Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote:
June 27, 2020, 11:02 am
Tut tut Gergreg, you’ve clearly lost the plot!

Occam’s razor. The simplest answer is everyone else is wrong and Red Raider is a beacon of knowledge on a topic far from his expertise.
:lol: Oh no, a spelling error in your put down. I love that radio program on ABC National and presenter Robyn Williams is excellent. ABC can get the spelling correct but not you and for obvious reasons. You've lost the plot. :roflmao
The term "Occam's Razor" comes from a misspelling of the name William of Ockham. Ockham was a brilliant theologian, philosopher, and logician in the medieval period. ... The idea is always to cut out extra unnecessary bits, hence the name "razor."

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11111
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

It’s an accepted spelling... what a huge victory for you.

I’m going to go do something else now. Be worth thinking on Gergreg’s last question to you.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 16087
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

When I read threads like this, I begin to understand why some commentators refer to the 'cult of climate change'.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote:
June 27, 2020, 10:23 am
RedRaider wrote:
June 27, 2020, 1:38 am
greeneyed wrote:
June 26, 2020, 7:07 pm
RedRaider, the issue is that the technologies you're posting about are uneconomic, at present anyway, so they can't deliver the emission reduction targets. You are advocating, as I understand it a "direct action" approach, and reject a more market based approach. The trouble with so called direct action, is that it is costs the economy and taxpayers more... is less efficient and more damaging to the economy... and delivers uncertain emission reductions. Given the expense to taxpayers, it is unlikely that we will meet the targets, in my view anyway.
GE, I am posting about technologies which are being developed at present and will hopefully be proved successful and economic and in use in coming years. They should be able to stand alone and not require subsidies to be effective. These are being developed privately to meet a big gap in the power storage market. I do have faith that some of the technologies will meet this gap. In Australia we have seen some breakthrough technology in lithium sulphur batteries which have, it is claimed, to have four times the capacity of lithium ion batteries. I hope they can be developed into a commercially successful industry here in Australia. I don't recall ever mentioning a 'direct action' approach in any of my posts, let alone advocating for it. Perhaps you could point me towards a post where you have gained this impression??

Once a technology proves effective and economic then the uptake will pay for the development costs. If I use the example of mobile telephones, we didn't need to tax landline telephones to pay for the new technology. The early mobile devices were clunky of single use to send and receive calls. Now we can use them for emails, paying bills, finding out how to get to locations and multiple other uses. Government had an enabling role in providing transmission infrastructure but not in the initial development of the device or applications. I think we are at a similar early stage with the new technologies for storing power. But it will happen imo.
So, just to be clear, you don’t support governments taking any action to reduce carbon emissions at all? The strategy is purely for private sector technological development?
This is very unlike you GE. I have been through a long list of Government action from Battery of the Nation, Snowy 2.0, National Hydrogen Strategy and the longer list of other things I posted after 3am on 27 June all of which I have said a number of times I support. How you could draw a conclusion that I 'don't support governments taking any action' simply doesn't line up with what I have posted.

Did you once work on the Carbon Tax legislation? You seem very wedded to such a solution which the people of Australia have voted against. Whether you call it a carbon price or tax the effect is an increase in price. The current voting pattern of Australians is that they don't want higher prices. Until that changes I don't see your favoured solution as getting up.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131917
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

I was asking the question, as you said you were not an advocate of so-called "direct action". But that's clarified... you are advocating that approach.
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote:
June 27, 2020, 10:52 am
RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote:
June 26, 2020, 7:05 pm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... .%E2%80%9D

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net. ... e/10920500

Of course, not sure of the veracity of either publication.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Thanks gergreg, the second one in particular I have seen before but it is enlightening on the challenges ahead. The transport sector is a major area of interest for me and the growth in emissions will only be arrested by moving away from petrol and diesel internal combustion engines. There are other less emissions intensive fuels which could be used such as compressed natural gas or liquid natural gas and in particular if blended with hydrogen will greatly reduce the levels of emissions. Plug in Hybrid Electric vehicles which use a small internal combustion engine to generate electric power to for an electric motor are also a useful technology in reducing emissions on the way to full electric vehicles. The posts I have made about 'million mile' batteries are a technology which may well have not only long life uses in passenger vehicles and homes but also for powering heavy transport.

