Agreement in Paris

Pic courtesy The Guardian

The agreement recently signed in Paris is very significant, but perhaps not for the reasons trumpeted in most of the mainstream media.

Sure, there is now an international goal of reducing carbon emissions which should help ensure a viable future for generations ahead, and a rational application of the precautionary principle.

But that is not, gentle reader, the most significant element of this event.

As far as I know, this is the first time that so many nations have agreed on anything.

This demonstration of harmony, and its associated display of consensus is extraordinary.

This is best displayed by the reactions of the conflict entrepreneurs, both here and in the US.

Variously, the agreement is characterised as a socialist conspiracy, an attempt by the elites to take over, or the aberration of a lunatic religion.

These reactions convince me, just as the science does, that the agreement is critically important. The deniers have the same world view as those who authorised the spraying of deadly defoliant on the jungles of Vietnam.

Back then, the end justified the means, and now, the same thinking is revealed by these reactions. The difference is that the "end" is greed, not a military victory.

The result will probably be the same, but not before a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth by those with vested interest in the status quo.

It occurs to me that if so many nations can reach a consensus on this issue, then perhaps they should, under the auspices of the UN, begin looking at other significant international problems, such as poverty, preventable disease, and international terrorism.

In the case of the latter, any effort would have to be more successful that the current approach.

  

The Power of Humour

The power of humour is neglected when it comes to this issue.

Note that I didn't use the word "debate".

There can only be a debate when the facts are contestable. When it comes to AGW, they're not.

That doesn't stop those with vested interest in the status quo muddying the waters.

(Language warning).

I Dare Not Speak Its Name

There was a time when I used to comment on Sinclair Davidson's Catallaxy blog.

It is a refuge for a weird bunch. Regular contributors include bitter ex-service personnel who never left Australia, raving imperialists, absolute nutters, and the occasional psychopath, but it was always excellent entertainment.

Then I was banned.

The reason for this was my mention of the fact that mining companies receive a rebate on diesel fuel costs, which amounts to a fair old whack (it will amount to $14 billion in the next four years). This was in the context of complaints about the taxpayer subsidising alternative energy investment through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

This issue is being kicked around again. Metronome Tone has thrown a tanty because he has been unable to shut down said CEFC. The senate won't let him.

The point is, the extent of subsidies to the mining industry to those with a finger in the pie like Davidson is censored information. You dare not speak its name. There are too many irons in the fire - too much vested interest. The truth spoils the narrative.

The report of the Australia Institute is lengthy, but this extract from the introduction gives you an idea of the extent of the taxpayer support for these profitable enterprises -

This paper is the first attempt to put a dollar figure on the value of state assistance to the mining industry. It shows that over a six-year period, state governments in Australia spent $17.6 billion supporting the mineral and fossil fuel industries. Queensland’s assistance was by far the largest of all states, totalling $9.5 billion, followed by Western Australia’s at $6.2 billion.
State government assistance to the mineral and fossil fuel industries appears substantial even when compared to big budget items, such as health, education and law and order. For example, Queensland’s expenditure on these industries in 2013-14 is similar to the amount to be spent on disability services and capital expenditure on hospitals. Queensland will spend as much on supporting the mining industry as it does on supporting some of its most vulnerable citizens. Similarly, industry assistance in Western Australia is substantial when compared to police and health, and in New South Wales, it is comparable to other important budget items such as managing the state’s national parks and providing accommodation for those with disabilities.

If you are interested in the history and quantum of these subsidies, read this. 

You'll need to put some time aside. It's 70 pages long.

The amount of these subsidies is eye-watering.

But, whatever you do, don't speak or write about it in public. 

Laudato Si

James Martin, another Jesuit, has summarized Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato Si.

He has developed ten points -
1. The spiritual perspective is now part of the discussion on the environment.
2. The poor are disproportionately affected by climate change.
3. Less is more.
4. Catholic social teaching now includes teaching on the environment.
5. Discussions about ecology can be grounded in the Bible and church tradition.
6. Everything is connected - including the economy.
7. Scientific research on the environment is to be praised and used.
8. Widespread indifference and selfishness worsen environmental problems.
9. Global dialogue and solidarity are needed.
10. A change of heart is required.

You can read the whole summary here.

Or better still, read the whole encyclical here.

And being the practical soul that he is, Francis offers some tips here.

Tilting at Windmills*

Wind generators at Windy Hill, near Ravenshoe, FNQ.

Our esteemed PM made a few interesting observations about wind farms when talking to Alan Jones (AKA The Parrot) yesterday.

To quote him - "Up close, they're ugly, they're noisy and they may have all sorts of other impacts."

