The UQ Risk and Sustainable Management Group, which I lead, held a small workshop last week, looking at early experience with the carbon price. We plan to produce an edited volume from it, to be published early next year. A few items of information that were new(ish) to me;
* There’s been a lot of work going on to tighten up estimates of climate sensitivity (conventionally measured as the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2). The news on this front has been moderately good. The worst case catastrophes are less likely and stabilization at 475 ppm would give a 90 per cent chance of holding the global temperature increase to 2C or less. This is excellent news, since, as I’ve argued previously, it will be a lot easier to get to 475 than to the internationally agreed target of 450. We’re adding about 2ppm/year, so the extra 25ppm more or less offsets the decade of delay we’ve just experienced.
* Just by selecting the right breeding stock, we might be able to reduce methane emissions (belches and farts) from ruminants by around 30 per cent
* Soil carbon storage, much beloved of Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt and others, is (almost) a complete furphy
John Quiggin 
John I’m not sure I can share your even moderate good news on this- do you have a link on climate sensitivity? In terms of policy those numbers don’t usually factor in feedbacks like the arctic-sea ice melt and methane release so:
1) The ppm concentrations might not speak to the level of anthropogenic interference that is ‘allowable’ given the changes we’ve set in train.
2) The evidence is growing that a 450(475)/ “2C” barrier is not in fact safe. It’s not just Hansen and Rockstrom who have been saying that 350ppm is probably where humanity should be aiming… Joe Romm also put together a nice set of links on impacts etc. His findings are:
“We remain near the worst-case emissions pathways
There is little prospect of major national or global action any times soon (thank you, deniers)
Many impacts are coming faster than the models projected, and
The overwhelming majority of the scientific literature in the past 5 years has been more dire than the 2007 IPCC report, which itself was more than enough motivation for the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and countries to call for urgent action to reduce emissions.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/14/1009121/science-of-global-warming-impacts-guide/
I too would be interested in data supporting a safe target of 475. Wishing it were so…
Hurricane Sandy could be a mixed bag for climate change acceptance. If it wimps out the deniers might be emboldened or others will say we can always cope. That’s this generation not sure about the next and the one after.
The Carbon Farming Initiative should be seen as rural welfare the same as the corn ethanol blending quota in the US. It invites exaggeration as well as distracting from the urgent problem of coal dependence. For example if carbon sink trees burn down the carbon credit cash is not repaid but held ‘in moderation’ by some means.
I see one pig farm in NSW can sell carbon credits on the basis that methane from effluent is burned rather than vented. If the expansion of activity is new there will still be more CO2e than before so the credit has a perverse effect. It excuses old emissions and causes new emissions to be ignored. Until big coal stations (1000MW+) close for good we’re not serious. It also hardly seems fair dinkum when the govt crows about coal exports.
Off topic John, but thought you might like to know that your “zombie” ideas might have crossed over into mainstream meme… http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6TiXUF9xbTo#!
Prof Q, can I also beg for a link on the encouraging news about climate sensitivity
Forgot the ‘?’.
I’d also like to know more about the evidence for reduced climate sensitivity. Also, where have you talked previously about the relative economic impact of 450 and 475 targets? I’d love to see the hard numbers on these things.
I’ve been working on projects related to PA Yeomans keyline farming principles http://yeomansproject.com and one of Yeomans sons has strongly promoted the soil based carbon idea for genuine (if misguided, apparently) reasons but he too became disillusioned by what he saw as the LNP misuse of the idea. It does seem sensible that any form of farming that maximises the organic content in the soil will provide some degree of carbon sequestration and as we also know almost invisible creatures can add up to enormous bio mass, so I suppose the issue is how much carbon could be sequestered in soil? Will it only at best be part of the closed system of organically recycling carbon without any real net benefit? This is of course without going into the inevitable boondoggles that always result when the LNP waves a bucket of money in front of farmers. Are there any links to the research Dr Q?
Hi Ian,
That looks like it was a great excursion. The Keyline concept is excellent application of clear thinking and common sense, with excellent results. I am a fan of that and other similarly innovative Australians.
Soil Carbon sequestration is a very mixed subject. For starters any organic matter in soil improves its performance. Putting the organic matter in the soil comes at a cost. Farmers aim to reap a commersial revard for anything that grows out of their soil, and that usually means removing the material from the site. True “sequestration” requires very long term occupancy for he carbon. Charcoal and biochar are the main mediums to achieve this.
Carrying on…
Biochar requires that biomass be produced, collected, processed through a gassifier, distributed to storage locations, and then utilised in a manner that protects the biochar in a sequestering manner. The gassification process does yield surpluss energy so there is scope self power some forms of biochar sequestration. However the source material still has to be grown, preferably without cost to the farmer. Biocharring is potentially economic for hte logging industry where large amounts of surface material is left on the ground to rot and form methane and CO2.
One method for increasing soil carbon is to change our trees in suitable areas from native gums to deciduous trees. Such trees produce a different form of leaf litter, and grow in a way that reduces fire risk, thereby protecting the surface material so that it is not combusted in the cyclic bushfires, and improving overal soil quality. This is an unlikely change.
That is my take on the subject, but I am sure that there is much more to soil carbon, and there may be many ways to improve soil carbon sequestration, knowledge that I am keen to gain.
The burping ruminant “issue” is a diversion. The methane generated is part of a natural cycle where ruminants convert plant matter in to methane which breaks down quickly into CO2. This CO2 is then converted back to plant matter to complete the cycle. Yes, this cycle does effect the equilibrium value of atmospheric methane and reducing the number of ruminants would have some effect. However, what really matters is reducing the net use of fossil carbon.
Eliminating the ruminants may lead to the odd protest. Wikapedia says:
There are about 150 species of ruminants which include both domestic and wild species. Ruminating mammals include cattle, goats, sheep, giraffes, bison, moose, elk, yaks, water buffalo, deer, camels, alpacas, llamas, antelope, pronghorn, and nilgai. Taxonomically, the suborder Ruminantia includes all those species except the camels, llamas, and alpacas, which are Tylopoda. Therefore, the term ‘ruminant’ is not synonymous with Ruminantia. The word “ruminant” comes from the Latin ruminare, which means “to chew over again”.
Carbon sequestration have been used to improve the quality of soils for hundreds of years. It has been particularly beneficial in rain forest areas where nutrients are leached out of the soil. In the Amozan area the carbon has remained in the soil long after the towns that used it were deserted.
In the Australian context it may be justified in terms of reducing fertilizer use and reducing fertilizer run-off to the barrier reef. It does have the attraction of actually refossilizing carbon.
Tim Flannery didn’t think so a few years ago. Has he changed his mind since then?
Keen to hear what is happening regarding removal of the inefficient (ie non carbon tax) carbon mitigation policies. Such as MRET. Any news?
@TerjeP TerjeP. Do your sums. The price increase under MRET would only have ramped up to the price increase due to the $23/tonne carbon price after % renewables had passed 50% (Assumes price premium for renewables power about $40/mW
PrQ:
Good news, if true, but mostly because it’s hard to imagine how the world will not get to 550ppmv by 2050 this side of unforeseeable changes in collective abatement policy. We really need to be aiming for at worst 350ppmv by 2050 and ideally stabilising at about 420 by 2020. That Arctic permafrost cannot be allowed to decompose.
FTR, I’ve seen nothing to suggest we will stay within the 2degC target by 2100. Although I won’t be about to see it, 2.5 –> 3degC+ looks a very safe bet, if “safe” is not ironic here.
As well as getting the carbon price up to the level required (something like $55 a ton?) we need to remove all subsidies for fossil fuel energy in this country.
http://www.acfonline.org.au/fossil-fuel-subsidies
When are we going to stop subsidising climate change?
@TerjeP
Climate Change Authority has a discussion paper suggesting no change to RET. I am presenting a paper to the PC in December arguing that RET is superior to existing carbon price, since implicit price is closer to long-run optimum. More on this soon.
@wilful
Still chasing the supporting info on this
Prof John Quiggin, what work is being done in Australia (political action and economic modelling) to remove fossil fuel subsidies? Are not fossil fuel subsidies a major barrier to mitigation of CO2 emissions? What is the true carbon price when carbon tax receipts in in 2013-2014 are projected to be 6.6 billion and fossil fuel subsidies are to be about $7 billion or more? By my arithmetic that equates to a net fossil fuel subsidy overall, though there are differences by sector.
