I’ve been very busy with asset sales, the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin, my still-in-progress book and other commitments too numerous to list, with the result that I’ve had no time to comment on the spectacular events in the climate change debate. But it’s finally too much to ignore.
I’ve long pointed out the “parallel universe” nature of the discussion that goes on under the name of “scepticism”. Over the last couple of days, that parallel universe has collided with the universe of Australian practical politics, with catastrophic results for Malcolm Turnbull in particular.
The timing is particularly galling for the delusionists who are uniformly convinced that the University of East Anglia emails they have stolen and promulgated prove beyond doubt … well, something sinister. Surely, they think, this will persuade the weak-kneed Liberals to stop while we hold a full inquiry. Following the analogy of Newtongate it’s as if, just as the vorticists had found the crucial ‘smoking gun’, a letter exposing Newton’s use of hired thugs to beat up Cartesian critics, they looked out from their shiny new antigravity machine and realised that some very hard ground was approaching them at a speed of hundreds of metres per second.
For Kevin Rudd, the effect is a free gift of Master of the (Australian political) universe. Counting Costello, Turnbull is the fourth Liberal leader he’s destroyed in the space of exactly two years. It’s hard to imagine a better outcome than facing an opponent who could barely beat “None of the above” in a ballot of his own party and is in place only because no one else wants the job. And when Turnbull finally goes, the likelihood that either Joe Hockey or Tony Abbott is going to provide a serious challenge seems close to zero. Whether as supporters or opponents of the leaders, the fruit loops are running wild now, and unlikely to be reined in.
But in the actual physical universe the results aren’t so good for the Australian public or for out contribution to stabilizing the global climate. The combined efforts of rentseekers and delusionists have ensured that, assuming the Senate finally ratifies the Rudd-Turnbull deal, we’ll have a CPRS that is both far more expensive and far less effective than it should have been. It’s still, I think better than nothing, but it’s a deplorable outcome to an unedifying process.
John Quiggin 
Do you really think the final version of the CPRS is better than nothing? (Genuine question!)
It seems to me to lock in inadequate targets, combined with excessive compensation which will leave a price signal too weak to drive the necessary investment in low emissions technology. All of which will leave us even further behind where we need to be, with even less time to get there.
Almost everyone seems to be assuming it will need some further amending down the track anyway, with the almost inevitable further wave of compensation – particularly when agriculture eventually gets included, as surely it must.
Well, the final bill is rubbish. But can’t it all be rejigged come July 1, 2011? Or even earlier if there is a double dissolution. The Libs are out of the game from that date, and the Greens should be able to trade a better CPRS for some other thing the Government wants. I don’t get why people are acting like this is the end of the CPRS definition process.
It’s slightly better than nothing, to be sure, but some aspects of it, particularly the payments to the Victorian electricity generators, seem to me to be simply theft from personal taxpayers.
What’s the freakin’ point of this? It’s been known from the start that the generators will be able to pass on almost 100% of any kind of carbon charge to the end users. In five, ten, twenty years, they won’t be able to compete with new entrants, so they will have to fold. But so what? How is that different from any other company or industry?
Why should we be agreeing to any of this crap?
There seems to be this notion that if the ETS is rejected at this point in the game then we will have nothing. Given the state of public opinion and political momentum that isn’t likely to be the case at all. In fact the Greens have been banking on it.
John a major criticism of cap and trade has always been that it will encourage rent seeking behaviour. The fact that it has encouraged rent seeking behaviour should not surprise anybody that has been paying attention. This is the game you have championed.
Terje, you’ve thrown your weight into the denialist camp. Nothing you say is of any value or credibility.
The only point to the CPRS (from an environmental perspective) is that, if it passes, it will provide some momentum (albeit small) to Copenhagen.
Total emissions (across all scopes) will increase in Australia to 2020 from 2000 levels – even if the CPRS works flawlessly.
The CPRS just satisfies a need that we should be doing “something”.
Any constructive future change to the CPRS will only come in the form of an effective international agreement (which is unlikely).
So we are just fiddling around waiting for damage cost of CC to start mounting, and hope that we found a technological solution before then.
With the CPRS passing any possibility of an alternative MBI in Australia – carbon tax, TEQs, etc – will close. But this decision was probably made for us when the EU ETS started.
“it’s a deplorable outcome to an unedifying process” – I am not a religious man, but, amen!
“t’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.”
George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 21.00 GMT
Program code comment from documentsharris-treerecon_esper.pro:
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline
function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
Get the picture?
