The long-awaited White Paper version of the government’s emissions trading scheme is out. I’ve been too disheartened to read anything more than the summary so far. The target of a 5 per cent reduction on 2000 emissions by 2020 seems designed to secure the support of the Opposition, which will probably not be forthcoming anyway. That’s about the only defence that could be made for it.
The government’s main argument in favour of such a weak target is based on Australia’s relatively high rate of population growth. I have no objection to per capita, rather than national, emissions targets in the context of a contract-and-converge agreement leading ultimately to a uniform global allowance per person. But if you wanted to argue that way, the fact that Australia has one of the highest emission levels per person in the world means that our (interim and final) reduction targets must be more stringent than those of other countries.
At this point, the only real hope is that the Obama Administration will take a strong line on the issue. If it does, then the US-EU combination will dragoon recalcitrants like Australia into a sustainable agreement whatever Rudd and Turnbull might say or do about it.
John Quiggin 
I think what they have done is to commit themselves unconditionally to a 550 ppm CO2 target, while agreeing to go lower if the rest of the world does.
I told you so.
One of the features of the government’s plan is that they are promising to compensate various groups (such as pensioners, other low-income earners and families) for price rises with various assistance.
The problem with this approach is that the more you compensate people the more you reduce the incentives for people to change their behaviour in response to price signals, defeating much of the purpose of increasing prices to begin with. So the net result is simply more inflation and government churning, with less impact on emissions.
What Jack Strocchi said.
It is also significant that the government is now pledging to only reduce emissions further if other countries do the same.
This is pretty much the opposite of what was argued in 2007. For most of the year the Coalition argued that Australia should only commit to cuts in conjunction with other major emitters agreeing to the same cuts, while Labor argued that Australia must take the lead.
Kevin Rudd has continuously made a virtue of stealing John Howard’s policies while simultaneously presenting himself as a new leader with fresh ideas. How much longer will this wash?
Rudd has abandoned his previous stance of fiscal conservatism, and instead adopted Howard’s tactic of wasteful vote-buying handouts with his recent fiscal stimulus. Now he has moved further towards Howard’s climate change policy as well. Is there anything left in Howard’s wardrobe that he won’t take?
@ Nick in theory an advantage of an ETS over a carbon tax is you can’t spend the compo on any more carbon since it’s capped. Other disturbing aspects are very generous freebies to industries that should be trying harder to cut carbon or lose customers with higher prices. It’s like getting a certificate from Jenny Craig for putting on weight. It seems that clean development offsets a bogey of the EU system may be allowed as well. We’ll see the Easter Bunny long before commercial carbon capture and I believe the PM looks foolish for talking it up.
However here’s a radical alternative view; we’ll cut at least 20% by 2020 anyway due to a permanent global slowdown. The reasons for the slowdown are oil’s steady volume decline (low prices not withstanding), regional water and food crises, tightened credit and low consumer confidence. All those immigrants may not want to move here. We will also realise very late (circa 2015) that renewables won’t replace coal for baseload power …deniers please give gigawatt scale examples. Therefore I think the way things will pan out will have little resemblance to Treasury assumptions.
And what if Obama is America’s Rudd? All talk and no action.
If Obama was serious he would have appointed Gore as Secretary of Climate Change or somesuch, but he’s chosen Carol Browner who appears to be an ex-EPA bureaucrat.
Nick @3
Compensating people has no impact on the level of emissions, because emissions are capped. They could however decrease the efficiency of the scheme, depending on how they are structured.
If the compensation is a direct rebate on the bill (let’s say electricity for example), then the price signal is wiped out and, because of the cap, emission savings will have to happen in other, more expensive ways.
This has not been suggested by the government.
If compensation is not directed at the expense, let’s say compensating for higher energy bills through welfare payments or provision of services (housing, transport, education) or through energy efficiency programs, then the affect on the price signal is minimal.
The extra compensation will be split between other living costs (food, entertainment, travel, housing, internet, credit card debts, etc).
Low-income households cannot afford new water-heaters and other appliances to mitigate carbon costs. The point is to reduce the amount of carbon, not to reduce the standard of living for people already on the breadline.
