The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Reflections on climate change, and the quality of Australian economists > Comments

Reflections on climate change, and the quality of Australian economists : Comments

By Saul Eslake, published 7/7/2011

Economist, and even Tony Abbott, know that the 'market' isn't necessarily the solution to public policy.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Saul - I had no particular objection to the pooint you make that if we accept the scientific consensus (which I certainly do not) then it makes economic sense to limit emissions. But you left out the second, important caveat contained in the economic analyses that I've seen.

The analyses are invalid if international action is limited in some way. There has to be strong, international action or Australia's actions in this area are a straight waste of money.

As matters stand, and no matter what you may think of the use of computer climate models, Australia is about to undertake an expensive, futile exercise which may ultimately hamper our ability to adapt to major human-induced climate change, if and when it actually occurs.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 7 July 2011 11:19:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very good article by the author.

Mark Lawson (curmudgeon) says "the analyses (of Saul Eastlake) are invalid if international action is limited in some way. There has to be strong, international action or Australia's actions in this area are a straight waste of money."

I agree.

However, one major thing stopping strong international action is the recalcitrance and inaction of those that Saul Eastlake has in fact identified, neo-conservatism.

We have seen it before, and we are seeing again. George W Bush did it, Tony Abbott does it.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 7 July 2011 11:39:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 7 July 2011 1:09:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me confess at the outset that I am a scientist, not an economist. But I might know more about economics than the average economist knows about science.

I have no trouble agreeing with Saul Eslake that a market-based carbon pricing system has to be the optimal way of reducing emissions. And naturally that’s the consensus amongst economists. Whilst they might agree on that, economists have let us down elsewhere.

They are failing to transmit simple messages on the economic consequences of carbon pricing, both in overall terms, like loss of national GDP, and in individual impacts on specific industries, occupations, individuals, etc. Without such knowledge how can informed debate occur as to whether or not it is worthwhile to reduce emissions? There are some rough numbers around from the likes of Stern and Garnaut (e.g. 0.1% GDP loss per annum), but I don’t think the electorate or the government has the slightest idea what they mean to our living standards. The present tax fuss suggests they mean a lot.

Economists have also failed to promote their views on whether the elasticity of energy demand is consistent with the aim of a carbon price lowering energy consumption, at least by more than a percent or so per annum. It isn’t, is my understanding.

The biggest let-down is the appalling notion that a carbon tax should be a mechanism for redistributing wealth. Who would have thought?

As to how technology can help us lower emissions, that’s not one for economists. But let me suggest that they could make one very useful contribution. A few could get together and poll the power industry, those folk who presently supply us with electrical energy at times and in amounts we require. For example they could ask something like: “Would you sign a binding contract today to supply power to, say, NSW, with the reliability and quality to which you are presently obligated, starting from say 2030, without using coal, gas or nuclear energy?” Don’t be surprised if the answer is “no way”.
Posted by Tombee, Thursday, 7 July 2011 2:02:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We might not lower emissions with renewables, but we sure are reducing something. Where are the consrvationists whan we need them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 7 July 2011 4:41:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot
a minor factor in the lack of action on this point may well be some commentators asking whether the climate models we are relying on have any forecasting track record to begin with. But the world is just so far short of anything that could be described as concerted action that political factions of advanced countries barely count.

There is simply no hope of concerted, effective international action, and never was. Rather than blame some commentators for this, hard-left, deep green activists should recognise this reality and start urging adaption, for if an when severe climate change actually occurs.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 7 July 2011 4:50:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy