cosmic rays, doesn’t he?
I’m aware that in your second link the authors respond to their critics. But their critics include people who have unquestioned expertise in statistical method, while the authors seemed to rely on the help of some other geezer.
So I’m going with the critics – and common sense.
Finally here’s a graph where the 11-year running mean washes out most of the ENSO and sunspot noise. Then there’s this one where Tamino at Open Mind removed the effect of ENSO and the aerosol effect of volcanoes entirely.
See this recent post (Figures 6 and 7) for the links to the articles.
That’s just what I think. I’m working on a post that will give you links to the experts who common sense tells me have a better grip on the issue than your blokes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, RBA assisant governor says: Invest in Coal!
The RBA is spelling it out: Australia will benefit enormously from continued growth in global carbon emissions. Australia will (and should?) invest in coal, and it will deliver us very high rates of return.
Shorter version: We profit from climate change.
Carbonsink @37: “Shorter version: We profit from climate change.”
A bit like Holland (erm, mainly Shell) benefitting enormously from Shell selling large quantities of crude and refined oil?
The proceeds would presumably fund millions of extra sandbags for the dykes, extra millions of tonnes of concrete reinforcement, and extra pumps to pump out the significantly increased area below sea level?
Wot? You mean those mean execs of Shell aren’t planning to put aside a significant amount of their ill-gotten, for helping the Dutch citizens deal with subsequent inundation?!!
JohnD @34, maybe one way to promote business efforts to adapt is a combination of carrot and stick? Why not have corporate rebates, or tax concessions (eg by accelerated depreciation), for companies that are implementing significant improvements in emissions, similar to the R&D support schemes?
The money would come from carbon taxes. The scheme could be then handled by the tax department, rather than creating a whole new bureaucrasy?
Similarly, they could have a TAX on carbon content of fuels, assessed at point of sale to consumers, also largely handled by the tax department.
Rebates to households could have a similar thrust to the corporate scheme, in the form of Green Rebates for significant household investments in emission reduction.
The scheme is thus both stick and carrot, and based on measurable actions.
The current ETS and CPRS seem to be inefficiently applying the stick, hoping for non-specific “change”, with freebie handouts to households and those companies with clever and well-connected lobbyists.
Elise @ 38: Yes, perhaps Clive Palmer can fund a few projects in the Murray-Darling or Great Barrier Reef.
But all jokes aside, am I the only one who is horrified that our central banking is anticipating a coal-exports bonanza ahead for Australia? Clearly the authorities do not take seriously the prospect of a carbon-constrained future.
Carbonsink @40: “Clearly the authorities do not take seriously the prospect of a carbon-constrained future.”
I reckon it takes a lot of negative evidence for people to change direction.
Think of those clever execs in the US car industry, and their long-term strategic direction – bigger is better, right? They plowed right on into the brick wall, before they got the idea into their thick skulls that conditions had changed.
There are heaps of other examples, without even thinking hard about it.
Even extremely clever people are remarkably bad at looking for the implications of changes on the horizon. They are incredibly wedded to what worked for them in the past, and what is working right now.
Anything which is a non-linear, rapid change &/or which has a tipping point, is poorly managed by most people. “Intuition”, past experience, and “evidence-based” decisions all fail us in these circumstances.
But Elise we are being lied to in such a blatant and obvious manner! The RBA and Treasury are across all the issues — they know the implications of climate change — but they have one group of boffins modelling the CPRS (and tearing shreds of Abbott’s policy) while another group of boffins models a resources boom and massive surge in coal exports.
Its so unbelievably two-faced.
The skeptic attack is a double edged attack: Firstly there is the attack that queries the science that says we must act. Secondly, there is the scare campaign that says that climate action will destroy the world as we know it. Dealing with the science attack is difficult because the arguments are inherently complex.
Dealing with the scare campaign is difficult at the moment because CPRS is too complicated to explain easily and really does contain economy disturbing price shocks. Carbon taxes simplify the argument, particularly if the tax is sold as a replacement tax. (For example, something easy to explain like replacing the GST with a carbon tax.) However, the impact on some carbon intensive industries could be enough to put them out of business unless the simple system is complicated by some form of protection for these vulnerable industries.
I am a bit skeptical about rewarding companies for green action. The companies i have worked for have been acting. Partly because it cuts costs and partly because it improves the image. I am not sure that there a lot of potential actions out there that will suddenly become viable in response to small incentives.
Which is all a complicated way of saying that a simple direct action plan is easy to explain and limits the what effect will this have questions. This is particularly true if we are talking about action that makes sense in terms of future oil shocks rather than reducing emissions as such.