Watching Insiders today, I heard lots on the latest Garnaut report. Sadly, there seems little evidence that anybody (notably including Brendan Nelson) has bothered to read it in detail. Nobody seems to have grasped, for instance, that Garnaut is arguing for a fundamentally different type of target allocation – per-capita targets, rather than absolute targets that suit countries with declining populations like most of Europe.
But there’s another point that doesn’t seem to have permeated into Insiders‘ non-random sample of the commentariat (with the exception of Brian Toohey). If you look at the press release, it seems that a 10% cut in absolute emissions by 2020 (a 30% cut per head of population) as part of a global agreement, will cost us less than a 5% cut (25% per capita) without one. What’s going on?
Continue reading ‘Garnaut targets, lesson #2 – international linkage’
There’s been a lot of criticism of the emissions targets suggested in the Garnaut Review’s supplementary modelling report. But there hasn’t been a great deal of explanation as to how he came up with them, which might be useful to make slightly more sophisticated critiques. In that light, here’s my attempt to explain where his targets comes from.
Continue reading ‘Where did Garnaut’s targets come from?’
[Update: {by Kim} Garnaut has recommended a low target - 10% by 2020. Details in the press release here, and the address can be downloaded here. Links to pdfs.]
Ross Garnaut will be at the National Press Club in Canberra today at 12.30pm to release his next report – on Targets and Trajectories.
There’s been a fair degree of speculation around that he will recommend a low target. Bernard Keane wrote in Crikey the other day:
Ross Garnaut’s Supplementary Draft Report to be released on Friday will propose a carbon reduction trajectory based on a 0-15% reduction on 2000 emission levels by 2020, according to sources close to the review. The Report is based on extensive modelling by Treasury and Garnaut’s review team, which has been delayed on several occasions.
Senator Christine Milne at GreensBlog makes the argument that the policy shouldn’t just be seen through the “economic reform” frame, which is squarely where the government has attempted to position it (for a range of reasons – including a previous round of responses to arguments that it lacks a “narrative”). It needs to be recalled that big business is not the only interlocutor in the policy debate, and it was surely significant that a research report from Crosby/Textor of all people released this week suggested that the public wanted to see business make sacrifices to address an urgent issue.
Continue reading ‘Open Garnaut Review Targets and Trajectories thread’
Recent comments
anthony nolan, tigtog, desipis, Gummo Trotsky, zoot, John D [...]
PinkyOz, Jacques de Molay, Pavlov's Cat, joe2, Lefty E, Mark [...]
Nickws, joe2, joe2, Mark, Mark, Ag [...]
David Irving (no relation), Mark, Mark, Pavlov's Cat, Lefty E, joe2 [...]
Guido, pablo, Saint Furious of Ikea, Salient Green, Lefty E, ewe2 [...]
Ginja, Anthony, Terry, Alison, anthony nolan, joe2 [...]
BilB, OldSkeptic, anthony nolan, mitchell porter, Vanessa, Vanessa [...]
Casey, Liam, anthony nolan, pablo, Ute Man, Col. Douglas C. Niedermeyer [...]
Mervyn Langford, OldSkeptic, Frankie V., armagny, sg, Robert Merkel [...]
josh, Gummo Trotsky, Wood Duck, joe2, tssk, joe2 [...]
Fran Barlow, Jacques Chester, John D, HuggyBunny, Chris, Tim Macknay [...]
Renee, Nay with two gorgeous boys, Lefty E, murph the surf., conrad, conrad [...]