Damian – those two extracts really don’t tell us anything. They really are lacking in context.
How about this for some context?
I’ll cut-n-paste a quote or two from the above link at RealClimate:
Then Gavin’s response. I’ve highlighted the bits that indicate bad behaviour, but not by CRU staff:
Vexatious is understating it. At what point does the pursuer or data cross a line into harrassment?
Here is the next paragraph of the Monbiot column to add to the bit above.
“But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed”
Damian provides excellent examples of the quote mining techniques common to creationists, tobacco lobbying and delusionists. The leading delusionists are former tobacco lobbyists who have combined the FUD techniques of the tobacco wars with techniques picked up from the creationists. The idea of these criminals giving anybody lectures on ethics is ludicrous.
But, as I said, it doesn’t matter. The delusionists have lost and their only achievement has been to help the coal and generator lobby extract billions in undeserved compensation from the Australian public.
If you want to quote George Monbiot you should read his post on what an actual global warming conspiracy email would have to include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists
Stay tuned for the next great hack hoaxes….
Did someone recently hack into Malcolm Turnbull’s emails to find Malcolm had offered to pay Kevin Andrews to mount a leadership challenge, because Godwin Grech is indisposed?
Did someone recently hack into McDonalds executives’ emails to discover that the company secretly plotted to increase profits by having its drive through staff leave a hot apple pie or a bag of chips or a burger out of every third customer order?
“But, as I said, it doesn’t matter. The delusionists have lost and their only achievement has been to help the coal and generator lobby extract billions in undeserved compensation from the Australian public.”
I’d say that was the aim of those funding the delusional campaign. The real suckers are those that fell for it. Which seems to be about 50% of the Liberal party.
Can we please not hijack this thread onto the stolen emails? That has been done ot death at RealClimate for anyone who wants to read it.
I too am dissappointed at the final outcome of the ETS, but take comfort that it can be toughened up later as long as it is structurally sound. In that regard my biggest concern is not the compensation, but the exclusion of agriculture. The compensation will just be pocketed by power companies (bad) who will still assess the cost of permits they must buy versus the output of each station (good). But farming is different – there will be no structural adjustment of that sector until it is included.
Also, I have a general concern (as an engineer) with economists who assume that industries will reform themselves if the right price/policy settings are put in place. I don’t believe that any more than Fama’s efficient markets hypothesis. There are some structural aspects of our power system, notably the lack of interstate grid connections, that still require government intervention and investment. Without it we won’t get interstate competition and a shift away from high emission power sources like La Trobe Valley brown coal. A market has to be possible before it can be efficient.
To sum up the above, my point is that an ETS is a necessary but not sufficient condition for reform of the power industry. We still need government involvement in planning and creating the physical infrastructure, especially the grid elements that don’t generate a large return.
Socrates, I certainly agree on the need for restructuring of the network and associated changes to the National Electricity Market. “Prices are necessary but not sufficient” is exactly right.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
“a major criticism of cap and trade has always been that it will encourage rent seeking behaviour.”
And a carbon tax wouldn’t encourage rent seeking behaviour? The same rent seekers who successfully lobbied to get free permits would have successfully lobbied to be tax exempt.
You can legitimately compare theoretically pure cap and trade with a theoretically pure carbon tax. (Start with Weitzman, 1974 and work your way through the literature). But you can’t legitimately compare cap and trade that has been shredded by the the political system with a theoretically pure carbon tax.
Damian said “- data analysis code -”
There is a certain amount of black humour about it, but I love watching the delusionists try and make sense of the code ( R? Scilab?) It’s like watching the monkeys in 2001 when they found the monolith. Scampering around, hootin’ and gruntin’ but not the foggiest idea of what they’re looking at. A particularly treasured moment (from another blog) was when one of them saw the word ‘bias’ and thought he’d struck the motherlode.
It’s worth mentioning that the denialists have decided to sue Gavin Schmidt for daring to respond to the accusations made about the emails. Details at Deltoid. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/competitive_enterprise_institu.php
@Andrew Bartlett
I agree Andrew. It would have been better if this had been voted down. It’s worse than nothing, because its obvious flaws will taint all future schemes and those associated with them and it does of course lock in a regime that will not in practice be capable of amendment in the time needed without massive compensation.
Speaking on a global scale, further large increases in CO2 emissions are in the offing. Our entire global human physical-economic has this momemtum already built into it. If we were to save the planet, we should have changed course from about the mid 1970s. That was our last chance. These further inevitable built-in increases* in CO2 emissions will take us over the disaster threshold. Sadly, the reality is that climate disaster is already built into the system. We will soon pass the tipping point.
