What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed?
In responding to this question you could consider the base year
(E.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.
While this question seems simple – pick a number – it is important that any target is consistent with the economic aims of the nation, the diminishing evidence of any real global warming occurring, the relative economy of mitigation compared with adaptation, and the nations priorities for limited funds. Australia has some experience with the “Price on Carbon”; it was supposed to achieve gains at $23 per Tonne but actually achieved only an efficiency of $5310 per tonne according to “The Australian”. At the efficiency forecast by the previous government ($23 per Tonne) it can be calculated that all CO2 emission could be mitigated for an expenditure of about 750 Billion dollars or 1% of world GDP Per annum assuming future mitigation cost are the same as current mitigation costs. At $5310 per Tonne that the Carbon Tax actually achieved, the global cost for zero CO2 using carbon taxes is becomes 5310/23 x 750B = 173 Trillion dollars per annum or a little over twice the world GDP. Einstein once said, Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting the result to be different, the sum required to mitigate climate clearly meets Einstein’s definition of insanity.
Taking a risk reward approach, the IPCC’s 4th assessment report suggests that up to 2 degrees of warming and attendant CO2 rise is likely to be beneficial. Alongside this estimates of climate sensitivity have been moderated to between 1 and 2 degrees per doubling with the prospect of 4-5 degrees per doubling being practically impossible. Indeed the rate of warming since the Little Ice Age if attributed entirely to CO2 represents only a climate sensitivity of 1.4 degrees per doubling of which the IPCC attributes 50% to mankind – 0.7 degrees per doubling. There is no evidence that this is in any way accelerating, suggesting that 2 degrees of warming will take several thousands of years to occur. There is no demonstrated relationship between warming and storm intensity, global rainfall or drought. Global warming is just not the problem it was thought to be. Australia’s target must be set with the full knowledge of the probable low value of climate sensitivity. As the sensitivity lowers, the dollar expenditure required to mitigate a fixed temperature rise increases. If one thing is certain technology will be vastly different in 1000 years compared with today. The risk is low, and the reward per dollar spent is even poorer.
When fed to plants the process of photosynthesis converts water and Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen, which we breathe and Carbohydrates, so broadly speaking the more CO2 that is available, the more Oxygen and Carbohydrates produced. Carbohydrates include important commodities that provide housing and food for humanity. Australia must remain aware of the relationship between CO2 absolute level (called the partial pressure) and the nation’s capacity to sink CO2 and produce food. An illustration is in order.
Australia has about 125 Million Hectares of forest and 460 Million Hectares of farmland, forests produce biomass, estimates vary widely from about 2 Tonnes per hectare to 500 Tonnes per hectare. Since some of our prolific plantation forests (EG Mangoes and banana) can produce fruit masses with dry weight in the 50 Tonnes per Ha range one would expect biomass generation to be at least this (does not account for the tree and root mass). 50 Tonnes of carbon represent a CO2 mass of 44/12*50 = 183 Tonnes per hectare per annum. We will use a conservative value of 100 Tonnes for convenience. Grassland sequesters of the order of 5-15 Tonnes per hectare according to various sources, we will use 5 Tonnes as a proxy for small crops.
100T x 125,000,000 = 12,500,000,000 or 12.5 billion tonnes
+
5T x 460,000,000 = 2.3 Billion Tonnes
That is a total of about 16 Billion Tonnes not taking into account arid area growth, ocean plant growth, vegetative density and that increased CO2 allows increased area of sequestering species (Plants use less water when CO2 is highest). It is clear that plants produce a sequesterable biomass of well north of16 Billion tonnes per annum.
Recent research has revealed that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is enriching plant growth by some 6% between 1990 and 2000 (about a 20PPM change) it can be inferred from this study that the increase in CO2 from 1990 to 2015 will have increased photosynthesis productivity by some 12-15% (We’ll use 10% to be conservative). Indeed it is known that about half of all world emissions are immediately sopped up by the biosphere and Australia as a nation does more than its share of the sopping.
From this we can infer that Australia’s sinking capacity has increased from at least 16 Billion Tonnes to 17.6 Billion tonnes, an increase of 1.6 Billion Tonnes. This is three times our emission per the greenhouse office of 536 Million Tonnes per annum. The increase in photosynthesis in Australia completely offsets emission many times over and is acting as a drag on other world emitters such as China. Australia is NOT adding to emissions at all, and our target should take account of that increase in sinking capacity, including the increase from the CO2 fertilisation effect.
Summary
· Estimates of warming from CO2 are falling, most likely between 1 and 1.5 degrees per doubling with 50% of that attributable to man – at least 1000 years to reach 2 degrees of warming
· Up to 2 degrees of warming to be beneficial (according to the IPCC)
· No definitive evidence that global storm energy, rainfall or drought are affected by warming
· Carbon dioxide sequestration rates are increasing due to CO2 fertilisation
· Food and Oxygen levels are dependent on CO2 levels
· The Kyoto regime disadvantages large countries with small populations like Australia that make huge sequestration contributions.
Conclusion: Australia’s emission target MUST be based on Nett Emission (actually Nett Sequestration) taking into account increased sinking capacity changes due to CO2 fertilisation of forests and farmlands. It is suggested that modest increases in emissions can be sustained given our position as one of the largest world carbon dioxide sinks.
What would the impact of that target be on Australia?
In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.
