Gary Johns
Gary Johns is a former minister in the Keating Labor government.
In a terrific piece in todays Australian Newspaper he says that the Emissions Trading Scheme will require Australians to pay for something that will have zero impact on climate change.
“THE one certainty of climate change (anthropogenic or not) is that it is unstoppable. Government advertisements suggest worst-case scenarios but they do not concede that these are no less likely should Australia cut its carbon dioxide output.Whether or not you believe in man-made climate change, it’s out of our control.
At some point, probably about the time the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill – a carbon tax – comes before parliament and in the lead-up to the next election, the electorate will realise they are being asked to pay for something they cannot have: a guarantee against climate change.”
Johns rightly goes on to argue that the only responsible thing for governments to do is to spend tax payers money on adapting to climate change as and when it occurs. He goes on to site the QLD governments $9 billion dollar South East QLD water grid as a great example of this working successfully.
“Wisely, the Queensland Government decided it could not stop the drought (climate change) and it did not try. Instead, it responded to the needs of citizens for water by restricting water use and spending $9 billion drought-proofing the economy.It is building a new dam, thereby spreading the area of rainfall capture, connecting the dams to enable water to be pumped around in response to rainfall change, recycling water and building a desalination plant. Broadly, these are the only responses a government could make.
Southeast Queensland water users will pay the price, indeed are probably happy to, given the insignificant cost of water compared to its immense significance to everyday life.”
The Federal Governments $10 billion buy back of the Murray Darling water licenses from farmers is another great example of the government waging a real adaption campaign against climate change. The buy back is a win win for farmers and the broader Australian community and a tangible response to climate change that tax payers are happy to fund.
As we have repeatedly said at Agmates:
“The Rudd government should abandon the ETS sham and move to take practical measures that will have a real and lasting impact on the environment. Those steps should be anything that will prepare us as a nation for what lies ahead.”
The Emissions trading scheme will cost Australians an estimated $5 billion in the first year with zero impact on global climate change. To the governments peril the electorate will soon tire of that.
10 Comments
Gary Johns makes two terrible errors. The first error is to ignore the fact that while our actions will not stop climate change from happening, it can make a difference to the degree of climate change that we experience. There is a huge difference between the impacts of two degrees of warming and the impacts of five or six degrees of warming. Gary Johns second error is to suggest that because international cooperation is required to reduce climate change, we should do nothing about it. This is like arguing that it is ok to litter, because if we don’t, then someone else will anyway.
Gary Johns’ opinion piece is incredibly uninformed. We need both adaptation to climate change and mitigation of climate change.
Peter Wood
climatedilemma.com
G’day Peter,
You state Johns has made 2 terrible errors:
1. “The first error is to ignore the fact that while our actions will not stop climate change from happening, it can make a difference to the degree of climate change that we experience. There is a huge difference between the impacts of two degrees of warming and the impacts of five or six degrees of warming.”.
You seem to contradict yourself in the first sentence. You acknowledge that an ETS in Australia will not stop climate change – which is what Johns has stated. But then you seem to state that it will make a difference to the degree of climate change we experience here in Australia and that it will impact the amount of warming we experience.
That seem to be a contradiction – are you suggesting that the temperature rises are / will be experienced on a continent by continent basis?
My understanding is that Australia contributes just 1.3% of Global emissions. If we were to cut our emissions by 25% by 2020 what have we achieved? A global reduction of 0.325%. Are you suggesting that will make any significant impact on global warming?
The Big 4 emitters China, USA, Russia & India contribute 50% of global emissions. China is building a new coal-fired power station every week and in 9 months increases its capacity by the total of the whole Australia power generation capacity.
In simple terms any benefit the world atmosphere gains by Australia’s self sacrifice of cutting our emissions by 25% over the next 12 years are wiped out by just new coal-fired power generation capacity built in China in just the next 12 weeks.
Johns claim – that no mater what CO2 reductions an ETS may or may not achieve in Australia those reductions will have no impact on Global warming, maybe an unpalatable reality – but a reality it is.
2. “Gary Johns second error is to suggest that because international cooperation is required to reduce climate change, we should do nothing about it. This is like arguing that it is ok to litter, because if we don’t, then someone else will anyway.”
Again your second statement of error ignores reality. You sight litter as an example. If you litter your home and yard and even your community – then that affects your personal environment. It does not affect someone else’s environment living in another state or on the other side of the country.
As stated above – unless there is a binding agreement to cut GHG by the major emitters – China, USA, Russia & India (50%) and the halting of deforestation in South America, Asia & Africa (15%) we in Australia can cut our GHG emissions to zero and it will still have zero impact on Global Warming.
The opinion express by Johns are unpalatable by those who believe / hope that an Australian ETS is a simple government promoted solution to what is a global challenge / crisis.
The global credit crisis we are going through is instructive. Saying that an Australian ETS will stop or halt global warming is akin to saying that Australia guaranteeing bank deposits and injecting a $10.4 billion cash stimulus will stop the global credit crisis.
The best the government can hope for is that those measures ‘cushion’ us from the worst effects of the credit crunch.
