Download CO2 Targets

What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed?
In responding to this question you could consider the base year
(E.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the
suggested target is preferred.
While this question seems simple – pick a number – it is important that any target is consistent with
the economic aims of the nation, the diminishing evidence of any real global warming occurring, the
relative economy of mitigation compared with adaptation, and the nations priorities for limited
funds. Australia has some experience with the “Price on Carbon”; it was supposed to achieve gains
at $23 per Tonne but actually achieved only an efficiency of $5310 per tonne according to “The
Australian”. At the efficiency forecast by the previous government ($23 per Tonne) it can be
calculated that all CO2 emission could be mitigated for an expenditure of about 750 Billion dollars or
1% of world GDP Per annum assuming future mitigation cost are the same as current mitigation
costs. At $5310 per Tonne that the Carbon Tax actually achieved, the global cost for zero CO2 using
carbon taxes is becomes 5310/23 x 750B = 173 Trillion dollars per annum or a little over twice the
world GDP. Einstein once said, Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting the result to be
different, the sum required to mitigate climate clearly meets Einstein’s definition of insanity.
Taking a risk reward approach, the IPCC’s 4th assessment report suggests that up to 2 degrees of
warming and attendant CO2 rise is likely to be beneficial. Alongside this estimates of climate
sensitivity have been moderated to between 1 and 2 degrees per doubling with the prospect of 4-5
degrees per doubling being practically impossible. Indeed the rate of warming since the Little Ice Age
if attributed entirely to CO2 represents only a climate sensitivity of 1.4 degrees per doubling of which
the IPCC attributes 50% to mankind – 0.7 degrees per doubling. There is no evidence that this is in
any way accelerating, suggesting that 2 degrees of warming will take several thousands of years to
occur. There is no demonstrated relationship between warming and storm intensity, global rainfall
or drought. Global warming is just not the problem it was thought to be. Australia’s target must be
set with the full knowledge of the probable low value of climate sensitivity. As the sensitivity lowers,
the dollar expenditure required to mitigate a fixed temperature rise increases. If one thing is certain
technology will be vastly different in 1000 years compared with today. The risk is low, and the
reward per dollar spent is even poorer.
When fed to plants the process of photosynthesis converts water and Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen,
which we breathe and Carbohydrates, so broadly speaking the more CO2 that is available, the more
Oxygen and Carbohydrates produced. Carbohydrates include important commodities that provide
housing and food for humanity. Australia must remain aware of the relationship between CO2
absolute level (called the partial pressure) and the nation’s capacity to sink CO2 and produce food. An
illustration is in order.
Australia has about 125 Million Hectares of forest and 460 Million Hectares of farmland, forests
produce biomass, estimates vary widely from about 2 Tonnes per hectare to 500 Tonnes per
hectare. Since some of our prolific plantation forests (EG Mangoes and banana) can produce fruit
masses with dry weight in the 50 Tonnes per Ha range one would expect biomass generation to be
at least this (does not account for the tree and root mass). 50 Tonnes of carbon represent a CO2
mass of 44/12*50 = 183 Tonnes per hectare per annum. We will use a conservative value of 100
Tonnes for convenience. Grassland sequesters of the order of 5-15 Tonnes per hectare according to
various sources, we will use 5 Tonnes as a proxy for small crops.
100T x 125,000,000 = 12,500,000,000 or 12.5 billion tonnes
+
5T x 460,000,000 = 2.3 Billion Tonnes
That is a total of about 16 Billion Tonnes not taking into account arid area growth, ocean plant
growth, vegetative density and that increased CO2 allows increased area of sequestering species
(Plants use less water when CO2 is highest). It is clear that plants produce a sequesterable biomass of
well north of16 Billion tonnes per annum.
Recent research has revealed that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is enriching plant growth by
some 6% between 1990 and 2000 (about a 20PPM change) it can be inferred from this study that the
increase in CO2 from 1990 to 2015 will have increased photosynthesis productivity by some 12-15%
(We’ll use 10% to be conservative). Indeed it is known that about half of all world emissions are
immediately sopped up by the biosphere and Australia as a nation does more than its share of the
sopping.
From this we can infer that Australia’s sinking capacity has increased from at least 16 Billion Tonnes
to 17.6 Billion tonnes, an increase of 1.6 Billion Tonnes. This is three times our emission per the
greenhouse office of 536 Million Tonnes per annum. The increase in photosynthesis in Australia
completely offsets emission many times over and is acting as a drag on other world emitters such as
China. Australia is NOT adding to emissions at all, and our target should take account of that increase
in sinking capacity, including the increase from the CO2 fertilisation effect.
