Friday, September 5, 2008

Garnaut's interim, provisional, short-range, acting, ad interim, pro tem, tentative, conditional, green-white paper released today

"I have to say that the odds are not great for the Great Barrier Reef or for the economic base of the communities of the Murray Darling," Professor Garnaut said.
He says a 10 per cent cut would reduce GDP by just over one per cent.
When AGW/CC is no longer the terror-du-jour and people see sense what will happen to spruikers for the cause like Garnaut? (news item)

So, here's the link to his site where you can download the report.

Here's the press release (except for the table which you'll find at the link):

Friday 5 September 2008
Australia should put its strongest possible efforts into securing a global agreement to limit emissions to no more than 550 parts per million CO2-e and encourage the world onto a lower emissions path as soon as feasible, according to Professor Ross Garnaut’s Targets and Trajectories report released today.

Launching the report at the National Press Club today, Professor Garnaut said that a global objective of 450ppm or lower would suit Australian interests better than a 550ppm goal.

“However, the Review has reluctantly concluded that international agreement on a global goal of 450ppm is not immediately feasible, given that emissions are currently around 455 ppm CO2-e and rising rapidly due to fast global economic growth,” said Professor Garnaut.

“The path to an ambitious objective of 450ppm, or lower, is through early progress on 550ppm,” he said.

Professor Garnaut said that the emissions trajectories proposed by the Review were based on the ‘per capita’ allocation of emissions rights, which was a fair global solution and had the best chance of securing international support for sharing a global emissions budget.

“Per capita allocations provide the only possible basis for an international agreement that includes developing countries. This is because it takes population growth into
account and gradually reduces the weighting of historical starting points over time.

“The targets and trajectories that I am proposing for Australia fall out from the per capita division of the global emissions budget as a matter of arithmetic. They are based on a principled approach,” he said.

Based on a 550ppm outcome, Australia’s share of the burden would be a 10 per cent
reduction (or 30 per cent in per capita terms) by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction (90 per cent per capita) by 2050 over 2000 levels.

If a ‘450ppm overshoot’ scenario were adopted, emissions would need to be reduced by 25 per cent by 2020 (40 per cent per capita), falling to 90 per cent by 2050 (95
per cent per capita).

By comparison, the European Union’s per capita target would be a 17 per cent reduction by 2020 and a 69 per cent reduction by 2050.

“It’s important that any proposals under consideration for the international allocation of emissions reductions ‘add-up’ to the desired global outcome – there would be no point in global action which was not geared at avoiding the substantial climate change impacts,” said Professor Garnaut.

During the period from 2010 – 2012, in which Australia would continue to work within its Kyoto commitment, permits would be sold starting at $20 in 2010, rising each year by 4 per cent plus the percentage increase of the consumer price index.

“This is more or less the price path that the modelling suggests would be followed if there were effective global agreement directed towards stabilisation of global greenhouse gas concentrations at 550 ppm. If a post-Kyoto agreement were struck around 550ppm, the fixed price is likely to allow relatively seamless transition to a floating price regime,” said Professor Garnaut.

The report proposes that, in the absence of an international agreement between high-income countries and China, Australia commit to an emissions reduction target of 5 per cent by 2020 (25 per cent per capita), which is in line with the Government’s 60 per cent by 2050 emissions target. Any further commitments would be determined in the context of international progress.

The Garnaut-Treasury modelling indicates that the cost to Australia of mitigation would be 1.1 per cent GDP by 2020 under a 550ppm scenario, and 1.6 per cent GDP by 2020 under a 450ppm scenario.

“The costs of well-designed mitigation, substantial as they are, do not threaten to
derail the long-term growth path of Australia, its developing country neighbours or the global economy. Unmitigated climate change probably would,” he said.

“These increases would not lead to a marginal reduction in human welfare, but a catastrophic outcome for human civilisation and most ecosystems,” said Professor Garnaut.

“Faced with these risks, it’s not a question of whether Australia should reduce emissions, but by how much. The details of the targets and trajectories that the Review is recommending will not be the best for all time. They are the best available to us now,” he said.

Professor Ross Garnaut has never done any research on climate change. He has said he doesn't understand it. That's a good foundation for someone who seems determined to destroy Australia's economy.


Skeeter said...

Doesn't understand climate change?
He's not too hot on economics either.
He makes no allowance for the whole AGW thing being a fraud and bases all his calculations on the alarmists being exactly correct with their predictions.
I tried to listen to his address to the NPC but could not cope with his bumbling, stumbling delivery and false smiles. Reminded me of one of my more hated headmasters.

I've recorded this week's NPC address if you want me to check on anything, but I'd rather not watch any of it again.

In this month's Quadrant there is a good article. Satanic Gas, by Ray Evans. He has quite a bit to say about Garnaut and finishes the article with;
...the belief that carbon is demonic element, and that carbon dioxide is a satanic gas, is a retreat into fantasy of the most primitive and dangerous kind.

kae said...

Satanic gas?

One of my ex's nicknames was "Blurter".

I'll say no more.

Wand said...

“The targets and trajectories that I am proposing for Australia fall out from the per capita division of the global emissions budget as a matter of arithmetic. They are based on a principled approach,” he said.

Based on a 550ppm outcome, Australia’s share of the burden would be a 10 per cent reduction (or 30 per cent in per capita terms) by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction (90 per cent per capita) by 2050 over 2000 levels

Holy crap!

It gives new meaning to the old adage, "Populate or perish"

kae said...

Hi Wand.
Andrew Bolt's take on the paper was that Garnaut is preparing to back pedal on the whole thing, and he's hedging his bets.

I don't see it that way... there's still the "ring of panic" in his pronouncements.

Wand said...

Hi kae,

Yes Bolta has taken the view that Garnaut (and the government) will see sense when the ramifications of what they are doing bite home. This is something along the line or argument that is, "He is a reasonable well meaning person (like I am). He will change when he sees that what he is doing will cause so much suffering... etc etc." The fallacy of this line of reasoning is that whoever uses it projects his own values onto other people who may just not adhere to the same values.

I think many business people in Australia have been thinking along these lines.

But I think we are dealing with ideologues who have an agenda to right the world as they see it. The recent news articles about the so called talks and negotiations about emission caps is an indication. The reality is that the government has conceded nothing so far and I don't see them changing.

There is an army of bureaucrats working on this stuff as well as a another army of rent seekers waiting in the wings. And the government has too much invested in the whole scam.

Frankly I don't see them giving anything up. It will be hang on to your hat as the roller coaster goes over the top.

Kaboom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kaboom said...

Isn't the whole thing able to be simplistically expressed as follows:

"We your Government will tax you - and in return, we will attempt to control your weather."

Or have I got it wrong?

Wand said...


It's actually more than a tax and that reality is starting to slowly sink in. It is certainly a tax but if it were only a tax, that could be factored into business and living.

The extra impact on this scam is that it will result in wholesale throttling of business activities and if extended to its logical conclusion a wholesale restriction on what people are 'allowed' to do. Simply, it will result in rationing and worse even than rationing on a grand scale (in a time of plenty), the rations will be reduced as the years pass!

And for anyone who thinks this is too fanciful, I suggest reading the article here

Penny Wong said that it is bigger than the GST and she is certainly right about that (if they are so stupid to continue).

I suspect that this thing has to play itself out before it is seen for what it is - a recipe for national suicide.