The government’s ETS legislation came out yesterday, and I prepared a short response for the Australian Science Media Centre Here is is.
The draft legislation sticks fairly closely to the White Paper, which has proved to be a compromise that satisfies no one. The government proposed a watered-down scheme in the hope of attracting public support from industry, and the Parliamentary votes of the Coalition. This approach appears to have failed, leaving the options of allowing the bill to fail, or seeking the support of Greens and Independents.
By far the worst feature of the proposed ETS is the 15 per cent reductions target presented as the maximum we will offer, even if other countries agree to an effective global program to reduce emissions. If this target were raised to 25 per cent, the government could probably secure the necessary support to pass the Bill. Those who have argued that no such global agreement will emerge have no good reason to oppose such a change.
John Quiggin 
I’ll try to wade through key sections of the draft. It seems to me there are different perspectives to be looked at. Firstly is the overall adequacy of the target which we know is wanting. Second is the perverse effects of the copout clauses; for example LNG getting a trade exposed advantage when it already has a lower carbon advantage. Third is the administrative machinery with respect to payment, permit transfers, monitoring and use of offsets.
Still it should be no worse than GST on cakes. As with GST the simpler the better but special interest groups have the blinkers on.
What is the status of property rights and compensation? Several comments have been made that suggest the current legislation will enshrine property rights to the “big polluters” (who are compensated with free permits).
It has been stated that this will require further compensation be paid to these polluters if the system is later changed (to fit with a global trading scheme).
Considering the effect of the “Great Recession” on CO2 emissions, we might expect CO2 reductions comparable to that of the former USSR following its dislocation (20-30%).
What effect will this have on the value of the free permits given to the big polluters? Will these permits provide a buffer (or windfall) which sustains these dirty industries (to the suppression of cleaner alternatives), or will these permits have no value at all?
The Government’s White Paper showed the global emissions target by President Obama before his election was a return to 1990 levels for the US by 2020. The Australian target of a 5-15 per cent cut on 2000 levels corresponds to a reduction of 4-14 per cent on 1990 levels.
Obama’s proposal was made before the worst effects of the global financial crisis were known.
With the International Monetary Fund warning of the possibility of the global economy shrinking for the first time since World War 11, the chance of the US agreeing to a 25 per cent reduction in 2000 emissions by 2020 seems remote.
In fact, a global agreement for a 15 per cent cut on 2000 emissions totals by 2020 may be overly optimistic given the world financial situation.
Thus, I am one who would argue that the chances of a global agreement for a 25 per cent cut in 2000 emissions by 2020 is a forlorn hope.
However, I take issue with your statement that I would have no good reason to oppose a change in Australia’s upper target of 15 per cent to 25 per cent because this would enable the legislation to pass (presumably because the Greens would then support it).
What you are saying is that we should accept a 25 per cent target because we do not believe it would be accepted. But then, why not make it 50 per cent, 75 per cent or even 100 per cent? Each of these figures would make the extremists progressively happier.
The Howard years may have blunted the notion of political morality, but , thankfully, did not completely eliminate it.
JohnL, since you don’t believe any agreement will be reached (and, reading between the lines, hope that there won’t be one), I suggest you leave determining the target to those who think we have a chance of an agreement.
This is the best blog post I have seen on the ‘why’ in the selection of the target:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/12/15/ets-why-5-in-two-charts/
This is the greens press release about the target:
On Monday, Dec 15, the Government announced their 5% emission target, which is a global embarrassment and a recipe for global catastrophe. Kevin Rudd has put the coal industry ahead of Australia’s children and grandchildren. It will be much more expensive to rectify this historic mistake in the decades ahead.
In short, I’ve been a greens voter and was considering joining the party – but their view of hanging out on the environmental left and slinging mud rather than recognising the political situation and where they can make practical in-roads is KILLING me. Forget about the short term target this election cycle:
I actually re-wrote this pre-release for them:
(All my words)
On Monday, Dec 15, the Government announced their 5% emission target. Whilst the Greens believe that this target is much too low we believe that climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution. Therefore, we believe that the more important target is the conditional global target range of 10%-15%. We will engage with the government to set a target conditional on global agreement of reducing emissions by approximately 25% by 2020 as a reasonable way to both fairly protect Australian industry but also promote substantial global action.
We applaud the proposed implementation of an Emissions Trading Scheme as the first step to allowing Australia to manage it’s emissions. However, we believe that the scheme has some flaws that will greatly compromise its effectiveness. This includes giving 25% of the permits to large industrial polluters and proposing an extra 10% to Agriculture. Additionally capping the maximum price of carbon credits will not allow the scheme to effectively find the market price for carbon and promote innovation. Furthermore, the scheme does not include provisions that allow business gain from investment in activities outside of their business as usual operations that would reduce net carbon in the atmosphere without reducing their emissions. This would include, for example, giving (benefit) to employers who (example 1) or (example 2)*
Therefore we will be hoping to engage the government to come to a compromise that will allow us to support passage of the scheme through the senate. This will include:
•Keeping the non-conditional target of 5% but reducing target range, conditional on global agreement to 20-29%
•a phase-out of the free permits for industry by 2012 allowing a gradual growth of jobs in greener industries and a natural transition for employees without job losses;
•allowing the market to set the price for carbon permits rather than setting a price ceiling;
•allowing industry to gain credit for investing in activities that reduce carbon emissions outside their business interests and operations.
