The Risk and Sustainable Management Group has implemented a carbon-neutrality policy. Read all about it.

Comments closed. Please comment on the main post at RSMG. I’ve moved earlier comments there

As everyone knows (or ought to know by now), one of main reason controversy over climate change is continuing in the face of overwhelming evidence is the fact that ExxonMobil has the cash spigot open to fund anyone willing to deny the evidence – the Competitive Enterprise Insitute, George Marshall Institute and the old tobacco industry network run by Steven Milloy, Fred Seitz and Fred Singer have been among the main beneficiaries. The Royal Society wrote to them recently, asking them to turn off the money tap.

Exxon’s response

The Royal Society’s letter and public statements to the media inaccurately and unfairly described our company.”

It went on: “We know that carbon emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change – we don’t debate or dispute this.”

So, they know the groups they are funding are lying, but they need to promote the idea that there is so much uncertainty that we should do nothing. The best way to do this is to create as much Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt as possible.

Lots of interesting new stuff on the RSMG blog.

Nanni writes on Schumpeterian entrepreneurship versus nuclear energy and Improving eco-efficiency and addressing skill shortage.

Mark gives the news on the MDBC council meeting and claims that the States are ‘failing’ on the water crisis

And I have yet another piece on the drought, pointing out that High security for water is not high enough

There’s been a lengthy debate in the comments threads of recent posts about whether the dry weather in much of Australia in recent years can be attributed to climate change, or is just another round in the natural cycle. One point that’s emerged is the crucial role of evaporation in exacerbating drought conditions. This was first observed in relation to the 2002 drought. The steady increase in global temperatures, including average temperatures in Australia, means that even when rainfall is at or near the historical average, conditions are drier than before because evaporation rates are higher. When we get a drought, as at present, conditions that would once have been bad are now extreme.

The combined effects of low rainfall and high evaporation are amplified when it comes to runoff, since the amount (net of evaporation) absorbed by the soil does not change much. And land use changes such as the construction of farm dams have reduced the amount of runoff that makes it into streams (these are now being restricted, but it’s often a case of too little too late). It’s not surprising then, as reported by Mark Neal at the RSMG blog, that, in terms of inflows to the River Murray system, 2006 looks set to be the driest year ever recorded.

So far, the effects on flows and allocations of irrigation water have been offset to some extent by accumulated storage, but with a run of dry years, that can’t be sustained. At the end of September 2006, total River Murray
system storage was 3 550 GL or 37 per cent of capacity, which is only half the long-term average for September of 7 000 GL. With winter and early spring being extremely dry, the chance of significant improvement this year is low, given that 60% of inflow typically occurs during July to October.

But if the situation is bad now, imagine the possibilities if the Cap on extractions hadn’t been imposed back in 1994. We would have started with lower storage levels, and there would have been that much less to draw on.

Public opinion isn’t always a reliable guide, but, given time, and a reasonable hearing of the issues, ordinary people get most things right in the end. The Lowy Institute survey released recently illustrates this with respect to climate change. Respondents were given three choices of viewpoint on climate change, as follows

There is a controversy over what the countries of the world, including Australia, should do about the problem of global warming. I’m going to read you three statements. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view.

Easily the most popular option, supported by more than two thirds (68%) of respondents, was that ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem [and] we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’. A quarter (24%) of respondents agreed that ‘the problem of global warming should be addressed, but its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost’. The least popular option, supported by only 7% of respondents, was that ‘until we are sure that global warming is really a problem we should not take any steps that would have economic costs’.

Not surprisingly, I agree with the majority, but I don’t have too much of a problem with the second position either. Kyoto is a low-cost first step, and gradualism is appropriate. The third position, which is pretty much that of John Howard, has even less support than I would have expected.

But where does this leave the denialists, who dominate the opinion pages of the Oz, and most of the rightwing blogosphere? Their view, that the whole thing is a hoax cooked up by greenies and scientists looking for grant money, wasn’t presented, but looking at the results it’s hard to believe it would attract more than 1 or 2 per cent of the population, on a par with theories that NASA faked the moon landings, or that the US government was behind 9/11.
Read More »

I rarely agree with Jennifer Marohasy, but that’s all the more reason for noting our occasional points of agreement. This post points to an important policy failure, the replacement of timber sleepers by energy-intensive concrete throughout Australia’s rail network, with no apparent consideration of greenhouse costs.

Of course, you can’t expect an infrastructure company like he Australian Rail Track Corporation to do detailed climate auditing of all its input materials. As long as the greenhouse costs of concrete, and the benefits of timber, are not reflected in their prices, decisions like this will be made in construction projects of all kinds. So, we need to get a carbon tax or permits trading scheme in place as soon as possible.

My piece in today’s Fin is about water pricing. My main idea is to set prices equal to marginal cost, but to give every person a free allocation as a basic right.

I’ve also uploaded my presentation at the ACE conference.

Read More »