There has been some interesting discussion on policy solutions for ‘climate change’ at the thread following Part 2 of this series.
David Tribe mades the comment:
Focusing on policy realism is what is needed. We’ve heard too much about model uncertainties and physics.
Ian Castles responded with a suggestion from Indur Goklany’s submission to House of Lords Economic Committee Inquiry:
“Over the next few decades the focus of climate policy should be to
(a) broadly advance sustainable development, particularly in developing countries since that would generally enhance their adaptive capacity to cope with the many urgent problems they currently face, including many that are climate sensitive;
(b) specifically reduce vulnerabilities to climate-sensitive problems that are urgent today and might be exacerbated by future climate change; and
(c) implement ‘no-regret’ emissions reduction measures; while
(d) concurrently striving to expand the universe of no-regret options through research and development to increase the variety and cost-effectiveness of available mitigation options”.
Ian then made comment that:
In the light of this and other submissions, the House of Lords Economic Committee unanimously concluded that ‘The important issue is to wean the international negotiators away from excessive reliance on the ‘targets and penalties’ approach embodied in Kyoto.
Hence there should be urgent progress towards thinking about wholly different, and more promising, approaches based on a careful analysis of the incentives that countries have to agree to any measures adopted’ (Report, para. 184).
The objections to Kyoto go deep. To quote a few from Aynsley Kellow’s paper for ASSA:
a) the Protocol ‘lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms;
b)it allows paper reductions in emissions to be offset against future real increases;
c)and it is overly sanguine about the ability to create the institutions (especially measurement and verification measures) which will permit the establishment of effective emissions trading regimes.’
… A major element in the Castles and Henderson critique of the IPCC approach is precisely that the Panel is excessively confident of its ability to make long-term projections of emissions, i.e., of socio-economic conditions and technological possibilities. The concluding statements you [Ender] quote from the Econbrowser blog summarise precisely why basing policies on very long-term projections of emissions is wrong-headed.
But the emissions scenarios do need to be constrained by what is logically possible, and they do need to be based on sound concepts. For example, it would be a nonsense (a) to assume that average incomes per head in Africa will increase 15-fold by the middle of the century (as the IPCC scenarios with both the highest and lowest emissions profiles do); (b) to base projections of emissions of GHGs on this assumption; but then (c) conclude that climate change will lead to large increases in the numbers at risk of hunger on the continent. Yet this is what is done in the most widely-cited impact study using the IPCC scenarios.
In his submission to the Lords Committee, Julian Morris of the University of Buckingham made the point that, if Bangladesh and the United States prove to have similar levels of output per head by the end of the century, as the IPCC high emissions scenarios assume, this outcome could only have come about because either (a) Bangladesh has found a highly cost-effective way of coping with the adverse effects of climate change or (b) it would not have suffered these effects. He concludes that ‘Either way there appears to be a contradiction between the economic scenarios that underpin the IPCC’s climate forecasts and the scary stories that the IPCC tells on the back of these forecasts.’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, I wrote the response pasted below as a response to Steve’s comments on my “Plan B” in “What Climate Change Consensus Part 2”. But I think that it is of general interest as a contribution to a discussion focusing on ‘policy realism’ , so I’ll post it here:
Steve, I was asked for my Plan B. I began by saying that I had limited time but that you could read two books on Kyoto and the alternatives co-authored by Australian experts – one by Warwick McKibbin and the other by Aynsley Kellow, and 300-odd pages of evidence given to the House of Lords Committee on Climate Change. I then tabled one paragraph from one of those submissions as my Plan B.
Your response is that ‘Ian’s plan B is, by contrast, extremely short on detail. It’s easy to feel that you have a good approach when you have no substance and nothing to criticise. “Advance sustainable development?” Implement ‘no regrets’ efficiencies? Such statements are of little value because they, likewise, do not imply any attempt to MEASURE results, or verify that action is commensurate with the scope of the problem. Will only ‘no regrets’ efficiencies be enough to achieve anything?” [End of quote from Steve]
Steve, if you want answers to these questions, you’ll need to begin by going to the books and papers by the experts that I’ve cited. I’ve already posted on this thread (26 January, 8.43 am) a link to Indur Goklany’s submission to the House of Lords Committee. I quoted as Plan B the penultimate para. of Dr. Goklany’s “Summary”. If you go to his paper, you’ll find a good deal of ‘detail’ and ‘substance’. The all-party Committee of the House of Lords specifically cited Dr. Goklany’s evidence in their powerfully-argued Report (para. 46). Could I suggest that you read Dr Goklany’s paper in full, and then go to his paper ‘Strategies to enhance adaptability: technological change, economic growth and free trade’, which was published last year in ‘Climatic Change’ (vol. 30: 427-449). And his letter in ‘Science’, co-authored with D A King, on ‘Climate and malaria’ (2004, vol. 306: 55-57).
Other relevant papers and books by Dr. Goklany are included in his list of references.
Let me quote two paragraphs from Dr. Goklany’s submission to illustrate his general approach:
’35. Thus, even if [these] cost estimates for reducing present day vulnerabilities are overoptimistic by an order of magnitude, the set of focused adaptations listed in that paragraph will, through the forseeable future, cost less than the Kyoto Protocol, while providing greater benefits than would a complete halt in further climate change – even ignoring discounting.
’47. For example, it is, under current conditions in the US, cheaper to reduce traditional air pollutants through a direct assault on these pollutants (via add-on controls) than indirectly throough measures designed to reduce GHG emissions. Thus, even if the sum of climate change-related and air-pollution benefits of GHG reductions were to exceed the total cost of GHG controls, that could still lead to a squandering of scarce resources. Similarly, as shown in Table 2 …, it is much more economic, for the forseeable future, to advance sustainable development directly through adherence to the [Millennium Development Goals] or focused adaptatiion than through mitigation measures.’
Dr. Goklany argues that “A $5 billion annual increase in agricultural R&D should sufficiently raise productivity of agricultural land and water to erase any climate-change-caused deficit in agricultural production in 2085, especially if these additional R&D resources are focused on solving developing countries; agricultural problems that might be further exacerbated by warming” (para. 26). Note that this expansion in R&D expenditure can be expected to yield large net benefits whether or not the projections of climate-change-caused deficits in agricultural production are realised.
As you have argued that expanding R&D is an ‘incredibly weak approach’ to a global problem, could I suggest that you write up your reasons for rejecting Dr. Goklany’s analysis and submit your paper to ‘Climatic Change’?
Comment reposted from previous thread: it belongs in this thread. some typos fixed too.
“The objections to Kyoto go deep. To quote a few from Aynsley Kellow’s paper for ASSA, the Protocol ‘lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms; it allows paper reductions in emissions to be offset against future real increases; and it is overly sanguine about the ability to create the institutions (especially measurement and verification measures) which will permit the establishment of effective emissions trading regimes.'”
These are some of the shortcomings of Kyoto. However, the one big advantage of emissions trading with a targets and penalties approach is that it does not favour specific technologies. It allows the market maximum flexibility to respond in the best way possible to reduce emissions.
[new added comment] Kyoto certainly has shortcomings, though it is not clear that they are fatal.
Ian’s quoted ‘plan B’ is, by contrast, extremely short on detail. It’s easy to feel that you have a good approach when you have no substance and nothing to criticise. “Advance sustainable development?” Implement ‘no regrets’ efficiencies? Such statements are of little value because they do not imply any attempt to MEASURE results, or verify that action is COMMENSURATE with the scope of the problem. Will only ‘no regrets’ efficiencies be enough to achieve anything?
How does one ‘broadly advance sustainable development’?
You could hand out money for R&D as Ian [or rather the quote from Ian] suggests, to try and expand the number of no regrets solutions.
However, this approach is possibly the most economically fraught approach there is. Loads of cash given to industries [and researchers] in the hope that they will improve. And if they don’t, then its money wasted. And who picks which industries get the cash? Policy makers.
