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.

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.

[Deleted for abuse.]

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”.

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

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.

I wonder if Saul isn't being a bit hard on Tony Abbott - given that Tony has a tough job trying to combat Gillard, the Labor machine and the Greens on the Carbon Tax, ETS, Mining Super Tax, deficit spending and the NBN, while still remaining sceptical about global warming, and seemingly also sceptical about market forces being given free reign to deal with reducing emissions. It is certain, however, that he has a strong focus on the national economy and our continuing industrial competitiveness.

Tony's task must be doubly difficult, being drawn as he must in trying to juggle two fundamentally competing ideologies - on the one hand as a national-conservative and family man, influenced by his religious beliefs and the influence of Bob Santamaria's philosophy, and on the other hand as the leader of a political machine having fundamentally an economic-conservative ideology. (Given the latter, Tony's criticism of our economists is somewhat counter-intuitive, and must have caused some angst within the Party.)

I disagree with Saul's criticism of direct action. Saul implies that this could not be applied utilising emission targets and market forces to achieve the required objectives (and coincidentally maintaining our social stability and our international competitiveness). Saul's interpretation of direct action focuses on government spending only, and this is simplistic, if not clearly erroneous.

As a national-conservative, Tony's policies would be expected to focus on maintaining Oz' national economy and competitiveness, where Ms G and Co's focus is on staying in power, satisfying the Greens and Independents, and on redistributing wealth from the top end of town. From a national viewpoint, Tony's approach makes greater sense, and it is only the implementation mechanism which remains in question.

Irrespective of whether one is sceptical about global warming or not, most, if not all, posters on OLO seem to be agreed that Ms G's carbon tax will do nothing to reduce emissions, and may only provide limited incentive for pursuing low-emission alternatives. It will certainly, of course, be one major bureaucratic nightmare to deliver as promised.

Curmudgeon
<There is simply no hope of concerted, effective international action, and never was>

This is nonsense, an international accord will have to be agreed to, notwithstanding that it's probably true that it's already too late to avoid close to worst-case scenarios. That is no plausible rationale for going on without let, or "adapting".
Merely "adapting" to the damage we can no longer prevent still requires deep cuts to emissions if we are to avoid an even worse situation, one that is beyond our ability to adapt to.

Unlike Eslake's economists, however, I don't see that "market-based" interventions or "direct action" will be of any effective use so long as "growth economics" is de rigueur. There is a fundamental correlation between economic growth (which requires actual material expansion=equals energy) and by-products/emissions. Similarly, every calorie of food consumed has its direct equivalent in oil.
And this is where all sides of the debate are wilfully obdurate. No amount of direct or market-based action is going to address the fundamental equation: economic growth = material growth = emissions. Indeed material growth (either ever-more conspicuous consumption or ever more consumers--in fact both) is vital to the growth paradigm.
It is blindingly obvious that the only way to substantially cut emissions (indeed, even stop the growth in emissions) is to shrink economies and cut consumption.
But the current system is fundamentally unable to do that; it's unthinkable. Indeed the current system is the direct cause of AGW, the engine.
Expecting market forces to address AGW is like feeding a hog more food and expecting it to defecate less!
All sides have to face the agonising reality; the party's over; we have to shrink materially and consume less.

The overwhelming majority of Australians do want a price on carbon dioxide.Carbon is not the problem nor is CO2.

The overwhleming majority of economists could not predict the GFC.Why should we listen them? The CO2 tax and the ETS has nothing to do with stopping the production of CO2.It is about a new derivative that Wall St and the bankers can profit from.Gillard has already pledged 10% of our carbon taxes to the UN.

If CO2 is the problem then tax the mining/oil companies as it comes out of the ground.Tax their profits.

We also need new Govts Banks. http://secretofoz.com/

Thankyou Saul; an eloquesnt summary of economists' views on carbon price and also of Abbott's dishonorable tactics of denialism. He tries to score cheap political points by negativism at any opportunity because he knows there are a significant minority to whom this strategy appeals.

I ask the neo-conservatives if you don't believe over 90% of qualified scientists and you also don't believe a similar portion of your own economic gurus of the market solution, then who is it you do believe? I suggest it is non expert reactionaries with huge egos and vested interests.

As for comments to the tune of 'we should not act until the rest of the world does', I ask: Is it right that we the wealthiest, highest per capita emitting, lowest taxed of OECD nations, should wait until the developing countries and the US enact a C price first? What sort of gutless amoral stance would that be?

Our enacting a carbon price like other civilized nations such as all of Europe and NZ will be a huge example to the rest of the world and encourage other nations to join in doing so.

but we sure are reducing something.
spindoc,
Of course, we're on track of reducing the intelligence of the masses & those who dictate to them.

