We’ll always have Paris

Both the Australian and the Australian Financial Review carried a story today about the Paris Agreement.

Australia’s economy will be among the worst affected by the Paris climate change agreement, enduring slower growth, fewer jobs and a “notable” 6 per cent slump in the exchange rate, ­according to a new analysis of the global accord.

This is not surprising. Even the dodgy Treasury modelling from 2011 showed a huge impact on the Australian economy. Although IIRC there was no unemployment effect because the modelling assumed full employment – it was the real wage that collapsed.

Warwick McKibbin, an ANU economics professor and one of the report’s authors, said ­Australia could not avoid ­economic pain by pulling out of the agreement.

“If we stay in, we’re better off because if we pull out, we’ll still be getting most of the economic damage — other countries won’t be buying our ­resources so much — but miss out on the benefits of curbing carbon emissions such as less pollution,” Professor McKibbin told The Australian.

“You don’t have to believe in climate change at all to support staying in Paris. That said, if you just cared about jobs or real wages but didn’t care about climate or pollution, you’d stay out.”

The Paris Agreement then imposes very high costs not so much on the Australian economy per se, but on the people whose jobs and wages are dependent on coal and gas exports.

The exceptions to this are the fossil fuel exporting regions of Australia, which suffer a loss of around 2 to 2.5 per cent of GDP, the OPEC club of oil exporting nations, which suffer a loss of 3.25 to 3.5 per cent, and Russia which experiences a loss of 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent of GDP.

So what’s in it for us?

The environmental benefits of Australia cutting its own use of fossil fuel accrue almost entirely at home.

Much less domestic pollution – as if this is a problem in Australia.  All those unemployed coal and gas workers will have plenty of time to enjoy the great outdoors.

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

29 Responses to We’ll always have Paris

  1. Ah, yes. Domestic pollution.

    There is nothing so dangerous as the “pollution” caused by a colourless, odourless gas present in the atmosphere at trace levels which plants feed upon.

    I am so glad that somebody is thinking of the poor children.

  2. Confused Old Misfit

    Warwick McKibbin

    Any relation to Mad Bill?

  3. Ah, yes. Domestic pollution.

    There is nothing so dangerous as the “pollution” caused by a colourless, odourless gas present in the atmosphere at trace levels which plants feed upon.

    I don’t think domestic pollution is referring to CO2 per se. I speculate (haven’t read the articles) that refers to pollution from power stations and exhaust pipes like fine particles, NOx, SO2, CO, O3 and a couple other things. Basically, stuff that fucks up your lungs and makes life difficult for everyone with asthma and COPD etc.

  4. gbees

    “Warwick McKibbin, an ANU economics professor” Dear Prof., What has CO2 got to do with pollution? CO2 emissions are not pollution. Pollution is regulated by the EPA and has nothing to do with the Paris agreement which is all about limiting co2 emissions to fix a non-problem not caused by CO2. That is, climate change is NOT caused by human CO2 emissions. There is no evidence so we should pull out of Paris.

  5. wozzup

    Thank God for all these anti global warming policies. I will now no longer have to cook all my meals on dried cow dung and heat water for washing by burning the family cat because I cannot afford to pay for the electricity. No wait, hang on a minute its the opposite. Damn!

  6. BoyfromTottenham

    So why does our government put up with our ‘CO2 emissions’ being based on our total production of fossil fuels (including our FF exports) rather than just our domestic consumption? Are the countries that we export to getting a free ride, or is there significant double counting going on here to make global ‘CO2 emissions’ look worse than they are?

  7. New Chum

    Page 32 The Courier Mail January 3 2019.
    Mine to add 350 jobs, Coal price boom fuels recruitment
    Fitzroy Australia Resources is gearing up to recruit the workers for its Ironbark No1 coking coal mine 35km northeast of Moranbah. This company does not appear to be listed on the Stock Exchange. Coal, both coking used to make steel and thermal used to generate electricity, is expected to overtake iron ore as Australia’s largest resource and energy export.
    Google the company for more information.

  8. struth

    but miss out on the benefits of curbing carbon emissions such as less pollution,” Professor McKibbin told The Australian.

    I think we can safely classify this wackademic as the insulated left wing nut job it is.
    Pure fuckwittery.

    These people have no idea how their glass of milk gets to the table, how the table is made and transported and how the glass itself was made.

    But…………………………………….cow farts.

