Garnaut stuffs up his own prisoner’s dilemma
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Friday 5th September 2008, 2:45pm
by TimHollo in
This piece from Christine Milne ran in today's Crikey email.
After all his careful statements of the prisoner's dilemma, Ross Garnaut has blinked.
Garnaut restates the problem in today's report, making the point that we cannot go to the global climate negotiations and plead a special case. He goes so far as to say that:
There will be no progress towards an effective international agreement if each country lays out all of the special reasons why it is different from others, and why it should be given softer targets. When climate change negotiators from any country list reasons why their country has special reasons to be treated differently, and take them seriously, we should be quick to recognise that the negotiators, and the countries they represent, intentionally or not, are inhibiting effective international agreement.
But then he spends the rest of his report pleading Australia's special case, based on a disingenuous rorting of the contraction and convergence model.
Contraction and convergence is the only truly equitable model for international action, under which the world moves to a position where every person is entitled to the same emissions as everyone else. This is a fair and equitable model when high per capita emitters agree to act fast to come down to the level of others. Garnaut, however, has used it, based on Australia's high population growth projections, to argue that Australia should move slowly to reduce our per capita emissions.
Suggesting a model of linear convergence towards 2050, Garnaut argues that we rich Australians should get to keep polluting more than everyone else until 2050. We Australians, who have become rich thanks to our high historic pollution levels, should get to keep polluting more per capita than some of the world's poorest people in India and China, for another 42 years. We Australians, who have done nothing for the last decades, should be rewarded for our recalcitrance by an easy path all the way through to 2050, while the Europeans, Japanese and others, who have made big steps in energy efficiency and renewable energy, should be punished.
The rest of the world will see through that immediately. It will be seen as a special pleading that will "inhibit effective international agreement".
But for all that, the per capita numbers game is not the report's worst problem. That distinction goes to the fact that it is based on outdated science. Garnaut's entire architecture is based on emissions projections that are universally acknowledged to be hopelessly optimistic and out of date. His projections of temperature rise under each scenario assume out the tipping points that science has clearly identified in recent years.
Completely missing is a statement of the total global carbon budget Garnaut assumes. Without a statement of that budget, it is impossible to analyse the underlying detail. The appearance of the graphs is that the budget is too high.
Put together the outdated science, the unstated total budget, and the per capita numbers game, and the inescapable conclusion is that Professor Garnaut's recommendation is a recipe for a global Murray-Darling type crisis of over-allocation. If we head down this road, it will be almost impossible - and certainly extremely expensive - to rescue the situation in years to come.
It would be unfair to close without giving Garnaut credit for one very important positive point. The good Professor has repeated his instruction to the Government that there is absolutely no basis for compensating domestic firms for costs under an emissions trading regime. This is a direct slap down of Penny Wong's Green Paper's proposal to compensate the coal sector and other major polluters who are not trade exposed.
The ball is now in the Government's court. Will it take the easy way out that Garnaut has given it? Or will it step up to the plate and deliver the 40% emissions cuts on 1990 levels that Australians know we need.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Is that the best we can do?
I was with you right up to the last line: "Or will it step up to the plate and deliver the 40% emissions cuts on 1990 levels that Australians know we need."
This Australian (and Greens member) doesn't know we need 40% emission cuts by 2020. This Australian knows we need to get close to 100% as soon as humanly possible and then start drawing down carbon from the atmosphere, to have a hope of restoring a safe climate. And my hunch is that if we pulled our fingers all the way out, we could get way beyond 40% by 2020.
What science did you use to arrive at your figure, by the way? Is it the IPCC's 25%-40% cuts by 2020 for developed countries [1]? That's the target that says we should stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gases at 450 ppm CO2-eq, to cap our temperature rise at 2.0-2.4ºC [2]. The one that estimates sea-level rise at 0.4-1.4m, from thermal expansion only [3], ie EXCLUDING rises from melting icesheets in Greenland or Antarctica. That uses a climate sensitivity of 3ºC [3] when the figure from paleoclimate records is closer to 6ºC [4], meaning that 450ppm will eventually give a temperature rise over 4ºC.
