Ross Garnaut has responded to some of the criticism by scientists and environmentalists of the suggested targets in his latest report, with an open letter.
In it, he repeats that he thinks that more aggressive carbon cuts, of the kind required for a 450ppm stabilization target, are desirable. However, he expands on his reasons for doubting that it will be achieved:
With regret, I note that no developed country or group of countries has indicated a willingness to cut emissions by 2020 to the extent implied by the 450ppm target. The European Union comes closest but even its 30 per cent conditional offer (relative to 1990) falls short of the 36 per cent that would be required of it under the 450 agreement (Table 5.4 of the Draft Report). Garnaut Climate Change Review Canada’s target is instructive: its current 2020 commitment would translate, we estimate, to a reduction of 10 per cent over 2000 levels, less than would be required of it in a 550 let alone a 450 world.
In another example, the US Presidential candidate commitments for 2050, if translated into 2020 targets with a starting point of 2012 convert into reduction commitments of around 10-15 per cent over 2000, again consistent with a 550 rather than a 450 agreement. (Similar targets are given or implied by various US climate change bills.)
One issue he hasn’t expanded on, however, is his “convergence target”. Regular LP commenter Peter Wood explains the issue here:
How is it that Australia, as the highest per-capita emitting Annex I country, only needs to reduce emissions in 2020 by 10% for a 550 ppm target, and 25% for a 450 ppm target? Australia’s increasing population only tells part of the story. The main factor, that totally undermines the integrity of these targets, is the time taken in the ‘contraction and convergence’ model until convergence, which is when all countries are allocated the same amount of per-capita emissions, which can be traded.
Garnaut proposes that this time period should be 42 years (until 2050).
How many years’ grace do we really deserve for being big polluters?
A big hat tip to Peter for pointing out the letter in comments.
Garnaut is a realist. He knows we (i.e. humanity) is not going to do anything substantive about this issue until there is a catastrophe.
Canada, of course, is busily mining the Alberta tar sands, and has the fastest growth in emissions in the G8, so any reduction on 2000 levels simply isn’t going to happen:
Just as Australia is hopelessly addicted to coal money, Canada is hopelessly addicted to tar sands money. The oil companies, government, and mine workers are rolling in it.
The big issue at the Canadian federal election (on Oct 14th) is the Liberals proposed carbon tax. Watch them get slaughtered.
Professor Garnaut notes that:
Professor Garnaut is referring to Table 5.2 (p.18). Table 5.2 also states that developing countries could increase their emissions by 85% by 2020. Much of the reduction in developed countries emissions could be achieved by purchasing emission allocations from developing countries. If there was no trading then Garnaut would have reason to be pessimistic.
Higher convergence rates would be likely to lead to more purchases of developing countries permits by developed countries. Higher contraction rates would be likely to lead to more purchases of developing countries permits by developed countries at a higher price. C&C can be thought of as an application of the ‘polluter eventually pays’ principle.
Garnaut: “In my view, early progress towards 550ppm would create new conditions, not evident now….”
hear hear, Professor!
‘from little cuts, bigger cuts (can) grow’
Nice post Robert. My turn to be flippant.
Didn’t a former PM get lambasted for implementing Australian emission policy based on action (or inaction) external to Australia, as well as framing those decisions in some type of perceived economic reality??
All the while claiming Australia was on course to fully meet our Kyoto commitments???
Given our per-capita emissions are top of the heap; is it reasonable to presume that Australian emissions cuts (real or procured) may have to exceed those of other nations if the current government wishes to claim emissions reduction leadership?
Ed: that certain former PM did essentially nothing for a decade, had a ministry full of anti-science ideologues, and sought political cover under the pressure of electoral oblivion. He probably also attempted to use nuclear power as an excuse for inaction too, on the grounds that Australians are more scared of it than global warming.
You’re 100% correct about leadership. The big question is whether you’re prepared to have the debate in per-capita terms, as Garnaut clearly believes we should.
I read the open letter, and I’m not prepared to let Garnaut off the hook. Is his political assessment really required? Isn’t his job to present the economic options and leave the international diplomacy to the Government?