Summary






Estimates of warming from CO2 are falling, most likely between 1 and 1.5 degrees per
doubling with 50% of that attributable to man – at least 1000 years to reach 2 degrees of
warming
Up to 2 degrees of warming to be beneficial (according to the IPCC)
No definitive evidence that global storm energy, rainfall or drought are affected by warming
Carbon dioxide sequestration rates are increasing due to CO2 fertilisation
Food and Oxygen levels are dependent on CO2 levels
The Kyoto regime disadvantages large countries with small populations like Australia that
make huge sequestration contributions.
Conclusion: Australia’s emission target MUST be based on Nett Emission
(actually Nett Sequestration) taking into account increased sinking capacity
changes due to CO2 fertilisation of forests and farmlands. It is suggested that
modest increases in emissions can be sustained given our position as one of
the largest world carbon dioxide sinks.
What would the impact of that target be on Australia?
In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our
economy, jobs, business and on the environment.
As shown above, attempts to mitigate CO2 using taxes is economic insanity, the carbon tax
demonstrated that the costs are of the order $5310 per Tonne. The carbon tax proves that
the economic penalties of CO2 mitigation are unaffordable. Using this base we can estimate
the economic costs of using penalties or subsidies such as the carbon tax to reduce CO2
1% of Australia’s emission = 5.3 million tonnes
Cost per Tonne of mitigation (from the Carbon Tax experience) $5310
Total = 28 billion over 2 years or 14 Bn per annum per percentage point CO2 reduction. This
would have a very significant impact on the economy, increasing joblessness, and extending
needlessly the hardship on the Australian people. Even a 5% reduction target would cost of
the order of 70 Billion dollars per annum and achieve almost no impact on world CO2
inventory. This tax was also enormously regressive; it was easily avoided by the rich by
installing subsidised solar power, but was unable to be avoided by the poor, and notably
tenants in housing that the landlord has no incentive to solar power.
Let’s do a quick calculation based on this
5310 x 32310287000 Tonnes (World CO2) = $172 Trillion or 2.2 x world GDP in 2014
This calculation doesn’t take into account that savings right now are EASY; savings in energy
use will be much more expensive as the low hanging fruit is removed.
As shown above, by taking into account natural sequestration enhancement from the CO 2
fertilisation effect, Australia’s nett sequestration capacity is INCREASING far faster than its
emissions. Australia can take advantage of this effect by adding extra forest or orchard
acreage into play. It can be calculated that a complete offset of emissions can also be gained
by either adding forests to idle land or by deliberately skewing land use toward tree crops. If
just 1% of farmland were converted from small crop or grassland to tree crops, Australia
would achieve CO2 savings exceeding emissions, not including the afore-mentioned effects
of CO2 fertilisation. Indeed well chosen crops can produce significant sequestration while
achieving profits for the owner. Changes such as this can be achieved by offering modest tax
benefits and small grants to reduce the capital hurdles required to retool for these crops. In
fact Australia is so “Weedy” that just leaving land alone would revert it to natural bushland
in less than 10 years. I would anticipate that the Australian government could increase
revenue from more profitable agricultural activity. Such a plan could be enhanced by states
legislating for certain agricultural lands and mining leases to retain a small amount of land
populated by forestry crops. Such measures are far more affordable than the unaffordable
carbon tax they replace.
Aside from direct economic considerations, the current massive over-focus on what is
almost a non-problem has resulted in billions of dollars of scarce funds being misdirected
away from more meaningful economic activity. For example has the diversion of funds to
windmills and solar panels caused funding toward cancer cures to be reduced? It has been
estimated for example that America has devoted $32 billion to Climate Change research but
only $8 billion to medical research. What are the relative benefits of each investment? Over
$40 Billion has been wasted in Australia since 2007, this is almost enough money for
Australia alone to end world starvation or provide every child in the world with clean water
or immunise practically every child for all serious childhood diseases. Job for job, and dollar
for dollar, undertaking such massive human welfare programs would produce more benefits
and economic activity than investment in green corporate welfare.
Summary:





Taxes, subsidies and penalties to force mitigation are regressive, enormously
expensive (shown to cost 173 triilion dollars per annum to achieve zero CO2). They
drive up costs for business and make us uncompetitive internationally – they are
NOT to be used.
Other mitigation programs can be undertaken that are essentially harmless,
particularly by shifting land use toward high sequestration activities.
CO2 increases ironically cause existing sinks to absorb more CO2, over the last 20
years absorption has grown far more quickly than emissions.
Australia should attempt to take advantage of increased yield potential of crops due
to CO2 fertilisation
Funding saved from inefficient subsidies and taxes can be reinvested into economy
expanding activity or measures that produce measurable human welfare benefits.