Why are fossil fuel subsidies a sacred cow in this country just like negative gearing? Add in the abandonment of the unemployed and you have the unholy trinity of Australian economic policy.
A few years ago I saw this story on the New Inventors:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1296184.htm
The story explained that a large proportion of CO2 comes from the manufacture of concrete and also that when concrete sets it releases CO2.
Apparently TecEco’s “eco-cement” only needs to be heated to half the temperature during the manufacturing process and the end product actually sequestors large amounts of CO2 while hardening.
That story was the last I heard of the invention but I know the company still exists: http://www.tececo.com.au/
Another invention that may be of interest is another Austalian company Dyesol. They have partnered with Tata steel and one of the USA’s largest window manufacturers to introduce their DSC solar technology into window glass and metal roofing.
Last time I looked they had working prototypes and were in the process of commercialisation for the metal roofing products, estimating that they would be available to the market by about 2014. The windows were expected to be available a few years later.
BTW I have no commercial interest in either of these companies but I am perplexed as to why I keep hearing ridiculous ideas like planting millions of trees and soil carbon while inventions such as the two I just mentioned are either struggling to get funding or need to go overseas to get it?
@John Quiggin
Maybe so but by definition the RET excludes nuclear and CCS therefore it is not technology neutral. The quibbles don’t stop there if 1960s hydro doesn’t get renewables certificates whatever they are called these days. Some suggested outback geothermal wasn’t truly renewable if the steam wells had to be re-drilled every couple of years. A $50 no freebies carbon price seems draconian but shouldn’t need tinkering.
@Hermit Since the quantity of 1960s hydro is fixed, and nuclear isn’t going to happen any time soon, these are irrelevant quibbles
John:
Are the papers available somewhere?
Thanks.
Tapen
The rumen in domestic livestock (sheep and cattle) is a very well buffered microbial system. Likewise animals that share drinking water quickly develop a common rumen micro-flora and fauna. Meanwhile the main driver of methane production in ruminants is feed quality. Therefore I would be very surprised to see methane production drop substantially, based on changing animal genetics, rather than via improvement in feed quality. Of course getting one’s knickers in a twist over methane emissions from ruminants, while ignoring the carbon dioxide withdrawn from the atmosphere to produce the stock feed in the first place (see John D #11), is not a robust accounting practice I would suggest. Selective partial budgeting will always give you the answer you want. No doubt Bernie Madoff could further advise.
It is the net effect of all sources and sinks of GHG’s in the atmosphere that should be the focus of attention. As has oft been pointed out it is what the atmosphere “sees” that is of most moment. Soils can be a good store of organic carbon. Ask any successful agriculturalist. The problem is measuring the organic carbon pool, and especially its flux over time, with sufficient accuracy and precision to justify its inclusion in paddock carbon budgets. For example, we might measure a flux of 1 t C/ha/yr in aboveground woodland biomass, but only (practically) measure the flux in the soil rooting depth of the vegetation within 5-10 t C/ha/yr. Yet above- and below- ground C are part of a continuum. Not to worry of course. Both government and opposition plans to buy carbon offsets would collapse if they were subject to rigorous scientific audit. This is not a furphy, but essential information the Australian taxpayer needs to be told.
What about natural gas? The problem with RET as I see it is that if we can lower emissions quickly and cheaply by switching fossil fuels then a carbon price will achieve this but the RET treats gas and coal as equal. At least in terms of their direct effect.
Ah yes, the complexities of Earth Sciences and implications to risk assessment – margin of errors, research reliability, validity and credibility.
From the ipcc in 2007
“… stabilisation and overshoot scenarios have implications for risk assessment as suggested by Yoshida et al. (2005) and others. For example, in a probabilistic study using an SCM and multi-gas scenarios, Meinshausen (2006) estimated that the probability of exceeding a 2°C warming is between 68 and 99% for a stabilisation of equivalent CO2 at 550 ppm. They also considered scenarios with peaking CO2 and subsequent stabilisation at lower levels as an alternative pathway and found that if the risk of exceeding a warming of 2°C is not to be greater than 30%, it is necessary to peak equivalent CO2 concentrations around 475 ppm before returning to lower concentrations of about 400 ppm. These overshoot and targeted climate change estimations take into account the climate change commitment in the system that must be overcome on the time scale of any overshoot or emissions target calculation. The probabilistic studies also show that when certain thresholds of climate change are to be avoided, emission pathways depend on the certainty requested of not exceeding the threshold.”
so yeah …. I am with you wilful …. will we ever establish a safe level of CO2 …… have time to …. I too wish, cos we are to a large extend flying this planetary scale experiment blind.
wilful #2
Ah yes, the simple complexities of Earth Sciences and implications to risk assessment – margin of errors, research reliability, validity and credibility.