This was despite the fact that he admitted in the same interview that the closest he had actually come to a turbine was to cycle past one on Rottnest Island.

Given that he wasn't all that "up close", the reference to "ugly" may not necessarily be based on a considered aesthetic understanding. Whizzing along on a bike with your bum in the air and your head down is not the best viewing situation.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

But "noisy", and "other sorts of impacts"....hmm.....

I spent a fair bit of time a few years ago at Windy Hill Wind Farm near Ravenshoe, and I don't remember any noise at all. There are twenty towers in that farm, and the wind was blowing on the day, and the turbines were turning. 

We had driven out from Herberton (where we were staying at the time) specifically to have a gander at the towers, something that lots of tourists do. You know how it is, you always go looking for ugliness when you're touring.......... 

Maybe I'm deaf, or my memory is playing tricks. Far be it from me to suggest that our PM is making stuff up. But then we come to the bit about "may have all sorts of other impacts". 

Let's look at the facts from the National Health and Medical Research Council -

(2015 ISBN - online - 978-0-9923968-0-0 Internet site: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ 
 The National Health and Medical Research Council - p169)

The evidence considered does not support the conclusion that wind turbines have direct adverse effects on human health, as the criteria for causation have not been fulfilled. Indirect effects of wind farms on human health through sleep disturbance, reduced sleep quality, quality of life and perhaps annoyance are possible. Bias and confounding could, however, be possible explanations for the reported associations upon which this conclusion is based.

Now this is just one of scores of studies that have come to the same conclusion.

But windmill-tilting Tony uses the word "may" to great effect. 

I mean, pigs may fly, but there is no evidence to believe that they have that capacity. 

It's long time since I've read Cervantes, but from memory the windmill-tilting Don Quixote was more than a little bonkers. And with him was Sancho Panza, his dense but trusty squire. Reminds me a bit of five-house Joe. He doesn't like windmills either. They make a lovely pair.

And this person is our PM? 

Now that's a worry................ 


*H/T Claire 

Hot Air

 Some time ago, I conducted my own personal analysis of the greenhouse gas controversy.

I did this because I became tired of reading op-ed pieces written by journalists who had no more scientific training and experience than I had. In my process, I avoided reading op-ed pieces and consulted only scientific journals.

It was interesting, therefore to come across someone else who has essentially done exactly the same. The significant difference with this bloke is that he is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley.

Some extracts are quotable -

Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by about 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years, including an increase of five-sixths of one degree over the past 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this rise is from humans' emission of greenhouse gases.

And -

Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
 
He dismissess much of the hype -

 It is a scientist's duty to be properly sceptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. Polar bears aren't dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren't going to melt by 2035.

But concludes -

As CO2 emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, almost one degree over land in the next 50 years; less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth and its vast use of coal, that same warming could take place in fewer than 20 years.

This concurs with some of my previous writings on the topic. This is a letter I sent to Ian MacFarlane some time ago -

Dear Ian

Everybody seems to be writing about climate change.

Almost without exception, these writers adopt a position on the issue related to their political views.
Given that the concern originated from the scientific community, the fact that it has become controversial is bizarre. There’s no doubt that the issue has been picked up by both ends of the political spectrum to fit specific (and very different agendae) but it really isn’t a political issue.

What is to me alarming are the recent assertions of both sides of the debate. On the one hand we hear hysterical conspiracy theories about world domination. On the other we are scared witless with forecasts of death by fire, floods or starvation. These polemics simply complicate what is basically a simple issue.

Like many other Australians I have children. Like many other Australians I take out insurance. I don’t believe that this insurance is a waste of money, even when my house doesn’t burn down, or my car isn’t written off.

I believe that it is reasonable to insure the future of our planet against two basic threats which would affect the quality of the lives of my children and grandchildren. If we have to make financial and lifestyle sacrifices as part of this insurance then I can live with that.

The first threat is the strong likelihood that exponentially escalating carbon emissions are having negative effects long-term on climate. The second is that we are consuming non-renewable energy resources at a rate that isn’t sustainable if we want to enjoy the same lifestyle benefits currently available.

Either or both of these trends will bring us to a point where the benefits of not acting now will be far exceeded by the costs if we don’t.

Even if you completely reject the IPCC consensus, the issue of depletion of non-renewable will simply not go away.

I’ve been trained in risk analysis. I understand the low-risk high-consequence component of basic risk management. There is no more severe consequence to taking an unnecessary risk than the degradation of our planet. That consideration alone should be enough to convince the most avid sceptic that we need to act. Sure, we don’t need the hype, we don’t need political positions to be taken and defended, but we do need basic behaviour change on the part of individuals, corporations and nations.