Enough gibberish. Simple question: can we avoid dangerous climate change if we lose the Arctic sea-ice in summer? That is, is it OK for the Earth to have one polar ice cap for part of the year? If you answer yes, I think the onus is on you to prove it (precautionary principle). If you answer "probably not OK", then surely it follows that we can't global temperatures stabilise at anything like a 2ºC rise. In fact we have to return global temperatures BELOW the level at which the Arctic sea-ice began melting a few decades ago [5]. Ie well below the current 0.8ºC rise, back to at least 0.5ºC above pre-industrial. And we need to do so as soon as possible to have a hope of avoiding the melt of Greenland's icesheets and the thawing of Arctic permafrosts.
And that's why in July Al Gore challenged the USA to achieve 100% clean, carbon-free electricity within 10 years [6]. Not as a political or rhetorical position. But as a statement of what is not just possible but absolutely necessary.
When will the Greens catch up and stop playing to the "conservative" (read: "reckless") politics of the day?
[1] Box 13.7 on p776 of the WG3 report at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
[2] Table TS.2 on p39 of WG3 technical summary at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-ts.pdf
[3] Table SPM.6 on p20 of the Summary for Policy Makers at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
[4] http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
[5] NSIDC's Figure 3 at http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.htm...
[6] http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_re...
Thanks to Holmes Hummel for digging up references 1-3 and highlighting them at http://www.holmeshummel.net/2C-Target-Range.htm
Jonathan, a bit harsh mate!
Jonathan, a bit harsh mate! Considering the government wants 5%, Garnaut wants 10% and most of the ENGOs want 30% cuts, the Greens target of 40% is already "out there" as far as the rest of the commentary is concerned. There is a difficult game to be played in this debate to not sound 'extreme', so Greens numbers have to be based on universally accepted science, not the (probably correct) scarier recent figures by some prominent thinkers.
Christine: I'm still wrapping my head around Garnaut's logic. With population growth, he seems to be taking it as value-neutral - is that right? I mean that he uses only per-capita reductions, rather than absolute reductions, and our growth means a 10% reduction equals a 25% per-capita reduction (if I remember the figures right). I'm not sure the rest of the world will buy that logic!
Pathetic?
This report ended up being a complete waste of taxpayers money. 5% cuts isa complete waste of time. What will the Greens do however in this instance. I think we would have to support it coming froma stance that this figure is better than nothing at all but we should be pushing harder for bigger cuts sooner.
Show how it can be done
Meaningful emissions reductions are hostage to unproven claims that it will be impossible. We won't make progress by simply repeating the mantra "it can be done" as we will get in response that "it can't be done". Just like the kids game of endurance "did", "didn't".
We need to break out of this cycle and lay out a complete plan (not bits and pieces) and then challenge the deniers to find fault. Surely there are fine minds who can be motivated to help produce such a plan. Can the the various sustainability groups cooperate for the purposes of architecting such a grand challenge?
What's needed is a plan
What's needed is a plan based on actual working examples complete with facts and figures extrapolated to the town, city, country in question. These examples, some like Woking in the UK with tens of thousands of people and the data, prove massive reductions in CO2e are not only doable but economically beneficial. Working examples added to a plan will be a winner.
It is hard for economists to argue with working examples that contradict their deeply held biases and rubbery figures. Some of the biases are: it is too expensive, will cost jobs, will hurt the lowest income earners, will damage industry and so on. All have been proven false assumptions by working examples, but working examples are not being used for reasons I can't fathom. Every time some economist open her mouth, a working example that counters her argument should be inserted.
The only genuine come back economists have at the moment is the scale and scope of efforts required. That said, Woking comprises 37,000 houses and 90,000 people, so I think it would be easy to demonstrate that this could be scaled up.
http://www.woking.gov.uk/news/archive?item=0000406C0218.D464FE53.00006BE...
Don't get me wrong Woking is not perfection, however it does demonstrate what can be achieved at a nett financial benefit to the community, and the environment wins too.
Slow and Steady
Some interesting comments, but Garnauts slow and steady approach may be the only way forward, accelerating as the Mr and Mrs Average sees that they have nothing to worry about. In other words,, Mr and Mrs Average are not hit with 40% increases in energy costs, they still have jobs, and are not going to lose the roof over their head.