Nick, perhaps you would like us to reduce your income to assist you in reducing your carbon imprint?
Could you please explain how the compensation will result in more inflation?
“Rudd has abandoned his previous stance of fiscal conservatism… with his recent fiscal stimulus.”
A fiscal conservative primes the economy during a downturn. Only a radical (a crazy, mean hearted fool of a radical) would prefer an increase in unemployment over priming the economy when faced with recession. Our radical friend would also prefer to prime the economy in the face of a boom, but that’s another story.
Turnbull will fall into line to support the government. The business lobbies will make him. They’ve got everything they wanted and more, and aren’t about to let it get stopped by the Senate.
Rudd’s problem is the huge gap between the soaring rhetoric about how big the problem is and the weak target. With the Howard government, at least you had some consistency. Their view ranged from deep scepticism (Howard) to outright denial (Minchin) so doing practically nothing followed logically.
In the White Paper we get
“In Australia, temperatures are expected to rise by around five degrees by the end of the
century. Coastal properties will be threatened by rising sea levels and tidal surges. Food
production from our farms will be reduced as a result of longer, more frequent and more
intense droughts. National treasures, including the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu wetlands and
the big tourism industries they support will be under threat.
That’s why we need to act decisively to protect our way of life and the Australian economy.”
Indeed.
And the decisive act that threatens our way of life is … 5%.
What does this target mean given the MRET 2020 target?
Any emission reduction as a result of MRET initiatives counts towards the CPRS reductions measured.
If our stationary energy emissions are around 50% still in 2020 BAU, a 20% reduction to meet MRET could mean up to 10% reduction in Aus emissions (unknown: emissions to produce the renewable infrastructure in first place).
Also do you know of any reliable BAU projections given the global financial crash? Surely this would be making emission reductions more likely to occur.
This CPRS target seems like a slap in the face to me.
Lets face it people, the only way the world’s CO2 emissions will be 5% below 2000 levels is if the current global downturn lasts well into the next decade.
When Obama caves on climate change, I reckon its just about time to head to the hills to get me a doomstead.
Joel, it’s true that most people (including fiscal conservatives) support having some fiscal stimulus in an economic downturn. But a true fiscal conservative would go for tax cuts first, not increased government handouts.
“Compensating people has no impact on the level of emissions, because emissions are capped.”
That is true, and admittedly I didn’t fully factor this in. But this would simply add to more price pressures down the track. For example, if the compensation led people to continue to produce the same carbon output then prices would have to rise even further in order to achieve the required reduction in carbon emissions. What happens then? Does the government then give more compensation? What happens if this fuels even further price rises? It could easily set off an inflationary cycle.
“Could you please explain how the compensation will result in more inflation?”
As explained above.
“Nick, perhaps you would like us to reduce your income to assist you in reducing your carbon imprint?”
Okay. So long as you don’t try and tell me that reducing emissions will be easy and painless. At least give it to me straight.
At least I don’t have to change my views on the Labor party
kellen: stationary emissions includes stuff other than electricity (coking coal for smelters, etc).
emissions from electricity production alone is about 33%, from memory.
Also, Australia is already about 9% renewables (from memory), due mainly to large hydro.
So its 11% on 33% = 3.63% decrease in our national emissions if the 20% target is met and if our emissions weren’t actually rising due to increases in other emissions.
Kellen some back of the envelope scribbling seems to bear out a numerical inconsistency between say a 10% emissions cut by 2020 and a 20% MRET.
Suppose stationary is now 40 GW = 39 fossil + 1 renewable. A 10% cut to fossil takes us back to 35 GW rounded and we can get back up to 40 total with 5 GW renewable which is perhaps doable. But to meet 20% renewable depends on the assumptions. If the total remains at 40 we want 32 fossil + 8 GW renewable. But that implies a much greater emissions cut eg dynamiting some newish coal stations. But if fossil stays at 39 we could add 10 of renewables to remain near 20%. Since the problem is ‘overdetermined’ the possibilities are wide.
If one also recalls the astounding prediction of 45% population growth 1990-2020 I’m inclined to think Treasury were in a bit of a rush.