For me, the most convincing argument comes from personal experience.

My wife and I lost our firstborn child (a daughter), in 1982. The post-mortem indicated that she died of an aneurism that was a result of a congenital defect. The reason for the defect was never established, but studies42 of the children of Vietnam Veterans contain some very convincing statistics.

This experience, by itself is a powerful personal motivator to support planned and dogged action by individuals and government to maintain our planet as a viable life source for future generations.

I am one of many veterans sprayed with Agent Orange. I've returned to Vietnam on a number of occasions in the last few years and seen vast swathes of the countryside that still haven't recovered after forty years. I've visited Vietnamese institutions for people with disabilities and have been staggered and horrified by the extent and number of these congenital malformations.

Vietnam has one of the highest incidence rates of these malformations on the planet. The use of this defoliant was an example of utter contempt of the natural environment. This mindset continues today in the attitude many of the sceptics. It is arrogant, totalitarian and basically suicidal.

These people can commit to future infanticide if they wish, but I don’t think it’s fair that they force the rest of us to join them.

There are some basic principles. If you want to blog about AGW, do so by all means, but avoid op-eds, stick to the scientific journals, and leave the politics out of it.

Other People's Opinions 2

This article was published in The Age today.

The author is John Cook, who runs the Sceptical Science website

I'm breaking a self-imposed rule by republishing this, as I've blogged before about journalists writing opinion pieces about science, but I'll provide the citations that Cook refers to, even if he didn't.

He calls it Half the truth on emissions.

Cherry-picking the evidence to suit a pseudo-scientific argument misses the alarming reality.
A YIDDISH proverb states ''a half truth is a whole lie''. By withholding vital information, it's possible to lead you towards the opposite conclusion to the one you would get from considering the full picture. In Bob Carter's opinion piece on this page yesterday, this technique of cherry-picking half-truths is on full display, with frequent examples of statements that distort climate science.
The partial truths are further bolstered by scientific statements that have almost no basis in fact. It is not surprising that people present such fallacies, since the blogosphere is full of climate pseudo-science, but it is surprising that newspapers are still reporting such statements. Opinion is one thing, but scientific fact is another. Every major science body in the world has effectively refuted the assertions made by Carter.
So what is the full picture? To understand what's happening to the global climate, we need to look at temperature change over the entire planet. Two scientific teams - NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1) and the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecast (2)  - have constructed temperature records spanning the whole globe. Both find consistent results, using independent methods, with the two hottest years on record being 2010 and 2005. Both find the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, with melting sea ice acting as a positive feedback that amplifies the warming.

More importantly, temperature trends are not established by drawing lines between individual warm and cool years. It's the long-term trend that counts and the most recent decade was the warmest on record. Long-term warming trends are agreed upon by all international meteorological agencies.
But there's a bigger picture still. The temperature record tells us what's happening to surface temperature. But signs of warming are being observed all over the climate system. Over the past decade, ice loss from the huge ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica has been steadily accelerating. Currently, Greenland is losing 300 billion tonnes of ice a year. Over the same period, Arctic sea ice has been thinning and melting, glaciers have been shrinking at an accelerating rate (3) and seasons are shifting due to warming temperatures. All these facts, including their uncertainties, are not considered in isolation by scientists; it's the overall picture that matters.
What's driving this warming? There is no mystery or guesswork about the cause of recent global warming - it can be directly measured. Satellites observe less radiation escaping to space at those exact wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation. Less heat escaping to space means more heat returning to Earth and this is confirmed by surface measurements. An increased greenhouse effect should also cause a cooling of the upper atmosphere, and this is confirmed by satellites and weather balloons. From these observations, scientists concluded ''this experimental data should effectively end the argument by sceptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming''.
Enter Bob Carter and his deliberate brand of climate cherry-picking and false, but plausible, assertions. He has long hung his hat on the proposition the climate has been cooling since 1998. But with 2005 and 2010 being the hottest years on record, he resorts to cherry-picking which dataset to use. Rather than use temperature records that cover the entire globe, he opts for datasets that do not include the Arctic region, where warming is the strongest. These temperature records underestimate recent warming and are the darling of those who wish to deny global warming is happening.
The half-truths become more tenuous as Carter's piece progresses. He argues that carbon dioxide is beneficial as it acts as a valuable plant fertiliser. Studies show mixed results for carbon dioxide fertilisation for different species and different climate regimes. But this line of argument fails to recognise that plants also need water and the right temperature range to flourish. Over the past 40 years as temperatures have risen, drought severity has also increased. This is exerting significant pressure on agriculture as water supplies become strained.
Labelling Carter's final ''scientific fact'' as a half-truth is giving it too much credence. According to Carter, it's a fact that "extra carbon dioxide helps to shrink the Sahara Desert, green the planet and feed the world. Ergo, carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor dangerous, but an environmental benefit."
These are ludicrous statements that fly in the face of 20 years of scientific research. Rapidly increasing carbon dioxide will most likely lead to a rapidly changing climate, and decades of research has not painted such a rosy picture of the environmental and socio-economic impacts. Dismissing all of that science on the basis that carbon dioxide is plant food is like dismissing that effluent can ever be a pollutant since blood and bone gets put on garden beds.
It is not really possible to assess Carter's other assertions on the economy since, unlike climate, the economy is not constrained by fundamental physical laws of the universe. Nevertheless, it is interesting that a self-professed sceptic is able to present, as fact, that reducing carbon emissions will result in the closing down of the Australian economy. This is despite the fact that numerous economic analyses find the benefits of climate action outweigh the costs several times over.
It is also interesting that self-professed sceptics, who believe that there is simply no way of determining to what degree carbon dioxide concentrations will affect climate, can precisely estimate the effect of Australia's emissions on global-mean temperature. Everyone understands that global efforts are required to reduce carbon pollution. Australia, as one of the highest carbon emitters per capita, is in an ideal position to positively influence global negotiations. Those who argue that Australia is an insignificant player underestimate our role on the global stage and our potential to be a leader in reducing carbon pollution.
Bob Carter exhorts us to "pay attention to the facts and keep an open mind". Ironically, he has closed his mind to any evidence that conflicts with his preconceived views and suspends critical thought when presenting his own doomsday scenarios. Carter's article shows how cherry-picked information can mislead and distort the science - embodying the proverb, "a half-truth is a whole lie".