The first of the links had a huge headline but the last paragraph was a massive disclaimer.
I really don't know how to respond. As far as I can tell a large part of your argument is based on Australia doing the absolute minimum possible on climate change because other countries are worse, and by minimum it simply means we meet our Paris Agreement targets - which we are tracking not to achieve and the countries which you claim are worse are actually tracking to meet their Paris Agreement targets quicker than required and better than Australia. Does that not change your thinking on this subject?

Like I said, I honestly don't know how to respond.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Er no, to the bolded section. I am after World wide action on the issue and not limiting action to 'the few'. China gets to increase its emissions under the Paris Agreement. To say they may peak earlier than 2030 still means a massive increase in emissions. I don't know if you read the disclaimer in the NewScientist article or not. See below:
'However, Haikun and colleagues admit they didn’t analyse many small cities, which have the potential to develop more, so the real emissions may end up higher.' REAL EMISSIONS MAY END UP HIGHER. Hard to believe the worlds largest emitter is increasing emissions under the Paris Agreement. Does this not strike you as counter productive to the goal of reducing world emissions? Once again I applaud the honesty of those doing the research, but to pat the Chinese Communist Party on the back on the basis of this article is a bit premature don't you think?

User avatar
Dr Zaius
Mal Meninga
Posts: 20216
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: Climate change

Post by Dr Zaius »

I lump climate change denialists in with Covid denialists and antivaxxers. They don't like the reality of it, so they cherry pick fringe data and invent conspiracy theories.

I don't know any thing about climate science, but climate scientists do. The notion that they are making it up to somehow benefit themselves fits squarely in the antivax style conspiracy camp.

gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8328
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote:
June 27, 2020, 10:52 am
RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote:
June 26, 2020, 7:05 pm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... .%E2%80%9D

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net. ... e/10920500

Of course, not sure of the veracity of either publication.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Thanks gergreg, the second one in particular I have seen before but it is enlightening on the challenges ahead. The transport sector is a major area of interest for me and the growth in emissions will only be arrested by moving away from petrol and diesel internal combustion engines. There are other less emissions intensive fuels which could be used such as compressed natural gas or liquid natural gas and in particular if blended with hydrogen will greatly reduce the levels of emissions. Plug in Hybrid Electric vehicles which use a small internal combustion engine to generate electric power to for an electric motor are also a useful technology in reducing emissions on the way to full electric vehicles. The posts I have made about 'million mile' batteries are a technology which may well have not only long life uses in passenger vehicles and homes but also for powering heavy transport.

The first of the links had a huge headline but the last paragraph was a massive disclaimer.
I really don't know how to respond. As far as I can tell a large part of your argument is based on Australia doing the absolute minimum possible on climate change because other countries are worse, and by minimum it simply means we meet our Paris Agreement targets - which we are tracking not to achieve and the countries which you claim are worse are actually tracking to meet their Paris Agreement targets quicker than required and better than Australia. Does that not change your thinking on this subject?

Like I said, I honestly don't know how to respond.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Er no, to the bolded section. I am after World wide action on the issue and not limiting action to 'the few'. China gets to increase its emissions under the Paris Agreement. To say they may peak earlier than 2030 still means a massive increase in emissions. I don't know if you read the disclaimer in the NewScientist article or not. See below:
'However, Haikun and colleagues admit they didn’t analyse many small cities, which have the potential to develop more, so the real emissions may end up higher.' REAL EMISSIONS MAY END UP HIGHER. Hard to believe the worlds largest emitter is increasing emissions under the Paris Agreement. Does this not strike you as counter productive to the goal of reducing world emissions? Once again I applaud the honesty of those doing the research, but to pat the Chinese Communist Party on the back on the basis of this article is a bit premature don't you think?
I did read the disclaimer in the article. It's like saying Australia is tracking to not meet it's Paris Agreement targets but with a few tweaks we may meet the targets. What is the difference?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8328
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

Dr Zaius wrote:I lump climate change denialists in with Covid denialists and antivaxxers. They don't like the reality of it, so they cherry pick fringe data and invent conspiracy theories.

