News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Carbon price will cost economy: Garnaut 

Carbon price will cost economy: Garnaut

31 Jan, 2011 12:24 PM
The federal government's key adviser on climate change has flagged there will be a greater cost to the economy and Australian businesses under any future emissions regime, including a possible higher starting price, as a result of years of inaction on tackling the issue.

Ahead of the release of the first update paper to his 2008 report to state and federal governments, Ross Garnaut also warned Australia was falling behind both the United States and China in dealing with climate change.

Tight budgetary conditions would limit any assistance provided to industry under any carbon price scheme, he said.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has pinned her government's environmental credentials to achieving a price on carbon this year, saying last week it was the most "economically efficient" way to reduce emissions.

But Professor Garnaut, speaking exclusively to The Australian Financial Review, said the decision to shelve an emissions trading scheme (ETS) last term would have implications for his conclusions in his final report.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
This guy is just quoting Nicholas Stern who had the gall to use two different discount rates to manufacture the conclusion that delaying action would cost more than a wait and see approach. If Stern had done that in a prospectus he would have copped a long stretch at her majesty's pleasure.

So when Guano fails to detect this serious analytical error, let alone use the same misleading device, he is in serious breach of his professional duty of care.

So it is no irony that his picture reminds me of the guy who just farted in a crowded lift and got out on the next floor. We may all be living with the stench of his contribution for a very long time.

Posted by Ian Mott, 31/01/2011 1:25:04 PM
I fully agree with Ian Mott.

Where did they find this clown?

Posted by Thats Right, 31/01/2011 3:36:27 PM
Amongst other things, speaking exclusively to the AFR on p8, Garnaut said:

"My aim is to force people who raise objections to show where the logic is wrong or where the information is wrong."

That's easy. Cast your eye back to Sept, 9 2008, nothing has changed and voilà:

"Ross Garnaut made it clear in his interim report that his climate change review takes as a starting point - not as a belief but on the balance of probabilities - that the claims made in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are correct."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-case-built-on-thin-foundation/story-e6frg6zo-1111117427913

Shonkier and wonkier, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Posted by Bill Pounder, 31/01/2011 3:42:24 PM
Why don't we we take it out of his pay!!!
Posted by RofA, 31/01/2011 4:20:06 PM
Guano is a fool,
Posted by Doug, 31/01/2011 7:10:00 PM
It amuses me to hear Mr Mott talk about gall when he is criticising an eminent economist for his work.

What also amuses me is the anger behind the comments and all the colourful language and name calling. It is a clear sign that he has run out of cohesive arguments.

I'm afraid we will all pay more in the long run for various Governments inaction.

Posted by Dave, 1/02/2011 5:22:58 AM
The one thing that the deniers and sceptics have failed to do is disprove the hypothesis of AGW.

Good to see you on this blog because no one with any real influence is listening to your irrelevant ramblings.

Posted by The Lorax, 1/02/2011 8:45:40 AM
Yes Dave, Garnaut the eminent economist, who couldn't grow Lihir Gold, now where are those gold charts for the last ten years, oh that's right, they only go one way, yes, yes, yeeees, up.

“Under Mr Hood’s leadership, and the chairman Ross Garnaut, acquisitions have destroyed shareholder value,” Credit Suisse analysts Michael Slifirski and Nathan Littlewood, said today in a note to clients. “This risk may now have changed, but we would like to see changes at board level before becoming too confident.”

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/lihir-gold-chief-executive-steps-down-20100118-meqs.html

Posted by Bill Pounder, 1/02/2011 9:20:30 AM
Dave is amused. Well saints be praised, now there's a penetrating insight for readers, don't you think?

Did Guano accept the manufactured conclusion based on different discount rates, or didn't he? You do understand what a discount rate is, don't you Dave?

Posted by Ian Mott, 1/02/2011 9:44:11 AM
And that's why you're here, is it sunshine lorax. This'll do:

"Though other criteria, such as climate sensitivity (Spencer, Lindzen), can be used to test the AGW hypothesis, ocean heat has one main advantage: Simplicity. While work on climate sensitivity certainly needs to continue, it requires more complex observations and hypotheses making verification more difficult. Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid."

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/

Update:

“……any comment as to why the ocean heat content has appeared to level off during the post 2003 period?”

Gavin replies

“As for OHC,................. More time is required for that to become clear.”

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/comment-on-gavin-schmidts-statement-of-jan-21-on-real-climate-regarding-upper-ocean-heat-content/

Yep! That's more time to keep the scam alive.

Posted by Bill Pounder, 1/02/2011 11:28:42 AM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4  |  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.
Ross Garnaut.
Ross Garnaut.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Do you think a flood levy is justified?

Yes
(19.9%)

No
(75.7%)

Unsure
(4.4%)

Total Votes: 789
Poll Date: 30 January, 2011

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







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...