a get out of jail free card?
January 29th 2008 04:02
We all know Rudd has said he won't agree to firm emissions targets until he gets the findings from Garnault's review, which is due mid-way through this year. I am wondering why, this morning, on the front page of the Fin Review I am reading comments from Ross Garnault on emissions targets, at first I thought it was a leak, but no people, the comments have come from the horses mouth. For those of you who haven't seen them he has said (source ABC Website) CLICK HERE
It seems he basically wants the overall targets to be long term and believes there is an incremental economic cost in comitting to short term targets.
I guess the most relevant point here for us, is that if he wants longer term targets, then Australia will have a get out of jail free card when it comes to comitting to emissions targets. This could leave us in a very awkward position re Global Compacts. Here's hoping we find some middle ground, there will be a grave irony if we don't sign the new version of Kyoto.
Meanwhile world
Climate leaders are sunning themselves in Hawaii to discuss such things as targets. It will remain to be seen how much progress they make. More later.
It seems he basically wants the overall targets to be long term and believes there is an incremental economic cost in comitting to short term targets.
Prof Garnaut said it was more important to achieve an overall greenhouse-gas reduction target longer-term - for example over 40 years - than to meet short-term targets in particular years.
Instead, the market should decide how quickly to cut emissions, he said.
"By focusing on a particular date you may diminish the environmental impact of what you're trying to do and you may increase the economic costs of it," he told ABC radio today.
"We're trying to address the question of how we can meet the strong environmental goals in a way that minimises cost.
"You have to ask a question about how strongly you focus on particular dates and how much you look at the overall impact over a number of years."
He denied this amounted to a recommendation that governments set looser rather than tighter emissions-reduction targets.
"You're looking at a binding total amount of emissions over a long period of time," Prof Garnaut said.
"If you just focus on one year or particular years then you can do an awful lot of emitting in other years and so you don't meet the environmental objective that's absolutely crucial - and that's the total amount of emissions going into the atmosphere."
Instead, the market should decide how quickly to cut emissions, he said.
"By focusing on a particular date you may diminish the environmental impact of what you're trying to do and you may increase the economic costs of it," he told ABC radio today.
"We're trying to address the question of how we can meet the strong environmental goals in a way that minimises cost.
"You have to ask a question about how strongly you focus on particular dates and how much you look at the overall impact over a number of years."
He denied this amounted to a recommendation that governments set looser rather than tighter emissions-reduction targets.
"You're looking at a binding total amount of emissions over a long period of time," Prof Garnaut said.
"If you just focus on one year or particular years then you can do an awful lot of emitting in other years and so you don't meet the environmental objective that's absolutely crucial - and that's the total amount of emissions going into the atmosphere."
I guess the most relevant point here for us, is that if he wants longer term targets, then Australia will have a get out of jail free card when it comes to comitting to emissions targets. This could leave us in a very awkward position re Global Compacts. Here's hoping we find some middle ground, there will be a grave irony if we don't sign the new version of Kyoto.
Meanwhile world
| 95 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Comment by Louie
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips