In the Sydney Morning Herald on the weekend, Professor Tim Flannery attacked the Liberals and the Greens for their positions on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), calling them liars and stating that their claims are “just plain wrong”. In the interests of an honest and accurate debate, I decided to see whether I could find any errors or untruths in Flannery’s article. It wasn’t hard. After extracting the errors, there is not much left of the article. Set out below are details of his biggest howlers (in the order they appear in the article).
Claim: “If implemented, it [the CPRS] would see Australia emitting 5 per cent less greenhouse gas in 2020 than it did in 2000”.
Fact: Wrong. If the CPRS was introduced with a 5% target, Australia’s emissions would probably increase. However, Australia’s net emissions — domestic emissions less imported offset credits — would decline. Provided the imported credits represent actual abatement, they will not undermine the environmental integrity of Australia’s target. Yet the extent to which these credits will represent actual abatement is still uncertain and, to a large extent, will depend on the outcomes from the current international negotiations.
Claim: Nicholas Stern’s analysis suggests that “humanity is set to be emitting 48 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2020 – up a mere billion tonnes from today’s 47 billion tonnes”.
Fact: Wrong on two fronts. First, Flannery uses incorrect units. Current emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are about 36 billion tonnes (Gt), not 47 Gt. He presumably meant emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e).
Second, Stern’s analysis does not show that “humanity is set to be emitting” 48 GtCO2-e by 2020. Flannery refers to a recent article by Stern in the New York Review of Books as his source. The full details of Stern’s analysis are contained in a paper co-authored by Chris Taylor (a senior economist in the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change) that was published in March 2010 by the Grantham Research Institute and the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.
The paper concludes that global emissions are likely to be 48.2 GtCO2-e in 2020 but only if all countries adopt and achieve their highest targets, no surplus emissions allowances are carried over from the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, there is no double counting of mitigation commitments, the rules regarding terrestrial carbon do not weaken the level of ambition and economic development in developing countries follows current expectations.
These caveats on Stern and Taylor’s projections are of critical importance, a point they stress. Combined, the caveats almost represent the difference between the projected 48.2 GtCO2-e and emissions under “business-as-usual” conditions. And to suggest that all of these areas of uncertainty are going to fall in favour of a strong mitigation outcome is extremely optimistic; some might say delusional. Even if the analysis is confined to whether all countries will adopt their high-end target, it takes an eternal optimist to believe the international negotiations are headed for this sort of outcome. For example, Australia’s target range is 5%-25% reductions below 2000 levels by 2020. Yet discussion of Australia going beyond 15% has all but dried up. Similar dynamics are playing out in other developed and developing countries.
Claim: “To avoid dangerous climate change (a warming of less than 2 degrees) we need to reduce emissions to about 44 billion tonnes by 2020. This could be achieved if Europe agrees on its planned 30 per cent target rather than the current 20 per cent, and the US and other developed nations increase their own targets by a few percentage points”.
Fact: Wrong. Stern and Taylor’s conditional estimate of 48 GtCO2-e already assumes Europe and every other party that has a conditional pledge adopts and implements their high-end target. Stern makes this point in his article in the New York Review of Books when he states, “If countries deliver their ‘high intention’ reductions, the plans submitted to the Copenhagen Accord would result in global annual emissions of about 48 billion metric tones of carbon-dioxide equivalent in 2020”.
To bring global emissions down to 44 GtCO2-e in 2020, both developed and developing countries need to raise their pledges significantly — a few percentage points within the current range is not enough. For developed countries, the pledges currently add up to cuts of between 10%-14% below 1990 levels. As analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has shown, to provide a realistic chance of keeping warming to 2°C, the aggregate reduction in developed countries has to be greater than 25%. Current pledges fall well short of what is required.
Claim: “If Australia increased its target from 5 per cent to between 7 per cent and 15 per cent, we could rightly say we were contributing our fair share to the global target. This is a far cry from the Greens’ unrealistic demands for 25 per cent to 40 per cent cuts.”
Fact: What constitutes a “fair” contribution to a 2°C outcome is subjective and there is no universally accepted method for “equitably” distributing the global abatement burden among countries. Having said that, the notion that Australia could adopt a target of 7% for 2020 and say it is making a fair contribution is difficult to defend. Under Flannery’s approach, Australia’s per capita emissions in 2020 would be almost three times larger than Europe’s and four times the global average. Other developed countries are unlikely to accept such a low target, to say nothing of developing countries.
Claim: The CPRS is one of the emissions trading schemes “with the fewest give-aways of free permits” in the world, “with 70 per cent to be auctioned”.
Fact: In the early years of the CPRS, the proportion of free permits issued to coal-generators and emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries would be about 30%. However, by 2020, the proportion of free permits allocated to these industries would rise to about 50%.
Claim: “The Greens argue that allowing industry to offset emissions into forestry and agriculture is a kind of get-out-of-jail card for polluters. Again, this is not true. Offsets into agriculture will have to be real, and will come at a cost”.