Sources - 

1. 2011-01-28: The NASA/GSFC Scientific Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) - rolling five-year mean of the global surface temperature anomaly.
 2. 2010 - 03 - 14: European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts - Set I: Products from the Deterministic Atmospheric Model- 2005 - 2010. 
3. I. M. Howat, Y. Ahn, I. Joughin, M. R. van den Broeke, J. T. M. Lenaerts, and B. Smith (2011), Mass balance of Greenland's three largest outlet glaciers, 2000–2010, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L12501, doi:10.1029/2011GL047565.

More Light Than Heat - Does it Work?

For this exercise, I’m trying to examine if the application of a carbon tax will do anything to mitigate the effects of global warming.

You’ll note that I’m not getting into the debate about whether anything this country does will be pissing in the wind, given that we contribute a very small proportion of the worldwide output of the gases doing the damage.

I’ve already established in previous posts that most of the rest of the world - including the big polluters are taking action – either in a nationally coordinated fashion (like Europe) or in a relatively uncoordinated fashion (like China and the USA). Therefore there’s no point in beefing on about “going it alone”. It’s a pity a few of the more vocal pollies don’t do the basic reading.

Again, I’m not using newspaper reports, blog posts or polemic monographs as sources. When I was a student at Uof Q back in the 70s and 80s, I’d have been hauled across the coals for that. I’m not going to break a sound academic habit which has served me well in the past.
My sources are the scientific journals – boring and dense as they are. These days however, thanks to the interweb, these journals are eminently accessible, particularly if you hold a few subscriptions.


To avoid boring you to tears, I’ll use the abstracts.


The first thing I’d like to investigate is whether action such as putting a price on carbon will make any difference. The first article is called -

Energy and emission scenarios for China in the 21st century—exploration of baseline development and mitigation options

If you want the whole thing you can purchase it online for $19.95, but the abstract says it all -

In this paper, we have used the simulation model to develop a set of energy and emission scenarios for China between 1995 and 2100, based on the global baseline scenarios published by IPCC. The purpose of the study was to explore possible baseline developments and available options to mitigate emissions. The two main baseline scenarios of the study differ, among others, in the openness of the Chinese economy and in economic growth, but both indicate a rapid growth in carbon emissions (2.0% and 2.6% per year in the 2000–2050 period). The baseline scenario analysis also shows that an orientation on environmental sustainability can not only reduce other environmental pressures but also lower carbon emissions. In the mitigation analysis, a large number of options has been evaluated in terms of impacts on investments, user costs, fuel imports costs and emissions. It is found that a large potential exists to mitigate carbon emissions in China, among others in the form of energy efficiency improvement (with large co-benefits) and measures in the electricity sector. Combining all options considered, it appears to be possible to reduce emissions compared to the baseline scenarios by 50%.