I suspect that Penny Wong, and friends will not risk everything on one throw of the dice, especially as currently a number of their key constituents (eg. blue collar workers in the manufacturing industries), are losing their jobs, so they could not risk impacting industry too much, possibly causing further job loses.
Penny also needs to reduce the impact of general price increases that will be passed on to consumers from companies when a carbon tax is introduced. The company I work part time for has already implemented a $10 delivery fee to retailers, to cover existing increases in diesel, which is directly added to the prices of their goods. If we take any price impacts across the board caused by a carbon tax, then business will have to pass any increased costs directly to consumers possibly fueling inflation, and potentially raising interest rates, a mine field for any government. As all Australian industry (Chinese imports will not be impacted) will pass on any energy cost increases, I believe that nothing will be gained by rushing ahead with no achievable targets.
The Feds have already stated that a large slice of money from the carbon tax will need to be utilised to subsidies the Mr and Mrs Average energy costs, and I bet that they will also need to subsidies some high energy usage industries to avoid layoff, or large cost increases.
I agree with a number of other commentators that a detailed project plan should be written, containing phases, time frames, and deliverables that are achievable, and which are probably spread over the period to 2050. What would be a major negative would be for any Government to write a plan, start implementation, then be thrown out of Government due to major pain being inflicted to Mr and Mrs Average.
Cuts to emisions is pointless on our own.
As student of History and Politics I am amazed that anyone seriously thinks that a meaningful global response to the problem is even possible. Because such unity has never been achieved in the past and I see no indication that it will be possible into the future.
Without the possibility of agreement and meaningful cooperation all of this talk of what targets we in Australia should impose upon ourselves is just a waste of time.
So if we make the assumption that the doom-sayers are right (which I personally don't assume at all) then the only sensible course of action is not to try to control or influence the climate but to adapt to any changes that may come.
The sooner we choose adaptation over mitigation the sooner we can build a better foundation for this countries future.
A couple of issues. The
A couple of issues.
The world's people as currently organized need leadership, in it's absence nothing meaningful will happen. The erroneous argument "we should do nothing until someone (or everyone) does it too" is self defeating if adopted by all. If we lead others will follow. Think of Gandhi who went it alone against seemingly insurmountable odds, the world came around to his way of thinking. No change wasn't easy but was achieved by someone with considerably less standing than Australia.
Arguments about foundations for this countries future are meaningless when CO2 doesn't recognise borders. Also we have substantial foundations already, do we really need more?
Arguments for adaptation to something that is yet to happen and when we don't really know what these adaptations will need to be, is putting the cart before the horse. When the effects of climate change are felt we will adapt, in fact some of us are already adapting. That said, putting in place strategies for adaptation for effects and severity unknown will be a waste of social, economic and environmental resources.
The above tie into the motto of prevention being better (cheaper) than cure. And as my earlier example shows, prevention can be at a nett financial gain to the implementers of carbon emission reduction. Granted the nett financial gains are highly unlikely with a carbon trading system or a carbon tax, so perhaps a re-examination of the proposed carbon reduction scheme is in order.
If Ms Average can be shown that she will be better off by reducing emissions, there will be no resistance at the individual voter level. Just imagine "I know reducing carbon emissions is the right thing to do for the environment, and I will be personally better off financially for doing it." Why wouldn't she vote for it?
the pwoer of example, and the Theory of Anyway
Iain Hall writes,
"As student of History and Politics I am amazed that anyone seriously thinks that a meaningful global response to the problem is even possible. Because such unity has never been achieved in the past and I see no indication that it will be possible into the future."
I suggest you return to your history books, then, and have another look.
The Hague Conventions and Geneva Protocols are global responses to atrocities in wartime, and these have significantly reduced the incidence of these things. Certainly Darfur, Sierra Leone, Abu Ghraib and the like show that war crimes are not eliminated. But on the other hand, imagine that during the invasion of Iraq the US, UK and Australia had firebombed Baghdad, killing 100,000 people in one night - it's unthinkable, right? Yet that's what happened to Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and so on in WWII.