We believe that an effective Emissions Trading Scheme with realistic targets attached with global action is what the Australian Public voted for at the last election. Therefore, we intend to both work with the Rudd government whilst holding them accountable to will of the Australian people.
(END OF MY RE-WRITTEN PRESS RELEASE).
If the greens could frame the argument away from unconditinal target and more to a fair system and conditional target they could come up smelling roses. Environmental pragmatists. Deal makers. Moreover, they might even be able to pulling the X man and Fielding along for the ride.
Then by the time the next election rolls around they might just shift enough votes in their favour to win the balance of power in the senate and half way to their goal. No way their current path is leading them to this at the moment.
at #3
If cerain big polluters have the free permits, they still have the incentive to reduce their carbon emissions so as to make money by selling the permits that they receive. So assuming that transacting on carbon market is costless. The ultimate position of who is emitting what amount of carbon should be the same no matter who gets the initial allocation of permits. How polluting any particular industry or the nation as a whole is comes down to the amount of permits being issued.
Saying this i do not agree with free permits, this is a bribe to get these companies on boad, but the money could have been used to help lower income houses adapt or put into reseach into renewable technology. How “fair” the ETS is and how effective it are different issues however.
JohnL has a curious sense “political morality”, which seemingly discounts the impact of climate change, which will impact greatest on vulnerable population that are least responsible for causing it.
By “extremists” I assume John L is referring to those informed by the evidence, and promoting policy consistent with the demands of the (endlessly reviewed) science?
Unfortunately, with each subsequent scientific review the cuts required get higher and higher. Consequently, what is the point in imposing an upper limit to the reductions we are willing to make as part of a global push? Surely this upper limit is better decided in cooperation with other nations rather than unilaterality (without considering what others are willing to do).
That said I do see value in Australia signalling to the rest of the world that we would agree to cuts in the range of 40% or higher if a fair global reduction agreement is established.
Those with highly concentrated (undemocratic) power, who fund the self described “Greenhouse Mafia” have been moved to restrict their self interested argument to the problem of “carbon leakage”. This problem is removed in the event of a just global emission reduction agreement (as John Q infers).
However, the unreserved limit is also important in terms of taking responsibility for our actions (as the highest per capita emitters- [or is the value of personal responsibility just rhetoric to blame the poor for allowing the rich to corrupt the political process?]) and avoiding “throwing out the anchor” on the efforts of EU, USA and others who are committing to unreserved cuts of a higher level. Our low ball target provides ammunition for those with highly concentrated (undemocratic) power to lobby the USA and Europe to go no further than Australian (classic downward auction).
Ultimately we need to take action of such a degree to create the diplomatic environment such that China and India are forced to look at themselves rather than sit back and watch the blame shifting recalcitrants in the “Developed nations”.
JohnQ,
I’d be interested in your assessment of the scale of the emission reductions that will result from “the Great Recession”. (Independent of pricing carbon).
MarkHC
anecdotal evidence a month ago was that coking coal shipments ex Newcastle were down 20% over the previous year. If the same reduction applies to domestic emissions that is way bigger than the annual cuts needed years 2010 to 2020 to get 5% below 2000. If the cap is not exceeded in each of these years due to prolonged recession the ETS CO2 spot price will be low. Derived demand even in a sluggish economy will ensure the CO2 price is above zero.
A dark horse is global oil depletion. I’ve seen a figure of 50 million barrels a day by 2020 as opposed to 85 (all liquids) currently. We may not be able to use so much coal by then or have the diesel to dig it up. It’s all very murky but the alternatives to the ETS appear to have even bigger flaws.
Everything does seem to hang on what will happen in Copenhagen.
4. JohnL Says: March 11th, 2009 at 9:52 am
That is, Obama who has paraded himself as a Green candidate, is offering a zero percent reduction on carbon emissions from the 1990 base year. This is not exactly a the big change we can believe in. But I guess its better than the low bar that Bush placed.
JohnL says:
This is actually getting the logic of economic-ecologic causality back to front. The Great Recession is a good opportunity to shut down ailing or marginal industrial operations for good. Or at least position them to be re-tooled with green low carbon energy sources if they have longer term prospects.
