Garnaut leaving the Government behind
February 21, 2008 by Tim Hollo
So, the stories we’d been hearing - that Professor Garnaut has been on a steep learning curve on climate science over summer - have proven to be true. The Professor’s Interim Report released today shows that he now does understand the urgency of the issue. We’d still like to see him talking about stabilisation well below 450 ppm, which would give us only a 50% chance of containing warming to less than 2C, but he’s moved a long long way since December. Come June, he should be well on track to full decarbonisation at this rate!
Sadly, Penny Wong has ruled out moving beyond Labor’s 60% cuts by 2050 target, which, as Garnaut has now agreed with us and others, is patently insufficient. And she has relegated Garnaut, previously Labor’s white knight of climate change, to but one ‘input’. Strangely, she says on the one hand that her government is cognisant of the science, but on the other, she rejects scientific input in favour of an outdated political solution. Hmmm.
We’ll put up some more detailed analysis of Garnaut’s report tomorrow, but in the meantime, here is what Christine said in Crikey today:
Is Garnaut making them uncomfortable enough?
Greens Senator Christine Milne writes:
When Kevin Rudd approached Ross Garnaut last year, he clearly wanted two things. One was a convenient excuse, “waiting for Garnaut”, for not announcing key climate policies in the lead up to the election. The second was an economist’s analysis of climate policy, sidelining the cental question of what cuts climate science says we actually need.
In other words, in the face of global catastrophe, he was expecting a “we shall fight them on the beaches depending on a lengthy economic analysis of how many troops we can afford to dispatch at this time.” How fascinating to see Rudd now distancing himself from Garnaut, nervous that Garnaut will say “we should fight them on the beaches with everything we’ve got, because not to do so is unthinkable.”
Garnaut began as a conservative economist, but it seems that he is now coming to understand the science and is foreshadowing recommendations that are making the Government extremely uncomfortable. But if the noises being made by this conservative economist are making Rudd and Co nervous, they are way behind the current science.
Garnaut is right to say that climate change is so urgent that, if we don’t act by 2020, the game is over. But today’s statement that he is only modeling trajectories for stabilising atmospheric concentrations of CO2e at 450 and 550 parts per million (ppm) show that he hasn’t digested the even greater urgency provided by the latest science.
Last year there was record Arctic ice melt, discovery of a reduction in the oceans’ capacity to absorb our carbon pollution, and the revelation that global emissions are increasing faster than the IPCC’s worst projections. Put these together, and the risks of even 450 ppm triggering runaway climate change are far too great, while 550 ppm should simply not be on the table. Instead of modeling 550 ppm, the Review should look at how to stabilise at 400 ppm or less as quickly as possible, to give us the best chance possible of maintaining a liveable climate. Certainly this will be extremely difficult, but this is no time for defeatism – we need a clear-eyed assessment of what is required.
We have no time to waste. Garnaut has already made it clear that we need deep cuts fast. We do not need to wait for his final report to take immediate action to substantially reduce emissions in the fastest and cheapest ways. As the Greens have identified for years, and the McKinsey Report reiterated last week, rapid implementation of energy efficiency and stopping land clearance and native forest logging are no brainers. As we put those sectors on target, we need to look at everything else.
Now that Rudd’s has a solid indication of the direction the Garnaut is heading in, his government’s first Budget must start this process by looking at all the anti-inflationary savings that can be made which will help cut greenhouse emissions. He will be judged, above all, on whether Australia’s emissions keep rising or whether 2008 is the year they peak and finally begin to fall.
All this from the Greens who planned to spend the $30B on more growth in services, much of which spending would inevitably increase emissions.
The same group who said clearly there was no need to spend actual money on investment in renewable energy generation. And no funding was needed for EASI since it would be self funding.
Hmmm… Sounds a bit blase to me for a group who aim to get 400ppm target. Pardon but your credibility gap is showing.
By saying you knew years ago you really show your culpability here. If you knew but achieved nothing towards addressing it then it stands as an indictment against you.
Let’s not stoop to “I told you so” self delusion. If you really knew ahead of time then your pre-election policies would have been very different to what you ran with.
I see recently the Greens think part of the $30B tax cuts should now be directed to EASI. If the Greens can change their plans so can others.
Given what you has been said by Greens about Garnaut I think he owed an apology at least, but no I still see above some sly shots being sent his way.
How about trying this instead:
“Thank you Garnaut, sorry for doubting you, please lets talk about this, we have some ideas.”
Come on Christine we need everyone to work together, not be so opportunistically fractious.
Garnaut has shown himself to be the better party by not stooping to your tactics.
Three cheers for Garnaut, what a breath of fresh air, he might just catalyse the turning point.
Responding to W.Shawn Gray@91 - Why do we want to cut emission…
Yes I mean additional DMS production. I’ll explain.
Ocean deserts (i.e. an absence of ocean life) form when the oceans warm upper layer reaches 20C. This is because mixing of layers ceases and as creatures die and fall to lower layers the nutrient content of the upper layer falls to zero effectively. It might as well be the Sahara desert in summer as far as life is concerned, its utterly barren. As others have said, that is why tropical oceans are so beautifully clear.
So if you can restart the mixing then the upper layer regains nutrient supply and the algae can go to work producing DMS which forms clouds.
The trick to this IMHO is that if you seek out an ocean on the verge of such a mixing failure and map its mixing currents and then provide flow support at the critical locations to continue mixing you could sustain mixing with limited energy input, retain the nutrient richness to support algal DMS production which provides cloud cover which causes cooling which stops further mixing failure and climate stablisation can be found.
Anyway its a wild crazy idea, I’d never heard it until Gilbert floated it and I developed it a little, but I like it way better than injecting pollution into the air.
Makes for a nice research project at least.
But before we can do anything we have to have a proper consultation process, committees, policy boards, more advice, and…
Nice gestures, warm words, no action. This is why I write about how the average Aussie can reduce their carbon emissions by two-thirds without significant effort, discomfort, and while saving money - no fancy technology or anything else, just simple day-to-day changes.
You and me in our daily lives reducing by two-thirds, well households are about half of all emissions, so that’s a one-third reduction in emissions tomorrow, if we want it. More realistically, with lots of regulations and advertising (as we do here in Victoria for water saving) we’d manage half that in ten years - but that’s 17% reduction, leaving commerce, industry and agriculture only another 3% to find over that time to make a total 20% reduction by 2018.
Change begins at home. Today. Now. If we wait for the government, whether crusty old Howard or feel-good-do-nothing Rudd, we’ll be cooked.
I do find Penny Wong’s comments a little odd. Firstly, I didn’t realise the Rudd government will still be around in 2050. Secondly, Garnaut’s proposal for deeper cuts was in the context of collective international action for deeper cuts. Is Penny Wong saying that if the rest of the world cuts emissions by 80-90% in 2050, Australia should still only reduce its emissions by 60%? Truely bizarre…
quick note - would be great if you could put up another link to the McKinsey report as at the moment it just takes you to a login page.
“.. the Review should look at how to stabilise at 400 ppm or less as quickly as possible, to give us the best chance possible of maintaining a liveable climate.”
Likewise the Australian Green will at last get serious about Zero Population Growth to stabilize population? The Greenhouse gas challenge can-not (for long) remain stable with an exponential expanding population at any level.
“Certainly this will be extremely difficult, but this is no time for defeatism – we need a clear-eyed assessment of what is required.”