From the ipcc in 2007
“… stabilisation and overshoot scenarios have implications for risk assessment as suggested by Yoshida et al. (2005) and others. For example, in a probabilistic study using an SCM and multi-gas scenarios, Meinshausen (2006) estimated that the probability of exceeding a 2°C warming is between 68 and 99% for a stabilisation of equivalent CO2 at 550 ppm. They also considered scenarios with peaking CO2 and subsequent stabilisation at lower levels as an alternative pathway and found that if the risk of exceeding a warming of 2°C is not to be greater than 30%, it is necessary to peak equivalent CO2 concentrations around 475 ppm before returning to lower concentrations of about 400 ppm. These overshoot and targeted climate change estimations take into account the climate change commitment in the system that must be overcome on the time scale of any overshoot or emissions target calculation. The probabilistic studies also show that when certain thresholds of climate change are to be avoided, emission pathways depend on the certainty requested of not exceeding the threshold.”
….. so yeah ….kind of with you wilful …. will we ever establish a safe level of CO2 …… have time to ….
Sure wish, cos we are flying this planetary scale experiment blind.
Make that ‘quasi blind’ … just for the truthers out there.
@BilB
when soil is ploughed the life within it is killed and releases fertility.
this is why “virgin” soil and ground that is left fallow is more productive.
in agri business fallow is not an option and new ground rare.
so the nutrients needed are applied from fossil derived sources.
these (nitrogen as urea,phoshate as treated rock,etc) prevent regrowth of soil life and must be applied in carefully calculated amounts every season.
the life of what is called soil in good heart is what holds the carbon in it’s various forms.
as long as the food chain in place that relies on fossil input for fertilizer and machinery farming continues,that is as long as the depletion and prevention of soil in good heart regenerating with organic carbon building up into the soil will happen.
a curious occurrance in the availability of phosphate is when a piece of ground that has had applications for many years and then left to regrow soil life.
because super phosphate is only 12% available to plants in soluble form on application, the amount builds up.
there is a phoshate bank in the ground.
as a healthy population of soil life grows the PH of the soil changes and the phosphate is broken down by that soil life to become available to plants.
please excuse the clumsy-ish writing,it’s a huge subject and i’m not up for a debate.
just a personal position from experience.
Why are we not talking about vulnerabilities?
Paging Prof Roger Jones
Thanks for that information, May. Some things there that I did not know. I am aware of the advantages of no-till farming practices which I have been suggesting for some time for US corn ethanol farming to significantly improve its EROI.
One little piece of information from the past that you may or may not be aware of, that is unless it is overwritten by more recent research, is that as CO2 levels rise plants build bigger root systems relative to their above soil growth. So where roots are are in soil that will preserve them for many years the sequestration value of the plants may be larger than expected.
@TerjeP
The trouble with a CO2 tax is that brown coal is so absurdly cheap and there is so much of it that gas can’t compete. Brown coal is priced about $6/t for 10 GJ thermal value or 60c/GJ. East Australian gas is about $4.50 a GJ at moment (Link) but when Gladstone Qld starts selling LNG to Japan that price of eastern piped gas should double to $10 or more.
Without doing the tricky calcs for electricity conversion $23 is just not enough. Of course a quantitative cap of x million tonnes of CO2 p.a. rather than a fixed tax would see brown coal struggle. How it would affect gas demand would require modelling. I reckon gas will be effectively used up by mid century but we’ll still have coal under suburbs. That’s one for Gen Z to solve let’s hope those pesky cyclones don’t get worse.
TerjeP, plans for new gas capacity have been scrapped due to demand being far below what was expected because of efficiency and rooftop solar, and gigawatts of coal capacity decomissioned or mothballed. With Germany demonstrating that that PV installation can be done for almost $2 a watt it’s hard to see anyone wanting to install any gas capacity that isn’t used for cogeneration anytime soon. So the MRET not not favouring gas over coal at the moment doesn’t appear to be of practical significance.
