Tag Archive for 'Garnaut Review'

Throw another roo steak on the barbie

Published
by
Robert Merkel
1 year, 5 months ago
in Australiana, Climate change and Environment
. 156 Comments

One of the new elements in the Garnaut Review’s final report is an analysis of “Transforming rural land use” in chapter 22. It’s a tour of some of the ways in which agricultural and forestry practices might change to increase the amount of carbon sequestered in our forests, woodlands, and our soil. It’s one of the most positive chapters in the entire report; changing the way Australia uses its land offers some enormous opportunities to absorb carbon at relatively low cost.

There’s a lot of possibilities in there; I’ll just pick one. As our vegetarian friends regularly remind us – Andrew Bartlett has pointed the issue out again – one of Australia’s biggest contributors to our greenhouse emissions is the methane-laden burping of our cattle and sheep. One solution would be to join Bartlett and make a mass switch to vegetarianism, or at the very least eat less meat. Or figure out how to stop ruminants producing methane, which is a nice idea but has proved to be rather difficult in practice (and may well involve genetic engineering). Alternatively, we could switch to pork or chicken, the production of which releases far less CO2. But for the truly committed carnivore, nothing replaces the taste of a nice red steak. So, if we can’t stop cows burping, farting, and poohing methane, what do we do?

Continue reading ‘Throw another roo steak on the barbie’

Emissions vs. Allocations

Published
by
Robert Merkel
1 year, 5 months ago
in Climate change, Energy and Environment
. 20 Comments

figure_23point6.gif

Australia’s total greenhouse emissions, assuming a 450ppm target and “backstop technology”. Source: Garnaut Review Final Report, Figure 23.6

Continue reading ‘Emissions vs. Allocations’

Open Garnaut Review report thread

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 5 months ago
in Climate change, Economics, Energy, Environment, International and Markets
. 63 Comments

It’s out today. LP bloggers will have more during the day as it’s digested, but here’s an open thread for instant analysis and commentary. Please also feel free to link in comments to other posts or articles.

By way of preview, a number of climate scientists have released an open letter to Kevin Rudd (text here):

The Garnaut Review concluded that an emission reduction target for Australia of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 would be an equitable contribution to the international effort required to achieving this outcome. As a group of Australia’s leading climate change scientists, we urge you to adopt this target as the minimum requirement for Australia’s contribution to an effective global climate agreement.

In Crikey yesterday, Bernard Keane contrasted the apocalyptic prophesies of doom emanating from business with the rather lame reality of the government’s proposals to date.

Nightmare stuff. Imagine how bad it would be the Government had actually proposed a serious effort to reduce our carbon emissions?

As Keane notes in another article, the release of the Treasury modelling today:

should provide a welcome corrective to much of the hysteria generated by modelling commissioned by rentseeking industry groups.

Keane also observes that Garnaut will be talking about adaptation strategies and costs in this report as well.

Note: Related post from dk.au on public opinion, polls and climate change.

Update: The report has now been released and can be downloaded from here.

Update: From Crikey, Bernard Keane on Garnaut at a glance and Clive Hamilton on politics trumping science.

Elsewhere [dk.au]: Barry Brooks is also running an open thread at his blog Climate Dilemma [ht: Peter Wood in comments]

Joshua Gans comments on Chapter 14 (TEEIIs) which he argues is “dramatically superior” to the Green Paper solution of free permits. He also renews his call for border adjustment taxes:

In my opinion, it would be better to bite the bullet and, at least for imports, assess the carbon cost of those imports and tax them. This will get the price signals right and also put pressure on trading partners to put in their own emissions trading schemes so as to avoid that tax.

Climate change and electoral politics

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 6 months ago
in Climate change, Federal Elections, Industrial Relations, Polls and Sociology
. 18 Comments

There’s lots more interesting stuff in this report at Australian Policy Online about two exit polls taken at the time of the 2007 federal election (and the AES), but this might be a relevant thing for Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and the ALP to remember in the context of the emissions trading scheme and international negotiations on climate change response:

Industrial relations and global warming were key issues for the Labor voters who took part in all three polls, with two of the polls revealing that global warming was the prime concern among voters who changed their vote between the 2004 and 2007 elections.

Garnaut responds (in part)

Published
by
Robert Merkel
1 year, 6 months ago
in Climate change and Economics
. 19 Comments

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.)

Continue reading ‘Garnaut responds (in part)’

How much to go further?

Published
by
Robert Merkel
1 year, 6 months ago
in Climate change, Economics and International
. 16 Comments

The latest round of critiques of the Garnaut report have emerged, this time from some of Australia’s best-known climate scientists. They all argue that Garnaut should be telling the Australian government to push for a more aggressive global deal, rather than passively accepting a weak deal. While it’s hard to be sure in the context of a short media report, they would also seem supportive of the idea of Australia unilaterally going further even if there is only a weak deal.

Given that, I thought I’d look at one possible scenario; where the 550ppm global deal is signed, but Australia unilaterally goes for a target proportional with its responsibilities under a 450ppm deal. How much would that cost Australia?

Continue reading ‘How much to go further?’

Garnaut targets, lesson #2 – international linkage

Published
by
Robert Merkel
1 year, 6 months ago
in Climate change, Economics, Markets and Trade
. 22 Comments

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’

Where did Garnaut’s targets come from?

Published
by
Robert Merkel
1 year, 6 months ago
in Climate change, Economics, Environment, International and Markets
. 14 Comments

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?’