I don't know any thing about climate science, but climate scientists do. The notion that they are making it up to somehow benefit themselves fits squarely in the antivax style conspiracy camp.
Do you know what gets up my goat? People that live in first world countries that pin the blame on developing countries. And yes China is still a developing country when compared to us. Their big cities have joined the first world in the past few decades but they still have millions of people living in poverty, burning cow dung for heating.

We sit in Australia enjoying a quality of life, for the past 50 years, and blame China and India for wanting living conditions that we have had for 50 years. It's pretty selfish. We are totally the lucky country and I'm very grateful to have won the lottery of life in being born here.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote:
June 28, 2020, 3:14 pm
We are totally the lucky country and I'm very grateful to have won the lottery of life in being born here.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Well that is something we can agree on.

But I disagree that China is still a developing country.
If you look at World Steel production in 2018 China produced 928.3 million tonnes compared to a world total of 1,808.4 million tonnes.
World Motor Vehicle production for 2019 was 91,786,861 and China alone produced 25,720,665 or 28% of the Worlds total.
In Ship building South Korea tops it at 49,600,000 tonnes with China second on 43,900,000, Japan on 13,000,000 and the rest of the world on 5,000,000 tonnes.
If you look at 'Food Supply our World in Data' comparing 1961 to 2013 for Daily supply of Calories per person per day the figures for China are 1415 and 3108, Australia is 3091 and 3276, USA 2380 and 3682, NZ 2926 and 3137, Japan 2525 and 2726. China is clearly producing enough to feed its people.

But when it comes to emissions China burns 50.5% of the total coal consumed in the World (Worldometer). The Union of Concerned Scientists use information from the International Energy Agency updated on 11 May 2020, which put Chinese CO2 emissions at 28% of the Worlds total.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-c ... -emissions

The BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, estimates that with their current production China will run out of coal in about 38 years (pending any additional discoveries). I think it is unlikely that any other nation will be burning coal at the current rate China does. The high sustained increasing rate of coal consumption in China though, will make the goal of reducing World emissions extremely difficult in the coming decade. China is also building coal fired power stations in other nations which more readily fit as 'developing nations' eg Pakistan.

I think emissions reduction is a World issue and needs the largest emitters on board.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131917
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

China is still a developing country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

GE, The Chinese Communist Party uses a mechanism of price controls via their command economy and therefore comparisons with open market economies should be treated with caution. See below an economic explanation:

'The reason most economists are skeptical about price controls is that they distort the allocation of resources. To paraphrase a remark by Milton Friedman, economists may not know much, but they do know how to produce a shortage or surplus. Price ceilings, which prevent prices from exceeding a certain maximum, cause shortages. Price floors, which prohibit prices below a certain minimum, cause surpluses, at least for a time. Suppose that the supply and demand for wheat flour are balanced at the current price, and that the government then fixes a lower maximum price. The supply of flour will decrease, but the demand for it will increase. The result will be excess demand and empty shelves. Although some consumers will be lucky enough to purchase flour at the lower price, others will be forced to do without.'

We saw this in action when Australia had a floor price for wool. It created a surplus of production which took years to clear and although initially seen as a support to farmers, in the end they had to diversify or go broke.

Can I ask your opinion on the fact that the worlds largest CO2 emitter (28% of the world total) is expanding emissions when the Scientific consensus is that CO2 emissions need to first be stabilized and then reduced. Does this not seem to be counter to the global goal of long term reducing CO2 emissions to you? Do you support the CCP in its current policy setting, of expanding emissions?

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131917
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

I am an economist... There may be challenges in valuing production and incomes in non market based economies, but China has pursued considerable market based reforms. And the problems of valuation are not so significant so as to invalidate the country comparisons. If they were, the IMF, OECD etc would not publish them. The article mentions the qualifiers.

