Phil Gaetjens, the Liberal staffer appointed head of Treasury, has undoubtedly had a busy couple of months getting his feet under the desk since replacing John Fraser. Too busy, as he acknowledged at Senate estimates on Wednesday, to read the recent IPCC climate report, which sounded an urgent alarm about the need to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees in order to reduce the risk of major economic, environmental and population impacts.
“I have had, in the two and a bit months I have been there, lots of things to look at, and unfortunately that’s one I haven’t got to,” Gaetjens told Greens Senator Larissa Waters. That’s understandable, but one would assume Treasury had examined the report and perhaps even done some thinking about the economic impacts of climate change, given the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and the drought claimed to be gripping east-coast agriculture. “What is the differing economic impact on Australia of a 1.5C in global temperatures versus a two degree rise in global temperatures?” Waters asked, drawing on one of the key issues in the IPCC report.
The question left Gaetjens and his team floundering. “We do not do modelling on that… can I perhaps take than on notice? There wouldn’t be any information in a quantitative sense that I could provide at the moment.” “Do you not think that climate change has an economic impact?” Waters asked. “It does,” Gaetjens replied. “But as I say we have not done the modelling on that so I just can’t give you quantitative answers or one that is driven from a large piece of Treasury work that I am aware of.”
It’s peculiar enough that Treasury had not thought to provide its leadership team with an estimates brief on climate change, especially given a new IPCC report. But it’s somewhat more serious that Treasury, while acknowledging the economic impacts of climate change, doesn’t bother to undertake any work on the nature of those impacts. To the extent that they might impact short-term economic forecasts, Gaetjens’ team explained to Waters, they assume that other agencies — like the Bureau of Meteorology or ABARES, the agriculture and resource economic gurus — factor it into the material they provide to Treasury.
So as it stands, Treasury doesn’t have any view on the extent to which future economic growth, employment, productivity, tax revenue, investment or population growth and distribution will be affected by climate change, beyond acknowledging that they’ll be affected. Rather appropriate given the government literally has no climate policy.
BK you have done it again and as an ex Public Servant yourself you should know better. Of course there has been “thinking” on climate change in Treasury but the new Secretary and ex Liberal Party adviser just doesn’t wan to acknowledge it because it doesn’t serve his politics. The big thing is for a new Government to de-politicise the job of Treasury Secretary.
Economic models do little more than produce numbers that are themselves the product of guesswork. How about using some common sense and the empirical evidence that is available NOW? The energy wasted on prediction is scandalous. My recommendation is to go with Taleb’s method: using evidence we have now, plan to do more of what we now know produces good and do less of what we now know produces bad. When the evidence changes, change that plan using the same methodology.
Actually economic models reflect the prejudices of those who commission them. Econometrics does rather better as a science but Economics is about as scientific as astrology.
I have an embargoed post arguing that its not Treasury’s pigeon to report on Climate Change but for other agencies to report to Treasury on the matter. The BOM, and others, can appeal to empirical evidence.
Having written that there are some cash-for-comment jocks in the BOM that state, quite openly, that the composition of the atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming. – and ipso climate change.
Econometrics is where the bullshit gets serious. It’s an attempt to use scientific methods, or more correctly just advanced statistics, to help hide the fact that the Emporer Economics has no clothes. There is bugger all science in it.
I have seen both good and bad D.B. There is a good deal of science to the maths because the maths doesn’t change.
As to whether the approach to the problem is intelligent or the statistical test appropriate then – depending upon the nature of the investigation – we may be in agreement.
It’s not difficult to find. ‘In plain view’ evidence abounds. Go to Google images to see before & today comparisons of the world’s glaciers. The Northwest passage is now routinely passable. The ice cap has lost roughly 54,000 square kilometres per year since the 70s (NASA). Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes: 1851-1900 – 13, 1901-1950 – 29, 1951-2000 – 46, 2001-present – 24. The destruction of our coral reefs.
One would have to be pretty stupid not to, at least, acknowledge there’s major ‘stuff’ going on and that sooner or later it will impact our bottom line (because it seems thats about the only line that’s in play for the Liberal politicians).
Article might be better with a bit of recent historical comparison, eg Garnaut report in 2007.
Bernie, either you or I are missing something of some significance here. It is all very well to state that “..Treasury doesn’t have any view on …. climate change” BECAUSE its isn’t Treasury’s pigeon to delineate the effects (and NOT the “impacts”) of Climate Change.
It is entirely reasonable for Treasury to assume that “other agencies — like the Bureau of Meteorology ..” etc. will provide researched reports on Climate Change. I accept that it is a bit weird for the Head of Treasury not to be familiar with, at least, the executive statement (even if he is pressed for time) but be that as it may.
Its a very great shame that Australia does not have a dedicated section within the P.S. to provide expertise. I believe the Libs trashed such a section – which was damed short sighted. Perhaps Labor or the Greens (warning : vain hope approaching) could insist on its reinstatement if either party knew what they were talking about on the matter.
Jeezus!! That’s worrying.