What we really need from Garnaut is a clear presentation of an effective economic response to bring about targets that will achieve the brake on warming indicated as necessary by the science. If he’s going to present options for adopting a range of targets that will achieve various levels of CO2-e concentrations, then let’s have an accompanying statement acknowledged by our political leaders of the impacts each of these options commits us to.
There’s a counter-productive relativism accompanying this process that needs to be continuously tied to the consequent physical impacts for our climate and the global ecology. The impacts comprise the yardstick, not the relative positions of nations. Australia must show leadership.
Darren LH said “I read the open letter, and I’m not prepared to let Garnaut off the hook. Is his political assessment really required?”
Why is Darren (or me, or everyone else on this site) allowed to make a political assessment but Garnaut isn’t?. “Political Assessment” is not synonymous with “Political Assessment I disagree with”.
Robert re: per-capita, I can find no justification for a perspective other than per-capita.
I am reserving judgement on Rudd’s performance vs. that of Howard. I realise it is a herculean task involving multiple, interrelated complexities; but I am trying to keep it simple. My principal metric is Australian emissions (or Australia’s impact on global emissions through – among other things – our export of technology, coal and/or uranium). If my metric was report generation, I might feel different. But that’s all we’ve got so far. I’m also a bit concerned that Garnaut is being positioned as the fall guy as described in a report from the Earthtimes.
Garnaut is perfectly entitled to make his political assessment in the comments to this blog.
Its out of scope for a report to Government on a recommended emissions target. The politics is the government’s prerogative, not Garnaut’s.
The idea that you can somehow quarantine politics completely out of Garnaut’s assessment is a nonsense. The idea that 450ppm (or lower) is better than 550ppm is a judgement call based on Garnaut’s subjective assessment of the not-directly-measurable costs of climate change; perhaps you’d prefer him not to make that call?
Another key point is that a bad global deal is probably a better outcome for Australia and the world than no deal at all. It may be a “political” opinion, but it is a vital point, and a topic on which an economist does have special expertise with which he can opine.
LOL I just came across David Karoly on the corridor at work and he told me that this latter wasn’t ‘open’ at all initially. Was sent to select few ‘critics’ of his policy and someone must have leaked it.
It is to Garnaut’s credit that he is engaging with scientists and the environment movement on this. For most government departments their idea of ‘engaging with stakeholders’ is 1. Business, 2. Business, 3. Business, and 4. Business.
5. Unions 6. Business 7. Small business 8. Business 9. Local councils
Robert said:
I had a think about this after Andrew McK’s comment, and I reflected on whether what I’d said was equivalent to what I’d heard said of scientists urging climate action – that is, that they had exceeded their brief in going beyond presentation of the science to urge action that could readily be said to have a political dimension.
The difference is that scientists are acting directly on the evidence, much as public health physicians are justified in urging public health measures based on the overwhelming evidence that smoking causes cancer.
What I’m saying about Garnaut is that his pronouncements on the likelihood or otherwise of an international agreement go beyond his economic expertise in a way that scientists might exceed theirs if they attempted a full economic analysis of the steps they proposed based on the science. That’s Garnaut’s department.
Garnaut’s advice needs to be clearly calibrated to the likely impacts revealed by the science – on which he need not pronounce, but clearly reference. He also needs to advise on potential economic challenges, including the mechanics of regulatory regimes etc. But the deal-making is not his department. He might be there in the wings with the scientists to field questions where they fall within particular areas of expertise, but the deal is for Rudd and Co. to broker.
Essentially, he would be saying that if the government opted for a target of x% reductions by year y, the accepted science indicates z impacts are likely, and here are the economic measures required and the economic issues that need to be resolved.
He’s done more than that in signalling the likelihood of a poor international outcome, and while I believe his heart is in the right place, he has also let the government off the hook by flagging failure in advance. Rudd has an out. His advice is that it’s fruitless pursuing a strong deal, so let’s have a weak one instead.
I should add here that a strong approach that falls short of fully effective measures might well result in a better deal than that in Garnaut’s ’550 world’ scenario, not rule out the prospect of any deal at all. It doesn’t have to be ‘ideal or no deal’. But if you signal a weak position in advance, where is that likely to get you?
The Rudd Government has to take responsibility for making the deal, or failing to do so, not outsource that to an adviser, as I think might be happening with Garnaut’s advance warning of failure. The ‘heat’ must be on Rudd, and that, too, will augur well for a red-hot effort from our PM.
