Much better is a good one-page summary from crikey here.
I think there's much to be welcomed in the report. Clive Hamilton (author of Affluenza and sustainability activist) has done an excellent analysis of some of contradictions in the report so I won’t do an inferior duplication save to note a couple of the key points of debate.
- Garnaut recommends Australia aim for a 10% reduction on route to a 550ppm trajectory but go into next year’s Copenhagen conference pushing for 450ppm. Hamilton notes this odd - not only to pre-signal your negotiating position but also to expect others to sign up to deeper cuts than you yourself have committed to. In Hamilton’s words, lowering expectations is likely to become self-fulfilling.
- Garnaut argues the 550ppm is the most prudent economic approach for Australia, yet Hamilton notes the modelling itself finds little difference in the long-run between the different targets. For example, the 0.1% in GDP growth between the 450ppm and 550ppm trajectory would result in only having to wait another two years to double GDP (2042 to 2040). Essentially, Hamilton argues that the politics (and business lobbies) got in the way of the science. Always a difficult tradeoff in 'independent reviews'.
1 comment:
Haven't read this through fully but the trajectories seem at odds with the latest IPCC analysis.
For stabilisation at 450ppm CO2-eq, Garnaut has assumed CO2 stabilises at 420ppm. Yet, according to the scenarios covered by the IPCC, CO2 emissions of 400-440 correspond to a CO2 equivalent of 490-535.
Likewise, in the 550 case, Garnaut assumes CO2 emissions of 500, when IPCC suggests that such CO2 emissions would correspond to a CO2-eq stabilisation in excess of 600, with temperature rising up towards 4 degrees.
Post a Comment