Revisiting Prof Ross Garnaut
Interesting footnote
Perhaps the sceptics have the right position just the wrong focus, there is an awful lot we don’t know. Though with a quick introduction to Geomorphology and risk management, looking at Climate Change, you’d have to start question the conduct of those in charge … misfeasance and nonfeasance, and/or occasionally malfeasance or just plain stupid?
Rather than changing farming practices to increase carbon in the soil, actually physically shoving carbon into the soil in the form of activated charcoal, or biochar as the cool kids call it these days, may be a much more practical aproach. Biochar has definite benefits in most Australian soils and it may be cost effective if farmers can receive credit for the portion of biochar carbon that is locked up in the soil long term.
Climate sensitivity still has a good deal of uncertainty, mostly courtesy of a “long tail” that still has a greater than 5 degrees C as greater than one in ten probability according to this paper by Roe and Baker – http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5850/629.full
Treating 3 degrees as an upper limit is not good risk management. The chances it’s much lower are low but the chances it’s significantly higher are not.
Ultimately the full extent of feedbacks – some acting over long time scales – that contribute to climate sensitivity are not fully known.
The above link may require registration (free) to access.
Re Bill Burrows #24,
I believe methane is 40 times more potent than CO2 so the amount of CO2 used up makes no real difference. As for the CO2 in feed not converted to methane that will be realesed again. So no accounting tricks there.
As for John D’s comment about the methane eventually breaking down and cycling back, I am less clear on this but I beleive this takes in the order of hundreds of years. And I am guessing there has been a large increase in the number of ruminants in recent decades (10 fold is quite believable) and consequently the atmospheric methane level is a long way off from reaching equalibrium – ie the methane level is rising rapidly.
So I think we can trust the experts to have their basic accounting right. And, in general, if you have thought of a complicating issue, you should check it really has not been considered it and that it is of significance in the modelling before suggesting the modelling is invalid.
As for your paragraph about agricultural carbon sequestration I don’t see what you are getting at when you say it the net effect of all source and sinks that is important. This may be technically correct but what does it matter? What matters is whether a policy is likely to reduce CO2, thiswill likely consider all major sinks and sources but will consider a lot of other issues as well and it is a solution not just a summary of the (part of) problem. Similarly, I am really unclear what you are saying about fluxes and continuums. Are you saying anything more than that any measurement would be so inaccurate to not be of any use? Do you know what the either party are proposing here? (I don’t but then I’m not makign any claims).
PS excuse my attrocious spelling and grammar, I can never see my typos till after I have posted even though I proof read several times.
2nd sentence should be “As for the CO2 *from* feed *that is* not converted to methane, that will be released as CO2 again”.
Re MartinK#39
Methane’s Global Warming Potential is actually around 21-25 (100 yrs) and it has a lifetime of about 12 years in the atmosphere. For native pastures (where most of our domestic ruminants graze) a harvest efficiency of 20% would give the animal the best chance of selecting high quality tucker (and therefore minimise its methane output). The accounting trick is that you can’t get that 20% down the animal’s neck without also growing the other 80% of pasture biomass that is not consumed. Then again, not all the pasture that is consumed is converted to methane, weight gain or fibre either. Ignoring these other pathways may be convenient, but it is not good science as far as monitoring carbon flows in ruminants is concerned.
I’m not sure where you are getting your estimates of ruminant populations from. Let’s stick with Australia. Beef cattle numbers are now only just approaching the herd size we had in 1974. There are about half the dairy cattle numbers, and sheep numbers have plummeted over the same time frame. So your guess of a tenfold increase in numbers over recent decades is way off the mark, with respect to this country.
Unfortunately Martin, it matters a great deal that we are aware of all sources and sinks contributing to net carbon emissions. Without such understanding for rural land, for instance, we can never manage the carbon flow at a plot, paddock, property or global scale. My example was based on a common situation in the land use, land use change and forestry sector (“carbon farming” if you like). There are enormous areas targeted for such initiatives. If we do not account for below ground fluxes in carbon, we also leave our estimates exposed to ‘leakage’ and ‘spillover’ effects – (Errors of omission).