Johns makes the point that projects like the SE QLD water grid ‘cushion’ us against the impacts of global warming. I make the point that the Murray Darling Water buyback does the same.
Australia can’t stop climate change just as we can’t stop the financial crisis. But we can prepare ourselves with projects that ‘cushion’ us from the impacts. Real projects that produce real benefits to the community.
Hi Steve
The issue here is what is known as the “Tragedy of the Commons”. Suppose that I was responsible for significantly more greenhouse emissions than the average person, say 40 tonnes CO2 per year. Should I reduce my emissions, considering that I would only be responsible for 0.00000014% of global emissions? You and Gary Johns argue that we shouldn’t, but the problem is that if no one does, we end up on a stuffed up planet. We can adapt to some of the impacts of 2 degrees of warming, but no matter how much we invest in adaptation, the consequences of 5 or 6 degrees of warming will be catastrophic.
Litter is an appropriate example. I not only don’t litter in my own community, I also don’t litter in other communities if I visit them. Do you think that it would not be a problem if I did? The problem is achieving global cooperation, and that requires doing our bit. Can global cooperation be achieved? The fact that we still have an ozone layer suggests that it can.
G’day Peter,
Thanks mate. I can’t and don’t pretend to speak for Gary Johns.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t reduce global emissions, I actually think we should.
It’s just that an emissions trading scheme is a government sponsored exercise in futility. Have a look at were such schemes currently operate i.e. the EU. They have not achieved any reduction in global emissions. The 27 nations of the EU account for 15% of global emissions.
The answer to the challenge is finding a cheap alternative energy to fossil fuel. The reason that China & India build new coal-fired power plants is because between them they have 1.8 billion people who do not have access to electricity, and all of the benefits that come with that. They burn coal because it is by far the cheapest and most abundant raw material to generate that power.
What we need to do is develop as permanent, renewable and sustainable power source / technology that does not emit carbon ie Carbon capture, geo-sequestration, affordable Solar, Wind, Wave, geothermal, Nuclear etc.
The answer is not creating a new tax regime, tradeable instruments and derivatives which is what an ETS does. Look I could support an ETS except for the fact that of the $5 billion revenue that it is estimated at raising in the first year, only 20% of that will be channeled back into research and development. Thats the only part of the new tax that has any value.
The fact that a huge portion of the permits will be gifted back to trade exposed industries i.e. I think around 50% makes a mockery of the whole concept. The fact that for first 3 years motorists will be rebated the tax, makes a mockery of the scheme. The fact that an enormous portion of the money collected (around 30% or $1.5 billion a year) will be used to pay bureaucrats to administer the scheme makes a mockery of the scheme.
I’m amazed that as a nation we are so eager tho embrace what is essentially a new tax regime.
Look at the EU experience with an ETS. Whats it achieved? Well firstly it has created a multi billion dollar trading market that the large financial institutions love as they take their 5% commission on every trade.
The only country that is easily inside its targets is France. – Why – they have gone to Nuclear power. In other words they have taken positive practical steps.
We could do the same here in Australia. We have 30% of the worlds supply of yellow cake. But we won’t, we’d prefer to sell it to India who actually have Nuclear weapons. The reason we don’t go Nuclear is because we have enormous amounts of coal and in NSW & QLD the States own the power generators.
Peter, if we have litter in our yard or community what do we do – We pick it up, We have national Clean up Australia days where we even go out and clean our neighbour hoods.
We don’t wait for a government to tax us on our littering and then use those taxes to fund research into how to make rubbish that picks itself up and pass special laws that actually give some of our corporate litter’s a license to keep littering, and set up a huge bureaucracy to manage the flow of the tax on littering which actually eats up a third of the tax collected.
An ETS is no answer, what it does do its give the Government of the day a green wash, and some of its citizens a green warm and fuzzy feeling.
I’m always mystified by the comparison to CFC’s reductions with CO2 reductions.
CFC’s are gas that was / is expelled in some minor processes and could hardly be classed as essential to the very survival and prosperity of the human species. CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels however is critical to the very survival of the human race. –
What is required is the ingenuity and adaptability that has allowed us to become the dominant species on the planet to find a fuel that does not harm the environment to replace it.
After all don’t forget that it was only 2 centuries ago that it was Whale Oil and not Fossil fuel that powered the global economy. We evolved from that by necessity (running out of whales). The trouble we have is that we are NOT running out of coal and oil.
If we actually were we would have a new, better, cleaner and cheaper energy source within a decade. History has proven, that the human species has always been able to adapt and then thrive to whatever has the environment has done.
The real problem is that we have heaps of cheap fossil fuels left to power our civilization. We need to learn how to burn it without emitting CO2 our find a way to replace it. Its that simple really.
Just like the litter problem – was easy to solve – we as a community just went out and picked it up.
Cheers mate
Steve,
you have said:
“What we need to do is develop as permanent, renewable and sustainable power source / technology that does not emit carbon ie Carbon capture, geo-sequestration, affordable Solar, Wind, Wave, geothermal, Nuclear etc”
I think we all agree on that, we are really ust discussing the path.