WSG
“Thank you Garnaut, sorry for doubting you, please lets talk about this, we have some ideas.”
Um, the reason Garnaut was doubted was because over the last 6 months he’s made a habit of making public musings along the lines of why interim targets aren’t needed, and why economic costs are implicitly more important than the science of climate change.
IOW, if Garnaut has been doubted, which he has, it’s because of his own statements, not some micharacterisation by telepathy.
It’s nice to see that Garnaut’s starting to get it, but he’s still got a long way to go - it’s just as plausible that the public criticism of his previous public musings has helped push him to look harder and deeper, and thus get to this much-improved position. So personally I hope Christine continues with her constructive criticism and questioning, because clearly no other political voice bar the Greens is applying this critical level of scrutiny.
So myriad@7 I take it you are totally comfortable that election policies of $30B growth in services, no funding for renewables or EASI was right on track to achieve stabilisation at 400ppm.
And now you think the good in his report is all Christine’s doing, give me a break. Why are you so unable to give him credit for his capacity for assessing the facts.
Christine cannot claim credit for all that is good and shift blame for all that is not. If she knew then she is culpable, especially for her policies but also her incapacity to have effected change.
Public mockery is not clear eyed constructive criticism it is a low form of political opportunism. You defend the indefensible. If your arguments are well made you will be able to raise the tone of the debate not lower it.
Some post-Garnaut questions for Penny Wong:
1). Why are we still building thousands of energy-inefficient McMansions throughout suburbia, which, once the kids leave home are half empty. The construction and maintenance of these behemoths contribute enormously to emissions whilst reducing urban land that could be planted out with trees and other CO2 absorbing plants? It’s time that we designed a new Aussie home for the 21st century that has a much smaller environmental footprint.
In many parts of northern NSW and other areas of Australia, low environmental impact homes were being built cheaply back in the ’70s and ’80’s from local recycled and or renewable materials. What is needed are changes to local Government planning laws to enable increased multiple-occupancy of rural land, and development of more urban housing co-operatives, both of which would significantly ease pressure on housing availability.
2). Why are our Labor State Governments still rolling back our railways particularly in regional and rural areas whilst spending billions on roads to accommodate more CO2 belching cars and trucks which will become obsolete anyway?
3). Why aren’t we heavily taxing fuel-guzzling V8s and 4WDs, particularly in cities where they’re basically used for shopping, transporting the kids to and from school or intimidating other road users, when we should be offering tax concessions for hybrid vehicles and other forms of transport that are not powered by the infernal combustion engine, such as bicycles? The French have the right idea of hiring out thousands of Velib bikes (free for the first hour, with progressive rental increases).
4). Why aren’t we implementing a national electricity buy-back scheme similar to Germany’s Renewable Energy Law (REL), which is encouraging home-owners, businesses and farmers to install solar panels via cheap loans, with the Government guaranteeing to purchase excess energy generated?
I agree with all of Jim Bendfeldt’s points above. Point (1) is particularly important, the recent study in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from McKinsey and company (PDF)
http://mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Australian_Cost_Curve_for_GHG_Reduction.pdf
estimates that a very significant portion of Australia’s emissions can be reduced with negative cost by reducing emissions associated with buildings. It is far more sensible and cost-effective to be building proper buildings in the first place rather than retrofitting them later.
So myriad@7 I take it you are totally comfortable that election policies of $30B growth in services, no funding for renewables or EASI was right on track to achieve stabilisation at 400ppm.
And now you think the good in his report is all Christine’s doing, give me a break. Why are you so unable to give him credit for his capacity for assessing the facts.
Christine cannot claim credit for all that is good and shift blame for all that is not. If she knew then she is culpable, especially for her policies but also her incapacity to have effected change.
Public mockery is not clear eyed constructive criticism it is a low form of political opportunism. You defend the indefensible. If your arguments are well made you will be able to raise the tone of the debate not lower it.
Yeah, I think it might be your aggressive tone and construction of strawmen arguments that might be doing the tone lowering here, “peacenik”. Your post above is riddled with inaccuracies (”uncosted EASI” - go read the press releases again), conflations (”And now you think the good in his report is all Christine’s doing” - a fail on reading comprehension there, go read what I said again) and distortions (”public mockery” - please point me to a single example of Milne or any other Green mocking Ross Garnaut).
A supplementary for #2 of Jim Bendfeldt @9 post-Garnaut questions for Penny Wong:
2+). After Peak Oil bites how are we going to transport heavy goods when there is no-longer any cheap (economical plausible) oil for diesel trucks anymore? Especially during the the 15 years it will take to rebuild the rural branch & trunk-line railway networks? Not forgetting it will also take years to breed up sufficient bullocks again for the old-time dray teams!!
No problem at all. The public mockery was the extract from Waiting For Godot. Mocking someone for the name they were born with is as offensive as racism. When a schoolchild does it we cringe. We should be able to expect more from our Senators. As someone who has experienced that devastation I was deeply repulsed by that stunt. It is plain rude and has nothing whatever to do with his position in the debate.
Garnaut has been prejudged by the Greens on many levels. The Greens purport to abhor prejudice in others but it seems they are blind to when they engage in it. An apology to Garnaut is due but apparently not forthcoming.
I understand now that you agree then that $30B on services growth and no specific funding for renewables is inconsistent with a serious plan to meet a 400ppm target.
I did not write uncosted EASI. Myriad what you say simply isn’t so. I said no specific funding allocation. Go to the press releases again. The pre-election policy says it will pay for itself (requiring no specific funding) which is surprising for someone who apparently wanted an aggressive 400ppm target (since she “knew”).
We see a modification to now suggesting a funding allocation for EASI (the change I referred to above) be made as you recognise the weakness of that pre-election strategy.
And you really did say that Christine through her criticism of Garnaut could plausibly claim responsibility for the strength of his stance. It beggars belief that you could contemplate claiming credit for his work after what has been said.
The most likely interpretation is that Christine didn’t know what she claimed to “know for years” and she should be called to account for stretching the truth here. The strength of my comments reflected the degree of my being rankled by the perceived inconsistency between her statements and her actions.
She is not omniscient, she can learn just like Garnaut. You really are all just people you know, you have made mistakes and you will make more mistakes and thats actually quite okay. What isn’t okay is refusing to recognise those mistakes.
Peacenik, I do intend to address some of the more substantive issues as soon as I get the chance, but I wanted to simply note at this point that both I and Christine have spoken to Professor Garnaut and he is absolutely delighted by the “Waiting for Garnaut” line. It was never intended as an insult or in any way to denigrate him, and he thought it was clever, funny and apt.
Take a look at my surname and contemplate what I faced as a child. As an adult, however, one can see the humourous intention where it is done appropriately.
I understand now that you agree then that $30B on services growth and no specific funding for renewables is inconsistent with a serious plan to meet a 400ppm target.
No, what you “understand” is that you think the best way to win an argument is to construct a strawman and then make inflammatory, provocative and false claims about another’s position.
I did not write uncosted EASI. Myriad what you say simply isn’t so. I said no specific funding allocation. Go to the press releases again. The pre-election policy says it will pay for itself (requiring no specific funding) which is surprising for someone who apparently wanted an aggressive 400ppm target (since she “knew”).
EASI was put out as a policy proposal, and I heard at least 3 separate interviews with both Milne and Brown where they both spoke of possible funding options for the proposal, including obviously the initial allocation. Frankly your point is nonsensical.