Whether in Australia or in third world countries, land based carbon offsets are a huge target for scammers, because we can’t realistically measure them with the accuracy and precision that would survive proper scientific and financial audit. To accurately determine carbon fluxes in vegetation based systems it is necessary to concomitantly account for changes in carbon content of the vegetation and the soil supporting it (the carbon ‘continuum’). But commonly the carbon flux determined within the vegetation is (at a practical intensity of sampling) less than the measurement error of the carbon content in the rooting zone of the soil e.g. a carbon flux of 2 t/ha/yr in vegetation might be growing in soil with a measured organic carbon content in the rooting zone of 80+/-5 t/ha. Obviously you can overcome this problem with more intensive sampling, but the cost of doing this will exceed the value of the claimed offsets for the foreseeable future. And of course to account for carbon fluxes in soil, it is necessary to measure its carbon content at least twice.
I am aware of some 25+ ways to scam land based carbon offsets, based on a 40 year career spent measuring biomass and nutrient content in vegetation (mainly woodland) systems. Yet Australia is preparing to spend billions on purchasing such claimed offsets, inter alia, from overseas or within this country itself, during the next 20-30 years. Anyone want to buy a bridge? I’ve got a cheap one for sale in Sydney.
@Bill Burrows
Bill’s post supports something I posted a long while ago on one of JQ’s carbon blogs. I criticised all notions and attempts to introduce a carbon emissions trading scheme. I said the whole thing would be scammed (in Australia and across the world) and the compliance issues were insurmountable.
I say again the only thing to do is;
(1) Remove all fossil fuel subsidies.
(2) Remove all fossil fuel excises (by rolling them into the carbon tax).
(3) Remove all royalties on export fossil fuel extraction and impose the carbon tax on exported fossil fuels.
(4) Set the fossil fuel carbon tax at the full required price after allowing for points 1, 2 & 3.
(5) Deem all imports to require a full carbon tax unless the exporting nation has a similar robust carbon tax.
(6) Do not accept ETS trade or ETS credits from any nation.
(7) Allow credits for imports provably made using exported (carbon taxed) Australian coal or LNG in manufacture. (This is a manageable compliance issue.)
(8) Place a methane tax on meat, wool, leather and other animal products by estimating the emissions per beast. Rises in meat prices will encourage a reduction in our excess meat intake.
This would be straightforward, simple and effective. Of course, the powers and vested interests fighting against action on climate change do not want simple and effective measures implemented. That is why they delay, obfuscate and finally propose circuitous and scammable measures like an ETS.
@Ikonoclast
You raise some interesting points — many of which I’ve also pondered. It’s not a bad list and I could certainly live with it after some tweaking, but on balance I still prefer the cap and trade approach to pricing (ideally in concert with other measures packed in around the system). I assume the measurement design and audit procedures would be robust. If they couldn’t be made robust then I’d have a different view.
Some comments Re:
#1 It goes without saying. We should do that right now.
#2 No problem there, assuming that the actual price imposed really did reflect the true community cost of fossil fuels.
#3 More tricky as royalties are state revenues rather than commonwealth. I understand offshore Gas is a split between the Feds and the relevant state
#4 I’d want the full cost to the commons which would exceed current excise. I might make an exception for petroleum fuels in transport. I like the idea of motorists paying a price for tailpipe emissions (which would include not just Co2 but NOx, CO, and other noxious emissions). Those buying petroleum fuels for off-road usage (such as farm equipment, aircraft, mining would get the same charge.
#5 Here I would adjust to take account of the WTO non-discrimination rules. Where the CO2-intensity of the production exceeded ours I’d impose the tariff to the extent necessary to create the level playing field, which stops free-riding. Whether they are imposing a carbon price or not is less important than their CO2-intensity. They might have a largely renewables based economy. Aluminium from Iceland is produced almost entirely from geothermal and hydro electricity. That they don’t have an express carbon price isn’t that germane. Any economy that wants to build renewables is de facto paying a carbon price. If they are lucky enough to have ecosystem services that make that cheap, good luck to them.
#6 Disagree An ETS is a way of expressly pricing CO2 emissions. Many jursidictions are adopting the method. Providing the mechanism has integrity, I’m Ok with recognising it. This might violate WTO rules.
