Gittins On Garnaut  

Posted by Big Gav in ,

Ross Gittins has an interesting look at the Garnaut report in the SMH - Time to aim high on climate change.

The latest report on climate change by the economics professor Ross Garnaut is the most disheartening government report I've read. It tells us how hugely destructive climate change is likely to be, but doubts that the world's governments will be able to agree on effective action to halt it. Now you know why economics is called the dismal science.

Garnaut quotes an authoritative American study of the consequences if nothing is done to fight climate change and average temperatures rise by 5 or 6 degrees by the end of this century.

Such a change would be "catastrophic", posing "almost inconceivable challenges as human society struggled to adapt". "The collapse and chaos associated with extreme climate change futures would destabilise virtually every aspect of modern life," the study concluded.

Among the destruction would be the extinction of more than half the world's species. The Great Barrier Reef and other coral formations would almost certainly be killed and much Australian farmland rendered useless.

Worse, the Greenland ice sheet and parts of Antarctica would be highly likely to melt, greatly raising the sea level and inundating coastal areas in Australia and many other countries. These changes would be irreversible.

Garnaut says that to reduce these risks to acceptable levels, we need agreement and action by all the major countries to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million - although 400 would be better.

(Note that we've already reached 455 parts per million, so we'd go well above the 450 target before eventually getting back down to it.)

But Garnaut doubts that any comprehensive agreement will be forthcoming from the post-Kyoto negotiations at Copenhagen in December next year or in negotiations soon after.

Summoning all the optimism at a dismal scientist's disposal, however, he says "there is a chance, just a chance, that humanity will act in time and in ways that reduce the risks of climate change to acceptable levels".

But don't get your hopes up, because time's running out. "Opportunities to hold risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels diminish rapidly after 2013 if no major developing economies are accepting constraints to hold emissions significantly below business as usual by that time."

There you see the source of Garnaut's pessimism: the rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions by the developing countries in general, and China in particular.

He asserts that the best hope of achieving a comprehensive global agreement would be to settle for a target of stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases at 550 parts per million.

The trouble with this, however, is that such a level would still leave high risks of damage to the reef and farmland and reaching tipping points on ice melting - as Garnaut readily concedes.

This is the reason for the strong criticism of Garnaut's recommendations from environmentalists and some scientists. It's not that he doubted the scientists' warnings, or got his calculations wrong, or said the loss of economic growth would be too high a price to pay, but that he hasn't been ambitious enough in the bargaining position he wants Australia to take to Copenhagen.

The critics think we should aim high and let others beat us down from there rather than aim low and end up lower.

I agree. Our goal can't be to cut our emissions hard for its own sake. Without an effective agreement by all major emitters, what we do makes no difference. So all our effort must go into helping to achieve such an agreement, and that means being willing to put an offer of big cuts on the table. ...

The European Union has made an unconditional offer to cut its total emissions by 20 per cent, whereas Garnaut says we should offer unconditional cuts of a pathetic 5 per cent.

But get this: translated into cuts per person, the EU's 20 per cent shrinks to 17 per cent whereas our 5 per cent expands to 25 per cent. Now who's not trying?

With one stroke, Garnaut has given unwarranted offence to environmentalists while giving false comfort to our short-sighted and selfish big business lobby.

4 comments

I share what ought to be everyone's concern on climate change. It seems so much homage is paid to nations and big business, the small differences one can make by taking comon sense steps to curb personal energy consumption gets overlooked. Here is where we can make the most difference. Even though making conscious efforts to curb one's personal energy consumption may seem insignificant, every little bit counts.

I personaly cannot believe that their are still people out there that buy into this "global warming"hoax. The farmers Almanac states that the planet is actually cooling and what about the 85,000 scientists worldwide who have signed and stated that the science behind this hoax is a lie and terribly flawed? Conservation is one thing but lunacy and the removal of liberties is a whole different matter. Look we can all expect to live on a clean planet and do our parts to keep it that way, but to restrict progress and destroy economies world wide is just unacceptable.

I can't believe there are people out there who still refuse to accept the reality of global warming - what planet are you living on ? That "85,000 scientists" thing is just a hoax - why do you believe such nonsense ?

