Alan,

I remember reading similar arguments from you around ten years ago when writing my PhD, so I wonder if you will be still arguing the same case for not doing not much about greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.

An article that makes substantial sense to me - being a AGW skeptic, and also totally opposed to living in dark and freezing caves for the rest of my life.
However, the Rudd government is politically committed to the reduction of carbon emissions and this fact combined with an opposition unable to formulate a coherent, non-political alternative seems to ensure that we are doomed to economic chaos bought about by tilting at windmills - no pun intended! I have long wondered at the symbolism of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned - now I know! It is nonsensical political posturing in the face of an anthropomorphically created Shibboleth! As the (I believe) Chinese saying has it 'no matter how far down the road you have travelled, when you realize it is the wrong road - turn back!
The Chinese, Indians, Koreans etc must be rubbing their hands in glee and laughing their heads off! We are hell-bent on sacrificing the economic and civilized advantages we presently enjoy whilst not only allowing them to catch up but encouraging them to overtake us.
The third world will not be so stupid when their inevitable turn arrives!

Sensible opinion I can certainly agree with.

I wonder if PM Rudd is more concerned with his place in history than an alternative role. After all it seems the rush to get an ETS agreed to now, one that would not be implemented till 2011, is promarily for bragging rights at some conference in Denmark

Is that all our country means to him, a stepping stone for his career?

I suspect it is, but that's no comfort.

Alan, does the mention of your PhD indicate something, could your statement have been made without that? Do you think we'll get our come-uppance in 2020 if we don't go along with the current scaremongering?

I note PM Rudd is cranking up the doomsaying today big time, he must have already booked no refundable tickets to Denmark or something.

The ETS is a win for irrationality. Once as a Christian based society we demanded science and truth before making Government decisions. Now we accept pseudo science, lies and the religion of secularism to make idiotic decisions. The cost of looking good in front of the corrupt incompetent UN is pathetic to say the least. We have idiotic predictions from the likes of Gore and Flannery who have already been proven totally wrong many times over and our Government bows to these high priests. Schools continue to indoctrinate our children in an attempt to 'save the earth'. I suppose when men are so corrupt inwardly they need to pretend to be doing something useful to appease their consciences. Too bad future generations will pay for their stupidity.

An ETS will achieve nothing in the way of reducing emissions. It may stem the rate of increase but that's about it. Even clean and green Norway, which has made a real effort to reduce emissions in recent years, still hasn't been able to do so. As it won't even greatly affect Australian emissions, the ETS is not going to effect global CO2 levels. Nor will the likes of China or India be impressed by it. But that is not the point of the ETS.
The point of it, like the point about setting renewable energy targets, is to be seen to be doing something. Consumers are going to pay billions of dollars in extra electricity prices ect, simply so that the government can look good to its own electorate. This is madness.

Ye (non-existent) gods!
'Runner' posting some sense? Spoiled of course by the inherent biblical bias, and made ridiculous by the insistence on 'science and truth' as being fundamental to a Judeo/Christian based society. The day that 'science and truth' are universally accepted by Abrahamic devotees of whatever persuasion is the day that Abrahamic religious belief self-destructs!
A Phyrric victory indeed!

The last hard estimate of emissions was 2006 at 565 million tonnes. If Australia's population was around 20m at the time the per capita average is 28 tonnes. So far we seem to be relatively nonplussed about the drying of our biggest river system or horrendous fires. Perhaps an unrecoverable coral bleaching might raise an eyebrow. Australia is both vulnerable to climate change and in a position to do something about it. We are the world's biggest coal exporter and have the biggest uranium reserves. Coal exporters like Vietnam are pulling out so coal importers like China will have trouble sourcing coal other than from Australia. We should tell them the amounts will decline henceforth.

A lot is going to happen between now and 2020. It is thought crude oil could be nearly 75% depleted. World coal production will have hit a plateau. Much of our LNG will have been exported. Globally several Katrina magnitude extreme weather events will have occurred as well as regional crop failures. I think an immediate effort to decarbonise is a good each way bet.

Taswegian,

According to US Energy Information Administration data, China’s production of coal in 2008 reached 2795 million tons and slightly exceeded the country’s consumption in the same year (2773 million tons). The Steelguru website indicates that China’s exports of coal last year totalled 45.4 million tons compared with imports of 40.4 million tons (i.e., exports and imports are equivalent to only 1–2% of China’s production. Other sources refer to Chinese plans to expand its coal production capacity to 3330 million tons in the years immediately ahead. The notion that Australia is in a position to “do something” about climate change by telling China that this country’s minor contribution to its coal supplies will decline is highly problematic– the most likely consequence would be to force China to delay the closure of some of its most inefficient mines in order to maintain production from domestic sources.

Your forecasts of 75% depletion of crude oil and a plateauing of world coal production by 2020 are only one view of many, and they don’t accord with the view which is implicit in the high mainstream emissions projections which we are constantly being told are being exceeded

Perhaps Alan's forecasting will be more accurate this time than he was in December of last year, when he said on this forum:

"A very severe downturn is inevitable" (referring to Australia), and "government handouts like Australia's $10.4 billion consumer package will fail to trigger the hoped for sustained lift in consumption".

And of course the inevitable: "the best government policy is to stand back and allow market forces to correct the imbalances in place".

Things could still go wrong yet of course but it shows just how wrong an economist can be, especially when they subscribe to articles of faith such as: governments are always bad. Free markets are always TEH AWSUM!