This is a no-brainer in that it shows two things – that emissions in China will continue to increase, and that they can be reduced by a simple change in industry orientation. Given that China is a command economy, this is relatively cheerful news, and lines up neatly with action already being taken in China as explained in my last post. This, by the way, is possible without a price on carbon.

The title of the second article is -

Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector

The abstract –

Actions to slow atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases also would reduce conventional air pollutants yielding “ancillary” benefits that tend to accrue locally and in the near-term. Using a detailed electricity model linked to an integrated assessment framework to value changes in human health, we find a tax of $25 per metric ton of carbon emissions would yield NOx-related health benefits of about $8 per metric ton of carbon reduced in the year 2010 (1997 dollars). Additional savings of $4–$7 accrue from reduced investment in NOx and SO2 abatement in order to comply with emission caps. Total ancillary benefits of a $25 carbon tax are $12–$14, which appear to justify the costs of a $25 tax, although marginal benefits are less than marginal costs. At a tax of $75, greater total benefits are achieved but the value per ton of carbon reductions remains roughly constant at about $12.

The interesting point of this study is that (amongst other things) it shows that applying a mid-range carbon tax ($25 per tonne) can actually make money for the economy as a whole through health savings. In other words, there are long-term savings to be made through the imposition of a tax.

The third article –

Climate change mitigation strategies in fast-growing countries: The benefits of early action. 

This is a fairly recent (2009) international study, although it was published by Princeton.

Abstract -

This paper builds on the assumption that OECD countries are (or will soon be) taking actions to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. These actions, however, will not be sufficient to control global warming, unless developing countries also get involved in the cooperative effort to reduce GHG emissions. The paper investigates the best short-term strategies that emerging economies can adopt in reacting to OECD countries' mitigation effort, given the common long-term goal to prevent excessive warming without hampering economic growth. Results indicate that developing countries would incur substantial economic losses by following a myopic strategy that disregards climate in the short-run, and that their optimal investment behaviour is to anticipate the implementation of a climate policy by roughly 10 years. Investing in innovation ahead of time is also found to be advantageous. The degree of policy anticipation is shown to be important in determining the financial transfers of an international carbon market meant to provide incentives for the participation of developing countries. This is especially relevant for China, whose recent and foreseeable trends of investments in innovation are consistent with the adoption of domestic emission reduction obligations in 2030.


The interesting point about this conclusion is that it argues both for early action, and points out that China’s recent attention to investments in innovation are heading in the right direction.


Next (fourth) article –

Multi-gas emission envelopes to meet greenhouse gas concentration targets: Costs versus certainty of limiting temperature increase


This 2006 Dutch study looks at a range of ways of stabilising emissions and the benefits of early action.


Abstract

This paper presents a set of technically feasible multi-gas emission pathways (envelopes) for stabilising greenhouse gas concentration at 450, 550 and 650 ppm CO2-equivalent and their trade-offs between direct abatement costs and probabilities to meet temperature targets. There are different pathways within the envelope. Delayed response pathways initially follow the upper boundary of the emission envelope and reduce more by the end of the century. In contrast, early action pathways first follow the lower boundary and then the upper boundary. The latter require an early peak in the global emissions but keeps the option open for shifting to lower concentration targets in the future. Costs evaluations depend on the discount rate. Early action profiles have high costs early on, but learning-by-doing and smoother reduction rates over time lead to in most cases to lower costs across the century (net present value (NPV)). To achieve the 450 ppm CO2-equivalent, the global emissions need to peak before 2020. The NPV of costs increase from 0.2% of cumulative gross domestic product to 1.0% as the shift is made from 650 to 450 ppm (discount rate 5%). However, the chances of limiting global mean warming to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels are very small for peaking and stabilisation at 650 ppm (1–23%) and 550 ppm (1–48%), but increase for a peaking at 510 ppm with subsequent stabilisation 450 ppm to 14–67%.

These findings are consistent with the Princeton and Dutch studies.

The fifth article refers to India -

The Modelling of Policy Options for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in India

It looks at two models comparing systems optimization with the application of carbon taxes. It also points out that whilst these measures would mitigate, they would also cause a significant decrease in GNP in this developing country, although there is an acknowledgement of the inadequacy of the current models when applied to developing economies.

