An important sentence

The Climate Change Authority have released a draft report recommending:

A CCA report recommends cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by 2025 based on Australia’s emissions from the year 2000.

This would require significant emissions cuts beyond the current 2020 target of 5 per cent.

Okay – so how much is that going to cost?

As noted earlier, the Authority is not in a position to prepare meaningful estimates of the costs of meeting its recommended target, primarily because many of these costs will depend on the policies adopted.

Wow. Really wow. Let’s adopt a policy even though we have absolutely no idea how much it will cost.

So how did the Climate Change Authority come up with its recommendation?

The recommended 2030 range appears consistent with international benchmarks of the action required to limit warming to 2 degrees. Höhne et al. (Höhne et al. 2014), for example, reviewed over 40 studies of global emissions reduction pathways.

They follow a single survey article that reviewed 40 other articles. So I went and had a look at that article. Of the 40 studies that they reviewed, only 4 refer to “Cost-effectiveness” and none of those 4 include Australia.

Update: John Quiggin of the CCA responds here:

Since we don’t know what policy this, or a future government, might adopt, we can’t estimate the cost. So, to rephrase Davidson “Let’s propose a target even though we don’t know how the government, should they adopt it, will choose to achieve it”. That is, of course, exactly what the government asked the CCA to do in this report.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to An important sentence

  1. Stephen of Glasshosue

    I would fart in their general direction but a 30 % reduced fart is but a mere fizzle

  2. Ooh Honey Honey

    KILL the heretic.

  3. hzhousewife

    Money shouldn’t count, dontcha know !

    God help us !

  4. Craig

    Can’t trust them , they are in the pay of big government. Hey, I’m beginning how easily this line is slipping off my tongue, cuts both ways doesn’t it?

  5. H B Bear

    Slow Bern seems to be pretty simpatico with current Treasury practice.

  6. Zippy The Younger

    Capitalism is a planet destroying project, it must be stopped at whatever cost, don’t you know!

  7. I would fart in their general direction but a 30 % reduced fart is but a mere fizzle

    Not if you light it first SoG.

  8. Rob MW

    Leave em alone………..they are just following Swany and getting all their knowledge from a Bruce Springsteen song.

  9. blogstrop

    Plus ca climate change.

  10. JC

    Sinc

    Do you have any idea what the Authoritarians are earning for this gig. The government is allowing people like Clive Hamilton to earn two salaries I presume. This is a fucking outrage.

  11. Old School Conservative

    “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in the bill.” Pelosi, 2010.
    “the Authority is not in a position to prepare meaningful estimates of the costs of meeting its recommended target”

    Notice any similarities?

  12. JC

    Hi Clive

    I’ve written to you a couple of times requesting information on your current compensation gig as a climate authoritarian with the Climate Authority, but so far you haven’t replied. I need the information so as to post the compensation along with comments at the Catallaxy blog. Could you please provide it, as it’s important to the post I would like to write, especially when federal budget deficit is in such hot water.

    By the way, great work on figuring out we need to cut even more emissions than originally assumed. Thank God we have you taking care of the atmosphere with your scientific background.

    Thanks so much in advance

    Kind Regards

    JC

  13. duncanm

    JC – I think you’ll find the info in the Annual report

    $28k plus $861/meeting for members

    $56k + $1k/meeting for chair.

    Clive baby attended 12 meetings… so a cool $38k ish for half a week’s work.

  14. Biota

    The big con is that Australia’s CO2 output could be reduced to pre-1750 levels and it would have an undetectable impact on global temperature, what ever that is. So 30% of that impact will be a massive help doncha think.

  15. Tel

    It’s all posturing, none of them expect it to happen, and none of them give a second thought to economic consequences.

    But you all knew that.

    … requesting information on your current compensation gig as a climate authoritarian with the Climate Authority, but so far you haven’t replied.

    Yeah, and payment for the faithful of course.

    People carrying on about this stuff are highly unlikely to ever be effected by it. Come to think of it I can’t be bothered worrying about it myself any more. Pocket stuffers are a fact of life, they ain’t going anywhere.

  16. jupes

    As noted earlier, the Authority is not in a position to prepare meaningful estimates of the costs of meeting its recommended target

    Nor is the Authority in any position to prepare meaningful estimates of the reduction in global temperature that will result from cutting greenhouse gas by 30%.

    Until they do they can fuck off.

    Even if they do they can still fuck off because the reduction in temperature will be so small that it can’t be measured i.e. zero.

  17. Turtle of WA

    Here’s the money-quote from Tim Flannery (via Jo Nova):

    When someone is unwilling to adapt their view on the basis of new science or information, it’s usually a sign those views are politically motivated.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

    Is it projection or some other type of hypocritical behaviour?

  18. Natural Instinct

    Lead Author, Niklas Höhne, works here: Ecofys, Am Wassermann 36, Cologne 50829, Germany
    .
    Director of Science. Location: Utrecht, Netherlands

    Kornelis Blok(1956) has a background in physics and received a Ph.D. degree from Utrecht University for his thesis ‘On the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions’. In 1984, he co-founded Ecofys. Dr. Blok has extensive research and consultancy experience in the field of energy efficiency and clean energy production. He played an important role in the development of international climate policies and has worked in many countries around the world. After holding a professorship in Sustainable Energy at the University of Utrecht for 15 years, Dr. Blok became professor for Energy Systems Analysis at the Delft University of Technology in 2015. He was a lead author for the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the institution that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. For Ecofys, Dr. Blok was presented with the Erasmus award for the most innovative company of the Netherlands in 2008. Away from the office he is a passionate gardener.