Squeers

I'll repeat the basic point. There is simply no hope of any effective action in reducing emissions. In describing that statement as nonsense, you are confusing what you think simply has to happen with the obvious reality staring us all in the face.

You may think emissions have to be limited but China, India and the US, to name a few, just aren't going to do anything effective. If you believe the greenhouse stuff then adaption is the only option. You don't have any other option.

Curmudgeon,

my basic point is that the growth paradigm is incongruous with any agenda for reducing emissions, therefore the problem can only be dealt with via radical economic reform. This is far more unlikely than an international agreement being set up, nevertheless I don't believe reducing emissions, concomitant with economic growth, is possible, or even tenable. I'd be delighted to see what Mr Eslake or other economists have to say about that.

My other point apropos growth was that even if we adopt an adaptation policy to the AGW already in the pipeline, treating the process underway as already impossible to counteract on a humanly meaningful time-scale, that doesn't address the fact the the problem is dynamic and exponential. So do we adapt to the unavoidable damage done so far, or to the catastrophic damage that will accrue from doing nothing? Adaptation means taking no action relative to an "accumulating" problem, not to a steady state scenario. Adaptation in that case means positive feedback, and not agility. Such a policy is unhinged and can only be rationalised by subjective and irrational denialism of best-practice scientific analyses.

I'm not confusing anything; it's academic to my perspective, but an international accord will probably, and belatedly, be arrived at, using trade embargos etc. to pressure recalcitrant states.
What I "think should happen"--economic reform that inaugurated economic contraction--is what nobody is talking about.
Your adaptation idea looks delusionary to me in the circumstances, while taking the sort of market oriented approach the major powers look bent on can only be rationalised as incorporating an overall collapse scenario and a technological "Ark".

Squeers
Nope - again your approach is to require the entire system to be overthrown, which simply isn't going to happen, and then you accuse others of being denialist. Although I think global warming theory (its not really science, its forecasting) is a load of nonsense, adaption is no sense a denial of that theory. It is a recognition that nothing can really be done about emissions, therefore we have to make the best of it. In fact, it is the only way to reduce any of this supposed future damage.

To pursue emissions reduction at this point is irrational.

Mark, I don't think the world (read politicians) is just so far short of concerted action. They just see different ways to approach the problem. They all agree that something needs to be done; how and when seems to be the sticking point.

When there is distinct divergence to a common problem, it is much better to work together to overcome it - I don't see this from 'business as usual' or neo-cons, or the "hard-left deep green activists" as you say.

Adaptation to a changing environment is important, but some (species, cultures, whatever) can't, or they will need help in doing so - far more than others. This is what the UN is worried about.

Of course, adaptation to a changing climate/environment doesn't happen over night - it will take time. We should start now.

Whether you believe in human induced global warming or not, there will come a time when we have to wean (slowly) ourselves off fossil fuels. This too will take time, and like adaptation to a changing environment/climate, we should also start now.

At the end of the day, and with an increasing world population that is expected to peak at 10 billion by 2050, our use and abuse of our energy resources is becoming critical. We have to have a mix of energy supply and while coal will be around a while yet, it would be prudent to not only look at the alternatives, but to actively pursue them - don't you think?

Mark (I'm Mark also),
it may transpire that global warming was poorly or incompletely understood, but I'm confident it will never be shown to be "a load of nonsense". In any case, as I've pointed out before, global warming is only one facet of anthropogenic biospheric degradation. The broad-scale assault by humanity on the present world's life support systems is irrefutable. Global warming is the product of that "concerted" assault, hence the endless variables that prevent it from being an exact science. Quite enough is understood, however, to predict the trend and assign its causes. Even should AGW prove to be substantially incorrect or overstated, the measures needed to address it could only be beneficial in addressing the discrete aspects of the concerted phenomena.
Your position as you state it, "nothing can really be done about emissions, therefore we have to make the best of it", is vacuous: business as usual, based on denialism coupled with political defeatism (it's actually banal conservatism, and nothing so plausible as the cynicism you affect).

You dismiss me as "requiring the entire system to be overthrown", and thus deflect the vital point I've put forward with an innuendo; the point being that economic growth "cannot" be maintained in tandem with cuts in emissions. Is anyone prepared to tell me that this isn't so? This is the only reason I'm against a carbon tax, because it will not and cannot be effective in a growth paradigm (unless it were substantial enough to close down polluting industries--effectively, economic contraction); indeed a carbon tax is itself dependent on growth; it's a self-defeating contradiction.
I don't require that the entire system be overthrown, only that economies contract; emissions cannot contract otherwise. This is CDF but no one wants to face it. so I'll leave the scientists, the economists and the minimifidianists to persue their respective hoby horses and agendas.