Abstract -

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in India have important implications for global climate change. Emission trajectory and mitigation policies for India are analysed using two models, a bottom-up energy systems optimization model (MARKAL) and a top-down macroeconomic model (Second Generation Model (SGM). MARKAL is used to analyse technologies, peak electricity demand, carbon taxes, and a range of different policy scenarios. Carbon taxes and emissions permits are analysed using SGM. In the reference scenario, energy use and carbon emissions increase nearly fourfold between 1995 and 2035. The analysis indicates that investment in infrastructure can substantially lower energy intensity and carbon intensity. A high carbon tax induces the substitution of natural gas and renewable energy for coal, and also causes a significant decrease in gross national product and consumption. The limitations of present models tor analysing mitigation policies for developing countries are discussed. Improvements for realistic representation of developing country dynamics and a policy agenda for GHG mitigation studies in developing countries are proposed.

So India can reduce emissions as it develops, and the application of a carbon tax is one way of doing it, at cost to GNP.

I found five other articles, but they pretty much say the same thing, which is that the application of a carbon tax will significantly reduce emissions. Is there anyone out there who can produce a set of scientific papers (not blog posts or stories written by journalists) which show the opposite?

More Light than Heat - some conclusions

I've had it up to here with the crap emanating from both sides of politics about Climate Change and a Carbon Tax.

So I've turned my ICD* up to maximum in an attempt to separate fact from opinion.

The following seems clear -

1. Most developed countries are taking some action to control carbon emissions.

2. Many countries (especially in Europe) have already introduced mitigation measures in the shape of taxes or cap in trade schemes.

3. Developing countries (especially China) have not legislated these measures, but have given lip service to planning for them within the next few years.

4. Some large emitters such as the USA and Canada have left it to state or provincial authorities to take action, and some are.

Obviously I can only post what I read, but at least I've attempted some very basic research and not simply quoted opinion from advocates for one side or another.

If any myth has been busted, it's the one we hear over and over again that Australia is Robinson Crusoe on the issue. It ain't - and the worldwide debate is about the politics - not the science.

From here, I'll try to establish the likelihood of whether or not this action, or promised action will make any damn difference.

I'll use only scientific journals, and many of these require subscriptions, so this activity might take a little while. I have a week until my next trip west, so the library at USQ may take a beating.

* Inbuilt Crap Detector

More Light than Heat (Contd)

OK – so that’s what Europe is up to. Let’s have a look at the rest of the world.

Remember – all I’m doing is attempting to gather and summarize information as to what the rest of the world is doing in relation to action on global warming. At this stage I’m making no judgements as to whether action is necessary or useful – just looking at what’s really happening.

 China
Reports surfaced in May 2010 that China will impose a carbon tax on industry from 2012 to curb carbon dioxide emissions. The Chinese language Economic Information Daily quoted official sources in the Ministry of Finance as saying the tax would start at 20 Yuan (£1.95) per tonne of carbon dioxide, and rise to 50 Yuan a tonne by 2020.

The C40 group of cities, many of which are in China, have initiated a range of actions designed to reduce emissions. Changsha is scaling back the number of high-polluting factories, building two subway lines and a light rail line and promoting electric buses. Shenzhen is making sure that new buildings use energy-efficient electrical equipment and developing its electric car industry. The southern city is home to electric car maker BYD Autos, which counts U.S. billionaire Warren Buffett among its investors.

In southern Kunming cities are promoting the use of solar power.

Costa Rica 

This country imposed a 3.5 percent carbon tax on fossil fuels in 1997. Part of the capital created by the tax goes to a program called "Payment for Environmental Services". This provides incentives to individuals and corporations to practice sustainable development and forest conservation. This plan protects 11% of Costa Rica's national territory. Read p6 of this report for more detail.

The program now pays out roughly $15 million a year.

^Canada

Canada is not taking national action at this time, but its provinces are.

 Quebec introduced a carbon tax starting October 1, 2007, with revenue collected used for energy-efficiency programs including public transit.

On February 19, 2008,  British Columbia announced its intention to implement a carbon tax of $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions (2.41 cents per litre on gasoline) beginning July 1, 2008. This made BC the first North American jurisdiction to implement such a tax which will increase each year after until 2012, reaching a final price of $30 per tonne.

Alberta: In July 2007 a carbon tax forcing companies that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas annually was imposed by the Alberta government. The companies could opt to either reduce their CO2 emissions per barrel by 12 percent, pay $15 per tonne into a technology fund, or buy an offset in Alberta to apply against their total emissions.

United States

 

The US is similar to Canada in that it’s not taking consolidated national action, but states are imposing taxes.

