Warning: 450ppm CO2 target would delay doubling of GNP by 6 whole months!

Criticise him as a utopian leftwing pinko as you wish to, but Clive Hamilton has clearly highlighted how current governing structures and economic practices are ill-equipped to handle climate change legislation.

Hamilton has pointed out that, in Australia at least according to Garnaut's modelling, a target of 450ppm of carbon dioxide is going to delay the doubling of Australia's GNP by only 6 months compared to a target of 550ppm.^[source] To state the obvious it is an incredibly trivial delay in the great scheme of things. And the delay compared to having no target whatsoever would still only be 2.5 years.

I used to think enacting major social change was largely a case of causing a swing in public opinion to a critical mass which would in turn result in the necessary changes to policy and legislation. But what about the case where public opinion has shifted in support of change, but the science of the issue is too complex (and dare I say esoteric) that the layperson doesn't have any real idea of political and legal changes required to achieve the outcomes desired by public consensus?

To me this is the problem of legislating to combat climate change and it's a global one. Mass opinion has already shifted. Sure there are still very vocal and otherwise-intelligent skeptics out there but even if they are right (and I don't for one second believe they are) public opinion has overtaken them anyway. The problem is translating public consensus to combat global warming and live sustainably into real and effective policy.

This problem truly makes a case for acknowledging and tackling the economic growth fetish, as Hamilton describes it. In this sense, public opinion still needs some swaying, but this is a much tougher task.

More people need to be exposed to and contemplate the idea of economic growth being a fetish... This way public consciousness relating to climate change could be raised in a way that makes the truly desirable legislatory path (i.e. the one that is in the best interests of society as a whole) clear and obvious.

Related older blogposts by me:

• Why sticking to old ways of thinking is stupid (25 February, 2008)
• Buy nothing on election day: On Growth Fetish and Buy Nothing Day (19 November, 2007)

The Clive Hamilton opinion piece came from Crikey.com.au subscriber article (8 September 2008)^{[subscriber link]} from which I paste large chunks here:

Garnaut bows to the insanity of growth fetishism by Clive Hamilton

The Garnaut report demonstrates how our obsession with economic growth is so powerful that we are unwilling to contemplate sacrificing a tiny amount of consumption now to sharply reduce the risk of climate catastrophe.

The report presents modelling results on the economic implications of stabilising atmospheric concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) versus allowing them to rise to 550 ppm. (The pre-industrial level was 280 ppm of CO2 and we have now reached 387 ppm.)

The 450 ppm target will be accompanied by warming of about 2°C by the end of the century while 550 ppm is likely to see warming of 3°C.

Climate scientists believe that the difference between the two is huge with 550 ppm dramatically increasing the likelihood of catastrophes and runaway climate change – such as an irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet resulting in sea-level rise of 7 metres. That would rule out any chance of returning the atmosphere to a safe level for thousands of years.

Yet Garnaut’s recommendation that the Government aim for a 10% reduction over 2000 levels is based on the belief that stabilizing at 450 ppm is politically infeasible and we must reluctantly accept a 550 ppm world.

How much will pursuing the 550 ppm target cost us in terms of lost income? Garnaut says it will shave a little more than 0.1 per cent from GNP growth through to 2050. This means that instead of growing annually at, say, 2.5 per cent if we do nothing, GNP per person would grow at "only" 2.4 per cent if we aim at 550 ppm. Aiming at 450 ppm would cost only fractionally more.

The welfare cost can best be understood as follows. With an annual real growth rate of 2.5 per cent per person, then with no carbon abatement Australia’s GNP will double by 2040. If from 2012 we aim for the 550 target our GNP will not double until 2049, i.e. we will have to wait an additional two years. And, according to Garnaut's modelling, if we aim for the much safer target of 450, we will have to wait another six months.

...

The economic impact of pursuing a target of 450 ppm rather than 550 ppm is so small that it will be exceeded by the normal statistical error involved in measuring GNP growth. Yet it seems that this amount is so large that it renders the safe option politically infeasible.

...

Garnaut himself ... asks "Is it worth paying over the course of the century less than 1 per cent of GNP for the non-market benefits, insurance value and the enhancing value beyond the 21st century of the 450 strategy?"

He says this is a matter of judgment. Anyone who has to give more than a moment’s thought to this choice must be deluded.

...

Image courtesy of Stephen Leahy.
Categorised as: philosophy, society
Technorati Tags: Garnaut report, Australian economy, Clive Hamilton, growth fetish, public opinion

Why sticking to old ways of thinking is stupid

I just read an article which tried to critique the Clive Hamilton view of affluenza, "Why Downsizing Won't Work" by Akshay Shanker. It's a relatively immature effort to defend the economic fetish with growth while paying lip service to environmentalism/conservation.

His basic premise was that affluence (eg. in post-Industrial Britain) could create the awareness and general social conditions that gave rise to the conservation movement and stimulated action to combat climate change and so therefore more affluence would mean more conservation and action to combat climate change. In other words, we keep our growth-focused economic policies in place and, voila, climate change mess begone!

...the view that modern capitalist society is too affluent is incorrect - and dangerous. Modern capitalism is poor. The key to a more sustainable future lies in more growth and more affluence, not de-development...

It's a nice thought experiment, but I don't think it's a very smart or accurate prediction. I just don't think it makes sense to extrapolate this much older trend and suggest greater affluence could somehow magically solve environmental problems. It's as stupid as "well one woman can make a baby in nine months so let's get nine women working together to create one in just a month". Sometimes a little consideration of the deeper logic makes you realise how unintuitive an idea really is.

