Archive for the 'Climate change' Category

Best news we’ve had in months…

Published
by
Robert Merkel
2 months, 1 week ago
in Climate change and Politics
. 44 Comments

If this is accurate, it’s the most important thing to come out of Kevin Rudd’s mouth in quite some time:

Kevin Rudd was explaining the benefits of clean coal technology during a meeting with the coal industry today when he said the necessary stabilising point to tackle climate change is an emissions level of 450 parts per million by 2050.

Not because he’s right. 450ppm almost certainly isn’t low enough to stabilise the climate acceptably close to the historical norm. But a 450ppm target is a hell of a lot closer to the mark than Labor has been prepared to go in the past.

And if throwing $100 million of government money at an International Clean Coal Institute is what it takes to make such a target politically palatable, I’d reckon I’d live with that.

ETS White Paper already?

Published
by
dk.au
2 months, 2 weeks ago
in Climate change, Environment, Federal Elections, Markets and Politics
. 23 Comments

Only three weeks after the official close of submissions (many businesses asked for an extension) it looks like we might see a White Paper as soon as the 3rd of October. This suggests the government has a clear idea of the short-medium term trajectories they want to pursue. If the volume of shrill, anti-innovative blackmail sentiment is anything to go by, my guess is that we’ll see yet another ETS that doesn’t do a lot of, well, Carbon Pollution Reducing.

Elsewhere: Peter Browne writes at APO:

A new [previously reported by Mark] analysis of the attitudes of people who swung to Labor at last year’s election suggests that acting to reduce climate change can be a vote winner – in fact, according to the data, it might be the vote winner. In two quite different surveys [including one where “young people were under-represented in [the] sample”], the single most important issue nominated by vote-changers was global warming. In both cases, it rated ahead of the other issue generally regarded as a vote-changer, industrial relations.

Sea level rise: how much by 2100?

Published
by
Brian
2 months, 2 weeks ago
in Climate change
. 25 Comments

Al Gore talked about some scary stuff with respect to sea level rise, but didn’t in fact put a time limit on it. James Hansen has suggested that multimetre sea level rise by 2100 is highly probable. At least twice in recent times he has nominated two metres by 2100. In the Huffington Post he said:

West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well under way, it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely within a century. (Emphasis added)

He said the same thing in his 2008 testimony to Congress.

Now scientists at Colorado, Montana and Scripps (Pfeffer et al) have suggested that two metres, while possible, is extremely unlikely. 80 centimetres is “more plausible”. More than 2 metres would be physically impossible.

Continue reading ‘Sea level rise: how much by 2100?’

Big L or small l leader?

Published
by
Kim
2 months, 2 weeks ago
in Climate change, Media and Politics
. 12 Comments

There’s something of a paradox there, because, as I’ve been arguing, Malcolm Turnbull’s best chance at making an impact (beyond the born in a log cabin dingy flat narrative personal stuff) is to move towards the centre, and particularly given his obvious understanding of the issues, move the Coalition towards a responsible position on an ETS. John Hewson, interviewed in today’s Crikey, thinks he could do himself and us all a favour by putting some steel in Rudd’s very weak climate change spine:

What I would hope, I guess, is that Turnbull should take a harder line on climate change. The suggestion from Garnaut that we can start softly, softly, with 10 or 15 per cent for his target in 2020 is nonsense, against the sort of targets Australia has to meet by 2050. In those terms, I think Turnbull should be taking a harder line, pushing Rudd to do more, setting a high jump bar if you like, against which Rudd will be measured and they would have more significant consequences for business.

Business is great at sort of putting off adjustments, whether it was workplace safety or training or any of the other issues that have dominated the last 20 years. They’ve always shirked them. Business response to climate change has been “fine for everybody else, but not us” and really the adjustments have to be made, the big issues have to be addressed and you can’t play catch-up. The whole process is front-end loaded, so I think it will be an interesting debate, if Turnbull goes out there and argues a stronger case in that area and pushes Rudd to do more, but he may just sit back as Brendan Nelson was doing and say “we won’t lead the world” and so it will be an interesting debate.

John Quiggin doesn’t think Turnbull will depart from the current position, based on his ministerial performance and his failure to take any sort of consistent policy position as Shadow Treasurer. Continue reading ‘Big L or small l leader?’

Geoengineering from the Royal Society

Published
by
Robert Merkel
2 months, 2 weeks ago
in Climate change and Science
. 8 Comments

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences is not a journal I’d imagine too many of you read on a regular basis - I certainly don’t. But their recent special issue is on a topic of rather broader interest than usual - geoengineering.

Perhaps the most accessible read might be the introductory overview, which notes some interesting historical precedents for the idea - and, incidentally, sheds light on the Russian perspective on the prospects of a warmer globe:

Continue reading ‘Geoengineering from the Royal Society’

Malcolm Turnbull finally ends the Howard years?