    CEO and Managing Director Location: Utrecht, Netherlands

    Manon Janssen (1961) graduated from the University of Brussels in 1984, holding a Master of Science. She joined Procter & Gamble and worked in different countries between 1984 and 2000 on key global brands such as Pampers, Always, Dreft and Pantene. In 2000 she became VP Marketing & Innovation at Electrolux Europe, then Chief Marketing Officer for Philips Lighting worldwide in 2005. Since May 2010 Manon Janssen is the CEO of Ecofys. Her mission is to develop the company across its deep and wide range of expertise, and fulfil its mission of “sustainable energy for everyone”. Her key areas of expertise include strategy, innovation, branding and client management. Since October 2013, Manon leads the Top sector Energy. In this function she is responsible for the innovation strategy in the Dutch energy market working to reach the long-term energy goals of the country. In her spare time she is a passionate horse rider and an indiscriminate reader.

    I doubt the “team” is going to set an example of lowering their carbon footprints by 50% – that would be like slumming it. Then again they could just increase their daily rates to the governments that engage them.

  19. DaveR

    With a hopelessly idealistic report like this there is no reason for the CCA to exist. Start cost saving here.

  20. 2dogs

    consistent with international benchmarks of the action required to limit warming to 2 degrees

    Didn’t the WG2 paper change with the IPCC’s fifth report, so that the Ominous And Foreboding 2% Figure lost its status as the Target Which Must Be Met?

    Is the Climate Change Authority not keeping up with the science?

  21. duncanm

    its all meaningless drivel..

    where’s the part that says 2deg is a good point to aim for?

    The whole boondoggle needs a cost/benefit analysis – which it would fail.

  22. Fred Lenin

    Another bunch of smart ass self opinionated ,Lying. Stupid ,lowest middle class Bludgers like triggs. Southpawinsane and the other uesless Tossers bleeding the Taxpayers ,millionaire socialists hanging on the coat tails of the Liars green commo party

  23. Johno

    So the Great Global Warming Scam has finally come to this. This is really the best they have to offer.

    The real scandal is that Abbott is still paying for this tripe to be spewed out.

    The budget crisis must have been solved, otherwise why would Tone and Joe by wasting our money on this crap.

  24. 2dogs

    Sorry, that was wrong.

    I was thinking of this earlier Catallaxy post, which had warmy scientists Victor & Kennel at odds with the WG2 prescription of 2 degrees C.

  25. Boambee John

    “DaveR
    #1662996, posted on April 22, 2015 at 8:08 pm
    With a hopelessly idealistic report like this there is no reason for the CCA to exist. Start cost saving here.”

    I think that TLS made it a statutory authority as one of the many bear traps her government left for its successors. She also made its recommendations have the force of law, with penalties if they are not implemented.

  26. Andrew

    I think that TLS made it a statutory authority as one of the many bear traps her government left for its successors. She also made its recommendations have the force of law, with penalties if they are not implemented.

    TLS needs to be flogged on the steps of Parliament House for the bombs left to deliberately harm the country. And with the proper 120cm Singaporean rattan, not the puny 109cm Malaysian one.

  27. Alan moran

    But does not the Authority have world renowned economist John Quiggin as a member and is it not a simple matter of estimating the tonnes under the 5 per cent regime cf under the 30 per cent and then multiplying by the price? Treasury under its former green left leadership estimated the numbers (though it disguised them a bit).

    What do the members and the Secretariat do other than attend conferences? Maybe one of us could offer our services as a consultancy

  28. J.H.

    It’s a bit like Obama’s …… You have to pass the bill before you can read what’s in the bill…. Makes politics such a simple affair once politicians no longer even need the ability to read.

  29. Blair Bartholomew

    “As noted earlier, the Authority is not in a position to prepare meaningful estimates of the costs of meeting its recommended target, primarily because many of these costs will depend on the policies adopted. ”
    What does Prof Quiggin get paid for?

  30. handjive

    Relax. 97% Doomsday is delayed:
    Goal Post Migration Alert!
    Father of 2°C Target Schellnhuber Postpones CO2 Emissions Peak 10 Years: From 2020 To 2030!

    Scientists Grant Earth Another 15 Year Reprieve!

    Scientists warn that we are about to pass a global warming tipping point.

    This sounds bad, but is actually excellent news.

    In 1989 they only gave us until the year 2000 to stop global warming, so this is actually quite a nice reprieve.

    But it is even better than it seems!

    Forty years ago this month climatologists told us that unless we let them melt the polar ice caps, global cooling would kill us all.

    So far, we have a total of 40 years of passing the global cooling/warming tipping point.

    But the news gets even better.
    Seventy years ago, scientists said that we were about to pass a global warming tipping point.

    Scientists have granted us 70 years worth of reprieves, just in the last 70 years. Not to mention the countless reprieves they granted us prior to that.

    As long as we continue giving climate scientists government grants to lie about the climate, they will continue to grant us reprieves.
    Once they stop making threats and granting us reprieves, government has no reason to grant them any more grants.

  31. Up The Workers!

    Perhaps if every member of the “Climate Commission” pulled a plastic bag tightly over their head, the immediate reduction in ‘deadly carbon dioxide emissions’ would save the planet.

    Go to it chaps (and chapesses) – save the world in only 5 minutes.

    All those wormed gerbils will be forever grateful.

  32. Elwood

    If Greece and North Korea can meet CCA’s targets Australia can do it too.

Comments are closed.