You can see how this worked to the USE’s advantage through the choice of 1990 as a base year for measuring carbon output levels. It makes the USE 25 look good because the concurrent de-commissioning of inefficient unionist and communist-era coal industries allowed the USE to get credit for large, relatively less painful carbon cuts. As Obama’s chief of staff observed:
Mrs Thatcher also deserves a place in the pantheon of Green politicians. Its worthwhile quoting her stance on AGW and carbon mitigation at length. If only to see how far the extent of intellectual and ideological degeneration on the Right. The Australian quotes her prescient warning, made back in 1990:
She was a giant in so many ways. I miss her grievously.
Tristan#6 I prefer the original press release and would still vote for the Greens either way. I can’t see a long statement such as yours getting much air anyway, such is the bias towards the major parties.
I believe the Greens are right to show frustration at the way the Governmant caved in to big polluters. This stance would, IMO, be more popular than appearing soft.
I like Christine Milne’s statement on the ETS legislation. “it’s as thick as a Canberra phone book, but is full of wrong numbers”.
11. Hammy Says: March 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Correct. I predict that the ALP will offer much bigger carbon emission cuts in the run up to the 2010 election. Perhaps Obama will do likewise but I think his priorities are enlarging the welfare state and reducing the warfare/wealthfare state.
I less confidently predict that the ALP and major parties will eventually accept a carbon tax. I will even give it a name: The CRT (Carbon Reduction Tax) which will appear on everyones power bills and petrol receipts. I dont trust the ETS. Any policy phrase that contains the words “trading” and “scheme” is suspect these days.
I have already put down my prediction that the Rudd-ALP will win a strong victory at the 2010 election. This is a no-brainer for a number of reasons:
– processionary phase of the electoral pendulum swing favours recent incumbent
– recessionary phase of the business cycle swing favours statist party
– secular trend of Baby Boomer pro-ALP voting bias
– divided and dispirited L/NP still awaiting the rising the the Costello souffle
The 2010 win being more or less in the bag the Rudd-ALP will have a fair bit of political capital in the bank. He will probably spend it by buying off Greenie votes to his Left. They are a pretty cheap date having no where else to go.
There is not much danger of losing too many Brownie votes to the Right of the ALP. I have already predicted that the L/NP will finally fall into line and give in-principle support to an ETS. Its a battle, like Work Choices, that they have lost.
They can run a scare campaign on costs of higher cuts but I cant see it getting too much traction. Rudd will in any case hand out lots of money to petrol heads and farmers to keep them sweet.
Jim Hansen claims that Cap and Trade is a tax by another name. The emission reduction targets are irresonsible and simply not enough, I am with Hansen we need emissions that get us back to 350 ppm of CO2 and stay there as a minimum, as Jim said recently (Feb 2009):
” One wonders: do they really believe we have a planet in peril”?
I guess it’s back to the barricades.
Returning to #2, which has not been explored
I think we should focus more on the issue of compensation and try to clarify what is going on.
To what extent are we locked in to permitting certain pollution totals, and for how long?
If we ever change or collective mind and want to reduce emission totals beyond the pre-determined target range to be reached periodically, how much does the government need to pay the polluters? The supply of permits changes periodically over time within preset target “gateways”, every 5 years or so, I think, if I recall JQ’s earlier comment rightly. Do these sequential gateways extend for 15- 20 years in total? If we want to reduce the size or location of a gateway to apply in say ten years time and those beyond, does this mean we pay compensation? Do we pay now, or in ten years time? And how much?
Are we locked into the similar racket operating with many PPPs where if any other gov’t policy makes it harder for permit holders to acheive the target, we must pay them?
If we later widen the coverage of the scheme, say, to oblige beef and dairy farmers with farting herds to buy permits, do they drive up the demand for existing permits, or are we obliged to supply more permits? Do we compensate electricity suppliers if, rather than reducing the total emissions target, we increase the number of indusries that need to obtain permits?
I think that the gov’t has done a very poor job indeed in explaining (to me, at least!) exactly what is entailed, and until they do, I think the Senate should just say no to the entire scheme.
I think the days of trusting that the gov’t or the Parliament will deal with these issues with competence and good faith are long over.
The water permit scheme has been a scandal. It’s better to wait a few years for a good pollution permit scheme than settle for a third best one in which powerful interests may actually get compensated, by constitutional requirement, for loss of a mostly freely-given “property right”.
Hammy @11 – just to present a contrary perspective… I take the view that regardless of what happens in the short term, repeated poundings from extreme weather and new global temperature highs are eventually going to compel movement towards what now seem like highly radical targets, such as carbon neutrality by mid-century. From that perspective, whatever happens at Copenhagen, in the longer run we (the world, not just Australia) *will* take radical action.
There is no way that Copenhagen will agree to a target like that (as Jack Strocchi @12 points out, Obama’s target is 0%-by-2020); at best, there will be some acknowledgement of the desirability of 400 ppm or less, and maybe some new arrangement to facilitate research on how to achieve such low targets. And then we’ll have a few years of moderately declining emissions in the OECD (how that will interact with the reduction produced by general recession, I’m not yet sure), and then we’ll have a few more really hot years in which destructive things happen, and that will terrify everyone enough to step up the emissions reduction by another notch (and to talk about short-term global cooling through aerosol geoengineering as well).
