Mark Harrison is quick to impugn the integrity of signatories of the pro-Kyoto petition, and particularly mine (see (4) below). In particular, he asserts that the statement, “policy options are available that would slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia” is “completely false”
I have a few questions for Mark:
(1) Since you’ve linked to my blog, you’ve presumably read my observation that one such measure would be the removal of subsidies to the aluminium industry. If you disagree with this observation, why don’t you print your argument? If you agree, will you apologise to those you’ve accused of lying?
I’ll observe that there are a number of others including:
(a) a more rational approach to land clearing
(b) appropriate pricing of urban road use
(c) changing the structure of electricity markets to reduce incentives for heavy use of baseload power
(2) If the statement is false, why was an almost identical statement signed by over 2000 US economists including eight Nobel prize winners and William Nordhaus, the main expert cited in your counterpetition?
(3) The anti-Kyoto counterpetition puts a lot of stress on alternative proposals for international agreements to reduce CO2 emissions, such as that put forward by Warwick McKibbin. Do you actually support any of these proposals, and if so which?
(4)As you’re aware, I’m a senior colleague of Alex Robson’s, and the only sponsor of the pro-Kyoto petition who’s in his department. Do you have the guts to spell out the imputation in your statement
“It seems that Australian academia hasn’t changed – integrity is in short supply and disagreeing with the left is not the easiest way to get ahead. Be prepared for a higher teaching load next year Alex!”
or do you prefer to stick to slimy innuendo?