Saturday , December 7 2019
Home / unitedkingdom / Australia does not share the global climate. Sooner or later we will have to pay John Quigein | Opinion

Australia does not share the global climate. Sooner or later we will have to pay John Quigein | Opinion

AWhile approaching the Australian election, the British Parliament announced a national climate emergency. Perhaps, Australia can continue with another election result. Instead, we will ignore the immediate sequence when we follow the mirage of vegetation that promises thousands of jobs for the next three years.

The soon-to-be-blown mining suspension of mine near the project of China's Stone Project, Galilei, began to overtake Adani's Carmiike soon after my project. Other river basin has existed for years now.

The arrival of the carmichael mile is no good at the public (which may be in cards now) is not a big vacuum. Adani announced in November, will pay $ 2 billion for this project. Gautam Adani wanted to spend as much money. But there is no indication that such a person's wealth was not ready to stick to such a large amount. Such notifications have already been made, nothing has happened.

The coal scramble in the last decade will know what the Australian governments are doing. In contrast, weather is not a desolation, but it quickly turns into our attention. When that happens, we will have to face our emission reduction and reduce the downward target of the current government.

In relation to the responsibilities of comparable nations, Australia will need at least 40 per cent in 2005 in 2005. Moreover, the central position of the Paris Agreement for 2015 should realize that these initial responsibilities are insufficient. After the subsequent round of negotiations. When we focus on the weather crisis, we are facing an emergency.

Emergases are cheaper. Take into account the issues that need to be addressed urgently with all the steps that might have to be addressed to the effectively less costly efficiency within a few years. A few examples point out.

In the first phase of the process of reducing emissions, the coal will be converted from energy production. In 2012, Kevin Rudd's carbon pollution control plan could be implemented, or even the clean energy target proposed by the Guillard government's carbon price or 2017 finickal review, coal-free electricity like other developed countries. In the early 1990s, the UK for 50% of electricity was generated, and emissions trading started in 2002, within a few years of completely eliminating coal power.

As things stand, Australia needs to face the same transformation from five to ten years. Solar PV and storage winds will be huge investments. The uncertainties created by the policy crisis for decades, the governments have to take up the investment directly or have long-term guarantees.

At the same time, existing coal blocks are shut down as soon as possible. Any investment in new or renovated plants that will be provided by the current government will be completely wasted.

The story related to traffic is similar. In 2014, a light vehicle fuel fuel efficiency standards were proposed by the Climate Change Authority (which I belonged to). This would save the car accidents in the lives of the vehicle, causing significant emission reductions. In recent years, the formation of electric vehicles provides new opportunities for decarbonization. The current government rejected fuel subsidy and was abused by electric vehicles – mid-2020s electric vehicles could have a policy.

As a result of this delays, if we understand the climate of the climate, we have a large flight of the world's most fuel-efficient cars, most of them new. Norway's efforts to provide subsidies for the electric vehicles are very slow for the production of low output in production.

Therefore, we will be forced to implement a "clunkers for cash" scheme where people pay for old and inexpensive vehicles. When Yulia Gillard proposed as an alternative to the carbon price, it would never be presented and it disappeared when such a price was determined after the 2010 election. But since we begin to take action, this will be one of the few options to generate from the rapid shift we need.

Expanding this analysis across the economy, we know that emergency measures to reduce emissions are cheaper, effective measures we can accept with a two-pronged commitment.

Bad news. Compared to a transparent policy, good news is that the average cost of an emergency response is very low compared to a yearly or 2-dollar economy, by 2030 per day production. To see this, we can switch to the data prepared by Brian Fischer of the IE Economics government.

The worst cases are the costs of the most urgent emergency procedures, $ 50 billion a year, or costs between 2.5% and 3% of national income. A lot of money, such as a new NBN standard program or a submarine contract between five to ten years.

At the same time, it will be less visible in the context of general fluctuations in the economy. An average family lost more than a decade-old stagnation. As for the government budget, it is possible to increase the cost of rising health care from developing new treatments from our higher standard of living.

More importantly, an urgent need for an emergency response to climate change is at a level where people can benefit from human health and natural resources. We now undertake a contribution to this global public good, traveling freely on others' efforts. But sooner or later we must give our share.

John Quiggin, a professor of economics at Queensland University, Two lessons in his latest book Economics, published by Princeton University Press

Source link