…as you recognise the weakness of that pre-election strategy.
Um who exactly is “you” in this assertion? I’m neither Milne nor the author of the policy. Please try and hold a discussion without making such aggressively rude and bizarre statements.
And you really did say that Christine through her criticism of Garnaut could plausibly claim responsibility for the strength of his stance.
Bullshit. What I said was:
So personally I hope Christine continues with her constructive criticism and questioning, because clearly no other political voice bar the Greens is applying this critical level of scrutiny.
IOW in the political sphere, Christine Milne’s criticisms are welcome and constructive, and will hopefully continue to contribute to a more informed debate about Garnaut’s work. Your “interpretation” is one of the most distorted reckonings I’ve seen in a long while on a blog.
The most likely interpretation is that Christine didn’t know what she claimed to “know for years” and she should be called to account for stretching the truth here.
What on earth are you talking about? Didn’t know what? Milne and the Greens have consistently called for strong intermediate targets, a 2050 target of 80 to 90%, and the need for climate change response to be based on the science, as it is increasingly showing that we are now flirting with dangerous climate change. The Greens have been saying this before Stern, and well before Garnaut. Garnaut has just come out and pretty much agreed in his interim report. What was your point again?
What isn’t okay is refusing to recognise those mistakes.
Well you’d have to articulate them and explain them without resorting to really unpleasant ‘debating’ tactics first I think to have any kind of moral authority on the matter.
13 Peacenik, you need a glass of red or at least a Bex and a lie down!!!!!!
W. Shawn Gray
“Likewise the Australian Green will at last get serious about Zero Population Growth to stabilize population?”
Here here! Contraception is the best form of conservation, and vital in action against climate change.
Scrap the sbsurd baby bonus. We have no business encouraging people to produce even more people, making climate change worse and worse.
We sure are “Waiting for Garnaut” down here in Tasmania where Gunns, Lennon Labor and Forestry Tasmania oversee the felling and burning of our carbon banks apace, unchecked by any manifest sense of responsibility for forest stewardship to help along climate cooling … let alone just because places like the Upper Florentine, the Weld, Blue Tier, slopes of Ben Lomond - and all the vanishing forests - are miraculous creations.
Premier Paul Lennon this week asked Prof. Garnaut to examine ‘forestry’s role in addressing climate change.”
Note the use of the word ‘addressing’. The Premier, who all his political life has been beholden to the forest industry, must believe Garnaut will buy the spin Mr Lennon’s heard from the slash and burn monoculturalists, about forestry’s mitigative powers. It beggars belief that our leader would find Damascus in South Australia this week and be prepared to do over corporate chums in his pet resource sector on the basis of a comprehensive scientific analysis of the question.
We have witnessed, enraged, as State and Federal governments fast-tracked a pulp mill which, it is conservatively estimated by the Green Institute’s Margaret Blakers, will pump 10.2 million tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere each year. That’s what happens when you need 4.5 million tonnes of native timber to feed the mill and its furnace. It’s what happens when hundreds and thousands of years of carbon sequestration in forest soils and trees are lost in the torching, chipping and burning to benefit Gunns and its shareholders all at enormous taxpayer expense.
And don’t forget, all the while Gunns will continue to export between 4 - 7 million tonnes of woodchips, from a mix of plantation and native forest, every year. Factor that, Premier Lennon. And while you’re at it, factor into our carbon accounting - for the first time - the massive contribution of forest burns, and the loss of carbon in forest soils …
As for “peacenik” (and you don’t sound much like one) … I have followed Christine’s political career path for twenty years, first as a journalist in Tasmania when she took on another odious mill proposal and won, and more recently to this day as a member of her staff.
Christine Milne has earned the respect of many, many Tasmanians, and senior people in international forums, who recognise she is 100% sincere, straightforward, whip-smart and deeply personally motivated to being part of environmental solutions .. if we can find one in time, on climate change. If that means laying bare the climate change inadequacies of the government of the day, and putting forward lateral Greens’ initiatives, well, that’s her job.
She certainly hasn’t insulted Professor Garnaut in anything I’ve read or heard … Can’t help thinking the Prof. would agree that an apology is unwarranted.
[...] . . . . but now the Australian Government is reeling. http://greensblog.org/2008/02/21/garnaut-leaving-the-government-behind/ [...]
“.. we need a clear-eyed assessment of what is required”.
Yes exactly, but your last sentence (quoted below) is hardly clear eyed.
“He will be judged, above all, on whether Australia’s emissions keep rising or whether 2008 is the year they peak and finally begin to fall.”
Its all very well to know we need to be clear eyed, its another thing to actually be clear eyed.
Christine it monumentally unlikely that 2008 is the year they will peak and judging him on something that will never occur is either an error in thinking or an attempt to set him up. The only way it could occur would be a sudden onset severe global depression which would constrain our mining industry, our GDP and our consumerism but at the same time hamper our attempts to create long term structural changes to create a low emission economy.
Indeed attempting to peak in 2008 may be the very worst thing we could do. The most appropriately aggressive response measures would probably result in a short term surge in emissions due to the embedded emissions in those things will bring long term emissions down.
Clearly the implementation stage of EASI will generate embedded emissions above the business as usual case. The faster you roll out EASI the better for long term emissions but doing this fast would cause a short term surge. But your desire to peak in 2008 prevents you from getting the best result.
If we set out to rapidly build a bunch of CST sites we for will also generate embedded emissions above the business as usual case, but would be better off in the long term than slowly building CST. Again your desire to peak in 2008 gets in the way.
And this is in the context of a growing population with increasing wealth and attendant consumer appetites and a fast growing GDP and steadily increasing export capacity.
I expect the RBA has more hope than anyone of bringing about a near term emissions peak than anyone and even then it can take around 18 months for the effects of an RBA move to be fully released. Only a neophyte (or a member of the press) would judge Rudd for what the RBA does in 2008. But a contracting economy will make it even harder to find funds to rapidly implement mitigation measures, so really we don’t want this either just yet.
The 2020 targets are more important for judging Rudd in than the 2050 targets, especially since he is bound (both up and down) by an election promise on the 2050 emissions targets but also since he won’t be the leader all the way to 2050. At his next campaign he can tweak the 2050 target promise and we should leave 2050 at that. Now the pressure should be on his 2020 target as the 2020 outcome will be hugely influenced by his policies (assuming he gets a second term which seems likely). Attacking the 2050 target at this juncture is a waste of effort because he has an ironwilled principle of aiming to stand by his promises. His soft spot is clearly the 2020 target.
So since you raised it, I think it is worth examing what a sensible historian will at some future point judge Rudd for in respect of climate change. Here is a shot.
Rudd will be judged for three things as follows:
a) the interim (i.e. 2020) emissions targets he sets and
b) for the specific actions he takes that have a bearing on meeting those targets and
c) for how successful those actions are in meeting those targets.
If anyone can improve on this great. The better you get this, the easier it will be to constantly remind him how he will be judged. The more consistent that message the more powerful it will be.
I’m with Peacenik on one point. The 30B growth in services was an absolute shocker.
I listened to Christine on Radio National this week on my way to work. I couldnt agree more this guy who they advised to draw up this report looks like he will be ignored and his findings to a degree thrown aside. If we dont do the hard yards now we will be a laughing stock. I personally think the Greens at a National level arent doing enough. It was basically the Rudd government that got elected in the numbers they did on the back of Greens preferences. What are the Greens doing about this? Why isnt Bob Brown knocking on Kevins door and demanding some answers and getting pulled into line?