However, its true that we need to ensure that individual liberties aren't trample when we deal with the problem - which is why you should support efforts to develop abundant, clean energy sources to repolace the polluting (and depleting) fossil fuels we currently use.

This is encouraging progress, not restricting it...

Garnaut is advising the government to cut CO2e by 17% from todays level(25% per capita) which is a 10% cut from our 1990 level. Thats a big cut for Australia because under Kyoto we were allowed to go to 108% of 1990 levels.
It appears that Garnaut is advising to get an agreement to stabilize CO2 at 550 ppm because he thinks that the only target China and India will accept. Our government should push for a 450 target and the larger the cuts we make not the better the argument. However, if US doesn't join in we are all doomed. If US joins with EU and Japan they can force China and India to accept any target in time.

Post a Comment

Ads

Ads

Statistics

Locations of visitors to this page

blogspot visitor
Stat Counter

Total Pageviews

Ads

Books

Followers

News

Loading...

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (576) global warming (361) solar power (328) peak oil (314) electric vehicles (188) wind power (170) renewable energy (164) ocean energy (153) csp (143) geothermal energy (142) smart grids (139) solar thermal power (133) tidal power (131) coal seam gas (125) nuclear power (121) oil (114) geothermal power (110) lng (109) iraq (108) china (105) green buildings (104) solar pv (104) energy storage (101) natural gas (99) agriculture (85) biofuel (75) oil price (75) smart meters (72) wave power (67) uk (63) energy efficiency (62) electricity grid (60) google (54) coal (52) internet (51) food prices (48) surveillance (48) bicycle (47) big brother (47) shale gas (46) thin film solar (41) biomimicry (38) canada (38) ocean power (37) scotland (36) new zealand (35) air transport (34) algae (34) water (34) credit crunch (31) politics (31) queensland (31) bioplastic (30) concentrating solar power (30) california (29) geoengineering (28) offshore wind power (28) population (28) cogeneration (27) saudi arabia (27) shale oil (27) resource wars (26) arctic ice (25) batteries (25) censorship (25) cleantech (25) woodside (25) bruce sterling (24) drought (24) ctl (23) economics (22) tesla (21) carbon tax (20) coal to liquids (20) distributed manufacturing (20) indonesia (20) iraq oil law (20) brightsource (19) limits to growth (19) origin energy (19) rail transport (19) ultracapacitor (19) santos (18) ausra (17) buckminster fuller (17) exxon (17) lithium (17) cellulosic ethanol (16) collapse (16) electric bikes (16) mapping (16) michael klare (16) ucg (16) atlantis (15) bees (15) geodynamics (15) iceland (15) psychology (15) concentrating solar thermal power (14) fertiliser (14) al gore (13) biodiesel (13) brazil (13) carbon emissions (13) cities (13) ethanol (13) investment (13) kenya (13) ambient energy (12) biochar (12) bucky fuller (12) matthew simmons (12) public transport (12) texas (12) victoria (12) cradle to cradle (11) desertec (11) energy policy (11) otec (11) terra preta (11) chile (10) fabber (10) goldman sachs (10) gtl (10) hybrid car (10) internet of things (10) lithium ion batteries (10) severn estuary (10) tinfoil (10) toyota (10) volt (10) alaska (9) amory lovins (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) esolar (9) fuel cells (9) gazprom (9) jeremy leggett (9) pge (9) sweden (9) afghanistan (8) antarctica (8) arrow energy (8) big oil (8) distributed generation (8) eroei (8) floating offshore wind power (8) four day week (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) methane hydrates (8) nanosolar (8) natural gas pipelines (8) pentland firth (8) relocalisation (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) chp (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) fish (7) methane (7) stirling engine (7) vinod khosla (7) airborne wind turbines (6) apocaphilia (6) bolivia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) futurism (6) jatropha (6) local currencies (6) nigeria (6) saul griffith (6) somalia (6) t boone pickens (6) ocean acidification (5) scenario planning (5) space based solar power (5) varanus island (5) garbage (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) global energy grid (2) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)