For me the other key consideration, apart from the hypothesis above that the world will be forced onto the zero-carbon track by near-future climate pain, is that we do not currently know how to do that without a diminished living standard. This is what’s really lacking among advocates of deep cuts. They are articulate on the costs of unmitigated climate change, they can say what has to be stopped (coal-fired power, coal exports, deforestation), they can say a bit about what takes its place (renewable energy, green jobs); but they do not have a convincing line on living standards in a zero-carbon world. Christine Milne makes some interesting assertions about 25% cuts not being much more expensive than 5% cuts, and how 40+% is for the best if you’re ultimately going for carbon neutrality, and I hope that her Senate inquiry produces some support for these assertions, or at least some relevant data, but for now they’re just assertions. John Quiggin occasionally states here that 90% cuts can be achieved without too much cost, just by altering a few price signals, and I wish he would post a link to one of the papers that backs this up so I could see how the argument works. Al Gore wants the USA to be 100% powered by renewables within a decade, and I don’t doubt that it’s technically possible (though far from inevitable). But until someone comes through with a concrete scenario, the only proposal for short-term global carbon neutrality known to me which sounds like it preserves living standards is the nuclear solution (see the part about 95% cuts).
People may even be willing to tolerate a significant decline in living standards if it is in the interests of avoiding catastrophe, but we won’t get there if we don’t actually have the conversation about what life would be like in 40%-by-2020 Australia.
In the spirit of Tristan Cooke @6, the sort of amendment to the proposed CPRS which would interest me, might retain the current targets (absent a demonstration that the deeper cuts won’t translate into national poverty) but explicitly acknowledge the desirability of 100%-by-2050, and would set up a CRC to investigate Zero-Carbon Futures for Australia, with the work of this CRC being used to revise the national emissions trajectory downward as a prosperous zero-carbon society becomes more thinkable. And ultimately you’d want to internationalize this approach.
John, the Rudd government should reconsider any ‘grandfather clause’ whereby the worst polluters in this country are given free permits. Why should taxpayers and clean green businesses be penalised for the most inefficient and worst polluters. Unless the Rudd government makes drastic changes to the Bill then thumbs down for the ETS as it stands.
JohnQ: Your claim that I don’t believe any agreement (on a world target for reducing emissions) will be reached is wrong. So, too, is your reading between the lines that I hope there won’t be an agreement.
You seem to recognise the possibility of a non-global agreement when you wrote that the 15 per cent reductions target presented as the maximum Australia will offer even if the other countries agree to an effective global program to reduce emissions, is the worst feature of the proposed ETS.
You went on to speculate that the Australian Government could probably secure the necessary support to pass its ETS Bill if its target were raised to 25 per cent.
You went on to say: “Those who have argued that no such global agreement will emerge (as I understand it a 25 reduction on 2000 emissions by 2020) have no good reason to oppose such a change.”
The clear message from your statements is that you believe the Australian Government should change its top target from 15 to 25 per cent so as to get its Bill through the Senate even though it does not believe there will be a global agreement for 25 per cent.
I see such an approach as lacking any political morality. It would deservedly be portrayed as such by a Government that has argued consistently that a 15 per cent cut by 2020 is the responsible course.
That was my main proposition and it did not deserve the wrong interpretation you placed on it.
JohnL @19 wrties:
What on earth does this mean?
Then JohnL goes on to write:
I fail to see logical link JohnL is trying to establish by juxtaposing these two statements. Let alone any support for the assertion that jquiggin’s approach lacks “any political morality”.
Maybe its just me but, it reads like plain nonsense.
To cut a long story short: I predict that Rudd-ALP will swing sharply to the Left on carbon constraint over the next couple of years. By shifting Left I mean he will raise the target for emission level cuts. And probably increase the scope and scale of regulatory constraint, possibly including carbon tax.
He will do that because he has established a domestic rep as a climate change moderate, by initially setting the bar so low. He has thus forestalled any great drift of swinging voters from the ALP to the L/NP on fears of “Greenie Extremism”.
Also the L/NP is starting to look silly on this issue with its flip-flops and internal divisions. That silliness will only look worse by the time Obama-USA and ???-PRC start upgrading ecological policy in the transition from Kyoto to Copenhagen.
A Rudd-ALP shift to the Left on carbon constraint will, politically speaking, produce two benefits:
– intra-nationally: stop leakage of ALP votes to inner-city Greenies
– inter-nationally: forestall possible global sanctions against Kyoto lead draggers
It is likely that the Great Recession will already do alot of our carbon constraint for us, through natural attrition of heavier industrial enterprises and slackening global demand for our primary products.