When the permafrost gives up its methane and the methane clathrates start bubbling up from the ocean floor it’s goodbye cookies.
* Coal burning continues to increase every year as our power system (physical-military-political) demands it. Ignore the talk and just watch the physical system. The physical system does not lie.
[…] John Quiggin comments on the manipulation of public opinion: The leading delusionists are former tobacco lobbyists who have combined the FUD techniques of the tobacco wars with techniques picked up from the creationists. The idea of these criminals giving anybody lectures on ethics is ludicrous. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)EMISSIONS TRADING […]
Maybe I’m naive or just slow to get it, but I’ve found the behaviour of the Liberal Party pretty disturbing. These are guys who claim to be capable of running the country yet they actually can’t distinguish science from other types of narrative. What’s unsettling is not that there are a few loonys in the Liberal Party but that they weren’t immediately shouted down, their crazy attitude to the science is sufficiently mainstream to nearly get up. (The reduction scheme which was always going to be a bunfight, and maybe should be, but you’d think that there would be enough Liberals who realise that science is different.)
It doesn’t bode well for the ongoing government of Australia. It’s mad. If anyone want to make basic science literacy a requirement for entering politics, they’ve got my support.
@Andrew Bartlett,
@Fran Barlow
I’m torn in two by the recent CPRS amendments: I’ve completely lost track of whether this is to give the current GHG emitters a bucket of board bonuses cash for doing diddly squat during the last two decades, or to kickstart the process of reduction of GHG emissions. I guess my question is to Pr Q here: will this CPRS actually have a price signal not lost in the usual noise of markets, or have we just chucked away X billion of cash?
Perhaps, in order to get the numbers to pass this bill, the Government should give the Greens a concession, like a bigger target – say 15%. This would get the bill through, split the Liberals again, and make Copenhagen at least slightly interesting. Any parliamentary rule or
reason this can’t be done?
“Oh my gods, Billy has had his arm nearly cut off by the mad chain saw wielder, quick get a band aid and a bucket of cash for the bloke with the chainsaw!”
The Libs will be in an even sadde state if Malcolm is finally brought down, not for his manifest failings, but for not being a loony denier. As the evidence mounts so does their desperation. Seems suspiciously psychological as does the desperate activity of deniers everywhere. If only they can get everyone to agree with them everything will be fine and the evidence will be easier to ignore.
The Libs will be in an even sadder state if Malcolm is finally brought down, not for his manifest failings, but for not being a loony denier. As the evidence mounts so does their desperation. Seems suspiciously psychological as does the desperate activity of deniers everywhere. If only they can get everyone to agree with them everything will be fine and the evidence will be easier to ignore.
Don,
The price signal is estimated to be around $26/tonne by around 2013, for included scope 1 and 2 emissions that are not, obviously, free permitted.
Total emissions (across all scopes) will increase in Australia to 2020 from 2000 levels – even if the CPRS works flawlessly.
@Donald Oats
I think they should be honest and say how much below 1990 they are willing to go. AIUI 5% below 2005 is an increase on 1990. I doubt 15% below 2005 would be much under 1990, if at all. We need a figure of at least 25% below 1990 before we can start seeing ourselves as making a useful contribution.
I think the whole bill should be discarded and we start again, but politically, this would embarrass the government — unless the opposition throws them a lifeline and votes it down. One can live in hope.
It struck me that one cute manoeurvre of Rudd’s could have been along the following lines:
Rudd notes that the opposition doesn’t like the concept of an ETS, because “it’s a new tax that will cost Aussies jobs”. He says You don’t like it? Rentseekers? It’s gone!.
But then he continues …
of course, we still have the thorny problem of getting emissions down. What we are going to do is regulate emissions to an acceptable level. We ratified Kyoto and Bali and so we are going to use the Foreign Affairs power to impose year on year cuts in emissions on all sectors of the economy. Anyone who misses a target gets heavily fined with $100 per tonne as a starting point. Persistent offenders will face escalating fines and/or forfeiture. We will build ourselves or lend the money to build the infrastructure/retool at a 1% discount to commercial rates.
Everything in. Forestry, agriculture, transport, commercial and residential building … we override state sovereignty over planning and housing as needed.