I’m intrigued by the lack of discussion of Garnault’s direction in his researches -
specifically his interest in the global climate policy framework of Contraction & Convergence as the basis for the requisite Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons.
Is this because the framework’s adoption is
- a forgone conclusion,
- too hard to discuss,
- unspeakably abhorrent,
- or causing some other problem ?
Moreover, I find incomprehensible the easy projections of “stabilizing” CO2 ppmv at some number at some date -
as if no feedback loops were active -
particularly on a Green site that has some grasp of the science involved.
If what is meant by stabilization is actually nothing of the sort,
but is really a peak in ppmv before a long-term decline down to pre-industrial levels,
then why don’t people say so ?
Regards,
Lewis
I do not care if Milne called Garnaut a drongo once, or if she praised him to the heavens. That’s just petty points-scoring, “Miss, Miss, he called me a rude name!” We’re not in primary school any more.
What matters is action. Churchill’s words remind me of the Rudd government,
“So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.”
We do not want to hear about what was said yesterday, to hear of committees deliberating and discussing and waiting on complete reports from a broad spectrum of the scientific and business community, or to see the previous Government blamed or praised for what did or didn’t happen. We want to see right done today.
We have, after all, known of this problem for more than twenty years. That was rather less warning than we had for the Second World War, and we won that. But we did not win victory by endless committees and consultations and blaming one another for inaction.
First off, can I please point people to the post I have just put up on comments threads and policy. Please, everyone, help us to ensure that threads are full, frank, but polite discussions and do not degenerate into slanging matches.
Concerned, re your belief that only global depression will see Australia’s emissions peak this year - you raise a number of important points about embodied energy, and there is certainly a strong argument that, for major infrastructure such as renewables and transport, there will need to be a boost in manufacturing, and concomitant rise in emissions from that.
However, there are a range of options - most particularly with forestry, but also with efficiency measures, that could see very substantial drops in emissions very fast, more than offsetting such increases. In addition, our argument would be that the increased manufacturing for renewables and transport should replace perverse and inefficient manufacturing for the polluting sector. Let’s re-tool those plants that are still pumping out polluting cars, let’s stop building those freeways, and those coal ports. That’s how we can see emissions peak this year and come down from next year.
Re your final point - in the longer term, you’re absolutely right - Rudd will be judged by history on those questions. However, as of this term of his PM’ship, it’ll be a question of turning emissions around fast, for very good reason, and with great potential.
Lewis @ 23 - re contraction and convergence - I think most people are of the view that it is the only model that has any chance of success post 2012. There is no way developing countries will sign on to something that doesn’t follow that essential model.
Re feedback loops - they are factored in. Stabilising at or below 400ppm means stabilising for some period of time at that level, in the understanding that that, according to the current science, is a relatively safe level. Stabilising at 550ppm, as some people, including Stern, talk about, is, as you say, a nonsense. 550ppm will set in train so many feedback loops that you will swiftly go far higher. 450ppm gives us a signficant risk of that, too. 400ppm may not.
Finally, I’ve promised a proper critique of Garnaut’s interim report, and we will do that, but our time is extremely limited. Should be done soon, though…
Tim, thanks for your response. I totally agree that efficiency has the greatest potential for rapid cuts, the difficulty I see is that it requires a proactive population which I have grave doubts about and so I can’t bring myself to count on it.
I think we would be unwise to make investment in say renewable energy dependant on widespread adoption of efficiency measures which unless I am mistaken is implied by the suggested judgement.
Its just not within Rudd’s power to compel our population to do anything much at all and especially not rapidly. At best he can provide incentives and disincentives.
Examples abound of the lack of power of incentives and disincentives in motivating universal action. A classic is the bulk of the population staying put with a particular mobile provider when another provider would offer them a better deal.
Additionally you’ll need a crowbar to redirect the operators of inefficient manufacturing facilities in any sort of hurry. Even with a very high carbon tax those plants will roll on for years while the operators extract short term economic value while running down their plant.
Being fascetious for a second the Magna Carta was perhaps a backwards step in regard to the limits it creates on our leaders to effect climate change response. The price of our relative freedom is in all likelihood a reduced capacity to ward off dangerous climate change.
Given Rudd’s lack of power to immediately compel the changes you suggest I don’t think he can be judged in the manner you suggest.
Perhaps he can be judged on the combination of:
a) the total cumulative CO2 emitted during the term of his office and
b) the annual emissions rate when he leaves office and
c) the length of his term.
We could tolerate a very high a) if we got a very low b). This would reflect proper treatment for high embedded emissions of an aggressive implementation of mitigation measures.
Concerned @ 26.
Has hit the nail smack on the head when he wrote;-
“Its just not within Rudd’s power to compel our population to do anything much at all and especially not rapidly. At best he can provide incentives and disincentives.”
In a market economy generally real incentives (those that are large enough to overcome public inertia so as to be effective in a tight time-frame) are unacceptably inflationary, while costing as a disincentives is political suicide. You will not get any pricing of carbon to move the bulk of commuters from private cars to public transport. Last- time I seriously researched this looking at the international experience, economic models and all, was in the mid 1990’s at THAT time the cost of a litre of petrol needed to be set at $7+ before the cost of a tank of petrol was disincentive enough to encourage a majority of commuters to use public transport instead of private cars!
Tim@14
I’m glad to hear the professor enjoyed it.
As constructive criticism I wish to offer that I thought the analogy was in poor taste (although I’d be unconcerned if Garnaut were a politician). The trouble with the analogy is that feelings towards Godot are far from neutral.
In both the two sequels that were written, Godot (a noted childbeater) finally shows up and suffers terrible outcomes as the price for his appalling behaviour. The outcome in the first sequel he is condemned to death and in the second an attempt is made to murder him.
Its not a good defence that the object of of the analogous inference does not mind. That person may have a wife, children, parents, siblings, friends, those who share his name or those who share or aspire to his profession that may be intimidated, even though the professor is not.
Casting Garnaut as Godot cannot reasonably be taken as a positive statement about Ganaut. I could spend a lot of time talking about the implication about Garnaut that is taken by the reader (in proper context), but I’d much rather not as its not too pretty. I don’t think it is a case of being mocked, but it is definitely not good.
I feel that this episode is not something an inclusive, tolerant Greens party should aspire to. I’d personally be much more comfortable if we could please just resist such temptations in future. The whole thing is best put well behind us.
Actually, Concerned and Rupert, it’s not exactly true to say that “Its just not within Rudd’s power to compel our population to do anything much at all and especially not rapidly. At best he can provide incentives and disincentives.”
There are various options open to any government that compel action, both from the general population and from the more easily regulated world of corporations.
Chief amongst them is regulation such as MEPS - minimum energy performance ratings - that would simply take the least efficient whitegoods right off the market, ensuring that people buy more efficient ones.
For the corporate sector, Australia’s 250 largest companies are already required to undertake energy audits. It would be easy for the government to require those corporations to implement any findings of those audits with a payback time of 5, 6, 8 years, for example.
Plenty of options for governments to compel action. It’s really what governments do best!
Let me start by saying that I’ve read the Mckinsey report (Australian version), I’ve had a squiz at the US version of the Mckinsey report (250 abatement options investigated compared to 100 in the Australian version), and I’ve read the executive summary and terms of reference of the Garnaut interim review, but haven’t finished reading Garnaut in its entirety.