Finally, it is impossible to quarantine politics from these matters, but I hope what I’ve said here shows why I think Garnaut’s approach has had the wrong emphasis.The heat must be on the Government, or it will be on us.
In the spirit of keeping the head on government; I notice a painfully serial approach to the effort to address Australia’s emissions challenges. I do not understand why those at the helm are not adopting a more parallel approach toward the implementation of actions which will achieve tangible results.
I believe it is a given that Australian emissions must at least level off in the very near future (let alone begin a descent). Is there no low hanging fruit for the picking other than a few million dollars for the deployment some politically palatable renewables as well as geothermal and CCS research?
It would be advantageous to get a jump-start on what I think is an obvious outcome of these reports – cut until it hurts, and then cut some more.
Professor Garnaut’s recent Targets and Trajectories report, and the related “Letter to Scientists and Environmental Groups” does an excellent job framing what I call the “Climate Change Bargaining Problem”. How do we achieve a comprehensive international agreement that leads to a stabilisation target (like 450 ppm or less) which is “good enough”. By “good enough” I mean is likely to avoid dangerous climate change, or more generally optimises some sort of expected cost function.
I don’t think that the Professor’s targets and trajectories suggested in the “Targets and Trajectories” report are the correct solution, but I think that a better solution would be that:
1.We argue for an international agreement based on some form of contraction and convergence.
2.We are flexible with respect to the convergence date, this will require that Australia would be prepared to accept less emission allocations by 2020; the Garnaut Climate Change Review could facilitate this my modelling contraction and convergence for earlier convergence dates.
3.We do not initiate bargaining with a conditional offer based on 550 ppm and instead initiate bargaining with a conditional offer based on 450 ppm, that is flexible with respect to the convergence date.
4.We bind ourselves to a low target by making various promises to third parties that increase the penalty for us if we have to accept a target of 550 or higher, greatly strengthening our bargaining position.
5.We encourage other countries to engage in similar tactics – if a critical mass of countries do this then victory is much more likely.
6.We make use of any bargaining trick that is likely to work, possibly including threats.
The debate triggered here is really interesting. Strategic [for me numerate goal-focused] thinking does come to bear in two ways: -
*
[1] The need to solve the climate problem faster than we cause it and have a measured plan to that end, and
*
[2] as Garnaut says in his latest ['Targets and Trajectories'], “The important thing is that any proposals that do not ‘add up’ to a defined global outcome be quickly rejected.”
*
So any ‘deals’ brokered need to be a function of that coherent strategy as at all levels we will pay an increasingly unearble price for organing too little too late.
*
The structured ‘flexibility’ that Peter argues bears on the questions of how, rather than whether, to use C&C to draw parties together internationally within a coherent and meaningful set of rates.
*
My impression is that Ross Garnaut and his team understand that and speak to that. I see that he and his team are challenged here about the rates he highlights being too permissive and I agree this challenge needs to be made; the danger of too little too late is endemic – see: – http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe
*
But I see with some disappointment that elsewhere Climate Action Network Australia are ticking Garnaut off about C&C use per se: -
http://www.cana.net.au/documents/CANAviews%20on%20SuppGarnautReview_Sept5.pdf
*
Perhaps it is worth raising the challenge to CAN and asking how they demonstrate that it is possible to keep within 450 ppmv, i.e. nearly zero emissions globally by 2050/60 [see animation above and note CANA quote IPCC-AR4 & Martin Parry] while also defending all the distributional assumptions about QELROS setting and yet ensuring that their proposals do ‘add up’ to the strategically defined global i.e 450 ppmv [emissions path integral from now to zero weighed as carbon equals about 350 GTC].
*
Of course it is as Garnaut says ‘a diabolical problem’. My reading of his sense of strategy – as an *economist* and probably like all of us, out of his depth – is that he understands clearly the need to distinguish between ‘diversity’ and ‘disspipation’.
*
I am glad that he brings that understanding to bear on the international negotiations. The analysis brought to bear on him here on this list is constructive and will only strengthen his position.
Aubrey
I’d be interested to see a copy of your presentation, “The Stern report and the economics of genocide” for the Crisis Forum: Climate Change and Violence workshop in November, when/if you make it publicly available.