I do believe market mechanisms and price signals produce the best results. That’s why I support a market based mechanism - a carbon price - for dealing with carbon emissions.

I would like to see more urgent action everywhere, including China. There’s a valid argument, IMO, that developing countries have less ambitious targets than developed countries - or that developed countries help meet their adjustment costs - as their people face considerably more poverty.
Image

gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8328
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote:
June 28, 2020, 3:14 pm
We are totally the lucky country and I'm very grateful to have won the lottery of life in being born here.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Well that is something we can agree on.

But I disagree that China is still a developing country.
If you look at World Steel production in 2018 China produced 928.3 million tonnes compared to a world total of 1,808.4 million tonnes.
World Motor Vehicle production for 2019 was 91,786,861 and China alone produced 25,720,665 or 28% of the Worlds total.
In Ship building South Korea tops it at 49,600,000 tonnes with China second on 43,900,000, Japan on 13,000,000 and the rest of the world on 5,000,000 tonnes.
If you look at 'Food Supply our World in Data' comparing 1961 to 2013 for Daily supply of Calories per person per day the figures for China are 1415 and 3108, Australia is 3091 and 3276, USA 2380 and 3682, NZ 2926 and 3137, Japan 2525 and 2726. China is clearly producing enough to feed its people.

But when it comes to emissions China burns 50.5% of the total coal consumed in the World (Worldometer). The Union of Concerned Scientists use information from the International Energy Agency updated on 11 May 2020, which put Chinese CO2 emissions at 28% of the Worlds total.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-c ... -emissions

The BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, estimates that with their current production China will run out of coal in about 38 years (pending any additional discoveries). I think it is unlikely that any other nation will be burning coal at the current rate China does. The high sustained increasing rate of coal consumption in China though, will make the goal of reducing World emissions extremely difficult in the coming decade. China is also building coal fired power stations in other nations which more readily fit as 'developing nations' eg Pakistan.

I think emissions reduction is a World issue and needs the largest emitters on board.
An excellent segway to the very ordinary analogy I made in this very thread a few weeks ago - about an alcoholic father.

You blame China for burning too much coal but we supply it to them? That doesn't make sense!

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote:
July 4, 2020, 10:18 am
RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote:
June 28, 2020, 3:14 pm
We are totally the lucky country and I'm very grateful to have won the lottery of life in being born here.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Well that is something we can agree on.

But I disagree that China is still a developing country.
If you look at World Steel production in 2018 China produced 928.3 million tonnes compared to a world total of 1,808.4 million tonnes.
World Motor Vehicle production for 2019 was 91,786,861 and China alone produced 25,720,665 or 28% of the Worlds total.
In Ship building South Korea tops it at 49,600,000 tonnes with China second on 43,900,000, Japan on 13,000,000 and the rest of the world on 5,000,000 tonnes.
If you look at 'Food Supply our World in Data' comparing 1961 to 2013 for Daily supply of Calories per person per day the figures for China are 1415 and 3108, Australia is 3091 and 3276, USA 2380 and 3682, NZ 2926 and 3137, Japan 2525 and 2726. China is clearly producing enough to feed its people.

But when it comes to emissions China burns 50.5% of the total coal consumed in the World (Worldometer). The Union of Concerned Scientists use information from the International Energy Agency updated on 11 May 2020, which put Chinese CO2 emissions at 28% of the Worlds total.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-c ... -emissions

The BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, estimates that with their current production China will run out of coal in about 38 years (pending any additional discoveries). I think it is unlikely that any other nation will be burning coal at the current rate China does. The high sustained increasing rate of coal consumption in China though, will make the goal of reducing World emissions extremely difficult in the coming decade. China is also building coal fired power stations in other nations which more readily fit as 'developing nations' eg Pakistan.

I think emissions reduction is a World issue and needs the largest emitters on board.
An excellent segway to the very ordinary analogy I made in this very thread a few weeks ago - about an alcoholic father.

You blame China for burning too much coal but we supply it to them? That doesn't make sense!