I do not have a problem with Penny Wong reducing the Garnaut report to “input”, that is a quite appropriate treatment of the economic impacts that flow on from the science. I do however have a problem with Wong/Rudd ignoring both the science and the economics and going the “wrong way”, it’s very John Howard of them.
” .. But today’s statement that he is only modeling trajectories for stabilising atmospheric concentrations of CO2e at 450 and 550 parts per million (ppm) show that he hasn’t digested the even greater urgency provided by the latest science. …” This shows no such thing, if you look at the terms of reference for his review (p 63, 2nd last paragraph), you can see that Garnaut was only tasked with examining CO2e concentrations between 450 and 550 ppm from the start. Don’t blame Garnaut for this, any blame lies solely with the people who crafted his terms of reference, ie the labor party.
According to the 2030 abatement curve in the Mckinsey report (Aust), the cost of CO2 abatement through solar PV will be the same (or marginally cheaper) than through cleaning coal (the retrofitting of coal fired power stations with CCS). In other words our coal industry hasn’t got long before it will be in decline. The Australian version of the Mckinsey report shows no methodology as to how they came up with their cost abatement curves, I assume they used the same methodology as in the US version http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf (p80-81 in particular). I’ve read that methodology, and I’m still unclear as to just what is included and what isn’t. If you take solar PV as an example, then by my reading the GHG emissions in the creation of the PV is included, but the reduced lifespan of a PV panel compared to a coal fired power station is not.
I remain sceptical of many of the Carbon sinks claims in Mckinsey too. Taking the example of conservation tillage, my initial reaction was what a load of crock, sure you’d be able to store Carbon there for 5, 10, maybe 20 years, but after 50, 100, 1000 years I expect almost all of such stored Carbon to escape (otherwise we’d have that much topsoil that it wouldn’t be funny). The US report only claimed 20-25 years worth of such accumulation before the Carbon concentration in soils would reach saturation, (yayyy, they share my concerns) but if at some time in the future the ground is tilled much of this stored CO2 would be lost, (awww), and if you’ve claimed no till/reduced till farming as an abatement measure, then you hamstring farmers in being able to freely plough their land in the future, gee they are going to like that. Australia is a continent of floods and droughts, (the cracks that open during a severe drought should have a similar decarbonising effect to ploughing the land,) has this been factored into any conservation tillage acting as a Carbon sink claim under Australian conditions?
Tim @29 “… it’s not exactly true …” likewise it is not exactly untrue either. Yeah governments can attempt to compel, just look at the historical mixed record of controlling tax avoidance.
My main point was that the mechanism of carbon pricing and pollution credit trading (which seem to be the lions share of the Greens suggestions for a Federal fix), but also effectively any & all such indirect market mechanisms are of themselves not sufficiently robust or responsive to engender the RAPID cultural / economic change required to address the challenges posed by climate changes (combined with Peak Oil + Minerals).
Zoltar@30 “I remain sceptical of many of the Carbon sinks claims in Mckinsey too. Taking the example of conservation tillage, my initial reaction was what a load of crock, sure you’d be able to store Carbon there for 5, 10, maybe 20
years, but after 50, 100, 1000 years I expect almost all of such stored Carbon to escape (otherwise we’d have that much topsoil that it wouldn’t be funny). The US report only claimed 20-25 years worth of such accumulation before the Carbon concentration in soils would reach saturation, (yayyy, they share my concerns) but if at some time in the future the ground is tilled much of this stored CO2 would be lost, (awww), and if you’ve claimed no till/reduced till farming as an abatement measure, then you hamstring farmers in being able to freely plough their land in the future, gee they are going to like that.”
A few points: no Australian farmer is going to claim that carbon levels in soil don’t go up and down with management, or that extended droughts don’t affect carbon levels in the soil.
Average carbon levels in soils when white settlement occurred in Australia are believed to have been around 5 to 6%. Some two hundred years of ‘mining the soil’ has reduced this average to much less than 2% (1.3% from memory).
The carbon will not ‘escape’ it will be cycled. If we can raise and stabilise the average levels of carbon stored in soils back to 5% or better, that’s many millions of tons of carbon stored. A cycle of 5 or 6% carbon is definitely preferable to one with less than 2%, as the average levels of carbon in the soil at any one time will be far greater. In other words some 400% more carbon will be in the soil at any one time.
Topsoil levels can never be too great (’saturation’), China’s most productive areas have topsoil 70 metres deep! That’s carbon rich topsoil which unfortunately they are now mining at a rapid rate. In Australia we measure our topsoil in centimetres.
Topsoil doesn’t ‘go down’, it grows up, ie. successive layers grow on the top of previously deposited layers. So I fail to see how soils can ever reach ’saturation’, the carbon containing lower layers are stored until they are mined - either by farming technique, plants, and/or soil macro and micro flora and fauna. The deeper the topsoil, the greater length of time the carbon will remain stored (the slower the cycle - most annual activity takes place in the top 10cm, at 10m the cycle is measured in hundreds of years).
The trick will be measuring the rate of growth and retention of soil carbon, as well as identifying region/enterprise specific farming techniques that maximise carbon retention. We also need a national data base of regional carbon benchmarks etcetera.
It is possible to ‘grow’ carbon rich topsoil in Australia at the rate of 2.5cm per annum given the right conditions and management.
Anyway all I can say is “we’re working on it”. The majority of Australian farmers are acutely aware of the need for increasing the carbon content of our soils, and for many this has become the highest of priorities.
Rupert @ 31, I’m not sure where you get the idea that “carbon pricing and pollution credit trading… seem to be the lions share of the Greens suggestions for a Federal fix”. In fact, we take great pains to note that they are not.
Please have a good look at our Synthesis Policy from the recent election and see how little is about trading. The vast bulk is regulatory measures and funding reallocation for R&D and commercialisation projects, which are demonstrably successful on overseas experience.
mcfarm @ 32 - thanks! That’s really fascinating detail and great to have a farmer’s voice here at GreensBlog.
Tomas@28 I strongly disagree. It will be a sad day when Australians are no longer able to ‘take the piss’ out of one another. It is a national trait you are objecting to and it has enabled us to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Tolerance is a two way street and this implies that we should be able to tolerate those doing the ‘taking of the piss’. Always provided it’s not malicious of course. I believe the article was not malicious, not only that but understood the slight/joke was not aimed at Garnaut, but at those doing the waiting.
However, those that have read the book and sequels could be counted on one or maybe two hands - so it was an elitist play on words. Perhaps all such articles should barred in future if they are intellectually elitist and non inclusive?
Anyway we can fix this contentious issue for future generations. As a policy initiative, and to encourage a much cherished national trait, instead of an Australian Citizenship Test, we should have a ’sense of humour test’ for potential Australians. In essence, if you take yourself too seriously, can’t laugh at yourself, and can’t tolerate those laughing at you, you are ineligible - no exceptions. (for the humour challenged this is a joke, although ‘many a true word spoken in jest’). Garnaut passed the test btw.
Tim @33 “Please have a good look at our Synthesis Policy”
I assume you are talking about “The Greens’ Action Plan, our ’synthesis report’ of our climate policies” that was released by Bob Brown and Christine Milne on the 18 Nov 2007.
I did read the “The Australian Greens’ Six Step Climate Change Action Plan” and it was the lack of substance there-in that prompted my assertion that “carbon pricing and pollution credit trading… seem to be the lions share of the Greens suggestions for a Federal fix”.