You want to rely on policy makers to decide how to invest R&D funds for a global problem? This is an incredibly weak approach – R&D funding is suitable so long as it is very small scale. It’s not a particularly effective [or economically efficient] approach to a big problem like global warming.
By far, the best driver of innovation is competition. I’m sure most people would agree with this. If you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to expand the array of ‘no regrets’ solutions to global warming, then the best way is to
– communicate to the market that there is value in reducing greenhouse emissions
– let the market do its thing
How do you communicate to the market that there is value in reducing emissions? With a carbon tax, or with emissions trading.
Kyoto.
By far the biggest problem for kyoto is that not all countries are participating. The USA and Australia are making kyoto weak, while proposing alternatives that are even weaker.
The best thing our govts could be doing is fully supporting a market based approach using emissions trading, targets, and penalties, instead of arguing against the grain, and creating uncertainty for the market. Uncertainty inhibits market activity more than an emissions trading scheme ever will.
That is, unless your idea of ‘the market’ and ‘the economy’ doesn’t extend beyond fossil fuel and energy intensive industries.
[by this last comment, i am implying that while emissions trading is broadly efficient, it might be costly for individual industries (like coal). I can appreciate these industries would lobby vigorously for a different approach, and prefer an expensive R&D funding scheme instead, which, though expensive and inefficient for the economy as a whole, is less of a threat to the fossil fuel and energy intensive industries.]
Jennifer, I’d also written a response to Phil’s question on Part 2 about the current state of play on the PPP vs MER question and related issues on the IPCC’s economic and statistical work. At the risk of getting things tangled up again, I’ll post this here also: it’s actually very relevant to the ‘policy solutions’ heading.
Phil,
You’ve asked some very topical questions, because the editorial in the latest issue of ‘Nature’ (26 January) is entitled ‘Warming to Economics’ and there’s an ‘Special Report’ on ‘The costs of global warming’ by Quirin Schiemeier. I’ll quote from both of them at length, because they help to answer your questions and also shed light on what the argument on the emissions scenarios is about.
First, from the editorial:
‘There is a growing acceptance on the part of the scientists that economic models are an essential piece of the toolkit needed to predict climate change. And there’s an acknowledgement that mitigation actions cannot fly in the face of the considerations that economists probe, such as China’s desire to grow and people’s desire to drive their own cars. The centrality of economics to decisions in this sphere is neatly encapsulated by the British government’s decision to give the Treasury lead responsibility for climate-change policy.’ [Note: I think ‘Nature’ should have said ‘the economics of climate-change policy’]…
‘Unfortunately, for the purpose of its impending fourth assessment, the IPCC won’t manage to incorporate the economists’ latest thinking on these different ’emissions scenarios’. The ‘Special Report on Emissions Scenarios’ that will accompany the assessment was developed in the late 1990s and rests on a number of assumptions that many economists view as outdated or simplistic.
‘For example, it assumes direct ’cause-and-effect’ correlations between factors such as population growth and technological change, instead of the more complex, two-way relationships that economists have established beyond reasonable doubt. It also makes macroeconomic assumptions, such as a rapid convergence between the per-capita income of rich and poor nations, that really ought to be discarded as wishful thinking.
‘Common-sense adjustments to the report on emissions scenarios could incorporate the best understanding that we have regarding the interaction of such variables in complex economic systems.They will not remove uncertainty, which is fiercely ingrained in economics…
‘The IPCC has initiated the development of an improved set of such scenarios for completion by the end of the decade, in time for incorporation into the fifth climate assessm ent, due in 2013. Such are the slow wheels of progress at an organization designed to forge painstaking consensus. The delay need not undermine the authority of the IPCC’s work, but it will doubtless lend ammunition to its vocal and well-financed critics when the fourth assessment is released.”
And this comes from Nature’s ‘Special Report’:
“In June 2003, the IPCC decided that there was no time to develop new scenarios for its fourth assessment report, so the same ones are being used again. But many economists are vehemently questioning the assumptions on which the SRES scenarios are based. They say the scenarios rely on outdated economic theories and fail to reflect how lifestyle and energy demand in both rich and poor countries are likely to change.
‘Climate researchers are familiar with the problem. ‘Some emissions scenarios are perhaps already demonstrably wrong,’ says Erich Roeckner, a climate modeller at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, who has modelled three of them for the IPCC … It is possible that all of them are wrong.’ But most feel that economics is a field they are not qualified to assess.
‘One key criticism is the assumptions that the economies of poor countries will quickly catch up with those of rich nations. ‘It is ridiculous to assume, as the IPCC does, that rich and poor countries will converge as rapidly as the European Union has done over the past 40 years,’ says Richard Tol, an economist at Princeton University in New Jersey.
‘A particular worry about convergence was first raised by David Henderson, former head of economics at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and Ian Castles, former head of Australia’s bureau of statistics, after the IPCC’s third assessment report. They pointed out that the IPCC used market exchange rates to compare the wealth of difference countries, instead of what a certain amount of money will buy in each place. This exaggerates the difference between countries, they argue, and overestimates how much poor countries will develop in coming decades, and how much their carbon emissions will increase.
‘Tol says that even if certain economic assumptions are wrong, the predictions of global warming itself may not be far off. The errors may even cancel one another out: if economic development is slower than thought, countries may also switch to renewable energy more slowly.
‘Susan Solomon, who chairs the IPCC’s Working Group I, emphasizes the point. ‘Existing scenarios cover a very wide range of emissions trajectories,” she says. ‘They are perfectly suited to physical tests of how the climate responds to fixed concentrations of greenhouse has. In the simplified view of science it does not matter how the gas gets into the atmosphere, only how much of it is there.’
‘But Tol argues that when it comes to translating those temperature predictions into impacts on society, how the carbon got there matters very much indeed. Many problems relating to climate change, such as the distribution of malaria and water-borne diseases, are highly sensitive to development and wealth, says Tol. ‘You can’t use flawed economicx scenarios for any meaningful analysis of the impacts of climate change.’
‘In terms of human welfare, some even assert that the difference between the economic effects of the various scenarios is more significant than the predicted effects of climate change. For example, change in malaria incidence that result from people becoming rich enough to have mosquito nets outweigh any changes in the geographical spread of malaria caused by global warming.
‘Development of the SRES scenarios was overseen by Nebojsa Nakicenovic, an energy economist at Vienna Technical University in Austria. He says he is aware of the criticisms, but argues that the scenarios were designed to cover a range of possibilities, and include one group that assumes little convergence [Yes, but this group also assumes that the world population will exceed 15 billion by 2100, which is well above the ‘high’ projection by the UN Population Division – IC].
‘Martin Parry, co-chair of Working Group II, … adds that he and his colleagues also take other projections into account, for example those from the World Bank or the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. But which ones are likely to be right isn’t for them to judge, says Parry. ‘The IPCC summarizes current knowledge – it doesn’t have a view.’
‘But economists such as Tol say that instead of considering an ever wider range of possibilieies, the IPCC needs to rethink its scenarios and come up with a selection of likely options based on more up-to-date economic theory.
‘Tol believes that the composition of the SRES teams was too narrow, and that future efforts should have a wide range of experts. As well as convergence, they will need to consider how future societies will operate, how fast the population will grow, and how technological progress will change things. ‘All these questions are at the heart of economics,’ agrees Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist at the Potsdame Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.”
Phil, I think you can see from this that the “practical upshot of PPP versus MER issue” is a entirely distinct question to that of the effect on emissions. Using the wrong GDP measure may not affect emissions projections very much, but it can have a large effect on the analyses of impacts, and of mitigation options. Its particularly disappointing that Martin Parry says that the IPCC will also take the World Bank and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment projections into account. These projections use MER and are just as flawed as the SRES (Professor Nakicenovic and others who’d been involved in SRES were members of the MEA writing teams).