In Colorado, Boulder city implemented a tax on electricity consumption (utility bills) with deductions for using electricity from renewable sources in November 2006. It’s designed to reduce carbon emissions to those outlined in the Kyoto Protocol. This tax, called the Climate Action Plan (CAP) tax is expected to raise $1.6 million dollars in 2010 and will expire on March 31, 2013.
In California the Bay Area Air Quality Management District passed a carbon tax on businesses of 4.4 cents per ton of CO₂ in May 2008. In addition, a cap-in-trade system was put in place under global warming law, AB32. However, a few months ago, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith suspended it in a plaint brought by California environmentalists alleging that it failed to properly consider alternatives which the judge rules violated state environmental law. The California Air Resources Board must conduct further review before implementing the plan which had been adopted in December 2010.
In Maryland, in May 2010 Montgomery County passed the nation's first county-level carbon tax which calls for payments of $5 per ton of CO₂ emitted from any stationary source emitting more than a million tons of carbon dioxide during a calendar year.


The USA provides lip service to its Copenhagen commitment.

India 

A nationwide carbon tax of 50 rupees per metric tonne ($1.07/t) of coal both produced and imported into India was introduced on July 1, 2010. The government is mandating the retirement of inefficient coal-fired power plants and supporting the research and development of IGCC and supercritical technologies. Under the Electricity Act 2003 and the National Tariff Policy 2006, the central and the state electricity regulatory commissions must purchase a certain percentage of grid-based power from renewable sources.

South Korea

South Korea has substituted a carbon tax with the current transportation tax.
The revenues, calculated to amount to an annual $11 trillion won ($10.4 billion) will finance the “Low Carbon, Green Growth” initiative. The tax is imposed on emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide.

New Zealand

 

A New Zealand Emissions Cap in Trade system was passed into law in November 2009.

Brazil

Brazil passed a climate change bill in late 2009 that is intended to reduce national greenhouse gas emission by 39 per cent by 2020.  This goal is estimated to save around 1.06 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2020. No carbon tax is in place at this time, but there is speculation that it will be soon.

So, how do you summarise all of this. Let me try by making a few statements of fact.

Most European countries have a price on carbon.

The two largest emitters (USA and China) don’t nationally, although many provinces states, cities or municipalities in these countries, particularly where the largest population concentrations exist, do.

Many other countries have cap in trade systems, although it’s interesting to note that Californian environmentalists have issued a successful legal challenge to such a scheme on the grounds that it doesn’t reduce emissions.

India has a tax, but it’s chickenfeed at this stage.

Australia would not be “going it alone” if a carbon tax was introduced.

Next week, I’ll attempt to look at the projected outcome on global emissions of a tax in this country, placed in the context of global activity.

Wish me luck. This is about as much fun as having your wisdom teeth extracted.

Update

I omitted South Africa and the Russian Federation, so read on -

South Africa 

South Africa has no carbon tax, but they’re talking big on action, if you read their National Government’s website. They’re also hosting the next Climate Change Conference in Durban in December this year, and Jacob Zuma has already made some political statements in preparation for this.

Russian Federation

In May 2009 Russia dramatically changed its policy on climate change. It officially accepted that anthropogenic global warming poses severe risks and stated that immediate action to limit carbon emissions was a priority. Their official assesment is here.

To date, that hasn’t led to any carbon tax legislation, but given its readily available supplies of natural gas, it’s expected that they’ll be encouraging the replacement of coal-fired power stations in favour of gas generated electricity.

Hopefully More Light than Heat

There’s plenty of heat being generated by the carbon tax debate at the moment, but from where I sit, precious little light.

I’ll try, therefore to provide some light – it can’t do any harm.

I’m not going to argue the science. I’m not qualified. It’s a pity many of the opinionistas on both sides didn’t do the same.

Two examples from opposite sides are Andrew Bolt and Simon Sheik. Both are unqualified in the science, so when it’s all said and done, you’d be mad to listen to either of them. Having said that, on this topic, a lot more is being said than done. 

I’ll deal with one issue at a time. It’s a complex area, and I don’t have the time to research the fact across it all at once, so I’ll attempt to break it up into bite-sized chunks.

Boy on a Bike does this rather well IMHO. (See, I’m hip to all this blogspeak).

Today we’ll take a bite from the bit of the cake called “Countries that have introduced a carbon tax – did the sky fall?” You’ll also have to excuse a rather loose definition of “tax”.

My loose definition is “a financial penalty designed to encourage lower emissions of carbon”. So when I talk about a carbon tax – that’s what I mean. I’m not making judgements about whether it was effective or not – that comes later.

(Much later, actually – probably next week - I’m off to Thargomindah tomorrow).

The countries/states will be listed with some comments and references. Hopefully, you’ll be able to follow these up to test their reliability. I’m sure you’ll tell me if they’re dodgy. All I'm trying to do is to establish the fact of what the rest of the world is doing, as it seems to be an important part of the argument.