They could then suck on that …
Oops … dreaming again …
The reality of the CPRS is that as a major poltical issue and policy intitiative it opened up the fissures in the broad conservative consensus of the liberals and their real understanding of the nature of our current economic and environmental problems. Those fissures, in the abscence of genuine support for his leadership by Turnbull by members of the party are now plain for all to see. We have; the cretins, the loons, we have the WA/SA drys. the catholic right (Opus Dei) and the remaining reasonable souls stuck in the middle of all this somewhere. This shambles is but a federal version of the state of existence of the various State liberal parties. The libs have like conservatives everywhere borrowed from the ops manual of the GOP in the US but without God and country and they will continue to lurch predictably further towards infantile visions of despotic benevolence and into the bosom of their corporate facist tendencies as they fragment.
As for the CPRS – I can find no good for either our environment or our body politic in the legislation and the only price signal it will emit is higher electricity bills for the customers of our various overseas owned power plants and they will simply take the money and run, will invest absolutely nothing into either improving the plants efficiency or reduce their carbon outputs but will use the windfall profits coming their way to buy offsets from genuine enterprises and individuals who are reducing their carbon output. It is nothing but accounting smoke and mirrors. As far as I am concerned the CPRS does nothing but provide a effective means to monetarise energy production which allow for further financial engineering at the expense of actually doing something. The next derivative trade will be carbon credits – watch out for that one.
As for agriculture, they already the main means of reducing carbon by natural sequestration processes, to ask farmers to account for their carbon expenditure without accounting for the processes they are the guardians off which sequester carbon is simply folly. The Nats are right on the issue of it doing nothing for farming but add to costs and this will only lead to more carbon use not less as agribusinesses coalesce into even larger scale businesses. Their is no reliable research yet available to demonstrate ina quantifiable manner what every farmer knows about soil and vegetation carbon sequestration. So if I as a farmer plant say another 10 hectares of trees and by pasture management improved the carbon sequestration of the soils by 15% will this be recognised, no only bovine flatulence and tractor diesel counts on our carbon balance sheet. We will plant the trees and improve the soil and will move to biodiesel produced from vegatable oils we grow but we will do this to survive not because of the CPRS or any other similar scheme.
As PQ says: “I’ve long pointed out the “parallel universe” nature of the discussion that goes on under the name of “scepticism”. Over the last couple of days, that parallel universe has collided with the universe of Australian practical politics, with catastrophic results for Malcolm Turnbull in particular.”
I sometimes wonder if Malcolm ever thinks about a parallel universe where J. Howard agrees to his (as Environment Minister) urgings to sign up to doing something about climate change. And I almost (but not quite) feel sorry for him for the rabble and fruit loops he has to manage.
All this talk about the CPRS has reached the stage of absurd pointlessness. We have built a system (the physical-economic system of late stage corporate-oligarchic capitalism) which has ignored the environment, ignored the limits to growth and ignored that fact that it is 100% contingent on the environment. This entire physical-economic system has enormous ongoing growth momentum and it is about to crash into the limits. The unreality of the debate is becoming quite bizarre. I guess it illustrates that nearly everyone is in total denial.
The simple fact is that late stage corporate capitalism has been maladaptive on a grand scale. It is now appropriate to begin using past tense. This system will collapse totally and unfortunately the death toll of premature human deaths over this century will be of the order of several billion.
Talking about the CPRS now is like talking about erecting a wet tissue paper barrier against a catastrophic category bushfire already roaring down on you. If I may change the analogy, it’s like talking about raising the levees in New Orleans 2 hours before the category 5 Hurricane is about to hit. Or it’s like doing 200 kph in a car 15 metres from hitting a brick wall and still arguing about whether we need a light touch on the brakes.
My advice to you all would be this. Live peacefully and quietly and enjoy what time you have left. Try to keep your own CO2 emissions down as a salve to your own conscience. If you don’t have children do not start a family now.
I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Yes the extra compensation for polluters isnt good, and yes the initial targets are inadequate, however, the overall structure of the scheme is promising and the cap and the price signals that it generates will change behaviour. The fact is that the scheme covers 85% of Australias emissions (if I remember correctly) which is a substantial proportion of emissions. Agriculture can always be added, and targets can always be raised.
However once this scheme is in place there wont be anymore scare campaigns about the “economic suicide” of reducing emissions allowing for tougher action in the future. The price signals wont be hidden by the free permits to polluters as they can still profit from reducing emissions and selling the permits. Finally I dont see how carbon derivatives pose a problem. Rather they provide a valuable mechanism for businesses to hedge their risks and provide a degree of certainty for investment.