#7 I don’t know how you could determine this. CO2-intensity — the relationship between GDP and emissions is probably as accurate a measure as one can get. If they are paying a duty on Australian coal I’d prefer to “return” it to those economies having a lower CO2-intensity than ours by hypothecating the sum to a fund that could give soft-loans for suirably feasible CDM proposals, or perhaps as some kind of targetted development aid.
#8 I agree with this, though again you simply calculate the GWP of the direct emissions and make that the basis of the levy.
@Ikonoclast
Interesting. Scamming and manipulation are certainly major issues – especially when you consider how good the financial and accounting industry has got at the skills of finding and exploiting loopholes. But your solution still doesnt look like it is ‘straightforward, simple and effective’.
For example:
re 8) how do you sort out carbon inputs into imports given they are often the products of many different countries chains and secondary inputs.
re 6) you propose to not accept other nations’ trading systems but selectively credit them according to a local idiosyncratic system?
re 5) – similar to 6)
In short you seem to be suggesting we as the world’s worst polluting nation per capita – or close to it – tell eveyone else how to suck eggs. And that’s before other little complications like the demand from poorer countries for special consideration (very difficult when they lie on a continuum), our impact on the methane emissions from the northern tundras – a collective global responsibility – and finally re methane taxes when some of the biggest sources are so hard to quantify sufficient for accounting practice like Indian cattle, the rice paddies of south east Asia and wetlands like the Everglades that desperately need rehabilitation (are they to be penalised?).
Please dont think I’m narky and I give full marks for your trying to propose a solution. But I fear the truth is that economic instruments without a philosophical change wont work whatever accounting tricks are explored.
With carbon tariffs on imported goods we could make coal derived energy the default assumption. For example a tonne of aluminium ingot embodies 15 Mwh of energy. If that generated say 12 tCO2 then X $23 the tariff would be $276 on top of an FOB price of about $1,900. That might not save our smelters but it beats indefinite cash handouts. Note at least one metals producer, Bluescope Steel, has argued for carbon tariffs. If the overseas producer insist they used hydro energy not coal then let them plead for a case review. I believe the legal power to do this already exists under anti-dumping laws.
Recall GW Bush said ‘you’re either with us or against us’. In that spirit we could ask China and India to pay Australian carbon tax on our coal they import. I’ll spare some numerical examples but the revenue could be paid into green programs in those countries. However their kneejerk reaction to the EU airline tax doesn’t inspire confidence. I guess they fail the mateship test.
Keep in mind, Hermit, that to take that tack the same approach would be applied to petrol imports which would add 5.3 cents per litre to the import cost of fuel. This would translate into 10 cents per litre with margins added.
I’m not saying that its is a bad thing, just that this is what would need to happen to be consistent. The revenue collected would be useful in all manner of ways. The political damage would be terminal in the hands of the right wing media, ABC included.
@BilB
“The political damage would be terminal in the hands of the right wing media, ABC included.”
What is so galling is their and Tony Abbot’s hands are not being forced in respect to stating either:
– They actually dont believe in climate change and the fiddle faddle around carbon trading taxes etc. is just a smokescreen for cheaps shots until they get government; or
– They believe in climate change but their only plan is ‘the Invisible Hand’ of the markets.
This is of course made easier by their control over the media (including the ABC) especially the crucial economic pages which treat these issues not as crucial to the future generations but just more chess pieces in political games.
Of course this ‘creative destruction’ approach to problem solving is nothing new to anyone familiar with how Menzies got his nickname ‘Pig Iron Bob’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_Iron_Bob#Rise_to_power
One wonders why these guys just dont change their pan corporate motto to “Nos aliquid facere pro pecunia” (see Google translating engine).
BilB – “The political damage would be terminal in the hands of the right wing media, ABC included.”
That is really what it has amounted to, old media is holding the planet and its inhabitant to ransom. All the while they try to stay alive via flogging infotainment, sponsored by big $ hellbent on BAU.
BTW Anyone seen last night that interview on 7.30 The once high flyer for Goldman Sachs, Greg Smith says the company’s culture has turned for the worse while the industry issues that led to the Global Financial Crisis are unchanged.
Me thinks big money needs a good shake up.
This strikes me as being just a tad hyperbolic.
“This strikes me as being just a tad hyperbolic”
This strikes me as a tad naive.
@BilB
I’m happy for it to strike you any way you like, BilB.