* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download here
Climate-friendly gardening wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Emissions trading wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Carbon pricing in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon governance in England wikipedia , lookup
Biosequestration wikipedia , lookup
European Union Emission Trading Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Carbon emission trading wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Carbon dioxide is NOT a Pollutant • Without CO2 we would not be here. If it is a pollutant, then so is water (H2O), which is the other main effluent from fossil fuel combustion • We do not any of us breathe out black smoke, pace SBS and ABC. • The increase in atmospheric concentration from 280 ppm in 1750 to 384 ppm at end 2007 is trivial (growth rate is c0.2% p.a.) • CO2 is a fertilizer, without which we would starve. • Minister Wong spoke about the “ethics” of dealing with climate change at LSE 2 weeks ago. Her Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is based on a falsehood. The Garnaut Review: A Critique Tim Curtin Associate, RMAP Copies of main paper and ppt version available from [email protected] History of CO2 and global temperature Global temperature 1958-2007 GISS Gobal Temperatures 1958 to 2007 15 14.8 14.6 14.4 14.2 14 13.8 13.6 13.4 13.2 13 Actual 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 1973 1970 1967 1964 1961 1958 Log. (Actual) How to create alarm and despondency The IPCC method (please do not mention the scale) Global Annual Anomaly 1850-2007 (from average 1951-1980) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970 1965 1960 1955 1950 1945 1940 1935 1930 1925 1920 1915 1910 1905 1900 1895 1890 1885 1880 1875 1870 1865 1860 1855 Annual Anomaly 1850 0 The Science of the Garnaut Report Science of Climate Change • Stephen Hawkings: “one cannot predict future events exactly if one cannot even measure the present state of the universe precisely” • IPCC 2007: Oceanic Uptakes < Terrestrial • Garnaut 2008: Oceanic Uptakes > Terrestrial The Carbon Budget • Year on Year Change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 = Ct – Co • Annual Emissions (E) of CO2 from all sources • Uptakes (U) of CO2 by the oceanic and terrestrial biosphere (mainly photosynthesis) • Ct – Co = Et – Ut, • but measuring Ut is difficult, so • We derive Ut = Et - (Ct – Co) • But in reality (Ct-Co) is the residual/dump, and Ut is an independent variable with a life of its own largely determined by the ENSO, but that is not how it is treated by the IPCC & Garnaut models (MAGICC etc). MAGICC • This model goes back to Ian Enting and Tom Wigley et al. CSIRO 1994 and Wigley & Raper 2001 • It was the basis for much of the modelling by the IPCC 2007 (WG1, ch.8, SI) and was “tuned” to the output of 19 other models. • But no room for “sinks” in the parameters. “Saturation” of the terrestrial sink implies that it is already or soon will be impossible to raise crop yields and forestry output. How so? Saturating Sinks? 400.00 La Nina 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 El Nino 50.00 Index Em Index Up Index Atm CO2 20 07 20 05 20 03 20 01 19 99 19 97 19 95 19 93 19 91 19 89 19 87 19 85 19 83 19 81 19 79 19 77 19 75 19 73 19 71 19 69 19 67 19 65 19 63 19 61 - 19 59 Indices 1959 = 100 350.00 Saturating Sinks? Falling trend of the Airborne Fraction 1.20 El Nino 1.00 0.80 AF Linear (AF) 0.60 0.40 La Nina 0.20 20 05 20 03 20 01 19 99 19 97 19 95 19 93 19 91 19 89 19 87 19 85 19 83 19 81 19 79 19 77 19 75 19 73 19 71 19 69 19 67 19 65 19 63 19 61 19 59 - Rising (?) Trend of Airborne Fraction (Canadell data) 90.00 El Nino 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 Airborne Fraction % Log. (Airborne Fraction %) 20 08 20 05 20 02 19 99 19 96 19 93 19 90 19 87 19 84 19 81 19 78 19 75 19 72 19 69 19 66 19 63 19 60 - 19 80 19 81 19 82 19 83 19 84 19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 Rising (?) trend of the Airborne Fraction (CDIAC data) 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 La Nina - AF Linear (AF) Emissions and Uptakes are directly related, pace Canadell et al. 2007 Canadell's Saturating sinks. Carbon Dioxide CO2 Emissions and Uptakes 1960-2007 8.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Emissions of CO2 (GtC) Uptakes Linear (Uptakes) 8. 17 7. 50 7. 12 6. 80 6. 84 6. 49 6. 20 6. 31 6. 11 5. 76 5. 46 5. 13 5. 19 5. 40 5. 04 4. 62 4. 64 4. 23 3. 80 3. 41 3. 15 2. 85 2. 59 - 2. 