I generally take a pessimistic view of any government entity. They will always, always act in the best interest of what will keep them in power. Its not about Liberal its not about Labour, they are going to make the decision that buys them the greatest amount of support or minimises damage. This is not suprising, this half a**** approach will fail as usual because the only research they did was on what makes them the most popular and keeps them in power.
You can thank Democracy for policies that never pass the test of reason but may pass the test of popularity.
The less responsibility the government has in matters of public and earthly interest the better.
I predict Obama will go the same way as Rudd.
IS it so bad? Just indulging in some straight-line extrapolation after getting a nettled response from a friend in Climate Change Dept who i teased:
Look at graph on page 4-23 of the white paper.
In 2010 we will be at about 108-110% of 1990 emissions.
If we draw a straight line through that and 95% in 2020 (ie the 5% target), then that gives a 50% reduction on 1990 emissions by 2050.
If we draw a straight line through 110% in 2010 and 85% in 2020 (ie the 15% target), then that means that in 2050, our emissions will be at 10% in 2050 – a 90% reduction.
Seems ok if that trajectory is maintained?
I agree with your comments John. I have tried to summarise the White paper on my blog.
Unfortunately Rudd’s upper bound of 15% effectively rules out Australia making a fair or effective contribution to mitigation for just about any stabilisation target below 550 ppm.
Nick,
“So long as you don’t try and tell me that reducing emissions will be easy and painless. At least give it to me straight.”
It will be relatively painless for a lot of people, those being the ones who can afford either to cough up the extra carbon costs or to mitigate by buying appliances that are more efficient in the long run, etc by dipping into their discretionary spending.
But for those who can’t? Households already on low incomes and high energy and housing costs? Those already suffering from from under-consumption of energy? How will they mitigate? What benefit of making the poor even more poor when they can’t reduce consumption further?
Carbon mitigation will cost money. That’s why the government is developing the energy efficiency package for low income households, was supposed to be released last week but was delayed.
I’ll give it to you straight, reducing emissions will be hard, and it will be disproportionately hard for low-income households. That’s why the compensation.
Click to access Garnaut_Chapter16.pdf
Click to access 4204__EnergyEquity%20low%20res.pdf
http://www.piac.asn.au/publications/pubs/sub2008092_20080910.html
Nick @13
Thanks, I hadn’t followed your inflation point.
Not sure I agree though, surely the point is that carbon reductions will be found by the cheapest possible method. If one option is taken out of the mix, for example energy use in low-income households (though I do not agree that these were in the mix in the first place) then the next cheapest option will be taken up.
Yes, this will be more expensive. But no, there will not be an inflation cycle.
I only read a few paragraphs, JQ, and I came to your conclusion. I’m bitterly disappointed. Labour cabinet obvioulsy have no real understanding of the problem or vision for a solution. Global warming simply does not fit into their cute text book labour manual, so trivialise it. rud made it clear in some earlier statements that he only believes in CCS, and this policy statement is intended to put GW into a holding pattern until CCS is proven (vain hope). If that is the best that they have got, then it is time to move on. Hello Greens (or any other colour but glowing blue).
well, this calls for an al loomis remark I think.
good on the protesters who occupied Rudd’s Brisbane office today. it’s going to take a lot more popular pressure to even think about matching the pressure that industry is putting on the government.
Joel @ 20, just a couple of points.
With compensation, the bottom line is that the more the government compensates some groups the more pain will have to be borne elsewhere. This could be in the form of later price hikes on the same groups, or higher prices on other groups not compensated.
On inflation, it is possible that if various groups are constantly demanding more compensation it could set off an inflation cycle. If governments limit compensation and hold firm, this probably won’t happen though.
its a boatload of votes in my mileau he just lost,
me for one,
THE PROPAGATOR PAYS PRINCIPLE
John seems to be comfortable with per capita emmissions allowances. I might be as a starting point, but the environment does not care whether increases in emissions come from higher per capita emissions or from higher population levels. The truth is that the biggest cause of pollution is reproduction. To get the incentives right, those who engage in it most should pay more, and those who do so least (ie childfree people) should pay less.
Per capita reductions just make it easier for govts to spin a paltry target into something that sounds impressive – like the NSW Govt GGAS scheme for example.
