New greenhouse gas emissions projections have been released by Australia’s government. They suggest that only a minority of the task to meet Australia’s emissions target will be achieved through domestic action, and the majority by buying emissions units overseas. If that came true, it would be a disappointment for many voters. But the projections may well be too pessimistic, selling short the effect of the carbon pricing policy.
“Putting a price on carbon pollution allows Australia to reduce its net emissions by at least 155 million tonnes (Mt) in 2020 and 390 Mt in 2030”, claims the Minister’s media release. “The amount of net carbon pollution for every Australian will be halved from over 25 tonnes a year today to 13 tonnes a year by 2030.”
Sounds too good to be true? Then you’ve probably overlooked the word “net”. The projections for 2020 have the amount of emissions reductions in Australia not at 155 million tonnes but only at 55 million tonnes, compared to a baseline of fast growth. Emissions within Australia would continue rising. At 2020, they would be about 11% above the 2008-12 average, according to these projections.
To meet the 5% reduction target, another 100 million tonnes would have to be covered by buying emissions credits from developing countries and overseas permits, likely from the European Union. That then results in net emissions falling by 155 million tonnes.
The projections assume a $29 per tonne carbon price in 2015-16 and rising, as per the 2011 Treasury assumptions. That assumption now appears entirely unrealistic, with expert expectations in the $10 to $15 range.
In its projections, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency also describes a sensitivity scenario where the carbon price is around $12 in 2015. This is roughly in line with current market expectations for the EU emissions trading price, which Australia will be linked to from 2015. Then, according the projections, domestic reductions in Australia relative to the baseline would be only 29 million tonnes, or 19% of the total required to meet the target.
The picture for 2030 is similar. Assuming a linear trajectory towards the government’s 80% reduction target by 2050, around 40% of the abatement task would be achieved domestically, assuming a $48 carbon price at 2030. And the domestic emissions would be around 21 tonnes per person, compared to the net per capita emissions of 13 tonnes cited in the Ministerial press release. No 2030 numbers are given for a low-price scenario.
Australia will very likely be a buyer in international emissions markets, under any sound climate policy. This is in the economic logic of achieving overall emissions reductions at the lowest possible cost. It is also a consistent outcome if Australia takes on commitments for net national emissions that represent a commensurate contribution to an ambitious global effort, like the 80% reduction target at 2050. Australia will remain a producer of emissions-intensive goods for export – think minerals and agriculture. Covering these additional emissions by paying for extra effort in other countries is logical and probably efficient.
The problem is that most Australians are probably not aware that this is the plan. Ask your neighbour: does the national 5% reduction target mean that Australia’s domestic emissions will be reduced by 5%, or does it mean that they will increase by 11%? Few will think it is the latter, and many will be disappointed when they find out.
It is another example of where understanding of climate change policy is extremely limited among the broader population. It suggests a failure of government, media and the research community to effectively communicate the issues. And oftentimes, obfuscation is chosen in preference to clear explanation – see for example Minister Combet’s quotes above.
Thankfully the true picture might not be nearly as bleak as the government’s numerical projections imply. The experience, time and time again, is that modellers and government agencies underestimate the effect of market mechanisms on pollution. One possible reason is that past trends are used as a guide to the future, ignoring the possibility of structural breaks. Another is that modellers and public servants want to avoid being accused of over-egging the pudding, and thus fall back on very conservative assumptions.
The same goes for the projections that are out this week. They may well be overstating the likely underlying growth in Australia’s emissions, and under-estimating the effect of the carbon price. If so, then they are under-selling the likely effect of the carbon price and other policies.
For example, demand in Australia’s electricity grid has been falling in recent years. Yet the projections are for demand to start rising again, even with a high carbon price. In reality, consumers and business see power prices rising, are increasingly aware of energy efficiency options, and are being offered ever more power-saving technologies at ever lower costs.