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I take your point and find some truth in the Vladimir Lenin quote: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them"

Australia's exports of thermal coal to China are around 50 million tonnes per annum. In 2018 China consumed 4.64 Billion tonnes of coal which was more than the rest of the world combined. We are not a big player (around 1%) in total Chinese coal consumption. It is true however that the quality of coal varies and that Australian coal is of higher quality and therefore produces lower emissions than lower quality coal. ABC Fact Check below confirms it:

'Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told journalists he did not agree with a moratorium on Australian coal.

He said that if Australia stopped exporting coal, the countries that buy it would import it from somewhere else.

"So if Australia were to stop all of its coal exports, it would not affect - it would not reduce global emissions one iota," Mr Turnbull said.

The claim: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia exports "by and large" cleaner coal than other countries.
The verdict: Experts say Australian export coal is of a higher quality on average compared with other countries, meaning less is needed to generate the same amount of energy. This leads to lower carbon emissions by weight compared with coal from other countries. Mr Turnbull's claim checks out.'

gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8328
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

You are completely missing the point. You cannot complain about another country using coal when we friggen are the biggest exporter of coal to that country.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote:
July 4, 2020, 8:42 am
I am an economist... There may be challenges in valuing production and incomes in non market based economies, but China has pursued considerable market based reforms. And the problems of valuation are not so significant so as to invalidate the country comparisons. If they were, the IMF, OECD etc would not publish them. The article mentions the qualifiers.

I do believe market mechanisms and price signals produce the best results. That’s why I support a market based mechanism - a carbon price - for dealing with carbon emissions.

I would like to see more urgent action everywhere, including China. There’s a valid argument, IMO, that developing countries have less ambitious targets than developed countries - or that developed countries help meet their adjustment costs - as their people face considerably more poverty.
GE, my degree is also in Economics and Economic History from UNE in Armidale. I have said many times that this is a world issue needing a world wide response. China is a world leader or very high up the ladder in almost every area of economic endeavour as I have previously given examples. Australia has an International obligation under the Paris Agreement to meet its emission reduction targets. Other nations get to increase emissions although they already far outweigh the emissions from Australia. I am glad you included China in your response as needing to reduce emissions. There is a view which appears to hold Chinese emissions as sacrosanct and unable to see them as needing to be reduced.

There are geopolitical tensions which will emerge as China largely depletes its coal reserves in the period 2050-2060. There must be fossil fuel replacement technology developed and operational before that time frame imo. This is one reason I am on the new technology band wagon. With regard to a carbon price, I understand the thinking, but Australians have not voted for it at this point in time.

I agree Australia has to play it's part and deliver on its emissions reductions up to 2030. A lot will need to happen in the next decade above what has already been announced. What happens beyond 2030 will be for future Australian Governments to decide.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote:
July 4, 2020, 5:05 pm
You are completely missing the point. You cannot complain about another country using coal when we friggen are the biggest exporter of coal to that country.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I got your point and said so. The Chinese can buy the coal from other coal producers and given what has happened with barley they may well choose to do so. Again we are currently exporting around 1% of Chinese coal consumption. It is a miniscule level and easily replaced by other exporters. But it will not reduce their level of emissions. If you think China should reduce its level of emissions then we will be in agreement.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131917
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Red Raider, given you have studied economics I do find it surprising you don’t seem to support market based solutions to policy problems.

In a sense, the specific country targets don’t matter a whole lot, if you set the system up correctly. So long as the aggregate targets deliver the world wide reductions needed, and you then, say, have a market based system,which allows for tradable emissions permits... then you actually get the market working to find the cheapest ways to find reductions in carbon emissions, regardless of the country in which the activity is located. So, for example, Australia could meet its targets via support for initiatives in developing countries. This about burden sharing... and being concerned about world wide poverty and development. The wealthy countries, in my view, have an obligation to assist the less wealthy. And that’s good for world wide peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, what we are seeing today is the rise of very old fashioned mercantilistic attitudes... nationalism, power grabbing, protectionism, trade wars and maybe worse.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

GE earlier in this thread I put up one of the outcomes of the Carbon Tax. It was an increase in unemployment in Australia. There was a correlation between the implementation of the Carbon Tax and the increase in unemployment numbers and the removal of the tax which saw a decrease in unemployment numbers. Australians voted to remove the tax. I don't see either side of politics likely to reintroduce such a market based solution. There are proposals coming through in Australia which stand on their own. I'll provide an example from this week published in the Financial Review:

World's largest solar farm and battery to export green energy

A plan to build the world's largest solar farm and battery in the Northern Territory and connect it to supply power to Singapore and Indonesia has been granted "major project status" by the federal government.

