Gillard's sleight-of-hand on extremism

Friday's edition of The Age carried my letter responding to Julia Gillard's opinion piece the day before calling for the rejection of "extremists" following Wednesday's rally in Canberra against the proposed carbon tax.

The rally, attended by federal Coalition leader, Tony Abbott, featured offensive placards attacking the prime minister. Abbott has drawn much deserved criticism for his attendance, including Friday's Age editorial.  However, Julia Gillard used the opportunity to label as extreme not only those who attended the rally, but those opposing them who are urging stronger, science-based action than is currently being proposed by the Australian Government. Here's my letter:

Gillard lumps all in the extreme basket

IN CALLING for the rejection of extremists, Julia Gillard tries to create a single negative category including not only the ilk of Wednesday's ignorant and offensive rally against a carbon tax, but also those who urge stronger science-based action to achieve a safe climate (Comment, 24/3).

A valid critique of Australia's present weak emissions reduction targets does not render the holders of such a view extreme. They base their case on the same science referenced by Professor Garnaut in his climate review for the federal government. Perhaps Ms Gillard would like to explain her government's more than $12 billion in annual subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, or the recent approval of the largest open-cut coal mine in the southern hemisphere at Wandoan in Queensland?

It is just those kinds of actions that will work against household and industry assistance to choose low-emissions alternatives. This debate shouldn't be about some "fine Australian" calling the Prime Minister a "witch", or worse.

 Comments welcome!

A tough call on climate is just what we need

Today Professor Ross Garnaut will release his final report recommending the emissions cuts Australia should adopt as its contribution to the international effort to fight dangerous climate change. The final recommendations come as 16 eminent scientists have written to the prime minister, Kevin Rudd, urging the adoption of at least a 25 per cent cut on 1990 levels by the year 2020.

The prime minister has a big decision to make. Either he will disregard the science and set a target that plays to the interests of the big emitters, or he will act with courage, heeding the evidence that a 2020 target that reduces our 1990 emissions by 25-40 per cent is urgently needed to give us a chance to avert dangerous climate change.

The Age has today published my letter urging the prime minister to make this tough and courageous call. Here is the full version:

The minimum 25 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels a group of eminent scientists has urged on the prime minister on the eve of Garnaut's final report looks tough. It should not be compared, however, to the 10 per cent cut on 2000 levels Garnaut has recommended to the stifled delight of high-emitting industries. The scientists have in fact recommended as a minimum cut the start of the 25-40 per cent range science says is needed to fight dangerous climate change.

With the ABC reporting a Lowy Institute survey showing that, since last year, fighting climate change has slipped from our first to fifth most important foreign policy goal, it appears we are being persuaded the Rudd Government is doing something on climate. Unfortunately, the scale of our response will literally be a matter of degrees. If adopted, Garnaut's recommendation will see warming of at least three degrees, by which point dangerous climate change will be well and truly, and perhaps irreversibly, in play.

If Australians have been distracted by the global financial crisis and think that's where our focus needs to lie, they should think again. Climate impacts - both economic and environmental - will amplify and stand to dwarf the impacts of a greedy Wall Street. So I say to the prime minister that he needs to get tougher on climate, but enough to stop the climate getting tough on us.

The same Lowy Institute survey that showed a slip in our ranking of the foreign policy goal of fighting climate change also found that 60 per cent of respondents nevertheless agreed with the statement that:

Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.

This is what the prime minister should bear in mind: that a clear majority support strong action on climate change even if it involves significant costs. However, as Professor Garnaut has himself said, we must compare the cost of action - in both environmental and economic terms - with the cost of doing too little.

Quick, strong action is our best chance, and the position we take to international climate negotiations - one of leadership and courage, or of defeatism and climate inaction - is prime minister Rudd's decision to make.

The Larvatus Prodeo blog is running an open thread on the outcomes of the final Garnaut report.

AIG puts the spin on Garnaut's reductions

As noted by The Age, Professor Ross Garnaut's proposed 10 per cent CO2 emissions reduction based on 2000 levels by 2020 is indeed defeatist. It is especially so when compared with the 40 per cent reduction (on 1990 levels) that science indicates is necessary by that year to help avoid the worst climate impacts.

As the Prime Minister has stated, however, Garnaut is but one of many inputs into his thinking, so we should also look to the influence of business and industry to see why Australia is leaning towards failure in the global climate challenge.

In a 5 September media release, and in comments reported by the ABC, Australian Industry Group head, Heather Ridout, says a five or ten per cent cut by 2020 based on 2000 levels 'would mean a reduction of between 20 and 25 per cent compared to current directions'.

Essentially, the AIG is proposing that Garnaut's reduction be considered not against known 2000 levels, but in terms of levels currently projected for 2020. Because we are roughly on track for 120 per cent of 2000-level emissions by 2020*, the fall down to 10 per cent below 2000 levels is a longer drop, and is a higher percentage of the projected total for 2020 - at about 25 per cent - than Garnaut's 10 per cent on the year 2000.

Makes his suggested cut look better, more substantial, doesn't it? The problem lies in justifying why Garnaut's target should be viewed against such a disastrous 2020 (projected) yardstick. The perverse implication is that the target of 10 per cent against 2000 levels looks better the steeper the trajectory to 2020 becomes. If the trajectory looked even worse, Garnaut's cuts would look heftier still. That is to say, a bad trajectory suits the AIG's spin down to the ground.

However, for purposes of saving our climate, compared with arguing for weak government action/compensation for business and industry, the ultimate target adopted by Australia should be measured not against a projection of our current profligate emissions, but against the science.

With his target set relative to 2000 levels, not a 1990 baseline, Garnaut's proposal is in fact less than 25 per cent of that necessary to save the planet. The Rudd Government needs to do much better.

*I've used the Government's Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2007 projection, and in particular, the green line on the graph in the summary on p.1. I estimate from this graph that a fall of 10 per cent from 2000 levels would take emissions down from roughly 550 Mt CO2-e to about 495 Mt CO2-e. Again using the green line, I put the 2020 projection at about 660 Mt CO2-e. To reach the 2000 10 per cent reduction level (495 Mt), that emission would need to fall about 165 Mt, or 25 per cent of the total projected emissions for 2020 (660 Mt). Looked at this way, Garnaut's 10 per cent cut on 2000 levels looks more substantial the worse the trajectory gets.