The Rudd Government is committed to adopting an Emissions Trading Scheme by 2010, which is an election year. It is projected to cause considerable economic pain with potentially ruinous consequences for certain industries, if not household budgets. Given that Australia cannot effectively address climate change alone (as its emissions are negligible compared with the rest of the world), has the Govenment acted prudently in committing the country to an ETS regardless of what the rest of the world does?
Are we not in danger, as Chris Uhlmann of the ABC warned, of incurring all the costs of action plus all the costs of inaction? If an ETS has virtually no environmental effect, is it not just a revenue grab and a lot of pointless pain?
If an ETS is introduced, should petrol be excluded given the soaring price of oil? Should seriously affected business be compensated? Should low-income-earners be compensated?
This article by David Evans was published in the Australian on 18/7/08. It raises some interesting questions as to the science underlying the Government’s decision to introduce an ETS. It’s a debate we should be having.
For a contrary perspective, consult Kenneth Davidson of The Age who on the same day (18/7/08) savaged the Government for not going far enough with its scheme.
Check out Andrew Bolt’s critique of anthropogenic global warming. It’s worth your while.
Professor Ross Garnaut, commissioned by Rudd to prepare a report on the ETS, had this to say in his long-awaited Draft Report (page 8):
“Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels.”
In this respect, Greg Sheridan reported in The Weekend Australian on 19/7/08:
“AN international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be “very, very difficult” to achieve, according to Kevin Rudd.
In an exclusive interview with The Weekend Australian, the Prime Minister gave a downbeat assessment of the chances of developed and developing countries bridging the policy gap to produce a workable climate change agreement.
He instead stressed the flexibility of the Australian plan and the need for Australia to move in broad concert with Western, developed nations…
“What struck me about the G8 meeting [Rudd said] was that, in substantive positions, how far apart everyone is … I think this is really, really hard.”"
This raises serious questions about Australia’s commitment to an ETS irrespective of a global agreement. The Government must ensure that it doesn’t jeopardise Australia’s prosperity in vain.
Tom Biegler had this to say about climate skepticism in a letter to the The Weekend Australian (19/7/08).
A reality check by Keith Orchinson in The Australian (21/7/08):
“In this country, activists obsess over each new coal mine or coal-fired power station as if it signals the end of our world, but the Chinese are duplicating our entire coal-fired power capacity every four or five months. China added 88,300MW of new coal-fired generation in 2007. Australia’s total grid-connected power capacity is 48,200MW, of which 28,500MW is coal fired.”
Lenore Taylor of The Australian, who is well-disposed to an Emissions Trading Scheme, reports (25/7/08) that according to modelling by the electricity industry:
“FOUR out of five power stations in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, both coal-fired power stations in South Australia and several generators in NSW and Queensland could close down under an emissions trading regime designed to meet even a modest greenhouse reduction target.”
Jeremy Sachs presents a contrary view in The Sydney Morning Herald (25/7/08) arguing that “Australia will reap important benefits from the carbon pollution reduction scheme.”
Professor Barry Brook, who heads Adelaide University’s Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, attempts to rebut Andrew Bolt’s critique of AGW above in the Sun Herald (28/7/08).
I found Brook’s rebuttal to be so weak as to bolster Bolt’s argument. Is that all the climate change expert could come up with?
Bolt’s reply can be read on his blog (28/7/09, 3:23pm).
When an article such as this by Professor Bob Carter is published in The Age (even if it’s hidden in the business section so that lefties don’t notice it), you know something is wrong with received wisdom.
Carter concludes that “Never has a policy document of such importance been released in Australia that is so profoundly out of touch with known facts of the real world.”
Matthew Warren of The Weekend Australian reports (2/8/08):
“EXPENSIVE strategies to cut greenhouse emissions, such as Australia’s proposed trading scheme, will do practically nothing to reduce the impact of climate change, and the money would be better used to address malnutrition, disease and the rights of women in developing countries, according to a review by leading economists.
The Copenhagen Consensus Centre co-ordinated by Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg has ranked the pursuit of deep cuts in emissions by countries such as Australia and Europe as one of the least-effective ways of advancing global welfare.
The findings contradict the analysis by Ross Garnaut and Nicholas Stern, who argue that the high cost of mitigating greenhouse gases now is much less than the risk of inaction on climate change.
In prioritising how best to spend $75billion over the next four years to deliver the greatest good to mankind, a panel of eight economists, including five Nobel laureates, did not feature any climate change spending among their 13 priority projects.”
Paul Kelly in The Australian (6/8/08):
“CO-FOUNDER of Access Economics Geoff Carmody warns that Australia’s emissions trading model cannot work, that it is misconceived and that it will damage Australia’s economy with almost no prospect of solving the global problem.”
And Carmody assumes that the man-made global warming theory is true. He’s not even a skeptic.
An interesting article by Tim Wilson in the Australian (2/10/08):
“THERE are two great myths perpetuated by Kevin Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong as a foundation for Australia introducing an emissions trading scheme. Both are deceitful and misleading the public about the cost of an ETS.”
The Government is dragging its feet (The Australian, 2/12/08):
“MUCH to the chagrin of greenies, Penny Wong is delaying issuing Australia’s emission reduction targets until after this month’s Poznan meeting on climate change, and any targets in the forthcoming Australian white paper will not be definitive.”
Good.
Michael Costa in The Australian (24/4/09):
“The Government emissions trading scheme, the Orwellian-named carbon pollution reduction scheme, is another example of the Government valuing unrealistic election commitments over sensible policy and the national interest. The present ETS is fatally flawed. It is complex, confused and fails even a rudimentary cost-benefit test. As comments from the Government’s climate adviser Ross Garnaut demonstrate, it does not even satisfy the requirements of the environmental special-interest groups whose pre-election support it was aimed at achieving.
Thanks to the Senate inquiry into the ETS, convincing evidence is accumulating on its disastrous economic effects. Businesses across the economy have made it absolutely clear that it will cost jobs. Its regional effects are likely to create significant economic and social dislocation and disadvantage. In the NSW Hunter Valley alone, the Hunter Valley Research Foundation estimates the ETS could affect more than 30,000 jobs in a diverse range of industries, from basic food production to heavy manufacturing and mining. Many of these industries are unprepared for its introduction. “
TimesOnline (12/6/09):
“China will not make a binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions, putting in jeopardy the prospects for a global pact on climate change.
Officials from Beijing told a UN conference in Bonn yesterday that China would increase its emissions to develop its economy rather than sign up to mandatory cuts.
The refusal is a setback for President Obama’s efforts to drum up support for an agreement at Copenhagen in December on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. As argument erupted between rich and poor nations at the Bonn talks, Yvo de Boer, the UN climate change chief, said that a worldwide pact to prevent global warming was “physically impossible”.