Meanwhile in energy supply, the costs of renewable energy technologies are tumbling, and with a carbon price are likely to become cost competitive with coal and gas fired power. On the other hand, it is true that expansion in the resources sector and in particular liquefied natural gas projects will drive up energy use and emissions in the industrial sector. Yet these could well be offset by savings elsewhere.
Keeping a lid on Australia’s emissions will require sound climate policy, and a degree of policy stability. Our recent survey shows that corporate Australia is confused about the prospects for carbon pricing. But if the framework or its essence is retained under future governments, then we have every reason to expect that the outcome may be better than projected by the government.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Let me get this straight Mr Jotzo!
You said, 'To meet the 5% reduction target, another 100 million tonnes would have to be covered by buying emissions credits from developing countries and overseas permits, likely from the European Union."
Is the Australia you are talking about the same Australia whose Prime Minister just back flipped on her promise to close the coal fired Hazelwood power station in Victoria?
Are you now suggesting Australia buys 'permits' from the European Union?
Is this the same European Union whose most powerful state, Germany, just announced they are building 20 new coal fired power stations? Furthermore, Germany's Chancellor Merkel said cheap carbon credits and cheap Polish coal made the plants better value than renewable alternatives.
Please tell me this is all a joke.
Because if it were true, nobody would believe it.
Gerard Dean
Wade Macdonald
Technician
"The problem is that most Australians are probably not aware that this is the plan. Ask your neighbour: does the national 5% reduction target mean that Australia’s domestic emissions will be reduced by 5%, or does it mean that they will increase by 11%? Few will think it is the latter, and many will be disappointed when they find out.
It is another example of where understanding of climate change policy is extremely limited among the broader population. It suggests a failure of government, media…
Read moreGerard Dean
Managing Director
One Giant Scam for Mankind- One billion dollars stolen from Australian children in our schools and hospitals.
And for what? Does anybody reading this article really believe that sending billions of Australian dollars to buy carbon credits from a dysfunctional European Emissions Trading Scheme is going to lower the earth's temperature.
It reminds me of the grand delusion when the hard working Dutch convinced themselves that Tulips were worth more than houses. Then one day, someone realised that they were just flowers and sold their tulips and the whole thing collapsed.
Gerard Dean
Mike Hansen
Mr
I agree Gerard - we need more money for schools and hospitals.
I like this idea from New Yorkers. They have started a petition to demand David Koch, oil industry billionaire and New York's richest man pay for the $50 billion damage out of his own pocket. After all it is his investments that have polluted the atmosphere with CO2 and lead to rising sea levels and warmer oceans that turned Hurricane Sandy into a monster. It is Koch Industries who are the main funders of the anti-science denialism globally.
$50 billion - that is a lot of schools and hospitals across the USA.
Wade Macdonald
Technician
How mentally narrow minded of you to blame some billionaire when even thousands of ICLEI representatives fly around the world to conferences utilising the very same oil? If he doesn't care for the environment (as you suggest) then at least he isn't attacking the same energy source he utilises like the ICLEI hypocrites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QGkAchO1bg&list=UUi-2n179FwVdR_lQj-FP4lw&index=7&feature=plcp
Humans turned 'Sandy' into a monster eh?
Here is a list of 'is' and 'isn't' human induced sources for ya Mike. I guess you would call this issue a consensus as well?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/reality-check-who-believes-hurricane-sandy-isis-not-caused-by-global-warming/
http://www.cfact.org/2012/10/29/alarmists-quick-to-blame-hurricane-sandy-on-man-made-global-warming/
mark feltrin
Renewable Energy and Resources
You kidding me right - trolls still around trying to act as climate scientists. If you have queries about the science - talk to a climate scientist. I'm sure Bureau of Meteorology have staff that could help.
Sandy is wake up call and adaption to this new climate reality is now the burden on all of us. And not doing anything is now no longer a option. So far the climate change modeling is panning out - if it wasn't I would be on your side and I'm not.
Tim Scanlon
Debunker
Referencing Anthony Watts, my dog has better understanding of climate science than Anthony.