Not that the Action Plan does not devote many more inches of policy text to lots of other innovative and (of themselves) meritorious policy ideas. After making the point;-
“However, an emissions trading scheme will not of itself be sufficient to achieve the national emission targets. We must support it with a range of policies to drive energy efficiency and renewable energy, move to cleaner transport, and stop logging.”
It was the lack of issues cited by that sentence that started alarm bells ringing for me. The cynical in the public at large may even say that the Action Plan only contained those things that the public expected the Greens to say. Where is the mention of; Peak Oil complications? need for changes to urban-form? agriculture livestock, cropping and distribution issues? demises of tourism industry? accommodation of structural dislocation of the economy? relocation, population, manpower planning? the interface of energy conservation with water resource? military defense aspects following from climate change? what needs to be done now to prepare for the possibility that the 2C temperature threshold is sadly exceeded?
So my point still is ‘market mechanism (carbon pricing, pollution trading)’ are still the most significant thread required to accomplish the bulk of the heavy lifting in meeting the Greens Climate Change response for the country. Tim if you still think otherwise where is the modeling and numbers to prove your perspective?
This is kind of funny. Last year Christine quite obviously wanted Garnaut to be reduced “just another input” and now that he is she is not happy about it.
It looks to me as though the whole marginalising of Garnaut has backfired and cost some credibility along the way.
As constructive input I’ll offer perhaps we need to resist the kneejerk responses and keep enough powder dry to make the shots we have left really count.
Peter Vintila
central@postkyto.org
What will the other four fifths do?
What CO2e emission targets should Australia adopt for 2050? The 90% cut recently urged in Garnaut’s interim report or the 60% still favoured by Rudd, Wong, Garret and Co. The Government believes
that 90% is excessive or too expensive. On the other hand, the Greens argue that is not enough. Garnaut’s 90% aims to secure a CO2e concentration ceiling of 450ppm; the Greens want a safer 400ppm. Position yourself as you will in these debates, they remain arguments about the energy consumption of 1.1 billion people who earn an average of about $80 per day.
What then of the other 5.5 (going on
billion who currently account for about half of the worlds emissions but who earn an average of just $4 per day? We know that substantial emission cuts are expected from them but, as Bali made clear, payment here is question that will make or break the planet. Look again at the income difference too: a factor of 20. In a piece called Coffee, confection and the trillion dollar climate connection (published on OnlineOpinion earlier this week) I have begun to identify possible funding sources for this larger investment requirement. It turns out that the world has hoarded, poorly-used or ill-gotten money all over the place – money we spend on things like coffee, confection and armaments to facilitate quicker planetary destruction to begin with… http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7038
See also Climate Change War or Climate Change Peace on http://www.postkyoto.org
Tim@25 - Thanks for your response above.
It’s a delight to learn of consensus support for C&C here - this has been somewhat rare to find in the last couple of decades.
With regard to the rhetorical goal of a stabilization of CO2 ppmv, I see no prospect of a credibly measurable stabilization at 400ppmv, any more than at 550, even for a limited period.
We will at some point see a peak of the concentration, but given the range of Feedbacks already accelerating at 384 ppmv, what will prevent them gaining yet more momentum at 400 ?
And how should anthro emissions be so finely controlled as to just neatly offset the known (and unknown) feedbacks’ inputs ?
Most of the loops are well known, and include -
loss of ice & snow albido,
intensification of droughts globally with growing soil-carbon loss
and forest wildfire losses (notably emitting methane as well as CO2),
acceleration of permafrost melt and widespread methane emissions,
and, as a relevant feedback on PO, Japan & Indias’ start on exploiting seabed methyl hydrates, raising risks to the latters’ stability.
What is less well known is the Dissolved Organic Carbon [DOC] feedback, which was reported in Nature (in ‘03 I think) as reflecting the impact of elevated airborne CO2 on peat bacterias’ ecology, causing the peat to decay and enter watercourses as DOC, from whence it rapidly outgasses.
This feedback has been rising by 6%p.a. and, if not controlled, will reportedly emit an annual volume of CO2 equal to our total 2003 output by 2060.
This exponential rise in DOC was first observed back in 1960, when CO2 was around 320 ppmv.
I see no reason for it to halt its acceleration until we get the ppmv back below 320.
Which means that seeking, and publicly promoting, a goal of stabilization even at 400 is not only “planning to fail”, it is also misleading of politicians, business and the public, which will significantly damage the promoters’ credibility when the error is exposed (with malice) by their opponents.
Therefore, with respect, I’d urge the Greens to review this aspect of their policy format as a matter of urgency.
If that review were done sufficiently swiftly, it could be instrumental in helping Garnaut avoid mis-advising the Rudd government prior to the Copenhagen climate summit.
Regards,
Lewis
Mcfarm @32, Excellent contribution!
My concern with the McKinsey report regarding Carbon sequestered in soils from no till/limited till farming was primarily to do with their methodology. The McKinsey report (Aust), mentioned that it had produced similar reports for the US, UK, and Germany, and going by the Australian reports bibliography there did not seem to be any sources that stood out as being Australia specific data on Carbon sequestration in soils (such as CSIRO or NCAS documents). I was curious as to whether the abatement curve data for Australia included allowances for the impact of droughts, floods, bushfires, etc, on Carbon sequestered in soils through conservation tillage, or whether they’d just done a copy/paste of data from their other reports.
“Saturation” is the language that is used in the McKinsey report (US version, the Australian version contains no supporting material or methodology for its claims). On p56 of the US version it states “… With conservation tillage, carbon would continue to build up in soil for 20-25 years - so long as the soil was not disturbed - until the soil reaches its saturation point”.
The US report also points out that all Carbon sequestered in soils, forests, etc needs to be managed as an ongoing concern in order for this Carbon offset to be counted as equivalent to a reduction in emissions. I agree with this thinking, but I see our ability to manage sequestered Carbon as an ongoing concern being somewhat limited under Australian climatic conditions.
The risk of bushfires can largely be managed through controlled burns, the greater the control you wish to exert, then the greater the annual burn (, and/or the greater the fragmentation of ecosystems,) that would be necessary. Controlling, or even preventing bushfires carries a significant price, in financial, in ecological, and in greenhouse terms - just how far are we prepared to go in order to claim a carbon offset? Or for that matter, what happens if there is a large bushfire which we can’t control, will we be forced to close down all our coal fired power stations for several months (or perhaps years) to make up for this unplanned catastrophic loss of Carbon?