Conversely, the more I think about it, the more I think everyone is getting carried away being upset about these targets – they are more challenging than a lowly sounding number like 5% seems.
Going from 108% in 2010 to 95% in 2020 is going to take some doing.
Going to 85% in 2020 will be *very* tough indeed.
Why is this regarded as modest? Because we have been told to regard it as modest? Because everyone else seems upset and we are just joining the mob?
The last thing the Rudd Govt probably wants in the current financial crisis is the endorsement of green groups for their policies. But somehow they’ve managed to commit to a fast tracked ETS, to reverse the growth trend in a few years, while also lowering expectations to avoid scaring people from an economic point of view at the same time.
Brilliant.
Cmon, look at the rate at which our emissions are currently *increasing*. Do you really think it is modest to suggest that reversing that and going from 108% to 95% in only a decade is modest? Let alone to 85%?
I actually think I might be surprised if we can even achieve this apparently modest target.
Howard wasted eleven years. rud has now wasted one year, and counting. This is a calculated plan on his part. I spoke with Albanese before the election, and a number of times to Wayne Smith, and I could feel the change in the rhetoric even then. So rud has intentionally wasted a whole year of lead time to come up with this cop out “plan”.
All that I can see here is a tidy desk, with the papers properly aligned and the pencils straight and evenly spaced. Relevence? None. Relevence of the white paper to the real world GW situation? None.
D-
I too am extremely dissappointed. The 5% target is so small a reduction it could almost be met by voluntary behaviour change and mandating solar hot water in homes and more fuel efficent cars. Coal power might be virtually untouched. Yet they are getting compensated anyway! Its an obvious cave in to some of Labor’s most powerful union funders, and a few industries that presuably the NSW and Qld state governments still want to support their budgets.
The only hope is that the ETS gets introduced at this level then increased between now and 2020.
On reflection I see there may be three cats to throw among the pigeons
1) a global slowdown could still throw up a 20% cut obviating administrative action
2) oil, coal and gas could be hugely expensive circa 2020, perhaps limiting the effects
3) our large coal exports make domestic carbon cuts look somewhat farcical.
Re the latter if Australia’s coal exports approach 250 Mt this year that’s a conservative 600 mt of CO2, yet our net domestic emissions were only 565 Mt in 2006. It’s like weekend detention for a villain who only robs banks on a Wednesday.
I think we must force an early transition away from fossil fuels because the captains of industry clearly can’t think that far ahead. I suggest the big emitters have as much long range vision as the banking and car industries. They’ve had years to wrap their thinking around carbon cuts now they’ve held the whole process to ransom at the last minute.
Well at least Rudds cop-out has settled one long-running blog dispute that has been festering ever since Rudd took over the ALP leadership. Whether Rudd is a mini-me-too to Howard and his LN/P successors.
This policy shows the correct answer to be: yes. Rudd is, on matters of substantive policy as opposed to symbolic politics, a slightly kinder, gentler version of Howard. As I predicted.
Even on the labour market, the area of greatest product differentiation b/w the two parties, it turns out that Rudd has followed Howards footsteps. Sure Rudd repealed Work Choices laws. But that is just “parchment politics”.
The laws that really count so far as the workers share of the cake is concerned are the laws of supply and demand. And in this area Rudd is a turbo-charged version of Howard, ramping up the immigration program so that the glut of labour drives down the workers wages and driving up landlords rents. Crushing the living standards of the people he was elected to represent.
Not to mention smashing any faint hope of AUS meeting effective carbon constraining targets.(Mass immigration comes from mostly low-GHG jurisdictions which will make a mockery of carbon constraints, whether targets are per capita or aggregate.)
I predicted that too, although all I got for my troubles was a faux-weary dismissal. I guess no confirmed prediction goes unpunished when it threatens peoples fondest hopes.
One good thing that will come out of this is that the Ecological Left will have their long awaited show down with the population boosting Cultural Left-liberals. Hopefully the realistic Greenies will thoroughly trounce their rights-and-process obsessed fellow travellers. Leaving the Right- and Left-liberals to play harmless post-modern games with their “Republican Models” and “Bill of Rights” and “Trading Schemes”.