Energy and Emissions Minister Angus Taylor said the $22 billion project, known as the Australia-ASEAN Power Link and backed by Atlassian's Mike Cannon-Brookes and Fortescue Metals founder Andrew Forrest, would help Australia maintain its position as a leading energy exporter.

Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/clim ... 55h26.html

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131917
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

I’m sorry RedRaider... can you supply me with the regressions which show this correlation? Because I know it’s it’s absolutely incorrect. No sensible, credible statistical analysis would show that over the period you’ve mentioned.

Economists worth their salt don’t focus on transitional costs in any case. They understand them and suggest ways to deal with the transition. They don’t abandon the best course. They push for the thing which maximises the best long term growth. It’s like you’re arguing in favour of tariffs because a car plant closed six months after a tariff reduction. Economists push for genuine, sustainable long term growth in employment and the economy.

You say the voters chose... I don’t think we can conclude that. But in any case, economists don’t change their economic advice on that basis. They understand the economics and argue for the best solution. They argue for it over a long period... because it is easy for vested interests to stop genuine economic reform. We might then push for the second best and third best solution... but you seem to be pumping for the solution that has the least basis in economics.

You can quote me all the stories you like about this battery, or that wind farm. It doesn’t convince me. As I actually understand the economics of the technologies... and what’s required to deliver on the emissions targets. And the current pace of technological development is going to fall well short of what is required to make a genuine impact on climate change.
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

GE, back on October 25, 2019 I put a graph on Australian unemployment levels in a post which showed the unemployment lagged effect of the Carbon tax before during and after. While I accept that there are a number of factors which lead to these outcomes there are also drivers.

Your point on Economists not focusing on transitional costs is well made and the consequences affect people in the real world. Unemployment has massive consequences as we are seeing now. Hopefully the current economic impacts of the health shock will rebound once a long term sustainable answer to the virus and its treatment can be found.

GE, the 'Axe the Tax' campaign resulted in 90 seats being won by the coalition in 2013 out of a total of 150. Labor got 55. It was a clear outcome.
Australians are looking for other solutions. Private industry is putting up alternatives (this one in NT) and the Federal Government is backing that with 'Major Project Status' which will hopefully clear the way for this massive renewable energy project. Should this path prove to be successful there is nothing stopping other commercial groups or even Federal or State Governments from investing in such technologies and possibly obtaining a dividend from commercial operations which could lower pressure on the overall tax burden. I am one who sees no issue with Governments running commercial enterprise as long as it is done on a commercial basis.

I have no reason to doubt your bona fides on this or any other subject GE. I think there will be acceleration in technological development as economies increasingly 'go electric'. The remote locations of these renewable power projects will require large scale inter-connectors between States. Just like the ones being developed from Tasmania to the mainland and from SA to NSW and Qld to NSW. Government has a role in providing these basic infrastructure enablers.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11111
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Don’t you get tired of being wrong RedRaider?

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131917
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider... I think you’ve missed my point. I don’t believe you’ve provided any statistically sound correlation between the CPRS and unemployment. And you certainly haven’t shown causation of unemployment from the CPRS. It simply wasn’t in operation for long enough.

And my point about transitional costs was not intended to say economists don’t care about unemployment. Of course they do. But they also know that sound, strong, sustainable economies are based on good policy settings... which have an eye on the medium to long term. Policies which ensure that markets work well and that aim for the most efficient outcomes. That price signals operate properly. If there are transitional costs in putting those policies in place, if there are short term disruptions to employment, we help those who need to adjust. That’s what economists recommend.