On your point about the IPCC only being able to review what it has on hand, let me quote from David Henderson’s paper ‘SRES, IPCC and the treatment of economic issues: What has emerged?’, ‘Energy & Environment’, vol. 16, nos. 3 & 4: 568):
‘As to the statistical offices, the possibility of their joining in was raised in Canberra in July 2002 at a meeting with Dr Pachauri, where it was well received by those present. In December of that year, in writing to Dr Pachauri, Castles referred to the idea and added:
‘In this connection, I [Ian Castles]should mention that Mr Dennis Trewin, the Australian Statistician – who is currently President of the International Statistical Institute – has advised me that the Australian Bureau of Statistics would be very willing to participate in this way. I have no doubt that many other national statistical offices would also welcome the opportunity to contribute their expertise to the work of the IPCC.’
‘So far as I [David Henderson] know, the IPCC has not invited participation on the part of national statistical offices in the programme of work for AR4, and is not about to do so.’
I have no doubt that, if the IPCC had chosen to draw upon the expertise in national statistical offices in early-2003, it would have had an improved set of projections available for its use in the current assessment to be published in 2007, which would not have been vulnerable to the criticism that the continued use of the SRES will attract. ‘Nature’ says that the delay until 2013 ‘need not undermine the authority of the IPCC’s work’. I disagree. The IPCC swept aside as ‘disinformation’ the criticisms that David Henderson and I made of its scenarios, ignored our suggestions for the involvement of statisticians (and also of ‘economic historians and historically-minded economists’) in its economic and statistical work, and proclaimed in a press statement that ‘The economy does not change by using a different metrics (PPP or MEX), in the same way that the temperature does not change if you switch from degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit.’ The House of Lords Economic Committee rightly criticised the IPCC for continuing to insist on the ‘methodological soundness of the use of MER for developing long-term emissions scenarios’, noting that ‘We found no support for the use of MER in such exercises other than from Dr. Nakicenovic of the IPCC’ (para. 53).
The IPCC HAS undermined the authority of its work by dismissing the Castles & Henderson critique of its economic and statistical work. It is revealing that ‘Nature’ characterises the criticism of these aspects that the Panel will receive when AR4 is released as lending ‘ammunition to its vocal and well-financed critics’. A more accurate statement would be that the IPCC will be providing misleading information and analyses, and has left itself open to justified criticism from well-informed experts.
I clearly have plenty of reading to do before you will accept anything I have to say. This will take some time. I have skimmed Dr Goklany’s House of Lords submission, and here are my early thoughts:
* Dr Goklany argues that it would be cheaper and of higher value if we were to spend money in meeting millenium development goals by 2015, instead of something like kyoto.
I don’t dispute this. However, I don’t see why it is either/or. Kyoto deals specifically with climate change, whereas the adaptation measures highlighted by Dr Goklany are more specifically addressed at other development problems, such as malaria, access to clean water and hunger. By all means, lets spend $150 billion to combat these problems, but i don’t see how that prohibits specific action on climate change. Even if we could adapt sufficiently to eliminate malaria, hunger etc, i would still be concerned that the globe was warming at the rate it is, and would argue that carbon emissions need to be mitigated.
* Dr Goklany argues that the ancillary benefits of mitigating GHG are better dealt with directly, than indirectly through GHG mitigation. He specifically mentions air pollution.
Dr Goklany has avoided discussing the primary ancillary benefit of mitigating climate change: economic activity.
Mitigation does not mean a reduction in economic activity – it can mean a transfer to low-greenhouse economic activity.
Something like kyoto creates a bias, so that low-carbon technologies become more economically favourable, while high carbon technologies become less favourable. So while there is a cost associated with mitigation, there is also a big gain – new industries, new economies, new markets. We can already see this happening – look at the markets for energy efficiency service companies, high technology approaches to lighting, sustainable building design, wind power (billions of dollars annually), solar power (billions of dollars annually), solar hot water, hybrid vehicles etc.
I did not notice that Dr Goklany had considered these benefits in his analysis.
A carbon target that costs the fossil fuel industry, say, $5 billion per year, but creates a $2billion per year energy efficiency service industry is better than $5billion in subsidies for R&D in the hope that a new technology might be invented to compete with fossil fuels at existing prices. This is the essense of my comments that a target/penalty scheme is better that subsidies for R&D.
So, I’ve got plenty more reading to do, but so far:
Dr Goklany, has no argument against kyoto, but rather, has an argument that greater funding for hunger relief, clean water and malarial control should be made available first.
He also argues that the ancillary benefits of GHG mitigation are better dealt with directly than indirectly through GHG mitigation. However he does not acknowledge the new technologies and industries that are created if a market based approach to mitigation is adopted, and the economic benefits that they bring.
To further highlight that business can actually benefit from certainty and kyoto mitigation, have a read of this press release from the Business Council of Australia, back in 2003:
http://www.bca.com.au/content.asp?newsID=87820
In this release, the BCA:
* Shift their position from an anti-kyoto position to a neutral position
* Indicate that there is no consensus among their members that kyoto will be good for them, or a consensus that it will be bad.
* one of the key issues for the BCA was that kyoto didn’t cover all nations, with specific mention of the USA and developing nations. If the USA signed up, perhaps there would be sufficient certainty for BCA members to create a pro-kyoto consensus?
So far from being all doom and gloom for business, the business council of australia cannot form a consensus either way, and this is in a coutnry where plenty of business comes from fossil fuel intensive or energy intensive industries.
Haven’t heard much out of the BCA regarding greenhouse since then. Anyone else?
At last we are seeing some focus on what will, actually work. The basis of good decision making is, always maximise options. Kyoto was about eliminating options.
A $5B cost off total revenue usually means $5B off the bottom line, today. A $5B investment in R&D has no impact on the bottom line today but will maximise the potential contributions, and further options, tomorrow. It is not a betrayal of our children but, rather, a vote of confidence in their ability to understand the problem better than we can and come up with cheaper, more effective solutions.
One can almost hear some gruff, wise old fellow saying, “splendid fellow that Castles, what! And by crikey we could do with a few more like him”.
Would Kyoto do anything other than move the CO2 curve a few years? Buy some time. Are Kyoto cuts near enough (assuming of course you think curbing CO2 growth is worth doing)
Ian M, a $5billion investment in R&D means $5billion of public funds gone today. That hurts everyone’s bottom line. And of that, a lot would quite possibly not result in any practical benefit for tomorrow either. R&D funds sometimes go towards great solutions. But sometimes they go towards technologies that never prove themselves.
Kyoto doesn’t eliminate options at all. Rather, it refuses to specify particular options to emissions reduction, so that the market has the flexibility to work out what is best. And you have a $5billion per year competitive greenhouse mitigation industry developing.
$billion for r&d must necessarily favour particular options, and not provide funding for other options.
Ian – “It is not a betrayal of our children but, rather, a vote of confidence in their ability to understand the problem better than we can and come up with cheaper, more effective solutions.”
Excuse me however this sound like crap. What if our children don’t want to solve it? Have you asked them? Can you ask them? Is it right to export our problems, no matter how much money you throw at it, to future generations. What if they are unsolvable – “We have had our party now it is up to you to clean up and by the way they might not be solvable – sorry!!!!!” We use all their oil and probably coal and then leave them to clean up – really good policy that one.
We are maximising options for ourselves to consume as usual which is a selfish thing to do. There is no guarantee that throwing money at the problem will solve it. Look at the money spent on the New Orleans levees for instance.
“Dr. Goklany argues that “A $5 billion annual increase in agricultural R&D should sufficiently raise productivity of agricultural land and water to erase any climate-change-caused deficit in agricultural production in 2085, especially if these additional R&D resources are focused on solving developing countries; agricultural problems that might be further exacerbated by warming”
I have an enormous doubt that this is true. As I said before money does not solve problems and imagining that the simple investment of money will solve the problem to me is not correct.
Phil, we agree that kyoto Mk I is not enough. Everyone agrees on this.
Ian – sorry I retract the part about it sounding like crap – apologies
“A $5 billion annual increase in agricultural R&D should sufficiently raise productivity of agricultural land and water to erase any climate-change-caused deficit in agricultural production in 2085” – having not understood the background to this comment – I’m a little hesitant. Will it ? On the basis of what? Are yields in modern agriculture still showing high growth rates? Have negative influences from climate in some areas been factored in?