Oops,.. there it goes Africa up in smoke,.. and a few Pacific islands down the drain… though, as Hermit says, at least we are in,… i.e. with the potential for an upward change later on of that ridiculous target of 5%,…
In a different field, still I fail to reconcile the strong emphasis from DAFF (in their Future Farming – Climate Change Research Program) on funding R&D on mitigation practices (funding level expected to be 2/3 of the total of c.a. $40M) (…for a useless ETS…), vs the 1/3 or less we expect for R&D in adapatation strategies to climate (and global) change (when thanks to the GLOBAL inaction – State, Federal and world leaders – we are quickly heading towards dangerous climate change). Look at the recent report on emissions from tne WMO also in latest issue of Nature.
Rudd made a point about not firing the mandarins in Canberra. He is therefore receiving the kind of advice that Howard got but as an ex-public servant is listening to it more than Howard did.
This is where the trouble started. Rudd is not thinking of the politics yet as he believes that doing anything is better than the offerings of the Liberals. He also believes that the union movement will not quibble.
The public servants who held a climate denial position in the meantime are offering the policy to support the change. They don’t want to change and so at every point the material has been diluted.
The Labor government is a disappointment on every environmental issue as none are being addressed with any degree of competence. The messing around on the Murray Darling is a scandal too. If this can’t be done right the more esoteric idea of reduction in CO2 levels is doomed.
Looks like there needs to be a bigger green vote. The next poll will be interesting.
Pr Q says:
Prepare for another disappointment on that score. Remember that Obama is first and foremost a Chicago politician. Think Mayor Richard Daley thru to Gov Blagojevich. These guys have always made their priority distributing the spoils of office to their key supporters.
I’m on record as predicting that Obama will be a Centrist “Clinton without the sleaze”. That will put him miles to the Left of the Republican Brownies. But still miles to the Right of the Democrat Greenies.
Democrat officials and politicians are not fervent about saving the ecology. Otherwise Gore would have been their nominee or at least got a Cabinet post. Alot of centrist Democrats depend on the votes of unionised workers in the auto and coal industries. They wont be throwing those votes away to Republican Brownies if they can avoid it.
I dont see Obama making the ecology into a big priority when most Americans are worried about losing their jobs or savings. Sure Obama has paid lip service to Kyoto and the Stern report. But his infrastructure program shows where his true spending priorities are . He seems to be focused on road repairs. What does that say about his carbon constraining proclivities?
I predict that Obama will throw lots of federal money at renewable energy projects. And mount lots of inquiries and make lots of declarations. But I dont see the US making any serious commitments to cutting its emissions drastically on his watch, at least for the first term.
If you AGW zealots consider for a minute that ‘the science ain’t settled’, then what Rudd has done pretty much well endorses that view. It is just with a bit of tax and spend thrown in for good measure..
Hopefully by 2020 these delusions will be seen for what they are;
taken from the white paper C/O spiros @ comment 10
“
*In Australia, temperatures are expected to rise by around five degrees by the end of the century.
*Coastal properties will be threatened by rising sea levels and tidal surges.
*Food production from our farms will be reduced as a result of longer, more frequent and more intense droughts.
*National treasures, including the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu wetlands and the big tourism industries they support will be under threat.”
Anyway one thing is for certain, by 2020 when the AGW sceptics are vindicated and the AGW fraud is seen for what it is, it will be impossible to wean a big tax and spend government off this fraudulent ETS scheme.
Jill Rush Says: December 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
True enough so far as you go. But Rudd’s conservatism goes deeper than that. He is himself a professional diplomat – a servant of power and by nature a re-actor. (Check the portrayal of his office in the Hollow Men.) A leader is a wielder of power, a pro-actor.
Rudd has spent too much time fussing over briefings in offices. As I predicted last month:
If Greenies wanted leadership on climate change they picked the wrong man. Also if they want effective action on climate change, they should lose their liberalism already.
As I have constantly said over the past year, you are not going to stop the Greenhouse Juggernaut is by placing faith in liberal individual autonomies. You will have to cede power to “corporal” institutional authority ie regimentation through regulation and rationing.