As shown above, attempts to mitigate CO2 using taxes is economic insanity, the carbon tax demonstrated that the costs are of the order $5310 per Tonne. The carbon tax proves that the economic penalties of CO2 mitigation are unaffordable. Using this base we can estimate the economic costs of using penalties or subsidies such as the carbon tax to reduce CO2
1% of Australia’s emission = 5.3 million tonnes
Cost per Tonne of mitigation (from the Carbon Tax experience) $5310
Total = 28 billion over 2 years or 14 Bn per annum per percentage point CO2 reduction. This would have a very significant impact on the economy, increasing joblessness, and extending needlessly the hardship on the Australian people. Even a 5% reduction target would cost of the order of 70 Billion dollars per annum and achieve almost no impact on world CO2 inventory. This tax was also enormously regressive; it was easily avoided by the rich by installing subsidised solar power, but was unable to be avoided by the poor, and notably tenants in housing that the landlord has no incentive to solar power.
Let’s do a quick calculation based on this
5310 x 32310287000 Tonnes (World CO2) = $172 Trillion or 2.2 x world GDP in 2014
This calculation doesn’t take into account that savings right now are EASY; savings in energy use will be much more expensive as the low hanging fruit is removed.
As shown above, by taking into account natural sequestration enhancement from the CO2 fertilisation effect, Australia’s nett sequestration capacity is INCREASING far faster than its emissions. Australia can take advantage of this effect by adding extra forest or orchard acreage into play. It can be calculated that a complete offset of emissions can also be gained by either adding forests to idle land or by deliberately skewing land use toward tree crops. If just 1% of farmland were converted from small crop or grassland to tree crops, Australia would achieve CO2 savings exceeding emissions, not including the afore-mentioned effects of CO2 fertilisation. Indeed well chosen crops can produce significant sequestration while achieving profits for the owner. Changes such as this can be achieved by offering modest tax benefits and small grants to reduce the capital hurdles required to retool for these crops. In fact Australia is so “Weedy” that just leaving land alone would revert it to natural bushland in less than 10 years. I would anticipate that the Australian government could increase revenue from more profitable agricultural activity. Such a plan could be enhanced by states legislating for certain agricultural lands and mining leases to retain a small amount of land populated by forestry crops. Such measures are far more affordable than the unaffordable carbon tax they replace.
Aside from direct economic considerations, the current massive over-focus on what is almost a non-problem has resulted in billions of dollars of scarce funds being misdirected away from more meaningful economic activity. For example has the diversion of funds to windmills and solar panels caused funding toward cancer cures to be reduced? It has been estimated for example that America has devoted $32 billion to Climate Change research but only $8 billion to medical research. What are the relative benefits of each investment? Over $40 Billion has been wasted in Australia since 2007, this is almost enough money for Australia alone to end world starvation or provide every child in the world with clean water or immunise practically every child for all serious childhood diseases. Job for job, and dollar for dollar, undertaking such massive human welfare programs would produce more benefits and economic activity than investment in green corporate welfare.
Summary:
· Taxes, subsidies and penalties to force mitigation are regressive, enormously expensive (shown to cost 173 triilion dollars per annum to achieve zero CO2). They drive up costs for business and make us uncompetitive internationally – they are NOT to be used.
· Other mitigation programs can be undertaken that are essentially harmless, particularly by shifting land use toward high sequestration activities.
· CO2 increases ironically cause existing sinks to absorb more CO2, over the last 20 years absorption has grown far more quickly than emissions.
· Australia should attempt to take advantage of increased yield potential of crops due to CO2 fertilisation
· Funding saved from inefficient subsidies and taxes can be reinvested into economy expanding activity or measures that produce measurable human welfare benefits.
Conclusion: By tailoring direct action measures toward natural sequestration measures and scaling back inefficient penalties, green tape, and subsidies, meaningful reductions can be achieved while expanding economic activity and energy use. Government must studiously avoid penalties and compliance green-tape trails as a means to enforce compliance as costs get passed through the supply chain impacting on ordinary Australians.
Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?
There are a number of complementary policies that have incidental impact on CO2 but provide significant benefit to the Australian public. More importantly there are a number of policy traps to avoid in order not to hurt Australian citizens or companies in the process. Since these gains are essentially free, there is little reason not to do them.
1. Promote energy efficiency, but avoid direct subsidies to suppliers, subsidies have the effect of driving up prices such that the goods or service provider rather than the consumer yields the gains. Instead allow a cash-back, tax rebate or deduction. A side effect of energy efficiency policies is to extend the life of existing generation infrastructure.
2. Provide tax incentives and capital grants to primary producers willing to switch to higher sequestration crops. Consider other ways to support switching to forestry or orchard production. Value properly the carbon sequestration capacity of lands, and take CO2 fertilisation into account in carbon accounting. Take care however not to distort agricultural commodity markets.
3. Replace coal generation with high efficiency ultra super critical coal plants which are up to 15% more efficient than current thermal coal technology. These will make our coal resources last longer and make us more competitive.
4. Investigate the merits of the development of Thorium Nuclear power, as Australia has up to 30% of world known Thorium reserves. Thorium Nuclear power would open up a significant new resource market for what is currently a toxic waste by-product of sand mining.
5. Give effect to your plan to develop the north by building a significant northern deep water port connected by rail to the east coast markets. The reduced shipping times between Asia and Australia would be a significant reducer of GHGs while providing enormous economic benefit to the north.