I don’t know here – just asking?
Agricultural in vestment has a good track record. Its outcomes are highly relevant. Similarly malaria, and air pollution resreach. Fundamentsal research also doesnt really matter what final outcome is, it increases options.
Goklany is no fool Phil when it comes to Agriculture or risk management. The short answere is yild growth is slowing down a bit but there plenty of room for improvement in many ways, totally relevant to the issue.Eg preserving nature.
Just happened to have this on my clipboard
The Impact of Research-Led Agricultural Productivity Growth on Poverty Reduction
in Africa, Asia and Latin America
Twenty-percent of the world’s population, or 1.2 billion live on less than $1 per day; 70% of these are rural and 90% are in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Research-led technological change in agriculture generates sufficient productivity growth to give high rates of return in Africa and Asia and has a substantial impact on poverty, currently reducing this number by 27 million per annum, whereas productivity growth in industry and services has no impact. The per capita ‘‘cost’’ of poverty reduction by means of agricultural research expenditures in Africa is $144 and in Asia $180, or 50 cents per day, but this is covered by output growth. By contrast, the per capita cost for the richer countries of Latin America is over $11,000.
COLIN THIRTLE, LIN LIN, JENIFER PIESSE
World Development Vol. 31, No. 12, pp. 1959–1975, 2003
Sorry feeling obsessed by evapotranspiration balance and drought for some reason.
And if yield growth is slowing that is most significant.
detribe “Research-led technological change in agriculture generates sufficient productivity growth to give high rates of return in Africa and Asia and has a substantial impact on poverty, currently reducing this number by 27 million per annum, whereas productivity growth in industry and services has no impact”
Yes but does the report take into account the energy needed for this productivity growth or is it assumed that enough energy is available. Ditto for water and fertiliser.
I seem to recall somewhere on this blog a statement to the effect that in Australia, agricultural productivity growth has averaged 2.3% pa for the past 30 years while for the nation as a whole it has averaged only 1% pa.
Most of that has come through the implementation of moisture retention and use measures, soil quality measures and plant moisture efficiency measures. All R&D based stuff with a veritable “shitload” more to do.
Phil, In response to your question about where Indur Goklanys $5 billion for agricultural R&D comes from, l will key in some of the section headed
R&D into agriculture may run into ‘ethical’ problems of bio-science which Greenpeace actively campaign against.
India has thrown off the shackles of the Gandhi legacy and have set a target of 4% growth in agriculture – politics was the main cause of their poverty. They have also increased R&D into agriculture and are pushing for increased efficiencies to compensate for the shrinking amount of agricultural land as the country becomes modernised. Singapore has never had the same degree of poverty as they initially threw open the doors for foreign investment. Africa is beleagured by disease and political strife that will impact on yields for decades no matter what the weather is like.
The question has to be asked, is it ethical to divert much needed resources from real and immediate problems to those of a problem of unknown scope and size?
I posted these before. But these are real climate problems we as Australians face at home and issues for export decisions.
ongoing drought in Australia for the last 15 years
ongoing water crises in most capital cities
Are these to do with climate change – too early to know but perhaps indicative of what we may face. Interesting to ponder even if variability.
an already over-exploited Murray-Darling system
rampant coastal development at risk from storm surge and cyclone wind damage in northern Australia
many new homes being built with minimal water and energy efficiency standards
extinction possible with species in ecosystems that have nowhere to move (e.g. up slope in the montane rainforests of Bartle Frere)- tough luck ?
preserve them ? move them ? translocate them ?
high demand for our coal and uranium in Asia – money vs greenhouse vs safety ?
long distances, high transportation costs, high climate variability inherent already (El Nino)
What do we do about our own existing problems ??
Have we got the budget allocation decisions to divide between weather; seasonal climate; and climate change – have we got it right?
Should we invest in climate education to make our producers more savvy and adaptable?
Or is it infrastructure (e.g. more dams) that is required.
Where do you put your effort.
Oh dear. Aynsley Kellow has lost all credibility: he mentions James Lovelock AND Herman Daly! 😉
I think Ian referred to this paper but might not have included link(?) http://www.assa.edu.au/publications/op/op22005.pdf
Uncertainty and Climate Change: The Challenge for Policy, (Zillman, McKibbin & Kellow).
I don’t think that the criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol (on 1. the form of the instrument, 2. the economics, or 3. the non-involvement of LDC’s) substantiate a claim that the KP would have set back actions to address climate change/AGW (pick yr preferred nomenclature) by a decade. Having said that, I’m not going to expand on the point (or copy my comments from the other thread) as I doubt it’s fruitful to debate this point now. I mention this only because this debate was still sizzling a little above. Everyone agrees Kyoto wasn’t enough, most seem to agree that Something Ought to be Done.
Forwards then. (A fortnight’s worth of reading from Ian.)
Re Energy Ender: The report is retrosprective. I quoted it solely to make the point that agricultural investment has practical poor friendly impact. The main point is that in the deveoping world there are all sorts of severe productivity limitations on agriculture. By “investment” I don’t necessarily mean high tech fancy stuff. I don’t think that energy inputs into agriculture are absolutely relevant to whether future investment can continue to pay off. Thing like roads, education, health services communication infrastructure for poor farmers, micro-credit, various new methods to farm, inter-cropping, agricultural schooling, small scale water storage, developments of avenues for marketing, cash crops. All could increase resilience to climate risks and help eliminate poverty. BTW increased fuel costs will hurt the poor in Africa because transport infrastructure is weak. That’s one more reason to worry about increased fuel prices: the rich had afford to look after the planet much more than the poor can, and all the proposed plans to save the planet still hurt the porest from the costs no matter how well intentioned they are .
As far as water fertiliser, huge numbers of possibilyies exist for INCREASE the yield of crop per unit of water, fertiliser input.The research can be directed to minimising inputs and stress, decreasing losses, all of which are important in adressing the problems you are concerned with. In any case we will have enough energy for fretiliser for decades: currently total energy for fertiliser is 2.8% of total hydrocarbon use.
I wouldnt worry about ethical problems raised by Greenpeace if they are not true.
The contradiction between the uneducated anti-technology stance of Greenpeace and the huge need for investments to mitigate the very problems Greenpeace claim to want to solve is so huge, sooner or later the general public will see through the scandal. AS global challenges of poverty, water, nutrition, land use, conservation, energy, public health, become more severe, technology (in its broadest sense) is going to become more even important.
I don’t think that yield growth in cereal crops is slowing , Phil. There are many factors causing an apparent drop in yield growth, including inefficiency of peasant farmers, and subsidies acting as a disincentive, but biological limits are not evident. See Lomborg, “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, p96. (And yes, he was peer reviewed Phil.)
Ian – “are you saying that youre not in favour of R&D expenditures because this cost money and money doesnt solve anything”
No you misunderstand me. I am questioning the assumption that just injecting money will necessarily solve the problem. Throwing money at Indigenous Australians to try to mitigate our guilt has not really improved their lot at all. This is because a lot of the money has been lost in corruption and waste and badly directed progams instigated without consultation or understanding that insulted the Koori people rather that helped them.
You would find that most of your 5 billion dollars would go the same way.
Ian – sorry for the multiple posts I only read the first paragraph at first.
“I’m also surprised at your question about whether enough energy will be available to support increased productivity in agriculture. In 2000, average consumption of electricity in the rich (OECD90) countries was 11,300 kWh per head. In 2080, the IPCC A1FI scenario assumes that consumption per head will be 26,500 kWh in the ALM region (Africa, Latin America and the Middle East), 31,500 kWh in ASIA, 38,000 kWh in OECD90 countries and 69,800 kWh in the REF (former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe) countries. If you don’t think that these huge increases in electricity consumption will occur (mostly generated by burning fossil fuels) you should be questioning the IPCC emission scenarios and the Panels projections of increase in temperature.”