A reader named Stephen Kennedy commented after me and said "Can anyone spell 'paradigm shift'? We are not spending our way out of this one," and I really agree.

What do you think?

Categorised as: philosophy, politics
Technorati Tags: climate change, Akshay Shanker, Clive Hamilton, conservation movement, greens movement, affluenza, growth economics

Well I failed, but Rudd government doing okay...

First an update on Buy Nothing Day the Saturday before last... I failed miserably to buy nothing on Buy Nothing Day. Not only was it a Saturday but a day when the Howard government was chucked out after 11 years, meaning a celebration was absolutely in order!

First I bought a sausage on bread at the polling booth where I volunteered because I was hungry. Second I bought some hommus to take to the party. Third we bought some wine on the way to the party. Then I almost but not quite sold my soul to the Greens.

On the topic of greening, I want to publicly commend Rudd for already ratifying the Kyoto Protocol to a standing ovation. (Well effectively ratified. Apparently the UN takes around 90 working days to make it official... wow what a bureaucracy!)

Australia received huge applause at a UN conference on climate change in Bali after it was announced Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had begun to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr Rudd says signing the instrument of ratification means Australia will be a full member of the Kyoto Protocol before March next year.

This means Australia's greenhouse gas emissions should not be higher than 8 per cent above 1990 levels.

Some delegates of the 12-day conference of parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also gave a standing ovation over the signing. (source)

I don't care much for the grumblings that all this is yet to be properly costed and that it might have a deleterious effect on the economy. This is a win for public consciousness; a measurable shift in the zeitgeist. I look forward to the newly-raised awareness people will start to have, given Australia's sudden and decisive ratification of Kyoto. Now, there is no silly defence of "Well I'm sure if it was a serious problem John Howard would be doing something about it". Those people, happy to trust in their almighty leader, have just been told in no uncertain terms that human-caused climate change is a problem.

Not only did Rudd deliver on this Kyoto promise sooner than expected, but I notice he has set up a series of public accountability mechanisms that show potential to both encourage productivity and discourage unfulfilled promises from the new government. See first his 5 key aims (via Gam) and second Crikey's assessment:

Kevin Rudd has indicated that he's going to be big on report cards during his term. Report cards for his ministers, a report card for himself... (source)

I shouldn't be surprised. This is just basic good, responsible management, but it's such a shock to the system after 11 years!

Categorised as: politics, society
Technorati Tags: climate change, Australian politics, Kevin Rudd, Kyoto Protocol, accountability, Green politics

Costello budget 2007: Will he add a stripe of green?

In the lead-up to Costello's May 8th, election year budget speech, Greenpeace is asking you to guess how many times you think he'll mention climate change (if at all), given he's never mentioned it since he started doing budgets eleven odd years ago.

Take a punt on Peter

Given the fact that Australia is still the world's largest exporter of coal, he may just be able to manage it once or twice with a spin towards keeping Australia beautiful while still keeping our coal mines alive and exporting to China – or whichever poor country it ends up in.

Sure the ice has been breaking up, but we just thought that too many penguins were pecking at it.^[source]

In related hilarity, last week a video of "Costello's other budget speech" was released on YouTube, which might help you decide on your answer to Greenpeace's question. Bob Brown would be a deeper shade of green with envy! Good luck striking the right balance on the 8th, Peter!

Categorised as: politics
Technorati Tags: Peter Costello, climate change, global warming, Greenpeace, Bob Brown, coal, Australian politics, green politics

I'm dreaming of a whiiiite new year!

My blog post here is in large part inspired by Geoff of Radwaste's happy Christmas post which links to Dame Edna's Christmas message. The Dame ends of in customary style "I wish all of my possums..." blah blah blah "...a very wet New Year." Apt, given, as Geoff points out, this Christmas was the coldest in Radwaste recorded history, and in my personal memory.

In Melbourne and Adelaide people were lighting fires on Christmas eve! We thought about lighting one where we were in rural SA too, but we convinced ourselves it must be against the law to do it in December out there. It turns out that parts of Australia even got a white Christmas to rival the ones we all see in the Christmas cards based on the midwinter yuletide of Europe.

Hilarious, given all the dire predictions of continued El Niño and an exceptionally hot and dry Aussie summer to break the hearts of those already hit by drought.

In other news, while I was in Hong Kong apparently my CEO – yes one of those guys who is supposed to be pragmatic and hungry for success and increased revenue at all costs – announced that he would like all of us in the company to be able to earn enough to live in an environmentally sustainable manner. Essentially, one of the most important ideas to come out of 2006 is that global warming and global climate change are real and really happening.

Okay, okay, the Aussie weather anomalies are apparently due to a weakening El Niño event, which has no agreed scientific cause, but logic be damned, it feels weird! And if it inspires action from Al Gore, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Branson and my CEO then it has to be a good thing. Then bring on the snow for new year's eve please!

So, instead of the usual near-platitudes, let me wish you all a 2007 where you and I really do something to tackle this problem instead of just thinking about it...

But it doesn't feel right without the wishes of love, joy and peace to the world... Thanks to you all who blogged with a heart this year... and thanks for reading and commenting here too!

Mt Donna Buang photograph by James Boddington; Hong Kong sunset photograph by Mish
Categorised as: nature, philosophy
Technorati Tags: new year, 2007, climate change, Australian climate, global warming, Mt Donna Buang, El Niño, ENSO, snow, Christmas, Radwaste, Al Gore, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Branson, environmental sustainability