An ETS will increase the price of high-emissions energy, which has been kept artificially low for several generations. This price increase will enable renewables and others to be a viable option. An ETS is the most effective way of achieving your goals.
As far as Gary Johns is concerned, he is an IPA operative and free-marketeer who on this issue can’t see the forest for the trees. (which from my reading of his work over the last 5 years is par for the course)
I wish people would stop relying on the ridiculous argument that because our ETS will not stop global warming we shouldn’t bother. How many scientists, how many economists, how many politicians does it take for people to understand the issue? Of course Australia cannot stop global warming – either by an ETS or shutting down the whole damn country. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT!
The point is, that it is in Australia’s economic and social interest to reduce global carbon pollution and mitigate climate change. We have to be, not only part of the solution, but a driving force behind it as we will be amongst the hardest hit by climate change.
If we fail to convince a sufficient amount of people that an economy can transition painlessly to a low-emission energy future, then we are all doomed. An ETS is the most flexible and economically sustainable path for us to follow.
We can ‘free ride’ on the rest of the world coming to an agreement. Or we can be the smart and engaged country that I know we are and show the way forward. And an ETS is the most cost-effective and efficient way to do this – and don’t underestimate the power of those words “cost-effective and efficient”. It’s really not that hard and the EU has already shown the way.
What is important about an ETS is not how much it reduces emissions in the first year, or even five, but how the mechanisms can be put in place to deliver a substantial re-shaping of the way that businesses do business. We have to seperate economic growth from emissions growth.
An ETS will price climate changing pollution forever, long after renewable energy becomes the norm. As soon as a functioning global ETS is in place we will never again allow an industry to exclude pollution from the costs of production. And so I say, bring it on!
steve…
“It’s just that an emissions trading scheme is a government sponsored exercise in futility. Have a look at were such schemes currently operate i.e. the EU. They have not achieved any reduction in global emissions. The 27 nations of the EU account for 15% of global emissions.”
he shoots. but its an air ball…
http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/18/15-eu-countries-on-track-to-meet-kyoto-targets/
there’s only 15 countries, not 27 in the original EU target, and while they may not make it all the way to their ambitious target of 8% reduction on annual emissions (on 1990 levels) they are going very close without using the CDM.
how is our emissions path going without an ETS?
Steve, this delayer nonsense is just done, done, done. Mitigation doesnt work on worst case scenarios. There will be a global agreement, it will have issues, but its the only real insurance policy we can hope for. dodgy water piping in Qld wont cut the mustard.
G’day Andrew,
You are quiet correct in what you say about the 15 member states being phase 1 of the EU, ETS. I did not go into the details of the EU scheme as that would have been an entire post on its own – Perhaps I should have just linked to it like here.
On just what basis do you maintain that the EU countries are going ‘very close’ to their target of 8% cuts on 1990 levels of emissions. I think you are misleading readers with that statement unless you have some more update figures than those released by the EU Commission in May this year.
The 15 EU states failed miserably with no reduction in overall emissions. In fact emissions grew by 1.9% over the 3 year period.
Total emissions of the 15 EU countries:
2005 – 2,012,043,453 metric tonnes
2006 – 2,033,636,557 metric tonnes
2007 – 2,049,927,884 metric tonnes
Total growth in emissions 1.9% (Source EU Commission)
The ETS in fact failed so dismally that the price of permits crashed from 30 euros in 2006 to just 0.03 Euros in December 2007 (virually worthless).
This happened because of politics and national self interest.
And yet you like Treasury yesterday have unfailing faith in a global consensus and action. We have not seen it in the global financial crisis, we have not seen it in Free Trade Negotiations, but now in the early stages of the greatest world wide economic downturn since the depression, you and many others are supremely confident the World governments will put the global common good before national self interest.
I admire your faith.
While the good folk in SE QLD’s water supply is now guaranteed for the next century, let the Good folk in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth rely on a carbon tax to magically put water in their homes. We’ll then see how ‘dodgy’ the South East Water Grid is.
G’day Kit,
You said -
And an ETS is the most cost-effective and efficient way to do this – and don’t underestimate the power of those words “cost-effective and efficient”. It’s really not that hard and the EU has already shown the way.
On just what do you base that comment? See my comment above. Just where in the world has an ETS ( a government tax on something we can’t see, can’t smell and is one of the building blocks of life on the planet) “demonstrated to be the the most cost-effective and efficient way to do this.” ?
I’ll stress again – No where in the world has an ETS been proven to be effective. The EU experience has not cut emissions, has been rorted by individual governments, has been a huge financial boon for banks and finance houses, has not stopped deforestation in South America, Asia or Africa, and has done NOT a Thing to curb global emissions?
How the heck do you guys have such blind faith in what is effectively a ‘new government tax’ ? What becuase you think Australia with an ETS is going to stop global warming?
That is clearly not the case. So why – just tell me the basis of your faith in an ETS – it can be based on its effectiveness in the EU – so what then? Or is it just that its better than nothing?