Let’s start with Europe – the UK to be precise. I'll look at North and South America next post.

United Kingdom

Way back in 1993, the Poms introduced what they called the fuel duty escalator (FDE), which was designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transport sector. The transport lobby hated it, and it was cancelled in 1999. In 2001, they introduced the Climate Change Levy. It was hoped to cut annual emissions by 2.5 million tonnes by 2010, and forms part of the UK's Climate Change Programme. It’s a tax bunged on all energy users, but the transport and household sectors are excused. On the carrot (as opposed to the stick) side, if you generate electricity from new renewables or cogenerational schemes, you don’t pay the tax. Nuclear is still taxed – that’s interesting.

You can check this out on the website of the quaintly named HM’s Revenue and Customs.

 

Let’s cross the dutch ditch and look at the Ditch Dutch.

The Netherlands

The clog wearers were quick off the mark in that they kicked off a carbon tax in 1990. That lasted only two years and morphed into something called the Environmental Tax on Fuels. This is a bit clever in that it is assessed on a split between carbon content and energy content. In 1996 The Regulatory Tax on Energy was added to the tax mix. The Environmental tax and the regulatory tax are/were 5.16 Dutch guilder, or NLG, (~$3.13) or per metric ton of CO2 and 27.00 NLG (~$16.40) per metric ton CO2 respectively. They don’t tax electricity, but they do tax fuels used to produce it. Energy-intensive industries were originally granted special rates, but these concessions expired at the beginning of 1997.
In 2007, the Dutch introduced what they call a Waste Fund that is funded by a carbon-based packaging tax. This tax encourages producers to create packaging that is recyclable. The goal is to of recycle 65% of used packaging by 2012. Tidy lot, the Dutch.
There’s a useful executive summary of European action (including the Netherlands) here.

 

Norway

 

Back in 1991 Norway introduced a CO₂ tax on fossil fuels. It started at the very high rate of US$51 per metric ton of CO2 on petrol, with an average tax of US$21 per metric ton.  It covered diesel, mineral oil, and oil and gas used in North Sea extraction activities.  It is one of the highest rates in the OECD. Oil and gas produced offshore is also taxed. They generated US$1.3 billion in 2010 dollars by this. Some industry sectors have been granted exemptions from the tax to preserve their competitive position.

Sweden

The Swedes first enacted a CO₂ tax at the beginning of 1991 at $100 per tonne. It applied on the use of oil, coal, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, petrol, and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. Industrial users paid half the rate. There were exemptions for high-energy industries like horticulture, the pulp and paper industry, mining, and manufacturing. In 1997 the rate was raised to $150 per tonne of CO₂. It’s paid in transport, space heating, and non-combined heat and power generation.
There’s lots of heating in Sweden. Here’s an article.

 

Switzerland

 

The land of the gnomes implemented a CO₂ incentive tax on all fossil fuels in January 2008. Fuels used for energy were exempt as were petrol and diesel.  It adds up to US $11.41 per metric tonne of CO₂. There is actually a Federal Law on the Reduction of CO₂ (CO₂ Law) in Switzerland. In 2010, the highest tax rate will be US $34.20 per metric tonne CO₂.
Read more here.



Finland

Finland is notable because it was the first country in the 1990s to introduce a CO2 tax. They started with few exemptions for defined fuels or sectors, but substantial liberalisation has happened since then. When the Nordic electricity market opened further changes were made, because the Finns reckoned they would have been disadvantaged.

See page 17 here.

Republic of Ireland

The Paddies introduced their country's first in 2010 at approx US$20 per tonne of CO2 emissions.  It applies to kerosene, gas oil, lpg, fuel oil, and natural gas. Natural gas users are exempt if they’re using it to "generate electricity, for chemical reduction, or for electrolytic or metallurgical processes". The Economic and Social Research Institute has estimated the tax will cost between about €2 and €3 a week per household, or about €156 per year.
It’s controversial.

There’s a stoush in relation to heating charges for pensioners and people on fixed incomes, and of course the Irish economy is on life support.

Denmark

To tidy up the rest of Europe, we look at Denmark where there’s been some form of carbon tax since 1992.  It was about $14 for business and $7 for households, per tonne of CO2 back then. Now it’s about $18 US dollars. The tax depends on the process the energy is used for, and whether or not the company has volunteered to apply energy efficiency measures.
The Danes also offer a tax refund for energy efficient changes. There are some details about Denmark here.

That’s a snapshot of Europe – a very light touch. I’m not into conclusions – that’s up to you.