Open Garnaut Review Targets and Trajectories thread

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 6 months ago
in Climate change, Economics, Energy and Environment
. 45 Comments

[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’

Liberal lunacy II

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 8 months ago
in Climate change, Energy, Environment, Howardia, Markets and Media
. 58 Comments

Brendan Nelson’s office is denying reports – discussed on an earlier post – that he will be having a “showdown” with Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt over the Coalition’s stance on emissions trading.

Some were reporting yesterday that Nelson would next week “take on” Malcolm Turnbull over climate change. His office claims that is “nonsense” and, given his tenuous hold on the leadership, it does seem unlikely he would be seeking a showdown with anyone. But he and Turnbull are “consulting”, which suggests he is trying to inch the party as far as he can towards a more sceptical line, in a bid to keep everyone happy.

However, Nelson is apparently “negotiating” with Turnbull to “harden” the Coalition’s position, and in an attempt to keep the denialists in his ranks happy, came out with this gem:

Now Nelson’s rhetoric is sounding more sceptical again. “I see there is an emerging body of scientific opinion which questions the role of carbon in all of this, but I’m strongly of the view that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt,” he said yesterday.

Sure, scientists differ about the degree and speed of global warming, but if it is not caused by carbon, why on earth are we contemplating support for an emissions trading scheme at all?

Quite. And that difference is between more catastrophic and slightly less catastrophic outlooks. Continue reading ‘Liberal lunacy II’

Liberal lunacy

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 8 months ago
in Climate change, Energy, Environment, Markets and Media
. 47 Comments

Tim Watts has posted at Tree of Knowledge on Andrew Bolt’s claim that the forces of the hardline right in the Liberal Party are planning to monster Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt and push for an oppositional stance to the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme. Brendan Nelson’s latest confused comments about delaying the ETS might be some confirmation of this, but on the other hand Nelson’s line on climate change is a moveable feast at the best of times, and Turnbull was singing from the same song sheet today. Watts is no doubt right that such a stance would be political stupidity on the part of the opposition, but it’s just as likely that the story represents wishful thinking on Bolt’s part, obsessed as he is with climate change denialism. However, nutty calls from the Nats for a Royal Commission to examine the science certainly do highlight the continuing divisions within the Coalition.

Continue reading ‘Liberal lunacy’

Garnaut – the international perspective

Published
by
Robert Merkel
1 year, 8 months ago
in Climate change, Developing world, Economics and Environment
. 24 Comments

The government’s green paper on the ETS postpones discussion on actual emissions targets, and says nothing about the government’s negotiating position on a post-Kyoto agreement. While Garnaut’s draft report has similarly postponed discussion of domestic targets, he does have a fair bit to say about how targets might be allocated amongst nations in such an agreement, and how those targets might be structured in a way that actually drags the the big developing countries in.

According to Chapter 12, the world has essentially decided on a path where each participating nation will have targets allocated to it. Nations unable to meet their target will be able to buy permits from nations that go under theirs. But the key question is, of course, how these targets should be set, whether all nations should face the same form of targets, and what form of carrots and sticks would apply to encourage countries to meet the targets.

Continue reading ‘Garnaut – the international perspective’

ETS or business welfare?

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 8 months ago
in Climate change, Economics, Energy and Environment
. 32 Comments

Peter Martin has an excellent column today pointing out what’s wrong with the dollops of dollars which are to be handed out to polluters under the Rudd government’s “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.

Australia’s existing coal-fired power stations won’t need the compensation anyway. They will be able to pass on the extra cost of the emission permits. They will be encouraged to. It is how the scheme is meant to work.

Eventually the higher price of power will prod some of us to use less of it, and eventually wind and commercial solar power generators will become competitive against coal because they won’t to buy emission permits.

Martin effortlessly and elegantly skewers the arguments for compensation.

He also refers to the GST. It’s interesting that this whole exercise has been framed as “economic reform” and compared so often to the GST. It would seem that it’s that template and that framing which has given overt permission for a rent-seekers’ paradise, and as Martin argues, has created the extraordinary situation where the profits of pollution are essentially being treated as property rights.

Continue reading ‘ETS or business welfare?’

He’s from Queensland and he’s here to help cave in before the debate starts

Published
by
Mark
1 year, 8 months ago
in Climate change, Economics, Energy, Environment, Markets and Polls
. Closed

This was my response to the argument that Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme Green Paper was a fine piece of pragmatic politics: Continue reading ‘He’s from Queensland and he’s here to help cave in before the debate starts’

The World’s Top Emitter

Published
by
Kim
1 year, 8 months ago
in Activism, Climate change, Developing world, Economics, Energy, Environment, Foreign Elections, Foreign policy, International, Markets and USA
. Closed

It sounds like some dumb reality tv show, doesn’t it? But we all know who didn’t get voted out of the house.

As almost everyone in the world knows, it’s election year in America.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (don’t ask, you already know the answer!) might be in trouble. Iraq might be – kinda, sorta – an election issue. But if – like me – you’re following the American Election via either the blogosphere or (oh noes!) the MSM, you’d notice a huge disconnect between how big an issue climate change is here, and how totally miniscule it is in the U S of A.

I hope Al Gore might have something to say at the Democratic Convention.

But that might not occur. And even if it does, and that and all the Arnie stuff aside, it’s going to be pretty much a side issue. Lord only knows what we can do, but those of us who, like me, are Democrats Overseas, might consider a bit of lobbying. But we might think as well about remembering that climate change is a global issue, and trying to get the Australian government to use whatever leverage it has to get it treated as such. Continue reading ‘The World’s Top Emitter’