Fact: The rules regarding terrestrial carbon offsets have yet to be determined for the post-2012 international climate regime and the CPRS. Therefore, it is impossible at this stage to say whether these offsets “will have to be real”. Under the present international regime, one of the main issues with terrestrial carbon offsets is “additionality” — the offsets often do not represented an actual decrease in emissions or increase in removals beyond what would have occurred under normal circumstances.
Claim: Emissions trading schemes do not impose any costs on the economy. In Flannery’s words “It is increasingly clear only one thing changes when emissions trading schemes are introduced — the level of emissions”.
Fact: Wrong. The only way this could be correct is if there was a limitless supply of zero cost abatement. If there was, we would not need an emissions trading scheme.
This is a disappointing attack on Flannery, one of the few supporters of an ETS left. Even if taking Mr Macintosh’s word for Flannery’s ‘errors’, they are minor and pointing them out reveals more about Mr Macintosh’s opinion of an ETS than undermine Flannery.
I would suggest that rather than attack Mr Flannery for minor and arguable ‘errors’, Mr Macintosh should use his position to support what Mr Flannery is saying and get a bloody price on carbon using the most economically efficient model possible – an ETS.
At least Mr Flannery is trying to address two common misconceptions about an ETS – that it is useless and expensive. I’m sure if Mr Macintosh thought a little deeper he could see what Mr Flannery is doing and support his ‘vibe’ if not his detail.
I think you’ve been a little rough on the professor there mate. You have to remember he’s writing to a layman audience and many of the faults you have examined are of a technical nature i.e. liable to happen when using common or simple language. As I see them:
Point
a) Semantics; if our net emissions fell by 5% that’s wheat really matters considering every MT of CO2-e offset should decrease the total amount of CO2-e abatement driven by the action of Australia. Thus I think its reasonable to leave the “net” out because what Flannery says here is effectively true. Remember he’s speaking to laymen.
b) Using CO2 instead of CO2-e? Given the target audience leaving the “equivalence” out of CO2-e is a perfectly reasonable thing to do considering the warming potential of that gas is exactly the same as that level of CO2. Thus what’s the difference?
c) Again pretty innocent, the information did originate in a report authored by Stern. That level of emissions is what we will see if the world adherer’s to its upper level commitments, thus I don’t think its much of a misrepresentation to say the world is “headed that way”.
d) Again from what I see of Flannery’s article you could argue he meant increasing their high end targets by a few % points. You do seem to be stretching a bit here.
e) Of course fair is a subjective term, Flannery is giving you his opinion.
f) What Flannery said is factually correct, 70% auctioned permits is the starting point, a relatively low level of assistance.
g) OK, you’re really stretching here. Its a reasonable assumption to make that any offsets would have to verifiable and would come with a cost to business, that’s what was outlined in the green paper.
g) This does appear to be a misrepresentation by Flannery unless you include the cost of inaction.
Thus it seems like in the “interest of an honest and accurate debate” you guys have gone way out on a limb to find fault with Flannery.
[This does appear to be a misrepresentation by Flannery unless you include the cost of inaction]
I agree oblizzard, this last point is also a little harsh for the reasons you have articulated – Flannery’s trying to get a simple message out there to counter the simplistic rubbish which comes from Climate Change deniers.
Unlike a tax, an ETS has the capacity to be cost-free because buying carbon permits (or subjecting oneself to price increases) can be avoided by minimising emissions. Cut profligate electricity usage and any increase in electricity prices can be offset. In addition, the rise of the green economy can also offset any costs. So while there is not “limitless supply of zero cost abatement” it is disingenuous to say that an ETS can never come at any cost to the economy. And as you point out, the cost of inaction has to be taken into account when calculating these things
offsets often do not represent an actual decrease in emissions or increase in removals beyond what would have occurred under normal circumstances. You seem to agree with Professor Flannery, as both of you challenge self-delusion. More strength to your bows!
Considering that we need all nations to replace their emissions regardless, we should be not paying someone to do what they should be doing anyway. Similarly, any hey-presto vanishing of carbon requires it to stay vanished for thousands of years. Who is kidding whom?
Far from being a legitimate form of negative carbon, “offsets” are fraudulent accounting. We must replace carbon, not hide it.
Aren’t we past the Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme? Any coalpromizes like that shocker only make things worse. A credible international trading scheme will eventually be needed, but a rising domestic tax on carbon is needed immediately to prevent things like the 11x expansion of the Abbott Point Coal Terminal.
The rising carbon tax is best achieved by a fee-and-dividend scheme (polluter pays) model that also incorporates the mine-head and certain imports based on the source country’s carbon price. People and small business are compensated for the resulting rise energy bills while creating a market for cleaner energy.
A rising domestic price is now set on carbon and a better target is then achieved by proxy far more fairly, effectively and quickly than any trading scheme that makes traders rich, delays action until 2030+ and uses dubious international offsets.