MarkHC: When John Quiggin writes “even if the other countries agree to an effective global program”, he is expressing doubt about whether this will happen. I am sorry that you do not comprehend that “even if” indicates doubt, but that is your problem.
And, yes, it is just you. John Quiggin is saying that if the Australian Government agreed to raise its top target from 15 to 25 per cent then its ETS Bill would pass.
Then he says that those who argue that no such global agreement (that is for a 25 per cent reduction on 2000 emissions by 2020) will emerge have no good reason to oppose such as a change (that is, in the Australian Government’s top target).
So let me repeat the obvious just for you. It is the Australian Government, which has consistently argued that a 15 per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020 as a responsible course.
Consequently, it would be lacking in political morality for the Australian Government to agree to a 25 per cent reduction to enable its ETS Bill to get through the Senate when it does not believe this should be the result of the Copenhagen meeting.
I wonder how many of the respondents to this blog are really confident that Copenhagen will result in a global agreement for a 25 per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020.
I cannot see the equity in demanding this of India, China and other developing nations while the current US position is that it will reduce 2020 emissions to 1990 levels.
And, a global agreement for a 25 per cent reduction by 2020 0f 2000 levels wont’t be achieved if India, China and the US don’t agree.
Reality has a bad habit of intruding on wishful thinking. That’s the “nonsense” which you fail to understand.
On that very point, John L.
there is this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7935159.stm
and the scary one
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html
leading to this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7934046.stm
This is what is going on in Cophenhagen before Cophenhagen. Australia is going to look pretty foolish in this company on the day. But then we are used to that.
So here is something for our red faced representatives to read on the plane on the way back to our 5% target Australia.
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
It is uncontestable that eventually we will have to move to a 100% renewables powered economy. AGW adds the imperative that we move quickly. It is grievously sad that we are still dragging our feet over this.
Australia should simply announce the goal to become carbon neutral by 2050 ie. zero net carbon emissions. Then we should seek to lead the way in solar (especially solar convection towers), tidal, wind and geothermal.
The way to do it technically and to use existing plant, machinery and infrastructure is;
1. build solar convection towers (which produce power 24 hours a day) and run the power through the existing grid.
2. Use solar and other renewable power to make methane from water and atmospheric CO2. Burn the methane in internal combustion engines, gas stoves etc.
Slight irony alert now:
If we approached it as “The War Against Climate Disaster” do you think we could get the neocon capitalists on board? They love wars.
The economic modelling on costings for mitigation has been done to death by Stern, Garnaut et al. The costs are minimal in terms of overall economic activity. The corollary is that doing nothing is the cost and the evidence is plain to see already. I see nothing in the proposed legislation or current Labour policies that propose sensible strategies and some serious thinking on the relocation of agriculture and people as significant parts of this continent and others progressively become unproductive and wasted. The Murray Darling is a case in point. In the mean time risk mitigation is being managed by the insurance sector who have borne a large portion of the financial costs of climate change (as well as government carrying the cost of almost continuous emergency relief programs, flood fire and storms etc and they are adjusting their cover and policy costings accordingly, in a lot of areas and for many events you cannot now obtain adequate insurance, they have been ahead of the policy makers and government for years now.
At 400 ppm we are cooked, and we are currently near 390 ppm, anybody who seriously suggests that what we are putting up with now at current GHG emission levels is living in a fantasy land and ignoring the long tail that these emissions bring, they will be around for hundreds of years. Again the illusion of a technological fix blinds us to the need to stop and reduce now, the time line for bringing on serious large scale technological fixes is in the order of ten to twenty years, and you need a very large amount of capital to do it, try finding that in the current GFC with the collapse of PPP’s. Twenty years from now we will be approaching 450 ppm and catastrophe.
Salient Green at #11. Thanks for the response.
You might be right. I guess we both don’t know. Also Christine Milne does come across very well in the press in comparison to her leader.
I’d prefer the wacking rod the greens used was the ‘falability of the system’ rather than the ‘head line number’. Still, I feel like they’re taking a big swing at every ball rather than accumulating the 1s and 2s toward the final target.
However, I’d concede that neither of us know if the ‘look very strong and critical’ (you like) would win more votes than being the ‘this is what we think – but lets make a deal’ (I like). Both approaches will win and lose voters… I think the second would win more than the first, but you’re opinion the other way is completely valid.
That’s really what it’s all about. They have limited effect as a party without the balance of power. Effectively all the green senators only have as much power as fielding or x man. This is a dissapointing result from an election largely decided by climate change issues.
They need to find an extra senator (at least) in the next election and that’s going to come from either QLD, NSW or VIC. Between us, the person that is right is the one with the strategy that’s most likely to win that (or those) seats.
MH @ 25
What the small increase in carbon from 0.028% to 0.038% of the atmosphere does, is unverifiable. What carbon might or might not do at 0.040% of the atmosphere is anybodies guess. If anybody tells you they ‘know’ what it does, then they are perpetuating an extrapolated myth.