Sounds a bit grim though…
Does the Crisis Forum discuss the impact of the increasing global population?
Population increase is going to be the main driver of emissions and environmental damage in the future. The UN has warned that the global population could rise to 12 billion by 2050 if family planning is not increased.
Ref: POPULATION: UN Predicts 12 Billion if Family Planning Falters: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43156
That’s heading towards doubling our current population of 6.7 billion. If we’re facing problems now, how can the environment survive the impact of relentless population increase?
While population numbers are fairly stable in the developed world (with the exception of the US where immigration is boosting population numbers – and Australia by the sound of things in the Garnaut report…), they are increasing dramatically in the developing world with the following factors contributing to this growth:
1. Women in developing countries, which often have traditional values which result in the subordination of women, have less opportunity to develop autonomy, including control of their fertility. They also have limited access to education. This must change. In developed countries, where women are closer to achieving gender equality and autonomy, population numbers have stabilised. Some people think this population stabilisation is a matter for concern. I would suggest it is a matter for celebration. All countries should be focused on achieving a sustainable population and should plan their economies and infrastructure accordingly. (I appreciate these are complex issues…but Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill, Paul Ehrlich, Club of Rome, and James Lovelock etc were right.)
2. At least 200 million women still do not have access to a range of effective and affordable family planning services, and demand for these services is expected to increase by 40 per cent in the next 15 years. Meanwhile, funding for family planning has been declining in recent years. Lack of access to family planning results in some 76 million unintended pregnancies every year in the developing world alone. Each year, 19 million abortions are carried out under unsanitary or medically unsound conditions.
3. Due to controversial “population control/coercion” policies in the past, a focus on “reproductive rights” rather than “population control” has evolved. However, we now need a new policy of “reproductive responsibility”.
4. Religions such as Islam and Catholicism are reluctant to endorse contraceptive use. This must change.
5. The religious Right in the US and Australia have impeded family planning funding in developing countries. This must change.
6. Some people / groups are eager to demonise developed countries and punish them for their over-consumption. This is fair enough. But they must not continue to ignore the phenomenal population increase in developing countries which will be the major source of future emissions and environmental damage. Developing countries’ population increase is part of the problem. It’s time to face the facts and get some balance on this issue.
7. Discussion of population numbers has been seen to be “politically incorrect”, a taboo subject, that “dare not speak its name” – but it has to be considered for the environment and for poverty reduction.
All these factors have conspired to produce a problem which could have devastating consequences for the environment, particularly for those developing countries which will suffer the direct consequences of their overpopulation (eg problems due to deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, food shortages, water availability etc, etc).
This problem has been ignored for far too long. It’s time to consider the issue of population increase objectively. It’s way past time actually…
All the points noted above need to be discussed in relation to the next climate change/environment agreement. Otherwise it’s just another waste of time…
(Note: List of references follows in separate post, probably in the “spaminator”.)
Some additional references re my post #18 on population, above:
Participation of Developing Countries in a Climate Change Convention Protocol, Brett Simpson (Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2002)
World population information: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html
World Population Prospects: (pp 5 and 6) http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/English.pdf
World Population Policies 2007: (p 7) http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2007/Publication_introduction.pdf
United Nations Population Fund State of World Population 2005 report: http://www.unfpa.org/
Reproductive Health: A Measure of Equity: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/english/ch4/index.htm
Population momentum and the demand on land and water resources:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1691987&blobtype=pdf
The impact of continued population growth: http://upiasiaonline.com/Economics/2008/08/14/the_impact_of_continued_population_growth/2198/
The shadow that looms over our planet:
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2502target=_blank
Population, Development and Poverty Reduction: http://www.populationandsustainability.org/papers/LSseminar.pdf
U.S. should fund global family planning, care: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080917/OPINION/80916034/1049/OPINION
Rudd ‘picking fight with churches’ on abortion aid ban: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/04/2264270.htm
Foreign aid merely fosters poverty: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21866969-5007146,00.html
Letter from Brian Harradine to the British Medical Journal 1994 Jan 1;308(6920):64. http://www.popline.org/docs/1119/094866.html
Copenhagen ‘most important meeting since WWII’ – Stern: http://www.environmental-finance.com/onlinews/0911cpe.html