Read the reports that show the increased sea surface temperatures and their impacts on Sandy. Or read this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/30/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane-sandy/
Stop with this denial nonsense already, some of us want a planet to live on in 50 years time.
Wade Macdonald
Technician
From your link Tim...."The hedge expressed by journalists is that many variables go into creating a big storm, so the size of Hurricane Sandy, or any specific storm, cannot be attributed to climate change. That’s true, and it’s based on good science. However, that statement does not mean that we cannot say that climate change is making storms bigger. It is doing just that—a statement also based on good science, and one that the insurance industry is embracing, by the way."
Here we go again, more journalist and insurance company based propoganda.
Didn't need to read any further than the second paragraph to see the hidden agenda in that article.
Sad Tim...so sad.
Wade Macdonald
Technician
Hmmmmm interesting title?
No doubt about intensity variation increases in cyclonic activity and that man has an effect but this is minimal. Increases in frequency and intensity have happened before on Earth.
Never said that climate models were wrong, its just the over stating of human effects that most fail to distinguish properly.
I have a few friends and associates that are scientists and they think the alarmists are looney.
Mike Hansen
Mr
Anthony Watt's problem is that he has to keep feeding his army of climate cranks - hence his argument that Hurricane Sandy was nothing special.
Unfortunately for the hapless Watts, for the millions who experienced the storm and are still living with the consequences or the millions who watched it unfold on TV, the tone-deaf Watts and his supporters are sounding increasingly bizarre.
Nick Osbaldiston
Lecturer in Sociology, Monash University at Monash University
I have a few friends that are scientists - well Wade I have a few hundred friends who are scientists - what's a scientist?
I see this alot, people making accusations on climate science because the have B.Sci behind their name. That's like me commenting on astrophysics because I have a PhD behind my name and thinking it's worth a damn.
It's quite clear there's been significant work done to prove that climate change is anthropogenic. The list is exhaustive and the debate shifts to how much by (how many degrees are we going to hit?).
I'm all for people making up their own mind - but I think we should also recognise that we are not climate scientists and right now, the ones actively researching this are telling us things that perhaps we don't want to hear.
Wade Macdonald
Technician
Nick,
You missed my point....
I don't doubt human induced change entirely or most climate data. I am sick and tired of the data being used as a tool to create fear through political and/or financial agendas however.
This is also the same complaint some of the scientists I know share on said topic.
That hurricane is being used to spread fear into people and it only serves to polarise society not embrace what is needed to be done rationally.
Cheers
Wade
John Newlands
tree changer
I would be incensed if the govt spent $1 on foreign carbon credits. I suspect by 2020 our emissions will be in the 500-540 Mt range, a tad less than in 2000. The growth assumed by Treasury seems unlikely along with some of their other assumptions like CCS.
Some analysts believe few if any of the cheap CDM offsets favoured by the EU are genuine globally new absolute CO2e reductions. Perverse examples are legion; here's one
Read morehttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/19/865471/in-the-crazy-world…
Mike Hansen
Mr
I agree with the sentiment in your post John but like Frank I am optimistic. Governments tend to follow and not to lead public opinion so the big hindrance to more positive action on climate change so far has been the campaign to deny the science (we have a couple of the usual numskys already commenting on this article). However there are plenty of signs that the attitudes are beginning to change.
The front cover of BusinessWeek magazine indicates the first cracks in the Tea Party hold on the…
Read moreGerard Dean
Managing Director
I still haven't got this straight!
So, we money out of our schools and hospitals and send it to a dysfunctional European community so they can email us a 'Scrap of Paper' giving us permission to burn our coal to make electricity to power our schools and hospitals.
What is a European Community Carbon Credit? - A 'Scrap of Paper'. Now what famous European said that?
Madness, sheer madness.
Gerard Dean
Wade Macdonald
Technician
Mike, I know the climate changes and I do believe man is having a minimal effect on climate.
I am just far more capable of distinguishing between what is street corner preeching/alarmist forecasting than the fools that rush in on issues like hurricane Sandy before the dust has settled.