What is verifiable, is the introduction of an ETS will have no effect on GHG emission levels, although an ETS will do what it is suppose to do, and that is is to increase taxation revenues along with the profits of corporates’and traders.
Tony G, about the only thing you’ve said that is correct is that the ETS won’t have a significsnt effect on GHG emissions. That aside, your post is, as usual, a miracle of wilful ignorance and blind stupidity.
David,
AGW dissenters are censored on this blog.
I am not allowed to elaborate on how the building block of life, benign carbon and its impotency have been falsely extrapolated into a highly toxic environmental poison, that is to be feared by mankind.
I can say this though, AGW proponents are very defensive when counter views are put, so much so, that I can only conclude my assertions are cutting very close to the bone and that there must be some truth to them.
Considering, the ETS has no effect on carbon emissions, you would have to conclude this in itself is a strong endorsement of the fact, that carbon is benign to the environment.
The ETS is a classic example of Vincible Ignorance.
As they say, ignorance is bliss, I might be ignorant, but you guys are ‘vincibly ignorant’.
Tony G #27 and #29. You need to get out more.
With respect to the proposed legislation where I am in agreement with the naysayers is the failure to include or consider the carbon reduction possibilities available the rural industry, through; improved agricultural practices, encouraging on farm carbon storage via tree planting and carbon storage and the discourgement of large scale land clearing. Now where would be be and what if the Hawke Govt’s plant a billion trees program had really happened and instead had not been another cynical Richo exercise in poltical spin?
TonyG you should explain to the breathalyzer people that fractions of a percent cannot have any effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
# 32 Hermit Says: March 12th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
We could call the move from .05 to .06 the “Tippling Point”.
Pr Q says:
From a game-theoretic pov its hard to criticize this strategy. The Rudd-ALP could raise the upper limit on its Carbon Reduction target from 15% to 25% without spending a dollar more to mitigate carbon in the short-term. Or even long-term, in the event of a failure to achieve global agreement.
And if a long-term global agreement emerges well then AUS will at least be abreast, if not ahead, of the main push. So no painful snubs for Rudd on the IPCC cocktail party circuit.
That would be a win-no loss for both believers-skeptics of Copenhagen. It would also be a short term political win for the govt, in that it could get its legislation through and claim, with a little bit of justice, that it was “doing something about the problem”.
I strongly suspect, and predict, that Rudd-ALP will raise the govts Carbon Reduction target in the run-up to the 2010 election. The obvious time to make this announcement would be at Copenhagen 2009. That would really get the attention of world leaders as Rudd “struts the world stage”.
In fact, having had a chance to think about it, I’m starting to really like the idea. A political tactic that initially blocks Brownie attacks from the Right and ultimately coaxes Greenie concessions from the Left would be a stroke of genius by a Machiavellian centrist. If Rudd-ALP behaves according to this prediction then he will get my vote, on grounds of fiendish cleverness if nothing else.
Its already clear that Rudd-ALP has misgivings about the efficacy of an ETS as it currently stands. Although not clear whether this dissatisfaction is with its stringency, leniency or unintelligibility.
A view the somewhat bemused public appears to share. The Age reports that the popularity of carbon reduction policies falls with the level of understanding of the specific policy ie people dont trust something they cant understand.
My view , FWIW, is that it would be better to scrap the ETS and slap a hefty carbon tax on every smoking thing. Carbon trading schemes have too many moving parts that can be rorted.
Thank you BilB for the references, two of which I had read before. I accept the proposition that urgent action is needed and that what is proposed in Australia does not meet the perceived optimum need.
However, the issue I raised was whether there was a realistic chance of meaningful reductions in the Copenhagen meeting in December given the severity of the global financial crisis.
The Australian Government’s White Paper, issued on 15 December, showed the following 2020 targets: Australia 5-15 per cent below 2000 levels, European Union 20-30 per cent below 1990 levels; United Kingdom 26-32 per cent below 1990 levels and US (proposal of President-elect Obama) a return to 1990 levels.
Since then there have been dramatic collapses in the economies of the United Kingdom, the major EU countries, the US and, to a lesser extent, Australia.
It is possible thatcome December the Australian Government’s proposal for a 15 per cent reduction by 2020 on 2000 levels could seem to other countries to be too ambitious.
If the ETS scheme is defeated in the Senate, by what would be an alliance between climate change deniers and the Greens, then it may be a fatal blow. What is even more likely is that the Australian proposal for a 15 per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020 would be off the table at Copenhagen.
A report in The Australian today (11 March) headed “Libs in luck as White House guru backs carbon delay” provides a pointer to what is coming. I acknowledge it was a beat-up for political purpose. The Australian report said that in a previously unreported academic paper posted on the Harvard University website last August, Lawrence Summers argued that “expenditures for climate change will be far easier to make in economies where per-capita income is growing”. The Australian identified Summers as a former president of Harvard, treasury secretary under former US president Bill Clinton and head of President Obama’s National Economic Council. It said Summers worked in the White House.