Conclusion: By tailoring direct action measures toward natural
sequestration measures and scaling back inefficient penalties,
green tape, and subsidies, meaningful reductions can be achieved
while expanding economic activity and energy use. Government
must studiously avoid penalties and compliance green-tape trails as
a means to enforce compliance as costs get passed through the
supply chain impacting on ordinary Australians.
Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct
action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target
and why?
There are a number of complementary policies that have incidental impact on CO2 but
provide significant benefit to the Australian public. More importantly there are a number of
policy traps to avoid in order not to hurt Australian citizens or companies in the process.
Since these gains are essentially free, there is little reason not to do them.
1. Promote energy efficiency, but avoid direct subsidies to suppliers, subsidies have the
effect of driving up prices such that the goods or service provider rather than the
consumer yields the gains. Instead allow a cash-back, tax rebate or deduction. A side
effect of energy efficiency policies is to extend the life of existing generation
infrastructure.
2. Provide tax incentives and capital grants to primary producers willing to switch to
higher sequestration crops. Consider other ways to support switching to forestry or
orchard production. Value properly the carbon sequestration capacity of lands, and
take CO2 fertilisation into account in carbon accounting. Take care however not to
distort agricultural commodity markets.
3. Replace coal generation with high efficiency ultra super critical coal plants which are
up to 15% more efficient than current thermal coal technology. These will make our
coal resources last longer and make us more competitive.
4. Investigate the merits of the development of Thorium Nuclear power, as Australia
has up to 30% of world known Thorium reserves. Thorium Nuclear power would
open up a significant new resource market for what is currently a toxic waste byproduct of sand mining.
5. Give effect to your plan to develop the north by building a significant northern deep
water port connected by rail to the east coast markets. The reduced shipping times
between Asia and Australia would be a significant reducer of GHGs while providing
enormous economic benefit to the north.
6. Extend rail electrification into regional areas where possible, extending electric rail
services will help expand economic activity out to perhaps 1 or 2 hundred km from
major centres and reduce CO2 emission.
7. The government should lower the barriers for introduction of clean, energy efficient
electrical products into the marketplace. Regimes need to be in place to effectively
amortise the cost of government certification in a number of areas including water
efficiency, energy efficiency and EMC certification. This can be done with some small
business programs offering grant cover for the cost of complying with government
certifications. Such moves could unleash some of the pent-up innovation in
Australia, underpin small business and grow bigger ones. Wind up greentape
programs which make business too difficult in Australia, and replace with a simpler
cost-effective compliance regime that is affordable for small business or reimburse
small business the cost of compliance with an appropriate program.
8. The government should refrain from investing in activities on the basis of wishful
thinking and ideology. Transparency of government investments in businesses or
indeed it’s meddling in trade (such as the TPP) should be transparent to the public.
This process must be robust to ensure lifecycle value is demonstrated. The public has
a right to examine whether our government is acting to the public interest.
9. At this point in a rather weak solar cycle and with the pause in its 18 th year, record
cold in the USA in 2014 and 2015, the government must give some consideration to
the possibility of a cooling phase - an event common in history – we live in a world
dominated by ice ages. In the event of a multiyear or decadal cold catastrophe in the
Northern Hemisphere like the little ice age, Australia could be called upon to support
a cold and starving northern hemisphere. Government contingency planning should
be extended to consider both warming and cooling scenarios.
10. Repeal the policies which allow councils to impose usage restrictions that ruin
people’s lives and kill their livestock by preventing effective fire management on and
around their properties. CO2 released by fires will be reduced and people’s lives
improved. Liberalised zoning rules can underpin economic gain out of land use, for
example allowing useless (steep or infertile) agricultural land for residential use will
encourage greening of that land while at the same time moderating property prices
and decentralising population.
11. Set up government or privately run telecommute centres based on the NBN that
companies can use to extend their management structures into the bush. Reductions
in travel will result in CO2 savings. At least the NBN may then have some meaning.
Policies that are proven to be damaging should be undone or avoided
1. It is to be noted that the world population of 7 Billion souls is being sustained by
food production from crop yields in an atmosphere of 400 ppm CO2 and 0.8 degrees
warmer than 1850. The 1850 pre-industrial population is estimated at 1.2 Billion. A
return to preindustrial CO2 levels of 270PPM would decimate food production
causing mass starvation. Reduction of CO2 back to pre-industrial levels is totally
unsustainable for a population of 7 Billion. In fact reduction back to 360PPM might
already be unsustainable given the population. To avoid food shortages in a growing
population it is likely that CO2 must continue to rise. CO2 targets must be set with
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
this factor in mind. We as a species are so reliant on CO2 for food and oxygen that
reducing CO2 may be enormously damaging to the world.