No Ian I am questioning the ability of a world that is running short of the most easily used energy source available – oil – will have enough energy to supply this bountiful increase. The increase in transport requirements alone will push demand for oil from the present 84 million barrels per day into territory that cannot be supplied.
” The energy ratio (energy out/energy in) in agriculture has decreased from being close to 100 for traditional pre-industrial societies to less than 1 for most of the food products supplied to consumers in industrialised countries, as energy inputs, mainly in the form of fossil fuels, have gradually increased.”
Where is this extra oil to come from?
detribe – “BTW increased fuel costs will hurt the poor in Africa because transport infrastructure is weak. That’s one more reason to worry about increased fuel prices: the rich had afford to look after the planet much more than the poor can, and all the proposed plans to save the planet still hurt the porest from the costs no matter how well intentioned they are .”
Completely agree with you here. To us the price of oil rising at the moment means that when we fill our car it costs a bit more and is a bit inconvenient. To a poor person that has no firewood left nearby forests are denuded kerosene is the only way they can cook food. When energy costs go up to more than your income then you eat uncooked food or go without heating. It is life and death for them.
That’s what I thought, Ender. You are questioning whether the world will have enough energy to supply ‘this bountiful increase’. In logic, therefore, you should be questioning the IPCC’s emission scenarios and the Panels projections of increase in temperature. I don’t understand why you are denying this.
Ender, this might explain why some of us are prepared to wait and see how climate change pans out.
“The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential2/april_28__1975_newsweek___the_cooling_world___by_peter_gwynne.guest.print.html
Ian – will not the Asia Partnership provide its sustained oil supplies from liquefying coal – which is really what the alliance is about. (e.g. Fischer-Tropsch process).
Of course, I don’t need to add that world food production has increased enormously in the last thirty years, despite the dire predictions.
I’m not doubting the 3rd world agriculture could produce higher yields but have not yields in the high end producing western countries levelled off. i.e. genetic and agronomic advances not producing the same percentage gains in efficiency
Paul – thanks for quoting an old recycled piece of contrarian sophistry – that’s popular press not science.
Try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ for a rebuttal.
“Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the ’70’s? No”
The problem is that there is a problem in the first place.
What problem?
Increasing humanity? No birth rates are falling.
Increased emissions, no they seem to be reducing too.
Louis birth rates have fallen in first-world societies where women have access to education and equal rights (self-determination) by law. The total world population is increasing and it’s getting younger. Welcome a crowded world where the ‘average’ person is an impoverished, angry teenager with few, if any, property rights, existing on marginal lands with diminished natural resources.
Total quantity of emissions is falling?
The total world population is getting younger? According to the Population Research Center website
‘The world is aging at unprecedented rates due to decreases in both birth and death rates. In 2000 the median age was 26.5, and it is expected to climb to 36.2 by 2050.’
Thinksy
1st world birthrates have fallen “by law”. Hence not natural. So by law, younger people are ,,,,
But, as Ian Castles point out,…..
And this is not a problem for you?
Ian thanks for correcting me. I was wrong to claim the average age is decreasing (I suspect that I misinformed myself based on Africa’s population trends).
Louis is mixing meanings. Falling birthrates doesn’t mean that humanity is not increasing (in total numbers). Louis I did not say that “1st world birthrates have fallen by law”. Education for all, health standards and social conditions (right of self-determination, protected by law) can reduce birthrates in all countries. Louis is the total volume of emissions falling?
Phil, there is no water crisis in any capital city. Enough water runs off the average roof to supply all the needs of the people under it. We just have this silly notion that it is OK to deliver a welfare service (water) to a constituency that has taken no reasonable or practical steps to help themselves. Turn public water into a supply of last resort and it could be delivered to a household water storage by very small diameter, cheap, pipes attached to the telephone cable.
Can’t really raise a lather over the rest of your list either.
And as for the so-called betrayal of future generations, Ender, it is more a question of whether we give them the greenhouse equivalent of the old mid 70’s IBM mainframe with a quarter meg of tape drive, today, or wait twenty years and let them get the laptop with all the grunt they need to do the job properly.
If there is one notion that has been comprehensively and repeatedly trashed over the past two centuries it is the delusion that technology will not, eventually, come up with a cheaper, better, solution than the one we already have.
Well Ian – maybe I just dreamed all those complaining newspaper headlines about lack of rainfall. Have you done the numbers on tanks and roofs – on your now famous back of the envelope?
And all those stats on drought and drought aid over the last 20 years. hmm.. ..
Ian – very easy to compute additional indundation levels from stronger cyclones right now and not build there. Interesting that the Cairns hospital is on the Esplanade. You’ll get a good view of the storm surge coming ashore – maybe through your window if QHealth haven’t finished you first.
Anyone who constructs new buildings on areas that will be storm surge affected should receive no govt assiatnce in disasters. Totally preventable.
Well – we’ve discussed and argued.
Anyone care to summarise or write our communique to the world on our bran nue response to the anthropogenic “threat” from combustion of coal and oil – with some tangible examples of what won’t change/will change/might change?
Yours lost in deep comments !
Hey Phil, after ’15 years of drought’ Sydney still has 44.7% of total water available.
What was the second question?
Phil
Re possible levelling of of yield gains
The recent yield gains in Austaia for wheat have been spectacular. They are the result of research done (yes a pun) 25 years ago. Never the less, your question is a red herring. In the vast majority of the developing world yoelds are terribly bad. Also, development of better water productivity, stress tolerance, disease resistance, sustainability in general, soil improvement etc have still a long way too go. Also we need to spend effect convincing Greenpeace et al to stop sabotaging this research as the delays dont help, its slow anyway.
Phil, I’m not up to writing a communique, but I WAS a bit surprised that the experts on this blog took William Connelley’s word for it that no scientist predicted an imminent ice age in the 1970s.
Stephen Schneider certainly came very close to making such a prediction in ‘The Genesis Strategy’ , 1976, when he said (p. 90) ‘I have cited many examples of recent climate variability and have repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in – perhaps akin to the Little Ice Age – and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling.’
I quoted this in my article ‘Scientists, strategists and the prophets of doom’ in IPA Review, December 2001. I’m sure Schneider made other similar statements in the 1970s.
Ender, with all due respect, the focus solely on past energy OUT/Input ratio trends in the past is missing many other factors.
One is that energy (N fertiliser) enables better use of both land and water, and these are both limiting resources. Energy enable savings of them.
Also the major energy input is fertiliser, and future higher fertiliser cost will promote some reduction of this. I would argue that enough liqid fuel energy is available for key food needs (just cut traveling use by 3% each year with extra efficiency and working at home by the internet.
Always obvious from a thread like this where people’s expertise lies….
Anyway, the literatures suggests that the cost of global warming for (say) a 6C warming (which is inevitable under BAU provided you accept the climate scientists) is between (about) 0 and 25% of GWP. A rise of 6C may even be optimistic if the projected loss of soil and vegetation carbon post 2050 occurs (an effect far more important than MER versus PPP).
Economists who place little cost outside of the markets are optimistic (they do this, presumably, because they have little idea about non-market costs) and natural scientists who place large prices on eco-system services are very pessimistic.
I have two questions.
What estimate do you place on the cost of a 6C warming (in GWP)?
Secondly, we know that ecosystems adapt reactive not proactively. What capacity do you see for ecosystem adaptation to a large warming?
David
David, We were asked to focus on ‘policy realism’ on this thread and I intend to stick to that from here on (I admit that I transgressed a couple of times).
Goklany (and Jessie Ausubel’s and Anthony Trawavas’) whole argument about agricultural efficiency is that it should be directed at preservation of ecosystem services, so I think is is wrong to assume that the agriculturalists are ignoring ecosystem services. That said, as usual, David you introduce an important and fresh point. Scenarios of large temperature change presumably have different degrees at different locations, and predict benefits as well as costs. I wouldnt wan’t to guess further than that.
