After announcing earlier this week that I'd have a draft paper on Australian climate policy to share I received dozens of requests for a copy. So I have decided simply to post it for download. Some caveats -- it is a discussion draft meaning that it has not gone through peer review. I do plan to submit for publication, but right now I expect to await until February when the Australian legislature again considers the ETS. So your comments are welcome and the piece can be shared as appropriate. Here is the abstract and below that, a link to the PDF.An Evaluation of the Targets and Timetables of the Proposed Australian Emissions Trading Scheme
Abstract
This paper evaluates Australia's proposed emissions trading scheme in terms of the implied rates of decarbonization of the Australian economy for a range of proposed emissions reduction targets. The paper uses the Kaya Identity to structure the evaluation, employing both a bottom-up approach (based on projections of future Australian population, economic growth, and technology) as well as a top-down approach (deriving implied rates of decarbonization consistent with the targets and various rates of economic growth). Both approaches indicate that the Australian economy would have to achieve annual rates of decarbonization of 3.8% to 5.9% to meet a 2020 target of reducing emissions by 5%, 15% or 25% below 2000 levels, and about 5% to meet a 2050 target of a 60% reduction below 2000 levels. The paper argues that Australian carbon policy proposals present emissions reduction targets that will be all but impossible to meet without creative approaches to accounting as they would require a level of effort equivalent to the deployment of dozens of new nuclear power plants or thousands of new solar thermal plants within the next decade.
Pielke, Jr. R. A. An Evaluation of the Targets and Timetables of the Proposed Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (Discussion Draft of 2 December 2009) Download here in PDF.
10 comments:
Roger:
Your draft is compelling – though disappointing ;-)
Have you sought comment from Ross Garnaut?
Received by email:
"On page 5: A 2020 population of 23.7 million at 19.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person
would result in about 459 mT of carbon dioxide, about 28% below 2000 levels.
Should it read "about 28% above 2000 levels."?"
Yes it should, thanks! Will be fixed in revision.
Maybe we could compare number and importance of errors found by formal reviewers to those found by blog readers...
After a number of papers we could have empirical evidence of the effectiveness of peer review compared to an alternative.
Roger Our population is projected to increase to 34 million by 2050 how does this factor in?
-4-twaki
In the paper I consider a range in 2050 from about 29 to 40 million, which your value falls nicely in the middle of. And the difference matters, of course. However, I considered a GDP growth rate (which is inclusive of population growth) which is lower than the historical average, so my argument could be on the conservative side.
-3-Sharon F
This paper has already undergone a round of informal peer review by about 10 colleagues, and much improved as a result. I'm sure I left in some errors for other readers ;-)
However, my experience is that blog review is in most cases far more rigorous than the typically journal peer review. That is why I am happy to use it, better work results.
Another reader writes in with a few more found typos, Thanks!!!
P.3, 1st Paragraph: A “White Paper” outlining the final plans for the proposed CPRS was subsequently released in December, 2008, as the Australian government announced a emissions reductions target of between 5% (unilaterally) or 15% (in concert with other nations) reduction below ***2020*** levels, and a proposed 60% reduction by 2050.
P.5, 2nd Paragraph: A 2020 population of 23.7 million at 19.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person would result in about 459 mT of carbon dioxide, about 28% ***below*** 2000 levels
P.5, 3rd paragraph: This level of growth would add another 1,000 mT of carbon dioxide to the 2050 total, for a total of about 1,361 mT, about 3.8 times higher than 2000 emissions and about 6.3 times a 2050 target of a 60% reduction from ***2005*** levels
I take you already know Roger, but you made it into The Weekend Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/market-will-determine-the-cheapest-way-of-cutting-emissions/story-e6frg9p6-1225807116368
-8-
Thanks for the link!
Roger, fyi, here is Bjorn Lomborg's latest contribution, also in today's The Weekend Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/climate-lost-on-a-road-to-nowhere/story-e6frg6n6-1225807108234
For the benefit of others, one of Roger's earlier posts is worth a read in relation to some of Lomborg's points.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/09/lomborgs-economists-missed-opportunity.html
One thing which is happening for sure since the Senate voted down the ETS legislation is a much more balanced (and constructive) reporting by Australia's MSM of climate policy alternatives.
The Australian Government would no doubt argue that its policies toward innovation and development are sufficient... however, not all would agree, and IMHO the subject deserves greater attention and focus in the policy debate.
Your recent draft paper on Australia's climate policy doesn't expressly make mention of this, although I think you cover it in your conclusion.
Has any attention been given to the level of government investment (i.e. clean technology subisidies, R&D spending or incentives per capita, and per $ GDP) that countries see as necessary in pursuit of their carbon reduction targets?
Post a Comment