Australia’s Garnaut Report gets usual reactions from usual suspects 8

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Billhook Posted 10:14 am
   02 Oct 2008

   Building confidence for CopenhagenThe possibility of success at Copengaen will, IMHO, depend primarily on negotiators' confidence of the treaty being both :
   
   efficient in cutting global GHGs fast enough to avoid more than two degrees of warming;
   
   and demonstrably equitable in allocating responsibilities for it to be politically durable within and between nations.
   Garnaut plainly sees this, and is helping to build that vital confidence via the report's statements on the treaty's potential framework of "Contraction & Convergence."
   Excerpt from the report :
   "It is unlikely that any allocation of a global trajectory for emissions
   
   entitlements will be seen as being fair if it is not based on the idea
   
   that, sooner or later, there will be equal per capita rights to use the
   
   atmosphere's limited capacity to absorb more greenhouse gases.
   To be seen as being practical, it will need to allow some time to move
   
   from the currently highly unequal assumption of emissions rights across
   
   countries, to equal per capita rights.
   The basis thought to be most likely to be successful is what has become
   
   known as `contraction and convergence', modified to allow faster growth
   
   in emissions from fast-growing developing countries for a transition
   
   period.
   This approach addresses the central international equity issue simply
   
   and transparently. Slower convergence (a later date at which per capita
   
   emissions entitlements are equalised) favours emitters that are above
   
   the global per capita average at the starting point. Faster convergence
   
   gives more emissions rights to low per capita emitters. The convergence
   
   date is the main equity lever in such a scheme."
   
   _________________
   Under this C&C framework, national allocations of emission rights will shift increasingly to developing nations, allowing them to trade surplus  permits to industrialized states in need of them.
   The degree to which nations can buy permits from abroad, rather than verifiably reducing actual emissions,
   
   and the degree to which permit-sales' revenues are verifiably ring-fenced to emissions reduction investments,
   
   are two critical areas of negotiation if the resulting treaty is to be efficient in its operation.
   That said, it is surely very good news indeed that Garnaut, (mentor to Premier Rudd, who has fluent Cantonese) has come out clearly with this very public endorsement of Contraction & Convergence as the treaty's preferred framework.
   Regards,
   Billhook
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   hekatonkheire Posted 10:42 am
   02 Oct 2008

   It's (hopefully) unjustifiably pessimisticGarnaut assumes that reaching international agreement to stabilise carbon emissions at 450ppm or less is virtually impossible, and that the only internationally politically feasible target will be 550ppm, despite the fact that (as he acknowledges) this virtually guarantees the loss of priceless national assets such as the Great Barrier Reef, and runs the considerable risk of truly catastrophic outcomes. His report therefore describes the most economically prudent path through that particular world. The carbon reduction target he presents is the one Australia would likely be required to adopt under that 550ppm regime. He also says that stabilising at 450ppm would be very much more preferable and would cost only 1% of GDP more than 550ppm, but regards this as a moot point as this lower target is politically unattainable anyway.
   A carbon reduction scheme is coming, and the question for business now is who is going to get the most free money under the scheme in order to 'soften the blow of transition'. Every industry group has therefore produced its own report describing its special vulnerability to carbon trading, forecasting catastrophe for that sector if special concessions are not made. If you listen to them all at once, you'd think the Australian economy itself won't survive the introduction of the legislation, but their modelling was never intended to be taken seriously anyway, and Garnaut's own just-published figures offer a much better estimate of the economic effects.
   Garnaut is deeply, deeply pessimistic. He believes that the 550ppm target entails catastrophe, with the only question being how much catastrophe how soon. His report adopts this target anyway only because no other target is politically feasible in his view. When politicians refer to his report they naturally leave out this reasoning and talk only about his numbers, which they then describe as economically prudent, ignoring the dismal logic behind them. Garnaut's low expectations of the political process seem to be becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

   Permalink

3. 

   Tim Hollo Posted 10:58 am
   02 Oct 2008

   An Aussie's thoughtsYeah, I'm an Aussie and am solidly in the disappointed category. His global analysis is so flawed that it gives him a deeply pessimistic perspective.
   You can read my thoughts in detail here.
   
   Join the Greens conversation:
   
   http://greensmps.org.au/blog

   Permalink

4. 

   Tim Hollo Posted 11:01 am
   02 Oct 2008

   That link again...Sorry, here's the real link
   
   Join the Greens conversation
   
   

   Permalink

5. 

   Craig Allen Posted 1:02 pm
   02 Oct 2008

   Garnaut tells it like it isGarnaut makes it clear that he thinks his recommendations will lead to a global and national catastrophe. It's and interesting strategy for him to take - basically pointing out that our only politically realistic option at this stage is aiming for a mild Armageddon. The politicians and pundits might be reporting the numbers without the background, but Garnaut has been on TV a fair bit laying down the facts as he see them.
   We have to remember that getting this emissions trading scheme off the ground is just the first step. Once it is up and it can be seen that the economy isn't collapsing like the doomsayers predict, then we can ramp it up.
   I actually think what Garnaut has attempted to do is cut through the spin by being brutally honest both about the risks posed by climate change and about how pathetic our political system is in the face of such a 'diabolical' (his word) political challenge.
   Some recent news articles on the Garnaut report ...
   
   
   Doubts raised over Ross Garnaut's carbon emission targets
   Garnaut defends scenario-based emissions cut targets
   Garnaut fall-out: 'NSW must phase out coal power'
   Garnaut's climate change warning
   Economy won't delay carbon cut: Wong
   Professor makes sense of another meltdown
   
   
   On a lighter note (kind of), if you have broadband, then check out the 'A waste of energy' episode of the ABC's Hollowmen series (ABC = Australian Broadcasting Commission). The series is a spoof on Australian political spin doctoring and this episode is about Australia putting it's climate change position at an APEC conference. Hilarious, but a little too close to the bone I think. (The episode will only be up for a week. It's a half hour program, so be careful not to blow out your broadband account.)

   Permalink

6. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 1:06 pm
   02 Oct 2008

   Amen to that"how pathetic our political system is in the face of such a 'diabolical' (his word) political challenge.
   
   
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

7. 

   Billhook Posted 9:39 pm
   02 Oct 2008

   Auction-your-neighbour's energy usage ?A critical demerit of the option of auctioning emission permits is being demonstrated in the EU.
   
   The proposal of an EU-wide GHG cut of a mere 20% by 2020 is being blocked by eastern states ostensibly because of the impractical inequity of energy usage rights going to the highest bidder.
   Quote:
   "Under the EU's voting rules, some decisions may be blocked by a certain number of member states representing enough voting power.
   The EC's proposal sets full auctioning of the CO2 emission permits as of 2013. The six states want to delay this, arguing their power plants will not have enough cash to compete with giants like the Germany's E.ON on the free-market auctions.
   At present, industry gets some permits for free and companies have to buy additional ones only if they exceed their granted quotas."
   
   ______________
   This dynamic implies that sufficient permits must be auctioned within each state's suppliers to meet its central needs, for the auction route to be both feasible and durable in operation.
   Notably, allocation of the permits per capita, harnessing the local interest in trading them to ensure local energy supply,
   
   and to an extent to encourage sustainable energy projects,
   
   would further nullify this obstacle.
   Regards,
   Billhook

   Permalink

8. 

   Billhook Posted 9:43 pm
   02 Oct 2008

   AddendumHerewith the link to the Reuters report quoted above (roll on an "edit" button !):
   http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4922NT20081003?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=1
   0279&sp=true

   Permalink