  9. JohnA

    Anthony #2902509, posted on January 9, 2019 at 3:53 pm

    pollution from power stations

    That’s water vapour from cooling towers…

  10. “If we stay in, we’re better off because if we pull out, we’ll still be getting most of the economic damage — other countries won’t be buying our ­resources so much

    This has to be a pisstake

  11. Mother Lode

    The Liberal party will keep tacking left as long as they do not perceive a threat from the right. If a plausible political entity formed there they would scurry like rats afraid of losing their carefully hoarded bits of rotting mucous and toe jam (the descriptors do not describe the political right, but descriptors of the mentality of Liberal politicians.)

    If the branches could ever be wrested back from the baleful influence of Photios and the like they would at least be free to think about it.

    It is perhaps disheartening but there seems really no alternative to retaking the Liberal party. Even a country much politically engaged and with a far stronger sense of self as Britain has not been able to throw up a viable alternative party for leadership. They produced UKIP but that has gone nowhere and Brexit, their signal success, has foundered under the management of the established parties.

    The establishment of another political party with a chance of success would require not only a gestation of over a decade, but so dire and desperate set of circumstances to seem needed that there would not be an awful lot they could do anyway.

  12. Boambee John

    From the article

    The research found that ­“almost half of the reduction in global emissions comes from China’s participation”.

    An interesting finding, given that China’s “commitment” is to keep increasing emissions until 2030.

    It seems that Turdbull did indeed manage to repeal the laws of mathematics in Australia, and also in the US, given the involvement of the Brookings Institution in the “study”.

  13. Myrddin Seren

    From Old Ozzie’s link earlier

    Professor McKibbin told The Australian……“That said, if you just cared about jobs or real wages but didn’t care about climate or pollution, you’d stay out.”

    Can we have a vote on this ? ‘Proles – tenured academics on six-figure salaries care about carbon emissions but not your jobs and incomes. A few job eggs have to be broken to make a Green omelette. etc etc’

    Let’s see an election campaign on that one.

    The analysis, which ignored the impact of climate change ­itself, found only Australia and OPEC nations came out behind overall

    Surprise !

    ..because the benefits of less pollution

    ,

    less what pollution ? OECD countries have tided their industries up remarkably since the 1950s. It is Third World shitholes and corrupt tyrannies that keeping pumping out crap in to the air, water and land.

    … less traffic..

    And how does less traffic occur in places with rising populations due to immigration ? Because ICE cars will be banned and EVs will be expensive and limited due to lack of electricity and charging stations. SloMo or Electricity Bill – it is irrelevant. They are coming for your cars, people.

    …and lower mortality….

    People heating and coking over wood and dung fires for want of baseload modern electricity die in droves.
    How is Paris supposed to effect mortality in the developed world ?? ( I think I know the answer and it involves rationing what you eat, Comrades ).

    … under the Paris Agreement did not offset the damage to economic growth, arising largely as a result of the implicit global tax on energy exports.

    Pretty sure that last IPCC report was aimed straight at closing down Australia. Mining, electricity, no nukes, cut meat production.

    Obviously the globalists have worked out how stupid our political, government and business leadership is, and will get Australia to turn itself in to a giant national park they can point to to beat the rest of the OECD over the head with.

    Pretty sure we now have the worst leadership in the developed world.

  14. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    “If we stay in, we’re better off because if we pull out, we’ll still be getting most of the economic damage — other countries won’t be buying our ­resources so much
    This has to be a pisstake

    Yes, you’d think so. No evidence for any pedal back on Ozzie resources yet, or ever likely.

    As is obvious to all commenters above, these ‘believer’ academics know nothing about the differences between the CO2 ‘pollutant’ theory and other forms of air pollution, especially particulate pollution. That’s the kind explanation: that they cannot think straight. The unkind explanation is that in their zealotry and zeal they couldn’t lie straight in bed when it comes to convincing the voters to go down the green believer path. Any confusion and lie is a good confusion and lie then.

  15. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    tenured academics on six-figure salaries care about carbon emissions but not your jobs and incomes.

    Let’s not join them in the obfuscation. Make that carbon dioxide emissions.
    It is that trace gas and that alone upon which all of the climate madness hinges.

    Nowt t’do with resource ‘scarcity’, nor runaway population growth, nor particulate air pollutants or other chemicals and gases (ones actually proven injurious to humans, not just modelled as ending the world). All the favourite green evils, including ‘climate migrations’ and ‘climate events’ (Sydney summer for example) tend to get lumped into the political porridge of climatic apocalypse, and stirred by captive economists.

  16. Anthony

    JohnA
    #2902575, posted on January 9, 2019 at 4:56 pm

    That’s water vapour from cooling towers…

    Ok, you made me chuckle, and that’s a good callback to Rafe’s post the other day.