Two more quick points.
The advantage of concentriting on relistic policies that will in any case have near term impact, climate change or not, is its much easier to attract the funds and attention from the scientific market for ideas and the capital markets ($s), as both these markets work in a currency of realism. A vivis exampe is Bill Gates global challenges that are actually doing stuff now. Bill , besides being bright, talks to really good people in science and Wallstreat both.
Second, via google, recently I found (well, kind of hacked a server directory, it’s amazing how open things are) a great little speach by a well respected economist (Ruttan?, )at a Columbia U website (Jeff Sachs place).It mention’s the three isolated island empires of knowledge – agriculture, environment and health. (if my memory serves me correctly). Barriers between these empires need to be broken to create policies on the environment that succeed.
Ian – the popular press did pick up on Ice Age and Nuclear Winter in the 1970s. I don’t know what an individual like Schnieder said or otherwise. This is very different to a whole IPCC organisation of scientists reviewing the worlds literature signing off on an Ice Age. The literature does not show the case. Connelly makes a fair attempt at disputing a well tried-on contrarian argument by looking at the literature. If you want to go there – we’ll have review what every economist has ever said about anything as well. Have they all been spot on?
Rog – the 15 years is a throw-away to the extent and duration of drought in rural areas. Some have had enough Exceptional Circumstances and drought declarations to last 200 years. Those on the coast tend to have blind spots here.
And I think how Ian skipped ecosystem response as not policy realism says it all for the me. – the massive schism that exists between the biological sciences and economic sciences on this issue. It has suddenly all become very clear.
Also biospheric feedbacks are not well represented in the current IPCC models. Some have said there might another whole 300ppm out there which we may well get from melting peat bogs, tundra and perma-frost – as well as land clearing for detribes’ new agricultural revolution.
And you won’t get an agronomic improvment in drought ! Actually an economically rational approach is to not waste fertiliser and not plant crops. And not drought feed animals. i.e. experience shows it’s pouring more money down the black hole.
My point on the communique – is that I think our discussions have been most excellent but very low on any specific detail. And I don’t see anything much different to where we are – “doing our best at no regrets, and ignoring the issue”. If nobody steps up the plate I’m simply concluding that we really don’t have any ideas. That’s OK as it’s a very difficult problem.
Phil, the reason Ive not posted specific detail is that I dont want to flood the comments and hog it with my stuff. There is a vast universe out there of real problems urgently awaiting better processes. People are actualluy dying and starving out there from drought and poverty and there are clear ways forward.
As far as Enders energy efficieny worries about biofuels and ghg, several new commentaies has just come out in Science
see
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/new-study-shows-biofuel-is-useful-and.html
and Pundit post just before that.
Phil, the whole thrust of CSIRO’s wheat breeding successes is to improve dry climate yields and they have, after 25 years succeeded with perhaps 25% boosts in yields.. Extreme drought may be a proble, but making the best of what rain there is is perfectly sensible.
Sorry detribe – not trying to be tedious – was contemplating drought in Africa as I thought this is where we needed most effort.
And I also concerned about plateauing of yields in Australia. But I yield to your more informed view on local yield increases of late.
For example .. .. today’s paper.
LOCAL Government water charges could rise by up to $185 a year per ratepayer under a $3 billion emergency water package announced yesterday.
Local councils must contribute up to $1 billion of the package aimed at stopping southeast Queensland running out of water in as little as three years.
Emergency measures outlined yesterday include mandatory rainwater tanks on all new homes, a Gold Coast desalination plant and re-commissioning of old water resources.
SEQ Water has blamed an unpredictable climate shift on the drying dams.
It said that, if the area’s major dams receive minimum recorded inflows, “the region has about three years of supply remaining”.
The situation is made more critical by the fact that, by 2026, the population of southeast Queensland is expected to top 3.7 million, more than twice the population in 1985.
Full story:
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17960110%255E952,00.html
Ian – “That’s what I thought, Ender. You are questioning whether the world will have enough energy to supply ‘this bountiful increase’. In logic, therefore, you should be questioning the IPCC’s emission scenarios and the Panels projections of increase in temperature. I don’t understand why you are denying this.”
Sorry I must be really thick today – I do not see what you mean here.
detribe – “I would argue that enough liqid fuel energy is available for key food needs (just cut traveling use by 3% each year with extra efficiency and working at home by the internet.”
I guess but the problem is that we are not doing this. Major oil fields are delpleting at 6% so you would have to cut travel by more that this. Also demand is still rising.
Ian – for what it’s worth – a robust exchange on your post theme of economics
http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=1338
and locally
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/01/27/castles-and-henderson-again/
Perhaps too much turf protection? Getting some traction here and a consensus here will be hard yards.
If we are concentrating on policies then the one mentioned here such as 5 billion dollars to promote a green revolution could result in the people being dependant on imports of oil and fertiliser. Natural gas prices are rising so much so most of the USA based producers have closed. With increased demands for fertiliser NG prices will go higher which will also make the fertiliser more expensive.
Why not spend the 5 billion in an integrated sustainable way. A wind turbine or solar thermal plant on a small scale could be the heart of a local clinic/power station/community centre. The power could be used for electric farm machinery (http://www.electrictractor.com/) eliminating the need for imported fossil fuels. The clinic could help with the devasting Aids crisis and generally help with the health of the people. The community centre could educate and assist the farmers on sustainable organic farming without masses of artificial fertiliser.
This way a Western style factory farm that requires massive amounts of energy and fertiliser that the people cannot afford long term is not foisted on villagers.
Action to prevent global warming does not have be soley focussed. It can form part of an integrated distributed system that can bring benefits beyond just growing food.
Sorry Ender, I must be thick today too, because the point I tried to make seems obvious to me.
You doubted whether the world would have enough energy to support increased productivity in agriculture. In response I pointed out that the IPCC’s high projections of future CO2 emissions, and therefore of future temperature, ASSUMED that the world would use many times the amount of energy that it does at present. If you believe that that’s impossible, it seems to me that you must also reject as irrelevant the scenarios of increased energy use and the projections of increased temperature that the IPCC derived from those scenarios. I’m not trying to make a subtle debating point – it seems to me to be an elementary point of logic. Am I missing something?
Similarly, I couldn’t understand David’s point that a 6C warming is inevitable under BAU. In their 2005 paper “Convergence and Per Capita Carbon Emissions”, McKibbin and Stegman ‘focus … on per capita carbon emissions from fossil fuel use because this is the basis of many projections as well as a variety of policy proposals.’ Their conclusion was that ‘We find strong evidence that the wide variety of assumptions about ‘convergence’ commonly used in emissions projections are not based on empirically observed phenomena.’ If there is no observable convergence across countries in per capita CO2 emissions, I can’t see how a projected temperature increase which assumes massive convergence in such emissions can be characterised as inevitable.
Note that it’s not necessary to make any assumptions about GDP to reach this conclusion. Assumptions about population and emissions per head of population are sufficient. Of course McKibbin and Stegman may be wrong, but they have to be shown to be wrong.
Thats not a tractor Ender, its a toy, this is A Tractor
http://www.caseih.com/files/tbl_s18News%5CImage165%5C2331%5CSTXworldrecord.jpg
Do you mean, Phil, you give credence to things that appear in the Courier Mail? Just a little back of the envelope stuff for you;
Average household water use is 700 litres/day or 255 tonnes/yr. Include some on-site multiple use, like using shower water to flush toilets (save 25%) and this comes down to 191 tonnes pa.
Average household roof area is 250m2 and average rainfall for Brisbane is 1100mm so 250m3 x 1.1m rainfall = 275 tonnes of water. Add all the other infrastructure that operates at almost 100% catchment efficiency (driveways, patios etc, (another 50 to 100m2) and we have a micro catchment that can yield from 172% to 200% of demand. Which is well within 95% of rainfall variation.
And that would release virtually the entire Brisbane dam supply for irrigation or other productive uses.
Just reporting on the governments reported comments.
So what would the cost of this be for each house?