Oh dear Saul,

you've let slip you left leaning bias slip.

You've only asked two questions of your ‘market-based solutions’ economists?

1. Do you support a tax to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
2. Do you support direct action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
.

Ask them the obviously ignored by the greens and other lefties and the natural question for those who actually favour 'market-based solutions',

Do you think it should be left up to the market to decide whether carbon dioxide emissions reduction needs to be undertaken?

I think you know, as well as I, how your 'market-based solutions' economists will respond.

Given your limited questioning and extensive critic of Abbott on that basis I think Abbott's question about the quality of Australian economists had a very real basis, merit and justification.

cheers brother

Saul is all about the general perception that there are too many people on the planet and the way forward is tax on CO2 to impoverish the masses into submission and poverty to save his planet.

The meek shall not inherit the earth,the elites shall inherit the earth in the Gospel according to the New World Order.

Squeers,

The concept of "Contraction" is great, but the question is how? While China and India (and pretty much everyone else) is in development and expansion mode, and the West forging ahead, how can any contraction of worldwide capitalist expansionism possibly be achieved? (Short of WW3 and world holocaust.)

Perhaps nuclear power is the only answer? If so, could this be what will finally bring down the human race, and a lot more besides?

On the other hand, I have always had faith that alternatives could provide the time necessary for population to be reigned in (by natural attrition), and for fossil fuel consumption to be scaled down to modest levels. My faith in alternatives has of course been challenged many times over, on the basis of cost, consumption of non-renewables to implement, scale, and capacity (especially of base-load capacity). However, the naysayers have not put any alternative forward, other than to re-iterate that population must be slashed. (The preferred method put forward for the latter being chemical neutering - albeit temporary. Even if this could be done, could it really do more than just delay the inevitable need for change?)

Oz appears to be blessed with a range of viable alternatives options, except for agreement as to what to implement and how to pay for it.

As the raison d'etre is to reduce emissions (a national issue), and as coal is the main target (a major export commodity, and hence, also a national issue), perhaps all coal mining should be under national regulation, with all relevant royalties and taxes being national, and being utilised exclusively to develop and implement alternative technologies. Note: coking coal should not be exempt from this, as it is also a major emissions producer. With coal under national regulation, the question of export trade implications could be comprehensively addressed, and within the context of alternatives planning. Naturally it would be best if a worldwide agreement could be struck on the cost and use of coal.

As a national issue, surely a national plebiscite is called for.

Saltpetre, what did we do to make you hate us?

Only someone who hates Oz could possibly consider, even for a second, giving that bunch of total incompetents in Canberra, control of anything we can keep out of their hands.

Perhaps you are a NSW league fan, & would be prepared to do, or suffer, anything to damage QLD, after 6 series losses.

What ever it is, I have never heard anything more ridiculous than giving Julia control of anything we don't want broken.

That woman, & her party could break an anvil with a feather.

Saltpetre,

sorry so slow responding. I've had no computer--and been rather busy besides.

I don't pretend to offer any solutions above. I'm just trying to get my objection out there: that in the global context "economic growth "cannot" be maintained in tandem with cuts in emissions". Similarly, emisions cannot be reduced in the context of economic growth. AGW is primarily an economic problem.
One would think that this thread (which offers the banal juxtaposition of "market based" and "direct action" approaches--both purblind in the extreme) is the perfect forum to have my submission constructively criticised, but it just doesn't compute for the protagonists.
What else can you expect from economists, politicians, minimifidianists, and even scientists. None of them are properly disinterested.
So be it.

Squeers

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s feasible, given our society’s dependence on economic growth, to live in an environmental and ecological sustainable way – despite the cries of 'alarmists' and shill of 'denialists'.

It’s a conundrum - politicians and economists don’t know how to deal with it because it would require a paradigm shift - a shift that most voters and the ‘market based economy’ aren’t prepared to make, yet.

I look forward to an answer to my question to, and from, the other Mark.

Thanks bonmot,
your one poster I've hoped to get a response from on this issue--which I've raised before.
It will have to be dsebated one of these days, but it seems a great deal of prevarication has to be indulged yet before people start waking up.
In the meantime, I hope to be proven wrong.

Mark/Curmudgeon

Gone awol? If not, any chance of responding?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12290#212349

.

Squeers: Yep, don't hold your breath.

Seems Curmud's gone m.i.a.