The act of repricing energy to hedge climate change is likewise totally inappropriate.
In order to prevent climate change you wish to make the one commodity that
mankind uses to keep warm in cold climates and cool in hot, to grow food in cold
climates and keep food fresh in hot climates expensive. Repricing energy makes
mankind LESS RESILIENT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. The policy in itself makes no sense at
all. It’s a sort of “Kill the people to save the planet” policy.
Biofuels worldwide implemented at the behest of environmental groups have been
proven to drive up food prices and increase the scarcity of food aid resulting in mass
starvation in poor communities. Biofuels should be strictly limited to those which
have no adverse food supply implications and do not consume land that would
otherwise be used for food production. Note that the next best fuel after pulverised
coal for energy production is pulverised carbohydrates – IE Flour, similar calorific
value to coal, burns great.
The European ETS has been associated with profiteers in Africa who have forced
indigenous communities off their land or even murdered them in order to create
forestry for carbon credits.
The European ETS has been host to a number of very large frauds.
Funds have been diverted to green causes that could be spent on more meaningful
pursuits. For example the previous government cut funding of palliative care to
terminal cancer patients. Spending on climate change must not divert funds from
human welfare. People must come before nature.
Solar power is intermittent and has a very low energy density, to reliably extract
1GW (averaged over 24 hours) from a solar plant takes more than 15 square km tiled
with solar panels. Solar panels are a battery, a typical solar panel returns over a 15
year life only about 120% of the energy that went into making them. A similar but
worse story exists for wind power. While solar even on a dull day will produce SOME
output, wind on a still day produces nothing, and still periods can and do last for
months, while the sun comes up reliably every morning. Wind cannot be relied upon
for any baseload capacity. On a lifecycle basis wind power is a disaster. Around the
world subsidies for ineffective wind and solar capacity have driven up energy prices
and have been primarily responsible for a new class of poverty emerging, energy
poverty. Energy poverty was cited as the principle cause for 25000 excess winter
deaths in the UK in 2012 primarily among the aged. Indeed across the typical hot
summers in Australia the state governments have been forced into advertising to
encourage the use of now too expensive air-conditioning in order to avoid mass
pensioner deaths in our communities. This is intolerable in a modern society. Repeal
subsidies for both of these energy sources and redirect funding to the more viable
strategies. (Above)
8. The government should consider how artificially inflating energy prices plays out in
the safety of its citizens and the economic activity of the nation. Energy is not a good
tax target as expensive energy reduces the nation’s economic activity and lowers the
standard of living for us all. Energy taxes tax the turnover of the nation’s activity
rather than the profit. Even with the Carbon tax repealed, fuel excise constitutes an
effective regressive carbon tax of over $300 per Tonne CO2. The government should
at first opportunity begin to scale back these turnover taxes in favour of profit based
taxation.
9. Windmills and Solar Panels are not good ways to reduce the risks from large storms
(Which have little if any relationship with warming according to the IPCC and other).
Is it better to reduce risks from storms by installing a solar panel in Adelaide, or by
building a cyclone shelter in Darwin? Is it better to tackle flooding by installing a
wind farm in Albany, or by undertaking drainage works or relocating vulnerable
communities? Should the expected 30cm sea rise be tackled by changing light bulbs
or by building sea walls or levee banks / dunes in vulnerable locations? After all the
Danes proved this could be done centuries ago. Appropriate application of
technology solves just about all the problems Climate change might cause with
simple technologies used for centuries.
10. Wind and solar power have the side effect of killing the birds and bats in an area
(rather brutally). While the unsolvable animal welfare issues of wind and thermal
solar are bad enough. The lower density of birds and bats has implications for pest
proliferation.
Summary
1. There are a number of ways to achieve meaningful abatement, while at the
same time delivering benefits to the community or the economy.
2. Focus on the whole outcome rather than just the ideological desires.
3. Avoid activities which have proven detrimental.
4. Look properly at the unintended consequences of any measure. Consider
whether the target of the measure is morally defensible or in itself
sustainable.
5. Reducing CO2 to 1990, 1950 or 1850 levels may no longer be appropriate
because it is no longer 1990, 1950, or 1850. Populations have expanded and
become dependent on the new CO2 levels.
6. Avoid measures that penalise the community, are shown to lead to energy
poverty, reduce climate change resilience or create human deaths or animal
welfare disasters.
Conclusion: The government needs to take advice from the whole
public and not just so-called Climate Experts promoting the global
warming orthodoxy. Policy measures need to emerge from all
sectors of the community, especially energy generators and
consumers. Those sceptical of dangerous global warming need to
be heard – they are in my experience very patriotic and have some
great ideas for advancing Australia.