Guess What Wins in a Battle Between Economy and Emissions?
May 5th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Here is Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd speaking 15 December 2008:
So the question for our generation is simple.
Do we act on the knowledge that we have in our possession?
Or do we wait – leaving the effects of climate change to our children and our grandchildren by which time it may well be too late?
Do we reduce our pollution today so our children and grandchildren can experience the same beautiful and bountiful planet that we have inherited?
Or do we wait – knowing our grandchildren may never see the grandeur of the Great Barrier Reef, or experience the wonder of the wetlands at Kakadu.
Do we become more energy efficient today so that we can start down a path towards a sustainable low pollution economy?
Or do we wait – knowing our children and grandchildren will experience longer droughts, declining food production, rising sea levels and more extreme weather events.
I say we can wait no more.
And what about that global financial crisis? Here is what the Prime Minister said in that December speech:
The time has come for action. The Australian Government will continue to take whatever further action is necessary in the months ahead.
But today’s difficult circumstances should not be used as an excuse to ignore the threat climate change poses to Australia’s long term economic prosperity. . .
If we accept the premise that we will all be living in a carbon constrained world in the future, it follows that the economically responsible course of action is to prepare for that constraint today.
If we begin to act now, the transformation can be engineered at a manageable pace.
If we continue to put it off, the transformation will be abrupt and the dislocation acute.
Acting now will enable us to develop the skills base, trial the new technologies, and refine the business models that will help Australia become a leader in the low pollution industries of the future.
Acting now also helps us shape the global outcome on climate change action that Australia needs.
To delay any longer – would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and for our environment.
Here is what the Australian government released yesterday along with a suite of measures to water down the CPRS:
The Rudd Government will delay the start of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by one year to help Australian companies manage the impacts of the global recession.
Reaction has been strong, from Rudd claiming that the decision now saves the Great Barrier Reef to critics saying that it is a cave-in to industry demands:
The prime minister rejected claims the changes softened his centre-left government’s stance on climate change, saying the slower start would mean a “stronger, greener conclusion”.
“I believe (this) is the most sensible, rational, balanced response to a fundamental change in economic circumstances,” Rudd said.
If agreement was reached in Copenhagen to stabilise carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by at least 450 parts per million by 2050, Rudd said Australia would reduce its emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
Such an agreement would mean it was possible to save the Great Barrier Reef, Rudd said, adding that Canberra would agree to realise five percent of its commitment by purchasing international carbon credits.
Rudd, who ratified the Kyoto Protocol as his first act of government, is now faced with the task of pushing his climate laws through a hostile parliament.
Opposition party leader Malcolm Turnbull said he would not support the amended scheme, which he described as a “massive backdown” and “panic response” to criticism.
The minority Greens party accused Rudd of “browning down” his stance by giving major polluters 2.2 billion US dollars in free permits, and described the revised 25 percent target as an “almost irrelevant green distraction”.
Greenpeace said the concessions to industry “reek of industry lobbying” and the new scheme fell dismally short of what was required to effect real change.
Are there lessons here for the United States and United Kingdom in particular?
May 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
The trouble with CO2 mitigation is it creates winners and losers. These dynamics play out within countries as well as between countries. This means the winners have to bribe the losers into supporting any changes but this is unsustainable in the long run since the winners can only afford so many bribes.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Mr Stuck Record sez:
Since no one has yet demonstrated an even tenuous causal link between tropospheric CO2 levels and global mean temperature, this is of course all very much ado about nothing.
Economic reality bites again, but historians and other analysts fifty years from now will marvel at our underserved miracle: Just as the rich industrialized nations were about to commit economic suicide by enacting expensive and worse-than-useless CO2 mitigation schemes, the hyper-inflated global credit economy burst. The world could no longer afford its green indulgences.
Now if the Sun will just stick with its recent historical cycles and stay cool for 30 or so years, hubristic humanity will be properly chastened and stripped of the last vestiges of its childish self-importance.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:37 am
PaddikJ,
Fifty years from now, scientists will look back at the abandonment of the scientific method and marvel at more than just the hubris. They will marvel at the gross incompetence and wonder whatever happened to the adults.
They will be slack-jawed at such things as how a “scientist” who refused to make his data available (“you’ll just try to find something wrong”) could not only be allowed to continue working as a scientist, but be given responsibilities as lead author of a section of IPCC assessments!
Fifty years from now, they will look back at the conflicts of interest and ignorance of ethical standards with shock and dismay. Young grad students will question retired old-timers “how could that kind of garbage pass as science?” The old-timers will just shrug and say, “times were different, politics ruled, you had to go along to get along, it was about the funding ….”. The youngsters won’t understand. They’ll wonder why so few scientists were willing to stand up for science. Why science was allowed to become a public laughingstock. They’ll never understand.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Stan says “Fifty years from now, scientists will look back at the abandonment of the scientific method and marvel at more than just the hubris. They will marvel at the gross incompetence and wonder whatever happened to the adults.”
That would be the logical outcome but it probably won’t occur. AGW alarmism will end with a wimper and be forgotten soon after another fear takes it place. Just as the overpopulation and resource depletion scares of the 1960’s and 1970’s have ended with no accountability for the alarmists. Not only has there been no accountability but many of the same scientists are now the premiere AGW alarmists. I remember Earth Day 1970 as a smart child be scared out my wits that two-thirds of Americans would die in famines and resource wars by the year 2000. Recall Hansen saying in 1988 that New York would flood by 2000 and there was nothing we could do to stop it. There won’t be accountability for alarmist scientists. That is what tenure is all about.
The game will remain the same but the subject will change. Fear has always been a path to power and control. As the Talking Head say “Same as it ever was”.