How much are you going to store ? What area required?
What’s the cost of running the pump for moving the water.
Any disease, pollutant or heavy metal issues?
Presumably you’ll say we won’t drink it to be on the safe side.
Keep going Ian – you’re on a roll. (positive comment)
Ian – OK I get you now.
“If you believe that that’s impossible, it seems to me that you must also reject as irrelevant the scenarios of increased energy use and the projections of increased temperature that the IPCC derived from those scenarios”
I assumed that the IPCC projections were only high low and medium case studies of what could happen. I never took them as literal fact as as you know even the best economic forcasting is suspect and the best anyone can do is give scenerios.
Now if the high case is found to be impossible due to another factor that they did not take into account, Peak Oil, then I don’t think that this invalidates the whole IPCC report as you seem to maintain. Not everybody accepts peak oil and it is unlikely that this would have been taken into account in 2001. The high case is taken as BAU with no attempt to restrain emissions and no limits to growth. I am sure this is explained in the assumptions of the various scenerios. The next report may have to factor in oil delpletion.
Phil
Ian Castles is a statistician, not an economist.
I’m so glad the rest of the world does not depend on solutions evolving from any of this stuff. In all the scratching for facts people on here haven’t grown a thing.
For example Ian Mott’s micro catchment, thousands of roofs running into tanks needs to be costed against another Brisbane dam to be relevant. But first you had better be a plumber for it to be affordable in these academic times then an electrician before we get round to fixing the water lift in high rise apartments.
Thousands of pumps don’t stack up either. This ends up in us using third world buckets.
It’s all dreaming and won’t pass where it counts, back in the hands of average folk like me living on a trickle, sorry Ian.
Before we let Brisbane water, or our government, get away with the lie, we have had 10% more rain so far this decade than last decade.
Taz, I have not had a drop of water from a dam in 20 years. I can see no reason why you, & the rest of our city brethren, should not have to use your own water. What right do you have to mine?
In fact Taz, I can see no reason why you should be entitled to take whe water of another district to use in your lousy city. I believe you should have to pay the people of the district you plan to rob of thier water. If we were to feed in a reasonable charge for our catchment, say, $100 pre acre to supply our water to your dam, the cost of tanks, & pumps may not be so large after all. & Taz, you all ready have to pump the water in your high rise.
Ian, its not quite as easy as your math would suggest. I have 65000 L storage, & this often overflows in the wet. When the rain is heavy we loose about 50% in overflowing gutters. From my experience, you can catch & store, about 25 to 30,000 litres from 100 mm of rain, depending on your storage capacity.
This is still no reason why you should not become self sufficient in water.
Hasbeen may be referring to the notional national water scheme were water can be freely traded between copmpeting interests eg a surplus in one area could be sold and somehow “moved” to another area with a deficit.
More rain this decade – not exactly sure where you are talking about – but do you have numbers to support that?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi seems to indicate we have some long trends going on.
Rog – do we feel a Bradfield scheme, divert the Clarence, or pump Lake Argyle to Perth coming on.
The SEQ water authorities seems to be thinking about interconnecting the various council storages in the region – Wivenhoe Dam and Northpine Dam with Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast storages. Maybe makes some sense. Other pipelines being mused about for Central Qld to keep Gladstone industrial complex going.
I guess it’s all in the cost benefit. Philosophy used to be “no new dams ever ever” but this seems to be changing to maybe some new dams, plus recycling and local conservation (Motty’s rainwater tanks final solution BOEmm), and even de-salination. The works.
Maybe one good cyclone is needed to fill it and we can put it all off for another 10 years, till we creep back to low levels again.
And on cyclones – wonder why we haven’t any coast crossing cyclones in Qld in yonks. Anyone noticed? Just random perhaps? But some very fast cyclones in Pacific off-shore and around WA.
BOEmm = Back of envelope, Mottian methodology
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain®ion=aus&season=0112
Phil,
Hasbeen is right on both counts
1. If one looks at the times series graph of the annual rain fall since 1900, also provided by the BOM, one can safely assume that there has been no change. If anything the rolling average show an increase.
2.It is dead easy to catch and store 136kl in a concrete tank that cost $10k to build, and use a small pump to feed a house of 5 people, and water a garden, and never run out of water.The key is the timing of the opportunistic showers in summer.(In SA)
Most of the lost water in a household system takes place in a wetter than average year and so, is surplus to needs anyway. In Brisbane a 13,500 litre storage will ensure continuous supply to the average household in the 5th decile rainfall year, provided they have two small (200l) tanks and an aquarium scale pump to store daily shower water for the toilet system.
And lets get this clear. WATER TANKS ARE THE NORM ALL OVER RURAL AUSTRALIA. You simply do not build a house, or even occupy a house, without water tanks. Yet, we have people in the cities, mostly home owners, who have recently pocketed an average of $150,000 in mostly untaxed capital gains. But they have the gall to expect unlimited cheap public water (someone else’s) because they couldn’t possibly afford the $2000 for a water tank.
We have heard a load of stuff about farmers duty of care to the environment but nothing about urban voters duty of care. The key test for government assistance is whether the recipient has taken reasonable steps to help themselves before putting their hand out. An adequate (not token) urban household water tank is a reasonable, practical step to help oneself and it should be regarded as the minimum duty of care.
The right to that drop of water falling on anyone’s head wherever are quite unclear. We own a block of land; do you think it’s mine? It’s a big debate up and down the country.
Looking up or looking down it’s mine hey?
And the environment is mine too. Air, wind, rain but how about climate?
With water for the masses, the actual catchment point is almost irrelevant, however storage is vital. Since urban development generally increases rain run off, the community tank could simply be a storage dam on the out fall otherwise the environment downstream gets more than normal sooner.
In Canberra our forefathers saw fit to put the most of the storage back in the wilderness above the city and let gravity do the rest. Cheap as chips except the outfall must be treated to the highest standard for everyone else from here to Adelaide. The big decision last year was to return to river pumping to top up the huge dry dam on the far side emptied after bushfires ruined all water in the main storage.
Guess what? Our water rates went up!
Back in the 1970’s I was out round Melbourne after their fires and droughts tinkering with new water and old sewage treatment plants above much of the city. There had been a crisis in all infrastructures through the post war building boom. The 1960’s were very bad for bushfires on the outskirts and in the hill towns. We fought the worst in the hills with garden tools after sustained arson attacks and the old water supplies had run dry. I saw real panic on wide fronts then. Eventually the Thompson River had to be harnessed.
Any government worth its salt now, needs to look backwards to those years. Adequate storage is vital everywhere.
Unfortunately the most suitable areas for storage tend also to be of ”high conservation” value and politicians are loathe to restrict the public’s psychological need for pristine rainforest (I say psychological as most dont go near it, they just like to know ”it’s out there somewhere”).
The Hunter Valley in NSW is blessed with visionary water managers; between the Chichester Dam, Grahamestown Dam (currently undergoing extensions to weir height which will double capacity enabling them to export water to the Central Coast), Tomago Sands, Glenbawn Dam plus other weirs they have water to boot.
Here is a question for Hasbeen. What Australian forest do you and your family get your toilet paper from?
Soon after I quit the paper mills I tried the low impact lifestyle. It went this way; bush block, tents, kids, cast iron stove, bulldozer, shed, underground tanks and live stock. Why the bulldozer? Bull ants all over, three to an adult palm. They lived in ancient stumps with enough roots each to cover a tennis court. After a long period of high school homework under a candle and no TV we had mains power too.
Back to progress: although milking a herd of Friesians or woolly goats can be rewarding, education for the completive young today needs to be much more than a rural understanding.
Our lifestyle must include options like hot showers including remote power sources and toilet paper regardless of changing resources and values. Resources will continue to be distributed through fair trade.
Malcolm – pls look at the spatial distribution maps not an Australia wide average. The time series is meaningless for water resources policy.