46 Uptakes of CO2 (GtC) 7.00 The Airborne Fraction of CO2 emissions is a function first and last of ENSO 12 90.00 80.00 70.00 8 60.00 50.00 6 40.00 4 30.00 20.00 Airborne Fraction (%) 10 2 10.00 El Nino 07 05 20 03 20 01 20 99 20 97 19 95 Airborne Fraction % 19 93 19 91 19 89 19 87 19 85 19 83 19 81 19 79 Total Uptakes 19 77 19 75 19 73 19 71 19 69 19 67 Total Emissions 19 65 19 63 19 19 19 61 - 59 0 19 Emissions and Uptakes GtC El Nino Log. (Airborne Fraction %) Food Temp CO2 @ ML Fertilizers 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 Indices 1980=100 Food Production relative to Fertilizers, Temperature and CO2 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Atmospheric CO2, Rain, and Wheat yields, Temora 1959-1999 (Data from Geoff Smart, GFS Genetics) SUMMARY OUTPUT Wheat Yield at Temora 1959-1999 as function of Annual rainfall and level of Atmospheric Concentration of CO2 Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.765839 R Square 0.586509 Adjusted R Square 0.564746 Standard Error 0.455124 Observations 41 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total SS MS F Significance F 2 11.16481 5.582403 26.95018 5.16E-08 38 7.871238 0.207138 40 19.03604 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95% Intercept -3.832531 0.811148 -4.724825 3.12E-05 -5.474614 -2.190448 Rain pa 0.002023 0.000497 4.068131 0.000231 0.001016 0.00303 Atmos CO2 0.012479 0.002132 5.852681 9.07E-07 0.008163 0.016796 Atmospheric CO2 and Wheat Yield, Temora 1959-1999 Atmos CO2 Line Fit Plot 3.5 3 Yield 2.5 2 Yield Predicted Yield 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 200 400 Atmos CO2 600 Rainfall and wheat yields Temora 1959-1999 Rain pa Line Fit Plot 3.5 3 Yield 2.5 2 Yield Predicted Yield 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 500 Rain pa 1000 A recipe for famine? Impact of 90% reduction from 2000 emissions by 2050 with ongoing uptakes (If Uptakes fall instead of rising as depicted, food production also falls pro rata) Pre-industrial CO2 & Food Output 400 350 10 300 5 Emissions 10% of 2000 level in 2050 250 0 200 -5 150 -10 100 -15 50 -20 0 Fossil fuel emissions 1994-2004, growth 3.2%pa to 2012, declining 7% p.a.2013-50 Total Terrestrial & Oceanic Uptake, extrapolated at actual growth 3.4% p.a. 1994-2004 Net atmospheric uptake of Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Gt C) Atmospheric CO2, total in ppm, after emissions reduction to 10% of 2000 by 2050 Atmospheric Concentration of CO2 ppm 15 450 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 08 20 10 20 12 20 14 20 16 20 18 20 20 20 22 20 24 20 26 20 28 20 30 20 32 20 34 20 36 20 38 20 40 20 42 20 44 20 46 20 48 20 50 Emissions and Uptakes (GtC) 20 Business Council of Australia • Reductions in EBIT for 14 case studies under the Green Paper compensation scheme, 2020 • THREE BUSINESSES MUST SHUT • SEVEN BUSINESSES MUST REDUCE • OPERATING COSTS IN SOME WAY • FOUR BUSINESSES MUST REVIEW OPERATIONS • Source: PJPL (Rod Simms). 180.00 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 P@$20& EBIT 20% sales P@$45 EBIT 20% st ee l & Iro n Al um in a ic s er am C co al Bl ac k Pi gs ca ttl e ai ry D Sh ee p en t em C Be ef ca ttl e - Al um in iu m Effective Tax rate of ETS % of EBIT How to wipe out Rio Tinto and the National Party P@$20 EBIT 30% Sales P@$45 EBIT 30% ETS: the mother of all slush funds • The ETS with full coverage of all sectors would raise c$8 billion from sale of permits at the initial fixed price of $20 per tonne of CO2, and more than $16 billion after auctions lead to convergence with the EU price of $45 per tonne. • Allocating as proposed half of such sums ($4 to $8 Billion) to helping the poor (in targeted constituencies) to keep on buying electricity, gas and petrol as usual creates a slush fund beyond the dreams of even Robert Mugabe. Prisoners’ Dilemma and Free Riders • Australia’s best course of action is to be a free rider. On our own we can have no impact on “climate change” (even if the ACT Greens believe the ACT can on its own prevent global climate change!). • China cannot be a free rider. Without its total support, there will be no reduction in climate change from which it would benefit without incurring any costs. St Petersburg Paradox • The great Daniel Bernoulli anticipated Garnaut by noting the potential declining marginal utility of money (the more one has, in theory, the less one values each extra dollar (tell that to the Murdochs, Lowys, and Packers!). • But he also noticed that this means the marginal utility of costs of an ETS on one earning say $50,000 now will exceed the dollar for dollar utility of benefits of avoided climate change even if still alive and earning $100,000 by 2100. The “greatest market failure” (Stern & Garnaut) • “Market failure” involves creators of social costs, like pollution, or the free rider problem of the tragedy of the Commons, not paying for the costs they impose on society. • But “Carbon Pollution” creates as we have seen higher yields across global agriculture and livestock for which the beneficiaries pay nothing, clearly also a market failure. • In Australia’s case, with its primary exports the largest in the world (per capita), the world owes us for all the CO2 those exports have soaked up. The last windmill, Wedmore in North Somerset, UK, c.1895. • Closed c1905 when it could not compete with flour millers using electricity supplied by the Wedmore Power Co • That electricity was not subsidised by an ETS, but produced cheaper flour than the windmill could, unlike the Wong ETS and its Lake George Wind Farm.