Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

$89 billion reasons to quit Paris agreement, page-6

First 6 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
acorn

35,851 Posts.

4

21/03/19

18:46

Post #: 37843885
Share

Originally posted by Hairyback: ↑

Eighty-nine billion new reasons to quit the Paris Agreement

Momentum continues to build for Australia to exit the Paris Climate Agreement.
New economic modelling prepared by Managing Director of BAEconomics and former executive director of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Dr Brian Fisher, was released on Tuesday. It shows that the emission reduction obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement will cost Australia at least $89 billion in terms of foregone economic output, and result in 78,000 fewer jobs over the period 2021-2030.
The modelling also shows that the Paris Climate Agreement will result in a 21 per cent reduction in output in the thermal coal sector, a two per cent reduction in real wages, and a $12 price hike to wholesale electricity prices over the period 2021-2030.
Under the Paris Climate Agreement, Australia must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by between 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. This translates into a 50 per cent cut in per capita terms, which is the deepest cut in the developed world. China, for example, is able to increase its aggregate emissions by 150 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 which equates to around a 120 per cent increase in per capita terms.
The research by Dr Fisher follows a recent research report published by the Institute of Public Affairs last year that the Paris Climate Agreement would cost at least $52 billion by 2030 in terms of the higher cost of generating electricity. The estimates provided by Dr Fisher are higher as the modelling includes the flow-own economic cots of higher electricity prices, including lower business investment, slower employment growth, and slower wages growth.

However, what is perhaps more interesting than these admittedly dry economic figures is that the Paris Climate Agreement itself is disintegrating. The four largest greenhouse gas emitters in absolute terms are not in the Paris Agreement (the United States) or their emissions are not constrained by the Paris Agreement (China and India) or are not on target to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement (the European Union).
Further, the Climate Action Tracker, which is a consortium of three research organisations, tracks national progress of 32 nations which collectively account for 80 per cent of global emissions in meeting their Paris emission reduction targets. The tracker finds that just seven nations out of the sampled 32 nations are on track to meet their national emissions reductions contributions to keep warming below 2°C above preindustrial levels. Those nations – Morocco, the Gambia, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Costa Rica, the Philippine, and India – collectively account for just 6.6 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Besides, even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full by all signatory nations it would only produce a two-tenths of one-degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100, according to researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Australia accounts for just 1.5 per cent of global emissions from human activity. And human activity accounts for just three per cent of total emissions. Even the complete deindustrialisation of the Australian economy would make no noticeable difference to the global climate.
The case for exiting the Paris Climate Agreement has never been stronger. It will impose significant and irreparable economic damage without delivering a discernible environmental benefit. Most other nations are not on target to meet their obligations. And what Australia does makes no noticeable difference to the global climate.
Remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement is simply not in Australia’s national interest. Exiting the Agreement should be a bipartisan priority.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/03/eighty-nine-billion-new-reasons-to-quit-the-paris-agreement/

Expand

And the desperation of the coal lobby continues. They are really starting to look like the tobacco industry.

Rolling out one of Tony Abbott's old mates and his dodgy report.

Funny thing is that Tones wants to stay in Paris now. Please explain that ?

About Brian Fisher.

“Information obtained by the Ombudsman indicated that ABARE had adopted a funding structure and administrative practices for its climate change research projects which failed to adequately protect ABARE as a public sector research agency from allegations of undue influence by vested interests.”

" After successfully seeing off Kyoto, ABARE under Fisher continued to produce assorted reports that argued the government should avoid policies focused on providing an immediate market to pull forward the deployment of emissions reduction technologies (so called ‘technology-pull’ policies, such as carbon pricing, renewable energy targets and feed-in tariffs) on the basis that effective emissions reduction technologies didn’t yet exist.Instead ABARE recommended a focus on moon-shot technology research and development, particularly on clean coal (referred to as ‘technology push’ policies). This technology-push not pull argument reached a crescendo in 2006 as Fisher championed the Howard-Bush Asia Pacific Partnership of Clean Development and Climate. Can’t remember this initiative? Don’t worry, you didn’t miss anything. In a January 2006 report, Fisher argued:Both technology ‘push’ (for example, research and development policies) and ‘pull’ (for example, emissions trading) will be required in the long term [my emphasis]. However, it will be important to ensure that ... the necessary technologies to substantially reduce emissions actually exist and are capable of deployment before technology ‘pull’ policies are adopted.Over 2006 with calls to implement an emissions trading scheme becoming louder, Fisher rushed out a report to preempt the CSIRO-led Energy Futures Forum, pushing the ‘wait for a miracle strategy’:‘Late action’, based on a plausible expectation that renewed emphasis on a technology solution to climate change would result in the development and diffusion of cleaner and more cost competitive technologies beyond 2050, is estimated to cost the global economy (as well as the Australian economy) substantially less than any ‘early action’ involving the use of existing technologiesAfter leaving government, over 2008-09 Fisher – much to the surprise of his former ABARE staff – suddenly reversed his prior optimism about clean coal. He now suggested Treasury carbon pricing modelling was flawed due to its assumption that carbon capture and storage would plunge in cost – precisely what he projected while at ABARE.Working first for Charles River and Associates and then Concept Economics he was paid by the oil and gas industry, electricity generators and the mining industry, each separately, to paint grim pictures of the economic consequences from government efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the near term.In credit for these efforts, Clive Hamilton named him as one of the 'dirty dozen' who had done greatest harm to efforts to control Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions under the Rudd-Gillard Labor Government.However, since 2009 his influence waned under a hostile Labor government.Now, Abbott has recalled him from the bench. "

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/abbott-recalls-one-of-the-dirty-dozen/news-story/958bee83a233f0391717c8e7656dd6dd?nk=cae982aad410c68e5cf8ea21ae930a21-1553154036
5 Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 6 more messages in this thread...

First 6 Last