The beat-up comes with The Australian relating this paper to what is being said six months later by Opposition emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb and by Australian Industry Group chief Heather Ridout.
However, there is some relevance in the fact that last August an argument was being advanced by someone who one would not expect to be a reactionary that “expenditures for climate change will be far easier to make in economies where per capita income is growing”.
Sadly, today there aren’t too many economies where this is happening.
Tony G says, “I am not allowed to elaborate on how the building block of life, benign carbon and its impotency have been falsely extrapolated into a highly toxic environmental poison, that is to be feared by mankind.”
Mate, there is a subject called chemistry. Have you heard of it? It’s about the combination of atoms into molecules. It’s the study of the composition of substances and their properties and reactions. You cannot make a generalisation that carbon is benign without taking chemical combinations and reactions into account.
Take the CN ion for example. This is the cyanide ion. I think you may have heard of cyanide.
Now CO2, the gas in question, can actually be a toxin in high concentrations. It can smother and it also has direct toxicity. “Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations can cause acidosis and adverse effects on calcium phosphorus metabolism resulting in increased calcium deposits in soft tissue. Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force.” – Wikipedia.
However, toxicity in the atmosphere, even at 450 ppm is not the issue of course. The issue is that it acts as a greenhouse gas. See the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
This has to do with another subject called physics. Have you heard of that one? I only did chemistry and physics to senior high school level but that’s enough to key one into the basics. Now, either you didn’t do those subjects even at junior level or you aren’t stopping to think.
However, learning does not need to stop after you finish formal education. Take some steps to improve your knowledge in this area. It might save you from making some very naive statements.
The 5% unconditional target is sensible. But I don’t understand why set any upper limit on cuts conditional on international agreement. Just say we are prepared to cut much more if there is a global agreement and we suggest that Australia contribute by cutting 15% open to negotiation.
Ah, Tony G #27, 29. Still haven’t done the homework reading I set you? If you had, you would understand how changes in carbon dioxide concentration can have quite profound effects over time.
As for relative concentration being a measure of impact, try a few licks of cyanide and see if small amounts are inconsequential. Meanwhile:
TonyG > /dev/null
I agree with you, Jack S. I put together an argument over here
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/02/27/quibbling-at-the-margins-of-the-cprs/#comment-647913
for a 3.2 cent per kilowatt hour levy on all electricity. This would collect 7 billion dollars per year while cost the average family of 4 just $5 per week extra for their electricity. That is about the price of one Big Mac per family to meet most of their global warming compliance responsibility. With that amount being applied to the installation of Concentrating Solar Thermal power stations of the trough type, this would build 60 gigawatts of generating capacity by 2020 thereby replacing most of Australia’s coal powered infrastucture with indeffinite life solar thermal power. And by 2030 extend that to 100 gig in which much vehicle power could be supported with solar electric.
It does not have to be any harder than that. For my business that would cost me $13 per week extra for the power to run my 4 CNC machines. That does not even register on the scale of costs.
I challenge you economists out there to prove that this would be a huge and unacceptable impost on the economy, on the one hand. And on the other how you would guarantee the same end result if such a transition was deemed the best solution for Australia’s energy future, with in the same time frame and at a lower cost.
oops those times were by 2030 for 60 gig and 2040 for another 40 gig
And finally would produce power at around 6.5 cents per unit before distribution.
Just a reminder that Tony G is a genius in all sciences, who (despite the fact that his only science training comes from reading delusionist blogs) would sweep the Nobel prizes, and refute all the scientific academies if it weren’t for the fact that the comment section of this blog, the only publication outlet available to him, censors his brilliant work, to ensure that my scheme for world domination is not diverted. (cue evil laugh)
Please don’t suggest any reading to him, or try to refute his claims. This only encourages him. Rather, I’d prefer to divert his genius into other fields, for example, squaring the circle, or proving the continuum hypothesis.
“I challenge you economists out there to prove that this would be a huge and unacceptable impost on the economy, on the one hand.”
You’re challenging the wrong economist here, since I must surely be the poster child for ythe claim that emissions could be greatly reduced at modest cost, just as you say.
“And on the other how you would guarantee the same end result if such a transition was deemed the best solution for Australia’s energy future, with in the same time frame and at a lower cost.”
If you choose an emissions trading scheme such that permits trade at (roughly) $30/tonne, you’ll get (roughly) the same outcome, assuming that the emissions intensity of generation is initially about 1 tonne/MWh. As I’ve said quite a few times, taxes and tradeable permits are roughly equivalent.
The only qualification I’d make is that you need a fairly hefty tax on petrol, or the return of high oil prices, to induce the shift to electric vehicles you envisage.