I am not doubting the utility of rain water tanks but there are some gotchas retrofitting a whole city with them. There is movement on the issue with many people installing tanks in Brisbane at least. People has also responded well by conserving water – actually surprised council – so don’t say there is zero will to change.
Ian – if want to pull the “steal my water” line, let no tax dollars from suburbia go to rural Australia for drought support and we’ll import all our food thanks. You can guys can have the rest, problems, weeds and ferals. No I’m not serious – just making a point.
Yes Taz, the low impact lifestyle is not one that greenies actually live, its a concept that they preach, ad nauseum
Something that back-to-nature people fail to plan for; their kids will leave home chasing an education and career and move far away, never to return.
That means missing out on being a “hands-on’ grandparent (shove that in your social capital equation speadsheet)
It also means living in an aging community, with a greater drain on existing health resources whilst the future population has migrated. Greenies dont think of that.
Rog – there must be plague of greenies out there causing all this havoc. All those greenies you meet getting back to nature in western NSW and western Qld .. not!
yea sure ! more drivel greenie bashing from the self-made right wing
So the climate change issue is settled then? The science suggests that AGW could well be happening, so to be on the safe side, we should get prepared to mitigate and adapt. The nomeclature could be improved. The IPCC criticisms are only a matter of degree and not material, so they don’t invalidate the IPCC or its recommendations. Australia’s economic case against implementing Kyoto was weighted for the ‘no’ position, exaggerated the costs and ignored the potential benefits and opportunities (including opportunities to capitalise on that wonderful Australian ingenuity to develop renewable technologies). Now we’re chasing some loose commitment to pursue uncertain technologies that may start to capture emissions in up to 20 years time, meanwhile we’re reducing support for renewable generators while the US and the EU pull ahead and invest heavily in renewables. What will ignoring Kyoto cost Australia, long-term? Destined to be a mindless follower, ne’er a leader. Baaaaaa.
The point about water is that our institutions have failed to grasp key elements of water use efficiency and ethics. And this ignorance is being put into schemes that are a total waste of money and highly inefficient. And the problem will need to get worse before better minds focus on effective solutions. And we have been dealing with water supply for a few centuries, millenia if we count the Romans.
Greenhouse has only been an issue for two decades and it is almost an absolute certainty that the measures that the community would come up with, at this stage, would be ineffective and very high cost for minimal return.
Kyoto was nothing more than a 1976 mainframe, taking up a whole room to deliver a quarter meg of tape drive. Think of the changes that have taken place in IT in the 30 years since then and then try and tell me the kids won’t come up with a better, cheaper option.
My bet is that there is a kid with his thumb in his mouth out there who will discover a new use for Co2 and turn it into a valuable resource. And the green movement will be complaining about excessive harvesting of Co2 to the detriment of key ecological processes.
Phil,
I would have thought that a nationally based time series graph of total annual rainfall trends since 1900 was an infinitely better measure of what IS actually going on. Even if one can detect some variation in selected regions the safer bet would have to be that any regional variation is transient, and therefore what is happening in toto, is a better measure. ie it is the sum of all regional variations.The sum of this is, that total rainfall in Australia is not going down, fullstop.
The real issues with water resources policy is about how we allocate, price, and use the water. Not regional variations in what falls.
The climate change issue is not settled. But if there is a 10% probability of serious change then an investment approach would be far superior to a prescriptive approach. And given the lack of certainty involved in GH issues, we are entirely justified in giving the kids the opportunity to fix any problem that might occur with their greater knowledge and superior technology. This is especially the case if the proposed measures to be implemented today would hamper the economy to such an extent that the knowledge and technology of the kids will be seriously impaired.
I was thinking more of sea-changers and tree-changers Phil, coastal NSW and QLD is bursting with them placing a strain on finite resources (like health care). Your extreme sensitivity on these matters has been noted.
Rog; thanks for your astute comment re my post education and living the alternative; Other folks on here may also notice I don’t rely much on using the web for developing my opinion on a variety of issues associated with testing the boundaries.
There is a good reason for that.
About 1968 a catch up class in Melbourne on English for a diploma interrogated their lecturer on his private life after he delivered a copy of the Henderson Report the first “The Poverty Line” for class study. We were all guineas pigs in his personal social experiment to give tech students an edge in life. As that class broke up it formed into fractions that moved on to other things, one group in particular recognised a need to change Australian political party structure. I used some of them again in 1971.
Let’s make an extraordinary claim here about greenies. They came after us in time and probably from a different perspective. We were a politically neutral core in the environment movement long before some of it switched to the left.
Rog, the people I knew then were a very dedicated group from a range of occupations and fortunes. In our work to change the two main parties policies, some lost their regular jobs, others their families, a few almost their sanity in extremely adverse conditions. Several even lost their lives in that first campaign.
Later on after we all went separate ways I went back to basics on as many errors as I could reasonably expect my family to suffer. I still wonder who suffered most, the pollies who lost their seats, the families of the missing, the children who waited while parents published their bit or the odd ones who went on elsewhere.
A lad I met in our play on the streets of Melbourne got right up the noses of the Gendarmes in Paris over their atoms in the pacific. He was heavily placed in prison. I recall telling him with our lot about the evidence from Kodak that was sent to our Government after the second round the globe fallout over Melbourne.
Those were the early days rog.
And so Taz isn’t this like reformed alcoholics telling the rest of us not drink? (no offence intended)
People are not leaving inland Australia in droves because of greenie politics, nor I’d suggest are many greenies getting over the range.
How many young Australians are seriously opting for a “Tree Change” in lifestyle on the coast.
Rog – why am I sensitive – because at every moment you drop a gratuitous greenie bash. I have friends that have green sensitivities – they’re nice people – maybe I should ask them if they’re greenies – I think they are. I think you misrepresent them. I also have friends who are quite right wing too. But they don’t tell me every 5 minutes.
Party professionals may be wondering too but a few of us had a very interesting time resetting mainstream agendas from the outside in 1972. I believe it can be done again.
Moving on I must say rog; the youngsters I meet occasionally in local government (ACT) now are learning fast. Although many are graduates from modern environment science I treat them all as naive.
They probably see me as an old fool today but I know they are told to listen to the public and they do!
My biggest problem now is the NIMBY factor. That is why I go on still and have another agenda.
Malcolm with respect I have to disagree. If you consider the spatial pattern of rainfall – the area that is increasing is central Australia to NW WA. There are drying trends elsewhere should you consider the Bureau spatial maps listed above. If you are living in the Gibson Desert that’s nice for you. Most of us are not.
Most of us are living in eastern Australia on the edge with agriculture going down from Emerald through Dubbo to Melbourne, and of course SW WA.
It’s like saying what’s the average Australian temperature. Makes a difference if you live at Darwin or Thredbo !
Water allocation and water resources policy is most important sure. But the principles on which you have developed those applications need some degree of stability over time.
Perhaps if I knew how to identify someone who is “green sensitive” I may take measures to not offend those sensitivities.
Definitely talking about the weather would be sensitive as is any mention of any material item, money, contruction, development, achievement or McDonalds. And never ever ever ask “what is that propeller on your head”?
Ender and I can help you too Rog – if you come in with Louis we can offer you a discount.
Perhaps more people could do with a real education at Taz’s School of Hard Knocks.
Some like to reinforce the stereotypes because it’s fits with their unchanging, rigid perception of the world. This encourages battles and deadlocks, rather than exchange and learning. After you’ve insulted them, are government workers then more or less likely to accept your input?
What data supports the claim that “proposed measures to be implemented today would hamper the economy to such an extent that the knowledge and technology of the kids will be seriously impaired”? Meeting the Kyoto Protocal could have caused Australia to take an extra 3 weeks in the year to reach the annual GNP it would otherwise have reached.
Are you volunteering thinksy?
Public servants thrive on abuse – from the govt of the day, the public, and their various stakeholders. I think the American system may be better where we have easier transition between business, academia and government. We could have Dr Rog “DG of public policy implementation”.
Here a bit more realism – data based assessment
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/31/hot-tip-post-misses-the-point/