    Yep steam does come from the cooling towers. I don’t know how Aussie coal plants are built, however, you do get exhaust from coal combusion out of the flu stack. My understanding is the SO2, O3 and fly ash are scrubbed out somewhat and that Aussie coal is generally less bad. Similarly, in liquid fuels, the brown colour are the various impurities that aren’t great for your lungs.

    I do think that economic growth is the supreme good that powers our society. Some damage to our health and the environment is an acceptable trade off for higher living standards and longer life spans. The respratory damage from fossil fuels in Australia is probably $2B a year or so. Not much in the context of the overall economy, but you know what they say, a billion here, a billion there, it adds up after a while.

  17. Squirrel

    “The Paris Agreement then imposes very high costs not so much on the Australian economy per se, but on the people whose jobs and wages are dependent on coal and gas exports.”

    In truth, the impact will likely be on a large chunk of the workforce, given that Federal and (some) State budgets benefit from taxes/levies etc. on those exports – with that revenue being pumped into our bloated public sectors and our services dominated consumer economy.

    Sadly, we don’t seem to have a Plan B, just a school yard slanging match about emissions reductions targets and power prices, some spin about high tech, high wage jobs, and waffle about eco-tourism jobs for displaced miners.

  18. Razor

    Squirrel,
    Add to all you’ve said the loss of jobs to increased mechanisation and digitalisation and there isn’t a lot to look forward to for our kids who want to work in industry. I unfortunately see this world cleaving in two between the numerate, living a great life of luxury in their fortresses and the rest scraping out a very poorly paid existence.

    When I talk about the numerate feel free to use ‘Silicon Valley’ as a synonym.

  19. Boambee John

    Myrddin

    Pretty sure that last IPCC report was aimed straight at closing down Australia. Mining, electricity, no nukes, cut meat production.

    The IPCC was expecting Turdbull to be PM when the report came out. He would have committed us to implementation the same day.

    Same with the UN Compact on Immigration. Turdbull was supposed to be in the chair, and sign us on.

    SloMo might not be much, but he saved us from those disasters (ar least for a while).

  20. Rockdoctor

    “If we stay in, we’re better off because if we pull out, we’ll still be getting most of the economic damage — other countries won’t be buying our ­resources so much — but miss out on the benefits of curbing carbon emissions such as less pollution,” Professor McKibbin told The Australian.

    I call bullsh&^ on this statement looking at the coal price. I do admit I am biased though but for a Professor to say this garbage especially with the amount of Coal Fired power being built does his reputation no favour…

  21. Boambee John

    Razor

    I think you mean nomenklatura, a term from the days of the Soviet Union.

    These characters are definitely not numerate, or they would recognise the stupidity of their statements.

  22. gowest

    Domestic Pollution – …. That would be Bushfire “prevention” burn-offs, Swamp gas from the our river billabongs, Dead fish, sewerage gas, bird droppings, dog poo, dust, noise – loud party’s, rock concerts etc etc. Give me CO2 any day – look it up – you need it to breathe, any scuba diver knows that.

    The risk management test of any policy is – what will be the effect of getting your assumptions wrong?

    What is the effect of global warming turning into global cooling?
    If the economy actually picks up, do we have the infrastructure to take advantage of it?

    Staying in Paris locks our economy in chains – We are at Greece, Venezuela here we come – blind Freddy can see that!

  23. Confused Old Misfit

    E = mc2

    Is the answer.

  24. Razor

    Boambee John @ 7.08pm

    They will be for the most part be the nomenclatura. They will be what’s left after the west fails properly. I give us 50yrs for that to happen. Lots of socialists in the IT sector. After they’ve made their money of course. Bill Gates is a prime example.

    Prior to this the EU experiment will spread and unelected bureaucrats will run the show right across the west. Note how the elites are already setting the agenda. Climate change, veganism, open borders, nationalism now a dirty word.

  25. Boambee John

    Razor

    Lots of socialists in the IT sector. After they’ve made their money of course. Bill Gates is a prime example.

    Being a (theoretical) socialist is a bit like being a hobby farmer. You have to be rich to afford it.

  26. Razor

    Boambee John @ 8.13pm

    Love your last line! I’ll plagiarise it unmercifully!

  27. Boambee John

    Feel free to do so.

  28. I suspect from the quality of the discussion that no one on this blog
    actually read the study including Sinclair. Try checking http://www.brookings.edu for the study rather than making things up

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.