Tony G has an AGW bumblebee whizzing around between his ears and he doesnt think/talk about anything else. The bumblebee has severely disrupted his capacity for higher order intellectual functions but mention GW and it stings him into an automated verbal torrent of nonsense.
BilB Says: March 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I have no idea of the technical efficacy or economical efficiency of CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) technologies. Nor am I that clued up on the demand elasticities for carbon energy or the incidence of Carbon Reduction Tax (CRT – my coinage!).
To me the easiest way to conserve carbon is simply to reduce carbon-emitting activities. Is your OS trip really necessary, wouldnt an internet conference do the same job? And what about that juicy steak, couldnt you eat veggie foods instead?
All I know is that a CRT would send the right signal to everyone, which is to get out of Carbon Town before sundown. Also, less avoidable and rortable.
More generally, a CRT would automatically provide states with a gigantic green energy investment fund, taken out of current consumption, to finance the immediate re-tooling of base power generators. And not just nationally, although that of course.
Ultimately, for carbon mitigation programs to work, the world authorities are going to have to intervene in the energy affairs of several emerging high-carbon growth nations. Principally the BRIC nations: BRZ, RUS, IND, C(PRof). Also Indonesians and Arabians (BRIICA?).
These countries have national versions of the Permanent Income Hypothesis. Only their versions assume exponential growth based on cheap energy. So the only way that global constraints on carbon emissions is going to work is if the OECD effectively subsidizes their growth by gifting them non-carbon energy generators.
Not exactly a free lunch. But a free after dinner snack.
I dont see the Alpha-males of these nations taking a big carbon hair cut unless whitey coughs up on the tab. Which whitey is really responsible for, given the massive stock of Euro-American emitted carbon already floating in the atmosphere.
Of course the political will for such a massive global Marshall Plan to reduce carbon emissions is only likely to be mustered when the Antarctic ice-melt “sh*tstorm” hits the fan. That being the myopic nature of the human political animal.
Pr Q says:
A fundamental factor in the depressed L/NP vote is the continual attraction of the Opposition’s Right-wing for Howard-era political losers, namely Work Compulsion and Greenhouse Delaying.
These two were the only big policy differences bw Howard and me-too Howard-lite. I estimate they cost the L/NP at least 1% in 2PP – a pretty big slice of the eventual margin of victory.
If Turnbull can achieve one thing during his tenure it would be to kill off the die-hard L/NP support for these dead-end policies.
To the extent that the L/NP move to the Centre on ecological issues it can help the ALP marginalise the Far Left forces concentrated in the GREENs. That is all to the good because most normal people find GREEN cultural policies to be wacky verging on repellent.
John, if I may respond to Tony G by saying just think of what would happen if there weren’t tropical forests absorbing some 4.8bn tonnes of CO2 each year which is equivalent to the USA annual carbon dioxide emissions. This is real science not imaginary.
Unfortunately my hands are tied by the censor so I can not discuss extrapolated global temperature movements and supposed causation theories or who is going to be guilty of sacrificing third world lives and living standards to a false weather god. Anyway, we do not need to, the ETS demonstrates the absurdity of the AGW debate.
My back of the envelope calculations tell me that the annual compound growth rate of (evil) carbon in the atmosphere since 1960 is approximately 0.421% p.a. Projecting the present 390ppm @ the 0.421% p.a historical growth rate over the next 40 years gives us approximately 461ppm of carbon in the atmosphere by 2050.
Learned ones, if Australia’s ETS managed to reduce Australia’s emissions by 100% there would still be a projected 461ppm or more of carbon in the atmosphere by 2050. Regardless of the projections, Australia’s ETS won’t make a scrap of difference to rate of increasing of carbon in the atmosphere. (A bodgie scheme like its bodgie science)
Re Michael @ 48
Maybe some one should have a look at the disappearing vegetation as a cause for the increasing carbon, at least that sounds more feasible than, 95% of the carbon going into the atmosphere comes from somewhere else, yet 100% of what is left hanging around up there is anthropological.
JohnL @22
What a convoluted drawn out way to retract your assertion that JQ’s approach is lacking in political morality.
Let me paraphrase your post:
1). You think JQ has doubts about a global agreeent because the phase “even if” appears in his text.
2). You say that the JQ thinks the ETS bill will pass if the upper limit is raise from 15 to 25%
3). You highlight JQ’s point that those who have argued that no global agreement will emerge have no good reason to oppose the raise of the (global agreement dependent) target from 15 to 25%.
4). You highlight Australian govt’s rhetoric that 15% target is a responsible course.
5). You say:
What a bazaar mix of twisted morality and naiveté. Firstly, how do you know what the government thinks is the most responsible course? If you believe there 15% target is not a political calculation, but rather than a moral one, then I’m amazed.
Secondly, our democracy requires that legislation pass in both houses. And our democracy says that the ALP is not representative of the majority of Australians in the Senate. Hence it is up to our democracy what is the most responsible course.