The WTO is another example of global agreements on things, with definite global effects - many of them not good effects, I would say, but nonetheless it shows that the world can largely agree on things.
Or if you want to consider the environment, the Montreal Protocol on ozone-destroying substances is another example - while the damage has not been healed, at least no more damage is being done.
Another environmental one is the Antarctic treaties banning mineral exploitation and the like - a global agreement.
The International Whaling Commission, as much as we complain about it, has certainly saved many species of whales from extinction.
There also exist a whole swag of other global agreements on preserving wetlands for bird migration, preserving native species, and so on.
So a closer reading of your history books will show that global agreements on things are absolutely possible. They're never perfect, and many troubles remain, with many countries blatantly ignoring international opinion and simple humanity. But the agreements substantially reduce the scale of the problem.
Iain Hall writes,
"Without the possibility of agreement and meaningful cooperation all of this talk of what targets we in Australia should impose upon ourselves is just a waste of time."
Whenever these global agreements are made, someone has to be the first one to sign them - but before that, someone has to be the first one to suggest them. And when suggesting them, a common objection is that it's impossible. "We can't stop our soldiers raping and stealing from civilians, we can't give rights to women, we can't stop killing whales, we can't stop filling our fridges with CFCs, it's impossible!" Then someone steps forward and says, "We'll try it." And when they try it, it turns out that it is possible. And then other countries follow.
There's a lot of tit-for-tat in international relations. Consider for example the Germans in WWII, and their treatment of prisoners of war. Their Soviet PWs were treated vilely, often murdered, and their Allied PWs were treated generally well and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. As a result, of the 120,000 or so Germans taken at Stalingrad, only 2,500 returned... ten years later. The Allies befriended Germany after WWII, and the Soviets mistrusted, oppressed and threatened them. Germany reaped what it sowed.
The power of example is very strong. Australia can step forward with bold reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, and this will have an effect in persuading other countries to give it a go. Or we can do nothing, and this will encourage other countries to do nothing.
There's also what some people call the Theory of Anyway. That is, the things we need to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, these are good things to do anyway. If we burn less oil we can import less, which saves Australia money. If we burn less coal we can dig up less, which is better for the environment (doesn't destroy as much nearby forests, etc). If we have less driving then we can spend less on roads, which means lower taxes, or taxes spent on other useful things. To have less driving we need more walkable neighbourhoods, so we have more people walking around, getting to know their neighbours and with stronger community. If we build renewable energy then we create jobs and incomes for small towns. If we stop cutting down our forests then we leave them for our children to enjoy, and have greater biodiversity which also offers hope of many useful medicines and agricultural advances.
All the things we need to do to reduce greenhouse gases are good things to do anyway. So even if burning coal gave us Vitamin C, all the other things mean we should stop doing it.
Well said
Well said, Kiashu. You put the power of example better than I have seen it written for some time. Someone simply has to step up to the plate and say "we'll do it". Garnaut stepped up and told the world that we won't. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Is a 100% reduction in greehouse gas emissions possible by 2020?
Thanks Christine for your critique of Garnaut's very weak target. From my own scenario building and those of others, I believe that a 40% reduction in Australia's emissions below 1990 level is just possible by 2020 and so is 100% reduction by 2050. Unfortunately, a little reflection shows that a 100% reduction by 2020 is physically impossible without severe damage to society.
At present, global demand exceeds global supply for both wind power (the cheapest of the new renewable sources of electricity) and solar PV. As a result, the prices of both important renewable electricity sources have actually increased and there is a long waiting list for deliveries. Factories are being built to make high-grade silicon and wind turbine components. Even so, to meet existing demand will be difficult over the next 5 years, let alone the huge increase in demand from a 100% target. Other sources of electricity, that could be very big post-2020, such as hot rock geothermal and solar thermal power, are not ready for mass production, although they may be within 5 years.
For transport, we have even fewer options for zero emissions: all-electric vehicles (which are not yet being mass-produced) to be charged from a 100% renewable energy grid (which does not exist). Building new urban railways will be even slower than mass-producing electric vehicles. Even under emergency conditions, it takes time to build the factories and infrastructure for new technologies and to train the workforce.