Whilst the risk of fire, and to some extent flood can be actively managed, the risk of drought is completely beyond our control (except for relatively small areas of irrigable lands). I am not an expert on soil science, so if I make a blunder here please correct me. I regard the assertion that (all other factors being equal) no till farming stores more Carbon (and Nitrogen) in soils than tilled soils as being (almost) a no brainer. I can also see that if a region has consistent and regular weather cycles, then you can calculate the amount of accumulated Carbon sequestered in soils at some point in the future with a relatively high confidence level, and the more variable the weather the lower the confidence you would have in such calculated sequestration. The problem I foresee with droughts is that it doesn’t just reduce the amount of Carbon sequestered that year, it can also send Carbon sequestration into reverse (from a Carbon sink to a Carbon source). The extent of Carbon loss should be somewhat dependent on drought length/severity, and also dependent on the amount of accumulated organic matter in the soil at the time of the drought - if there’s not much organic matter in soils to start with then there’s not as much Carbon to lose during a drought. In Carbon sequestration terms this means that the sequencing of drought years is significant, and not just the probability of their occurrence. When it comes to making claims about how much additional Carbon will be sequestered in soils by a change of tilling practice from now to 2020, you need to know the probability of drought years, the sequencing of drought years, the distribution of droughts across Australia and their severity, and then have good baseline data sets for Carbon sequestration data on tilled/no tilled Australian soil types to begin with. According to http://www.climatechange.gov.au/ncas/reports/tech12.html we don’t have good data sets on existing soil carbon levels to begin with, let alone data sets on how land use changes will effect these carbon levels into the future. [Mcfarm, you may be interested in checking out figure 1 in the linked .pdf to see the geographical distribution of soil carbon densities, it looks a lot like the distribution of climate.] If you want to project forward to 2050 then in many ways it is easier to average out el nino/la nina considerations with regard to the distribution and sequencing of drought events, however, you are also faced with a changing climate where weather patterns (and sequences) are likely to lie outside the “normal” range. The uncertainties with regard to this, and for that matter all such Carbon offsets in Australia, will be large, and claimed offsets would need to be heavily discounted.
I see any predictions of additional Carbon sequestered in soils due to changed tilling practices as being not much better than a guesstimate of future weather events. The international community may be prepared to accept such rubbery accounting for Carbon offsets, but, unfortunately, the planet will not.
I agree with Lewis @38. “with respect, I’d urge the Greens to review this aspect of their policy format as a matter of urgency.”
For a party that values honesty, thence doing politics differently from the old school deceptions, spin (even for the most noble motives) should never be an option up for consideration.
I for one where taken aback by the rosy, sugar-coated future vision of the parties most resent election material. It is a bit hard to emphasis the seriousness of a problem in public forums, when the PR implies we have all the answers to fix it. Especially when those in the know see that the party is talking through it’s hat!
Zoltar@39. I have more information on soil carbon, but fear we are drifting off topic. I’ll shuffle across to a sustainable agriculture post/area and start again there in the near future.
Lewis@38 & WSG@40
I agree with the need for honesty. As an example I am troubled by the following sequence.
A. Greens electoral policy 80% reductions by 2050
B. Garnaut says we need 90% by 2050
C. Greens say Garnaut doesn’t go far enough.
A & C are inconsistent and it leaves me bewildered.
JAFO, we have been very clear on saying for months now - since well before the election, that those targets are out of date and need serious analysis to lift them to where the science is now. We have been saying for some time that we need to move to complete decarbonisation, and that we will come forward in the near future with our new targets.
Please ensure that you are aware of the facts before you make claims as to people’s honesty.
Shawn @ 40:
“It is a bit hard to emphasis the seriousness of a problem in public forums, when the PR implies we have all the answers to fix it.”
On the contrary, it is campaigning 101 that the best way to ensure that no progress at all is made is to claim that a problem is impossible to fix. Campaigns that emphasise the scale of the problem but fail to offer real solutions will fail. This precisely why governments around the world are doing this and adopting the defeatist attitude they do. They want to be able to get away with as little action as they can, so they claim doing more is simply unrealistic. It’s an obvious tactic, really.
What we in the Greens are doing is emphasising the scale of the problem, and meanwhile attempting to convince people that we can successfully deal with it. Only by doing that can we have any hope of success.
Rupert @ 35, did you read the document or just the media release??? I find it astonishing that you could fail to note that, of 9 pages, only a few lines even mention carbon pricing, and the rest is entirely dedicated to other mechanisms.
Please ensure that your comments are actually informed and relevant. At this stage, they are appearing to be simply stirring up discontent based on a misrepresentation of our policies. That kind of behaviour is unwelcome.
Lewis @ 38 - indeed, the ‘400ppm or less’ approach is under review, but it accords quite closely with what many top scientists are currently saying. Even Jim Hansen - the scientist out there calling for strongest action - is saying 350-400. But rest assured it is currently being reviewed.
Must we really set a final target now, though? Couldn’t we just say, “we’ll begin by aiming at reducing 2% per year until we reach 60% reduction, if along the way new science comes up that tells us we can get away with doing less, or need to do more, we’ll change our target.”
I see it as like when in the scouts or the Army you’re told to navigate from A to B - but you have only a poor map, so you don’t know the exact lie of the land. So you head off in a straight path to your destination, but as you go along you encounter patches of impenetrable forest, gullies, ridgelines, big rocks and streams, and you adjust your course to go around them.
You don’t sit around hoping for a better map so you can plot your exact route. You just get a rough idea, head off and then sort it out as you go.
I think we’re better off setting an imperfect target now and dedicating ourselves to it than we are arguing for years to get a perfect target. This is especially so because the science of this field of climate change is changing so fast itself. The climate moves more quickly than a committee.
Tim@43 thats a bit a agressive. My A,B, & C are referenceable which is consistent with my very reasonable attempt to get the facts.
It is an honest truth that I am troubled by the sequence and I think it is important that you should have this feedback so you can remove any confusion in the minds of those who receive your messages.
It would have been less confusing, more defensible and credibility enhancing to say in the top piece something like:
“While Garnaut goes beyond our election policy we believe he is totally correct to do so given the updated information since our policy was conceived. We firmly support his direction and will be making our own updated statements in the near term.”
More generally can we have a little bit less sniping at the commenters please. There is no need to be so defensive, most people really want you to do a better job of communicating the issues and to this end our comments constitute feedback. They contain information about how to do better get your messages out.
Your own set of understandings about things means you will not always be able to see thing how your readership sees it. This is a curse of being very well informed and needing to speak to a less well informed community. Audience feedback (not just the nice stuff) is a great solution to this problem.
JAFO, agreed that I went a bit too far this morning in aggro, and I apologise for that.
I completely agree that audience feedback is vital - that is the very purpose of this blog, of course! Indeed, I personally find it useful always in helping me clarify the way I communicate our issues and policies, even if I sometimes respond defensively.
My frustration comes from the feeling that some commenters are not coming here to provide constructive criticism, but to deliberately undermine us by running lines that they know - or should know - to be untrue. I don’t include you in that, as a new visitor, and take you point that we should clarify that argument. But there are several on this thread that that feeling applies to, and I’m sure they know who they are.
Again, apologies if people feel I have been too aggro this morning, particularly given my latest post.
JAFO @47 with “This is a curse of being very well informed and needing to speak to a less well informed community.” is far closer to where I coming from, than Tim seem to be.
Tim @44 you really did get out the wrong side of bed this morning. I have been in the Greens for many years and quite heavily involved with many levels in the past (prior to getting quite ill as the new millennium dawned.) . Your “campaigning 101″ address to me is a bit akin to you teaching your grandma to suck eggs!
For someone who pleads to be so interested in facts. Where are they? For starters show me the academic studies that prove with Australian-like urban (&/or rural ) geographies & densities public transport can be made such as to win out over & against private transport. Especially so as to get the improvement implied in the election PR. I will not be holding my breath for after years of professional work in that area and futile search for such, all I have is leaver-arch folders to the contrary.
As for your verbalizing me. I have never ever said or even hinted that the “problem is impossible to fix”. What I was objecting to was the Smarmy Election PR, (that seem quite out of character with previous election’s materials). “PR implies we have ALL the answers to fix it”. Kiashu @46 is far closer to the approach I have come to expect in the Greens.