Have you ever considered that there may be some benefits to this planet through minute human climate change effects as some scientists have promoted or are you always glass half empty?
NOAA must be one of those hardcore deniers on said topic that you seek to sideline...I guess you know better than them?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/next-time-somebody-tries-to-tell-you-hurricane-sandy-was-an-unprecedented-east-coast-hurricane-show-them-this/
Mike Hansen
Mr
So you are now linking directly to the witless Watts at denier central. Any chance Wade that one day you may actually read some science.
So Willard's point is that there have been hurricanes in NY before. Wow. Who knew?
Now here is a link that is not about the science - but entertaining nevertheless.
http://grist.org/politics/the-most-brutal-ad-youll-see-this-election/
Wade Macdonald
Technician
While Romney is aiming for votes as all pollies do....taking advantage of this hurricane to push an unobstanciated alarmist agenda is disgusting.
People lost their lives in this natural disaster and that video should be removed from the web. This is the sort of political fear mungering that needs to be stopped.
Climate change happens and there is little man can do about it except control our emissions and maintain carbon sinks etc.
Mike Hansen
Mr
As usual Wade you have it back to front. Romney, someone who once accepted climate science, under pressure from the Tea Party has joined the climate cranks. He mocked Obama for being concerned about sea level rise.
It was the storm surges that did most of the damage during Hurricane Sandy - exacerbated by the 15" of sea level rise.
Here is a warning about sea level rise in New York from 2007
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/hurricane-submerging-new-york-who-could-have-seen-it-coming/
Here is another from June this year
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/24/us-east-coast-sea-level-rise
Given the litigious nature of New Yorkers, do you reckon that Watts' resident sea level rise denier and all round climate crank Bob Tisdale has anything to worry about?
Mike Hansen
Mr
Here is another paper from January 2012
"Assessing future risk: quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for the southern shores of Long Island, New York"
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11069-011-0046-8
Interestingly, this paper was attacked in the journal Natural Hazards by David Burton, the crank behind the North Carolina legislation outlawing sea level rise and a couple of petrol heads, A. Boretti and Albert Parker from that centre of sea level research, University of Ballarat-On-Sea in central Victoria.
Tamino has the story here
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/unnatural-hazards/
Wade Macdonald
Technician
Quote: Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.
Signed by:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Read moreScott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania…
Nick Osbaldiston
Lecturer in Sociology, Monash University at Monash University
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808
Letters mean nothing to me. What means something to me are those who are actively researching climate and those who actually produce data. This list is about as meaningful as the time I saw one with 1000 scientists who signed a letter and inside there was a DENTIST.
We've also seen a few skeptics change their minds http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/08/15/3568554.htm
For me it's not about who is and who isn't behind the science. The science is never settled on this (I hate that quote) but fluctuates mostly on impacts. The debate however isn't on whether it's anthropogenic - mostly. It's about how much it's either (a) going to increase or (b) going to impact.
I don't mind people being skeptical of science - but let's not do it to our detriment either. Risk management huh?
Mike Hansen
Mr
Wade has managed to prove that a selection of the estimated 8 million Americans with degrees or advanced degrees who are not climate scientists and do not publish in the climate science journals are climate cranks.
I never realised that this was in dispute.
Wade Macdonald
Technician
Well said Nick.
Thanks for the sensible reponse.
Wade Macdonald
Technician
No Mike,
I clearly stated many who are probably far more qualified than you, have opinions outside of alarmism. It doesn't mean they are deniers or cranks.
I don't see these scientists I listed taking advantage of a terrible natural disaster and blaming oil barons or politicians like you Mike?
Koch made that hurricane a monster you said....based on which experts opinion? Which expert has come out and directly linked Koch as the cause?
You take this issue too far and thats where the problem sits. Read Nicks response above a learn from his sensibility on said topic.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Thanks for an interesting and informative article Frank.
mark feltrin
Renewable Energy and Resources
Again i have to ask.
What is the population assumption?
Is this still working off the ABARE assumtion of 1.2% population increase making the population i believe around the 46 million mark??? - this was what was utilized in a recent article on The Conversation about Australia's emission where i asked the same question.
These fear these projections are based on not really knowing what our population will actually be making any of these far reaching time frames so speculative in terms of emissions…
Read moremark feltrin
Renewable Energy and Resources
Can i get a reply to this by the author or someone else in the know?
Nick Osbaldiston
Lecturer in Sociology, Monash University at Monash University
I find it difficult to believe that we're going to get out act together to limit warming below 2 degrees or more at present speed in policy. There's cause for optimism, but it seems to me that the agenda has been lost to other pressing issues - like text messages sent by government speakers.
Alas, there's still time but I can't help but feel that we'll need to see some dramatic action come Kyoto 2.0 from some of the major countries in order to see any real action globally.
Ken Fabian
Mr
It's dismaying to know that the world's biggest exporter of coal - and because of that, one of the major contributors to global growth of emissions - intends to buy on paper emissions 'reductions' from overseas to avoid having to actually reduce it's actual emissions at all. Whilst the remarkable growth of renewable energy by rooftop solar is cause for some optimism that lots of Australians get it, the fact that most of the larger proposed solar farms, which would actually get much more low emissions energy for less dollars, have largely gone unbuilt says how much governments and our heels dug in resistant local energy industry don't get it.
Wade Macdonald
Technician
Good comments Ken.
We don't need to run fear campaigns on the web or create ETS schemes to sustain this planet. We don't even need to ban all coal emissions.
Just sensible, clear direction that takes in both environmental and economic considerations equally.
Geoff Taylor
Consultant
Gerard Dean has every right to be sceptical, not about global warming, not about manmade carbon emissions, but about a carbon tax which won't achieve much for carbon emissions reduction in Oz, based on carbon accounting worldwide which is going to be very difficult to audit.
It won't achieve as much as some targeted technological approaches would have done.
Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
Some men each own an apple tree, and go into the orchard to pick apples from their tree to take to market.
The rich man has already picked the low hanging apples from his tree. He can afford some ladders, but being rich he instead employs a financial wizard who points out that it would be cheaper for him to buy the rights to pick some apples from the poor people who still have some low-hanging fruit.
Eventually all the low-hanging fruit is picked. The rich man has benefited from the cheaper…
Read moreMichael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
Thinking about this further, if the world decides in say 2021 that it's each countries own emissions that count - minus exports, plus emissions for imports, then Australia is in BIG trouble.
For a start, we will become responsible for all the emissions used to produce our cheap goods from China (30% of China's emissions are for exports).
And if the majority of our 'cuts' in emissions come from overseas offsets, then at a stroke of a pen these offsets suddenly disappear and we are left with…
Read morePeter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer
Frank,
Perhaps its time you started advocating nuclear power, eh?
Costs for CO2 abatement (at a scale that can make significant cuts ($/t CO2 abated):
o Renewable energy = $300 [1]
o Nuclear (Gen 3) = $65 (in Australia)
o Nuclear (if we allowed the impediments to be removed) = <$0
A policy that delivers a ‘Cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels’ (for everyone) is by far the best and cheapest way to cut global CO2 emission [2}
How much better is the ‘Cost competitive alternative…
Read moreNeville Mattick
Grazier: Biodiversity is the key.
No need to convince me - we are in a warming era and it is Anthropogenic.
130 years in one place for one family leaves a lot of records and story telling passed down, sustainable grazing and land use for decades or not the picture is not good.
Key pointers are reduced production (food and fibre), drying of the environment, rapidly increasing fire threat, biodiversity loss, I could go on - you get the picture.
Emission targets need to be higher and kept on track, education is important too, especially to Farmers (with the most to loose) and their organisations as I have little or no acceptance with my ideas from my peers in this industry. In my opinion these need to be led by incentives, deeper than those initiated at present.