That means shedding liberal illusions before getting mugged by reality again.
PS I make no apologies for indulging in this orgy of self-regarding vindication. Certain people (Spiros, Ian Gould and even Pr Q) chose to make unkind remarks about my theoretical model as it was being rolled out over the past year.
Now its pay-back time.
All parties interested in the anthropogenic climate change/global warming debate may be very much interested in the following US senate minority report
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84&CFID=53229530&CFTOKEN=47452955
just released, December 11 2008, and titled:
U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008:
The introduction begins with:
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global
warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peerreviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviwed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland; Mount Kilimanjaro; Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Floods; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; lack of atmosphieric dust; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
And it goes on…
Well, let’s see what Kev, Penny and Ross will make of this.
650 vs 52, well now now, who actually has the consensus.
As Aldous Huxley put it “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
Being part of the scientific community, I can safely say that I feel vindicated in taking a skeptical position on the findings of the UN IPCC.
iconoclast, I’m going to have to ask you to choose a new pseudonym, as we have another commenter with a different spelling of the same nym.
As regards the latest list of “scientists”, regulars here will be impressed to know that it contains our own Louis Hissink
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/650_international_scientists_e.php
Finally, please note that statements like “being part of the scientific community” don’t add much credibility to a pseudonymous comment. If you want to argue on the basis that you’re a scientist, you should sign your name.
[…] deficit. A white flag. Targets abysmally low. Woefully insufficient. Bitterly disappointing. Weak. Important and […]
[…] other links: Sam at Public Polity, economist John Quiggin equates the White Paper with a White Flag, George Megalogenis at his Meganomics blog unpacks the economics and equity (or not) of the ETS […]
Yes, re comment #39. My views are diametrically opposed to those of iconoclast on climate change or more properly Anthropogenic Global Warming. The facts are in, it is happening. I wonder if the deniers will be convinced by an ice free Arctic summer? That appears likely quite soon, probably within 5 years or less.
The current cool period which has enthused GW deniers may possibly be explained by the Pacific decadal oscillation. Let’s hope they live til the next cycle. It is Generation Z now in ABC childcare centres who will get to see how the Great Barrier Reef holds up to a few PDOs. Maybe in hindsight they will say we should have let the aluminium industry go when we had the chance.
i think the deniers should put thier names on a big list to be handed to future generations,
these are the people that screwed the planet
Notwithstanding the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry, it would be interesting to know which of our politicians are in the grip of the Antinomian Heresy.
Please read the comments policy before posting again – JQ
On the request of jquiggin I have selected an alternative psuedonym, GreekAmongRomans, to remove any confusion.
There is evidence of climate change, I do not deny this. However, what I am skeptical of is the suggestion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are it’s cause.
Geological history tells us that the climate has been forever changing, there is nothing new in that.
The geological evidence does not support what has been put forward as the cause of climate change.
Human activity, rampant population growth, incessant compounded economic growth all together have destroyed our planets environment more than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Correlation is not causation.
We may want to seriously think about why the planets environment is really being destroyed at an ever accelerating rate.
John, it seems like Labor has committed political suicide by pissing on the Greens and thinking it can get away with it. Maybe the best thing for Labor is to shelve the White Paper.
The striking thing after all the debate and millions of words is that the Labour Government has chosen to side step the very substantial and rigorous economic analysis from Sterne and Garnaut and others, clearly demonstrating the negligible costs to community and growth (GDP) the government has actually demonstrated to me that they were all along climate change agnostics. This is a consumate piece of politics but a deplorable piece of policy. The politics is not duplicitous but merely reveals the modus operandi of the labour machine, politics and power at all costs. They have done the cause of rescuing our planet and my childrens future immeasurable damage through this moral cowardice alone. They have given credence to the sceptics and AGW denialists by default. They do not understand we are already committed to a world 2 degrees hotter from past emissions and the continuation of business as usual means we are in for several degrees more.
I now go and join Prof Ken Deffeyes as we ‘watch events unfold’ as we slide down the oil peak and reluctantly agree with James Lovelock, that is now too late. My pathetic contributions to the blogosphere are now over. Thank you Prof Quiggin for the pleasure and the opportunity.