From my distance the whole ethos about these things (including your sparks today) in the Greens is looking very like ‘Group Think’ (I assume you know history of that technical term).
Tim Hollo @ 44
*Vicki applauds loudly*
Yes, I hope people are wise enough to see this political move.
It really upsets me actually. Many people have been conditioned to be self absorbed and thinking only about their prosperity, as though it was the only thing of value in their lives. Perhaps I’m overthinking this because Sydney-siders tend to have that form of reputation :-/
Meanwhile I ponder how my job and lifestyle does nothing to help the global situation…. Now I’m all depressed again.
Tim wrote, “My frustration comes from the feeling that some commenters are not coming here to provide constructive criticism, but to deliberately undermine us by running lines that they know - or should know - to be untrue.”
I have tried never to say what the policy of the Greens was in the past, only what I arrogantly think it should be now
Vicki wrote, “Meanwhile I ponder how my job and lifestyle does nothing to help the global situation…. Now I’m all depressed again.”
When political leaders gather to discuss change, they always give it several decades. There’s no reason you can’t do something similar, giving yourself several years to change. For example, if your job involves lots of air travel and you don’t like its contributions to the greenhouse effect, give yourself (say) five years to find a new job with no travel requirement.
Or if you’d feel better in a job contributing in whatever way to the world, give yourself (say) five years to research and discover what that is, and then five years after that to get qualifications or whatever.
If, rather than saying, “100% carbon reduction, TODAY” our political representatives can say, “um, 60% by 2050″ then surely you and I can set our own goals for some years ahead. “No more air travel by 2012″ or “job with the Greens by 2018″ or whatever.
Tim @ 29
I like your enthusiam, but I think you will find there are a lot of obstacles to a party with a majority in the house of reps compelling things. They are in order (but not limited to) as follows:
1) The Senate.
2) Those policing the new laws not being sufficiently resourced or motivated to prosecute them as a priority.
3) The judiciary. They are famous for lenient application of the law. This is a regular source of outrage in the media for violent crimes as an example. This will be even more the case when a new law is seen as draconian. Clever lawyers and well funded challenger to the new laws will stall progress enormously.
4) The majority party itself when it becomes aware that it will lose government due to its enthusiam for compelling the population to do things it otherwise wouldn’t.
5) The voting public at the first opportunity. The desire for re-election ultimately makes governments surprisingly weak at compelling things.
Each of these things dilutes the theoretical power to compel.
Workchoices provides the most recent example of an attempt to compel something and it is was only possible because obstacle 1 above was avoided and it will be repealed before it had any lasting effect.
Believe or not John Howard believed workchoices was good in the same way that we believe emission reduction is good. Only a smidgeon less than 50% of the voting public thought workchoices was good as well.
We can only compel a new order with more than 50% support being sustained over a very long period. That support will not be forthcoming if we are seen as tyrannical. A two year run for the agressive new rules only to have them thrown out and replaced with a decade of stalled progress will be worse than a more subtle approach.
Tyrants who aren’t subject to a genuine democratic process are good at compelling things, but the core business of modern democratic governments (where the bulk of their power is exercised) is in collecting taxes and allocating expenditure. Even in their core business area government’s can barely compel uniform proper payment of taxes by all citizens and entities.
Garnaut is not the first & definitely not the last Democratic capitalist conservative to surprise the environmentally concerned.
Despite the muddled self justifying confusion of modern economic theory his observations are basically just common sense after all.
After the blinkers of prejudicial learning are removed and the smog of environmental conditioning is lifted, the obvious continues to co exist with the ignorant only more obviously so.
Unfortunately the Greens suffer the same manner of conditioning as all of us, we are prejudiced by our chosen professional associations, by our accidental environmental conditioning and our need to be part of an entity of gathered individuals.
Preaching to the converted is no solution to speeding up a much needed collective response, neither is the reliance on authoritarian stricture. Centralised demands are normally spectacularly unsuccessful in a capitalist democracy.
Two major motive forces which move the levers of the machine that is our narrow world are ’self interest’ (fiscal greed and material wealth obsession) and Fad.
Why is it that an otherwise intelligent successful environmentally concerned adult can be motivated to expend so much personal energy purchasing and maintaining a huge 4 wheel drive to barge around the city streets in, buy shares in Uranium mining interests, leave the sorting of the rubbish to somebody else whilst relaxing in a house designed to consume more than provide.
We are sold it, its a popular obsession.
We can be sold something else.
We don’t need to be compelled by guilt or fear, neither motivations are sustainable as we automatically seek other modes. Nobody wants to be ruled by guilt or fear.
The integrity of the Greens continues to reside in the issues and not the politics.
At their most successful the Greens love us all and our future environment more than political success, the worst and most memorable mistakes have been made when compromising influence in the search for power.
By exploiting the machinery to create a culture making common sense responses more popular, destructive excess a little more obviously ridiculous, the Greens themselves will grow and mature with the people they would seek to represent.
If matured to become ‘those in residence’ the Greens may yet become the ‘conservatives’
For now however the Greens are a party of influence, not power.
Garnaut, Gore, Murdoch are prime examples of that influence.
The language and the culture are different between the resource and energy oligarchy conservatives and the leftist leaning conservationists but the urges are universal.
Even though the motivations of a young person may seem different to a much older individual, the prime drives are the same.
Continuity and survival are two of these.
Garnaut is a fine translator for those at the big end who may listen, what we need now more than ever is a voice to translate to the consumers in their (our) language.
We all are under the control of the natural zeitgeist, collectively like a lodestone temporarily out of alignment, we already have the imperative to align ourselves for continuity and survival. The will just needs the flesh beckoned.
To Rupert Edwards (Comment 12), I was asking WHY State Governments were still rolling back railways.
In the 1950’s NSW had a vast network of railway lines, much of it built in the late 19th and early 20th century, and radiating out from Sydney across most of the state.
Although successive State Governments since the 1970’s have closed ‘unprofitable’ lines, replacing trains with coaches, much of the railway infrastructure is still in place, i.e. the tracks haven’t been ripped up yet, and many of the stations are still there although many are now used as museums or tourist attractions.
This infrastructure will not necessarily need to be re-built, it will need to be repaired and maintained.
Many State Governments still don’t seem to have a clue on future transport infrastructure needs. In NSW the Carr/Iemma Governments have been flip-flopping for many years over the much-needed rail link to the north-western suburbs.
One minute we are told it will be heavy rail; then the link is cut back to half its length, and now there are plans afoot to service the area with a completely unsuitable ‘Metro’ type service. Likewise nothing has ever become of the Eastern Suburbs extension line, the Manly line or the Inner West Metro line.
Regarding your argument about the affordability of diesel, I’m sure that diesel locomotive engines can be re-designed/ adapted to run on bio-diesel, and it’s certainly going to take a lot less paddocks of oil-seed crops to produce bio-diesel for trains than the massive amounts required by the trucking industry. In NSW urban and regional (Newcastle, Kiama, Lithgow) lines are electrified, which will mean eventually getting electricity from renewable sources instead of coal-fired power stations.
Regarding bullock dray teams, you might want to have a look at recent overseas developments including the Phoenix Electric Truck, see http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/, and the ZAP Xebra truck, see: http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/xebra-truck, (which by the way comes with a solar panel option).
Although these are far smaller than a B-Double, it is a move in the right direction, and it’s only a matter of time before full size trucks are developed. Furthermore, bullocks are definitely not part of the solution as they belch tons of methane into the atmosphere.