Maybe Levitt is correct when suggesting that geo-engineering will be the only way to avoid catastrophe while the natural system has time to absorb the existing CO2. It has some things going for it, not withstanding the potential unintended consequences. Initially I wouldn’t have been in favour of it, but if the current science is correct we may well have no other viable option left. It certainly is just as worthy of research focus as carbon capture and storage. Denial about climate change isn’t the only mass delusion going on – I would add our ponzi housing market, consumption based economics and the global finance industry.
Good point. I support the scheme only as a method of moving passed all the FUD tactics of the denialists. Once the scheme is introduced some of the more extreme scaremongering will be revealed for what it is. The question that needs to be asked is if Joyce, Minchin and co will be held accountable for the damage they have done.
@stuart
It will in practice be impossible to change the scheme in any serious way this side of 2020 without massive cost. And you have to think if they chickened out on agriculture now — when they are likely to significantly increase their grip on power at the next election in both houses and all they were proposing to do was to consider and evaluate the feasibility of including it by 2015 that they won’t have the nerve to do it or anything erlse significant in the run up to the 2016 election, as they try to win a fourth term and may well by then be in something like the position of Gordon Brown today.
Let there be no mistake. If this goes through then the argument is dead in the water until 2020 and probably later. The only consolation from today is that there is something to the denier meme that Australia “only” accounts for 1.5% of emissions. I’ve never accepted the force of this claim of course, but for today only, I am clinging to it to still my disgust.
The only loophole I can see is that at state level a number of states might use regulatory devices to make further impositions, but that seems unlikely for similar reasons
Michael:
which will take tens of thousands of years. Good luck to humanity to keep up the geo-engineering for that long.
@Fran Barlow
I can appreciate yor dispair, but I don’t believe even a perfect ETS would be enough to deal with the problem. I believe there was always going to be a need for governments, industry and individuals to act in other more direct ways. The CPRS doesn’t stop these things from taking place. Many people around the world have already modified their lifestyles and invested money in solutions in advance of a carbon price. This action may initally be negated by freeriders but it still increases the awareness of the problem and the solutions. It is a common flaw in economics to ignore non-market or non-transaction based activities.
should have read “despair” not dispair.
@ Fran, I dont think that the scheme needs major change. The only deficiencies I see are the exclusion of agriculture and the targets. (as you allude to) Agriculture wouldnt have been included until the measurement of agricultural emissions was improved anyway, and targets increases can be realised simply by the government purchasing emissions permits on the market.
The fact is that this scheme has significant industry coverage and with the major politics behind us it can be an effective mechanism for driving emissions reductions.
@Chris O’Neill
Levitt didn’t prepose geo-engineering as a substitute for reducing carbon dioxide levels. This would also need to be done. I for one support dramatic cuts in carbon pollution along with general reduction in consumption levels, but given the state of the world you need more than one plan.
“The fact is that the scheme covers 85% of Australias emissions (if I remember correctly) which is a substantial proportion of emissions.”
lol
The scheme may cover 85% of scope 1 and 2 emissions (depending on how you measure land use). But this is far from being a “substantial proportion of emissions”.
Scope 3 emissions are, potentially, larger than both 1 and 2. Lobby NGER to compulsory include it. Or keep towing Rudd and Wong’s line that the CPRS reduces total emissions. Or keep your head in the sand.
@iain
According to the department of climate change website the CPRS covers approximately 75% of emissions.
(http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/accountability/annual-reports/annual-report-0708/performance-overview.aspx)
I was wrong with the 85%, but 75% is a “substantial proportion of emissions”
The entire world needed to move to zero emissions and a steady state sustainables economy by 2000. This process should have commenced about 1970 or even earlier. Keep talking, you are 40 years too late.
Stuart,
“on average more than 75% of an industry sector’s carbon footprint is attributed to Scope 3 sources”*
*Categorization of Scope 3 Emissions for Streamlined Enterprise Carbon Footprinting: Environmental science & technology Huang yr:2009 vol:43 iss:22 pg:8509 -8515
Your “75% figure” only accounts for scope 1 and 2 emissions.
Total emissions (across all scopes) covered by the ETS is far less than 50%.
@Ikonoclast
Where’s H G Well when you need him?
2100?
Could anyone take pity on a poor but honest delusionist and list the tangible benefits of an Australian ETS? Or point me to where it’s been already discussed, if it’s too much trouble to make fun of me on this thread?
All I’ve read about so far generalisations such as “being part of the solution, not the problem”, “tackling climate change”, etc.
All well and good, but how, exactly. What are the expected tangible results, and why are they going to benefit us?