Published
by
Kim
2 months, 2 weeks ago
in Climate change, Economics, Howardia, Immigration and Politics
. 111 Comments

One theme that’s come up in commentary on several threads about the Liberal leadership here is that the political suicide of Brendan Nelson has the potential to put the Howard years to bed at last. One other sign of this is how underwhelming and plain boring many of the “revelations” in Yesterday Man’s Memoirs have been - who really cares now about the accumulated ressentiment of a decade and a bit of internal treachery under the Dear Leader? (Howard’s poisonous human legacy, of course, lingers, as last night’s Four Corners demonstrated). Peter Costello is now history, and if he hasn’t acknowledged that, then the man is a greater and more self-serving fool than even most of us suspect. His book launch - presumably televised still today - is a sideshow.

Malcolm Turnbull needs to give up on placating all those who still long for the departed Howard’s firm hand. The Liberal Party needs to eschew stunts and populism and restore its tattered economic credibility (which was actually junked by Howard and Costello themselves - that was obvious enough in last year’s election but now it’s plain as day). It also needs to move with the times and take a responsible position on an ETS and trim its sails to fit the socially liberal winds that have been blowing - unsniffed as they were by the Tony Abbotts and Nick Minchins of the world.

But Turnbull is completely capable of squibbing all this. He may mistake the need to placate the diehard Liberal Right and “defend the legacy” as necessary pragmatism. If he does, he might be safer at the despatch box, but he will be repeating the same mistakes that brought Nelson down. Though without the jam and baked beans.

Turnbull’s selection of a Shadow Cabinet will give us a big clue as to how he’s going to shape the Opposition. Shadow Treasurer and Shadow Climate Change Minister in particular. And make no mistake, he has to shape the Opposition, not try to keep all its factions happy. A very difficult balancing act indeed, because the structural faults in both the party and in its electoral position haven’t been magicked away.

Elsewhere: Some more analysis from Sam Clifford at Public Polity. Update: And more from Pavlov’s Cat.

Blogosphere roundup: More commentary from Possum, Politically homeless, Andrew Bartlett, Corporate Engagement, Musings of an inappropriate woman, Road to Surfdom and Woolly Days.

Another one for the blog roundup: what it feels like for a boi.

Wait, there’s more!: Joanne Jacobs, The Poll Bludger and John Quiggin.

Climate Change and Electoral Politics - Local Edition …?

Published
by
dk.au
2 months, 2 weeks ago
in Climate change, Economics, Energy, Environment, Law, Local Elections, Markets, NSW Government and Technology
. 41 Comments

Take note owners of Loy Yang, Munmorah et al. Greenpeace activists admitted causing £30,000 damage to the chimney of coal fired plant in protest at plans to construct another one1 but were acquitted by a jury on the grounds that “they were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world“. The decision has reverberated around the world, particularly down here. Continue reading ‘Climate Change and Electoral Politics - Local Edition …?’

  1. Yeah weird choice huh. In short, nuclear is still dealing with some legacy issues, gas supplies are hostage to the vagaries of Russian intimidation and the EU ETS carbon price is pointlessly low meaning that they don’t stimulate renewable deployment.[back]

Hurricanes and more hurricanes

Published
by
Brian
2 months, 2 weeks ago
in Climate change
. 23 Comments

ike.jpg

With Hurricane Ike heading directly for the Houston area, a storm 1000 miles wide and nearly as big a Texas itself, people were warned:

“Persons not heeding evacuation orders in single-family one- or two-story homes will face certain death,” the weather service said in a local bulletin to residents of Galveston Island, according to the New York Times. “Many residences of average construction directly on the coast will be destroyed.”

Continue reading ‘Hurricanes and more hurricanes’

Reassembling Journalism and Objectivity

Published
by
dk.au
2 months, 2 weeks ago
in Authoritarianism, Blogging, Climate change, Media, Politics, Sociology and The Web
. 40 Comments

This is a very belated, ambitious response to the Future of Media 08 summit which I attended on behalf of LP.

We need facts.

They underpin all the modern abstract systems we’ve come to know, love and get angry with from time to time. So when facts collapse, we need publics more than at any other time to gather around, examine what went wrong and piece things and institutions together again. In this sense, the rise of projects reattaching facts to theory in recent decades probably corresponds to the decline of the liberal model of Journalism whereby the facts (’just the facts’) are disseminated. Continue reading ‘Reassembling Journalism and Objectivity’

Climate change and electoral politics

Published
by
Mark
2 months, 3 weeks 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
2 months, 3 weeks 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
2 months, 3 weeks 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
2 months, 3 weeks 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
2 months, 3 weeks 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
2 months, 4 weeks 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’