For high-temperature industrial heat, we have no commercially available alternatives to gas. In the long run, biofuels and high-concentration solar could make contributions.
Furthermore, until we can obtain 100% of electricity, transport and heat from renewable sources, the construction of new renewable energy technologies and infrastructure will actually increase the demand for fossil fuels. An emergency program would produce a big spike in CO2 emissions.
The only way that Australia could achieve a 100% reduction in emissions by 2020 would be to close all fossil-fuelled power stations, which supply 92% of electricity, close all petrol stations, and shoot all the cattle and sheep. That would destroy the economy, which has to build the zero-emissions technologies and infrastructure, and result in many deaths.
For an emergency program to reduce emissions that is survivable, we must address all three drivers of emissions: population, per capita consumption and technology choice.
100% Reduction of Emissions by 2020
Well written Mark (11th Sept)
After thinking further about the possibility of emission reductions, I am beginning to believe that the best we can hope for is maintenance of the existing emission levels over the next 50 years, while we try to completly restructure our society.
My reasoning is as follows:
a. The Federal Government would need to exempt export industries (eg. coal, aluminium, manufactured items etc. from emission controls else this country would not be able to sell exports, and be probably bankrupt within a couple of years.
b. Australias population expands by over 100k / year, through immigration and refugees, and all these immigrants need homes, fridges, washing machines, other household appliances, and cars (in due course) due to the outer suburbs most move to.
c. Australians buy between 500k and 750k new motor vehicles a year, each putting out copious amounts of emissions. A fair % being trucks which are needed to keep the country moving. Rail may carry part of the interstate loads, but never the intracity.
d. The majority of our energy (electricity) comes from coal fired power stations, and unless there is a change of policy for nuclear, will continue to do so while there is an ever increasing demand.
e. Industry has no incentive to seriously think of ways to reduce emissions, as they will just increase the costs of non exported goods to cover any carbon tax imposts. Competition will not help as the will all do the same as they currently are with the increased cost of diesel fuel.
f. Australian cities are expanding in area at unprecedented rates, with CBD councils pressuring state governments to reduce the possibility of satelite cities being built, and businesses moved out of CBDs.
g. Residents in out suburban areas have no alternative but to drive to work, as commuters are not willing to pay large increases in fares for corporations to upgrade public transport infrastructure (no government has the billions needed to upgrade the infrastructure).
h. State and Federal Governments will need to provide subsidies to probably millions of people for energy (primarily electricity), if they push costs too high, and will also probably be evicted as the government at a subsequent election if they don't.
i. As pointed out by Mark, a fair % of emissions are generated in the production of food, and as our population expands at it current rate, so will emissions increase.
j. It will gain nothing to pressure dirty industries (eg. Aluminium/steel smelters) to close down as they will just move off shore, severly impacting communities, costing the Governments huge costs in Social Services, and reducing funds that Governments may have available.
k. The list could go on, and on.
I note that some comentators have quoted working examples, but these appear to be basically closed communities that do not expand at a rapid rate. Maybe the commentators could quote an example from either the western suburbs of Melbourne or Sydney, where energy usage has stabilised, and emissions reduced.
Sorry but I suggest that we need to "look outside the square", and not just get into a mindset that we should all move back into caves.
We should look at pressuring governments to
a. Decentralise our cities
b. Reduce immigration to levels that we can control the increased emission levels
c. Implement huge tree planting programs to partially soak up emissions
d. Encourage companies with large tax incentives to review their emissions, not attempt the big stick approach as this will never work
e. Work toward restructuring our cities to require less transport (not much different for point a.)
f. Change laws to assist in working from home (the company I worked for seriously looked at telecommuting, but legal opinion advised that the company could be prosecuted for not providing a safe working environment for their staff in the home environment)
g. Stop the con, where the government provides subsidies for items such as solar hot water, and the costs of the units rises about the same amount as the subsidy (this also happened with LPG Gas for cars).
As stated at the start, I doubt that any target set by the government has a snow flake in hell chance of being met unless we work over the next 20 years to encouraging change in our society. A big stick approach will definately not work, only see a revolving door of governments.
Post new comment