Tariffs were electorally popular for decades, if not 100 years. That has never stopped economists from pointing out how damaging they are to the Australian economy. From building the evidence for change. Undoubtedly, eliminating tariffs produces transitional unemployment. But doing it increases the welfare of all Australians. Doing it produces stronger, sustainable economic growth and employment in the medium and long term. Economists worth their salt argue for the best policies. Not what populist politicians like Donald Trump promulgate. It’s the same with reducing carbon emissions. Economists push for the best options.

What you’re advocating is the most costly way of reducing carbon emissions, to meet our targets, to meaningfully address climate change. It will be the most costly for employment and the economy in the longer run. That is if the policies actually deliver the planned emission reductions. Unfortunately, many people... and I hasten to add, I’m not saying you... who argue for “direct action” don’t want to address the emissions and climate change at all. They don’t say it, but they’re actually wanting to push the transition out into the future... but by then it will be too late.
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

GE, in a democracy politicians need to argue the case for change and put it to the Australian people. The Carbon tax was put in place for 2 years and the figures show a decline in employment levels. See below the graph and comments from my post of October 25 2019. As you are aware, unemployment stats are a lagging indicator.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 4ISkCovQ&s

Not sure if this graph came out, but it tracks unemployment from 2004 to 2017. The Global Financial impacts of 2008/09 are clearly evident. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. It also shows that unemployment rates increased to a point above the Global Financial shocks between 2013 and 2015. Whilst not attributing the total unemployment effect solely to the carbon tax, once it was repealed in 2014, the unemployment rate fell from 2015."

It is possible that the Australian people will accept the additional costs a carbon price will bring. But it should be put to them. Imo it was very clearly put to the Australian people in 2013 and the consensus was not positive. I get that you are an advocate of carbon pricing as a solution, but it is not the only solution. I would be interested to know why you think private businesses investing in massive renewable energy projects (eg NT) is "the most costly way of reducing carbon emissions"?

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131917
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider... I’ve explained why this stuff about the CPRS and unemployment is bogus. There is absolutely no evidence of causation... there can’t be. The CPRS simply wasn’t in place for long enough.

I have previously explained at great length why the so called “direct action” approach is more expensive and costly for employment and the economy. I won’t go over it again. There’s nothing wrong with private businesses investing in low carbon emission technologies. Of course there’s not. It is just that this is going to be wildly inadequate in achieving the reductions in carbon emissions that we need to meet our targets... let alone what’s needed to actually address climate change.

It’s quite possible that COVID will induce such a recession that we achieve the targets... but that’s a horrible way of getting there, given the economic consequences for everyone in the community. It won’t be because we’ve restructured the economy so as to achieve a lower carbon intensive economy.
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

GE, the carbon tax was in place for 2 years. The Clean Energy Act 2011 became effective from 1 july 2012 and was repealed on 17 July 2014 backdated to 1 July 2014. The unemployment graph shows rising unemployment from 2013 to 2015 which is expected of a lagging indicator. The unemployment rate then began to decline. While there are a number of factors which affect the unemployment rate I don't believe it was purely coincidence the numbers came out as they did. Rising input costs are a factor affecting employment in open markets where imports can replace domestic production, or encourage local productive capacity to move off shore.

There is no doubt that the Covid shock and the necessary responses to it, has already produced a recession. The length and depth of the recession are still to be determined but the Stage 4 restrictions now introduced into Victoria will reduce economic activity there and flow on to other parts of Australia. I clearly remember the last recession of the early 1990's and the years it took to recover. One good piece of news is that Truck manufacturing and assembly has recommenced in Australia after a short shut down due to Covid. Despite the bad news from Victoria here's hoping other industries can recover like that of truck manufacturing. i don't see that happening with overseas tourism until well into 2021 at the earliest. Australia is rightly locked down. We are living in historic times.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7855
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote:
August 2, 2020, 8:38 am
Don’t you get tired of being wrong RedRaider?
I trust you are well Gangers and have a good supply of jelly beans should you again go into lockdown.

Stay Safe.

Post Reply