News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Why the ETS won't make a difference to the climate 

Why the ETS won't make a difference to the climate

24 Nov, 2009 03:36 AM
IF THE goal of the emissions trading legislation is to reduce the level of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere to safe levels, it is unlikely to work in its current form, climate scientists watching the debate have said.

This is not necessarily due to flaws in the Government's scheme, but because the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has already passed safe limits.

The most ambitious outcome now is to restrict carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to about 450 parts per million - a figure calculated to give the world an even chance of avoiding the more catastrophic climate change scenarios for the second half of this century, said Matthew England, a lead author with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If the Government ties the scheme to the upper level of its targets for 2020 - a 25 per cent cut in carbon emissions - and other nations make equivalent cuts, then the 450 goal endorsed by most climate scientists could be achieved under the ETS.

If it ties the scheme to the lower end of its target range, a 5 per cent reduction over the next decade, Australia will find it hard to play a part in reaching the 450 goal.

"The whole world is watching what we do here and it could have real ramifications for their own efforts - this is the reason why Australia is important," Professor England said.

Many environment groups are calling for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to be cut and stabilised at 350 parts per million, but that goal is out of reach for the foreseeable future. The current ratio is 387 parts per million.

"To stabilise emissions at 350 is a laudable goal because there is a much larger chance of averting dangerous climate change," Professor England said.

"But I think that, unfortunately, it's a goal which is no longer achievable - 350 is history. At this stage 450 is looking incredibly difficult. But it's not as if 450 guarantees the survival of the Greenland ice sheet."

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has supported a global target of 450 parts per million.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Dear Mr Cubby, is this the best you can come up with? We all know the UN and the IPCC have been cooking the books on the data. You should write for the RED STAR or some other left wing rag. Why don't you publish the truth for a change?
Posted by hey loc, 24/11/2009 7:26:40 AM
I doubt if you would have the intellectual commitment or capacity to understand anything which challenged your prejudices, hey loc! An open mind is an essential starting point. You make bold and outrageous statements designed for one purpose only: to shout down anyone who disagrees with you. Where is your dispassionate analytical reasoned argument? Anyway, it looks very much like you are getting an ETS, whether you like it or not. You can compensate with the warm inner glow that comes from realising your grandchildren will thank you, or if not you personally, they will thank this parliament. Incidentally, a question: why do you believe introducing an ETS is a communist plot? And another question: have you lost the plot?
Posted by Bushie Bill, 24/11/2009 10:42:57 AM
You are kidding yourself Bill. There is about as much chance of this legislation stopping any emisions as there is of a wind turbine stopping coal powered generation. If theres still a profit to be made the emitters will pay for it and still emit. And who is going to monitor the emisions coming from the chimneys? This sounds simplistic, but in reality it's the hardest part.
Posted by mick, 25/11/2009 3:29:34 AM
Bushie Bill, will your children and grandchildren thank you for leaving them with a wrecked economy and poorer standard of living while developing coutries forge ahead with their industrialisation plans anyway?
Posted by Arden, 25/11/2009 4:14:57 AM
Loc Hey, Even William Kinnimonth, one of the sceptics I admire and fear, has said that he believes 99% of cliamte science is genuine.
Posted by the lorax, 25/11/2009 6:56:30 AM
Right, Bushie Bill. An open mind is essential. But not so open that one's brains fall out. Or more likely are washed out. Your comment is merely a personal attack on someone with whom you do not agree. We may well get an ETS. It is Kevin Rudd's simple answer to global warming. Another tax. From the tone of your comments I assume that you believe this ETS tax package (even with all its compensation to various 'polluting' interest groups) will somehow reduce the amount of co2 Australia releases into the atmosphere to 20% below 1990 levels. And further that the reduction will make a significant difference to total atmospheric co2 levels, given that our contribution to co2 levels is about 1 or 1.5 % of world totals. And further that high atmospheric co2 levels mean high global temperatures, even though previous ice ages have persisted with atmospheric co2 levels higher than ours today. Someone with an open mind would at least acknowledge the possibility that this new tax package is just that. And where will the money go? Also please consider this. If man made co2 causes global warming, where is the evidence of all the people who must have generated the co2 to end the last ice age?
Posted by ozfirst, 25/11/2009 7:38:30 AM
The IPCC SRES worst case scenario (A1F1) that Garnaut has claimed is the most likely, extrapolates out to 800ppm CO2 by 2100. And we are expected to make large sacrifices now to prevent that happening. The problem is that this "scarenario" is already preventing itself. The Africans, Latin Americans, Middle Eastern and poorer Asian nations are already way off track to getting anywhere near the $US68,000 per capita GDP that the IPCC has assumed as a 100% certainty. And curiously, these intellectual giants at the IPCC haven't adjusted these assumed emission levels for any adverse impact on GDP from climate change. So on one hand they are claiming apocalyptic outcomes by 2030 while assuming that these apocalyptic events will have no adverse impact on GDP or emissions until 2100 at least. The facts are that if the developing nations don't curb their population growth then their GDP/capita and their emissions will continue to flatline and global emissions will peak at about 450ppm by 2050 and decline thereafter.
Posted by Ian Mott, 25/11/2009 7:47:22 AM
99% of climate change is genuine is mentioned above. This is true since time began. But it is not the global warming lies and hysteria dodgy scientists push.
Posted by Len, 25/11/2009 8:35:20 AM
Yeah right, our kids are going to be very thankfull for being priced out of existence!
Posted by yofussn, 25/11/2009 8:48:18 AM
priced out of existance - please! Where do you get that from? How much is spent on the defence force? No one has invaded Australia! But it might happen!
Posted by the lorax, 25/11/2009 9:33:17 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
22 November, 2009
23 November, 2009
POLL
Q: How has the deregulation of export wheat marketing affected your farm's profits this harvest?

Increased profits
(22.1%)

Decreased profits
(56.2%)

No change
(21.7%)

Total Votes: 258
Poll Date: 23 November, 2009
BLOGS
19 November, 2009

Most popular articles


Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...