Climate, air pollution and China's tasks and priority

Comments on ZhongXiang Zhang "How China can go green without it being a struggle", 9/12/2015

No matter how one views it, it would be heroic to think that China can go green without it being a struggle. China has struggled with its severe air pollution so far. Fogs can occur in major cities including Beijing and on a large scale, even though some people say China has made progress in the last few years.

While it is important that China, as the largest emitter and in conjunction with other countries particularly the developed countries and other major developing countries, takes effective measures to tackle global warming, it should probably initially be focused on activities which improve its air quality and the health of its people, given the seriousness of its air pollution as shown in Beijing in recent days where the worst level, Red, is reached.

A strategy of the ALP climate change policy

Comments on Tony Wood "The latest turn in the twisty history of Labor’s climate policies", 18/07/2015

Yes, it seems a revenue neutral framework with an efficient ETS as wide as possible, but with reference to what other major countries will be doing, would be a winning strategy for the ALP to take.

But tactically, there is no need for the ALP to disclose its climate change policy yet, given that the Coalition government will have to announce its policies for post 2020 soon, be fore the Paris international meeting of the year at the latest.

ALP can afford to have a better policy stance when a number of things become clearer, including the government's policy and other countries' targets, policies and strategies.

The leak of whatever it was of the ALP's discussion paper or options was unfortunate for itself. It risks being misrepresented, misused and an unnecessary target for the Coalition government with a very effective attacking leader, that is, the Prime Minister Abbott. It was self indulgent and sabotage.

Abbott's attack, both past and current ones, on the ALP's climate change policies, may scare the ALP (under stress) from developing a good policy. It is important that ALP develop an effective strategy in counter attack, as well as a strategy for its own policy on climate change. A two pronged approach may prove to be effective.

Global Citizens and Moral Decision Making too idealistic for Climate change policies

Comments on Laura D'Olimpio "Caring about Climate Change: Global Citizens and Moral Decision Making", 16/07/2015

You are indeed idealistic and perhaps too idealistic, in a real world of self interests centered with the global externality and many free riders in the climate change context. As a result, what you argued does not easily apply in the real world and countries need to come together and really negotiate agreements that specify the obligations of many countries with the possible exception of small, low income developing countries.

In such negotiations, nearly all countries have some degrees of self interests, even though ethics exists.

As a result, discussions of climate change policies domestically and internationally must conducted in the real world context.

A winning strategy for the ALP to make its climate change policy

Comments on Michelle Grattan "Labor conference is Shorten’s next test on climate policy", 16/07/2015

It is not a particularly big or hard task for the ALP to do in terms of a credible climate change policy that is supported by the majority of Australians and accepted by the international community.

It can start with seeking the best international policies including the targets and approaches adopted by the majority of the international community.

By building its policy on best and majority of the international community, it would be ambitious enough, progressive enough, efficient enough, effective enough and explainable (sellable) enough.

In that way, it can distinguish itself from the current Coalition's stance and approaches. So it will be a very clever strategy and a winning strategy.

A practical joke

Comments on Michelle Grattan "Come to Paris climate conference, prime minister: French ambassador", 15/07/2015

Well, if the government pays a moderate amount of expenses, I, as an Australia citizen and an independent representative of Australia, don't mind going in stead of the PM, should he decide not to go.

By moderate amount, it only be a small proportion of that for the PM's, perhaps even only a quarter will do.

Having said that, I am not mad, by the way.

In terms of credential, I was, as a researcher, involved in the climate change policy back to the Kyoto Protocol days.

To the French ambassador: why not invite a keen citizen as part of the people's power?

One should be able to see the practical joke side of my commenting/posting.

A broad coalition with common ground on tackling climate change?

Comments on Michelle Grattan "Broad coalition formed to seek common ground on tackling climate change", 30/06/2015

It is likely to be the case such as that the devil is in the details. Everyone can be talking very nobly without actually committing. Let's weight and see how this broad coalition will develop overtime.

The fiasco of what occurred at developing the mining tax by the former Treasurer Wayne Swan in Australia was a good example. How did the miners, the Treasurer and other parties get together on that? Leaving the differences among the miners aside, it would not be too exaggerating it was likely to be the final straw that it exposed the division between Swan and Rudd and that it destroyed the prime ministership of Kevin Rudd.

Does Japan really deserve praise on climate change?

Comments on Llewelyn Hughes "Japan deserves some praise on climate change", 30/06/2015,

After reading this article, I failed to see the point the author was making in the wake of criticisms by so many others.

If I can summarize Japan’s positions,it would reduce its emissions by 18 per cent from its 1990 level by 2030, as opposed to its Kyoto pledge of how much (25 per cent) reduction by when 2010/2020? Even after taking into account of the disaster of its nuclear power plant, it does not look ambitious enough.

And for that, Japan should deserve praise? Are you serious and not kidding?

Quoted numbers or not: not necessarily everyone is correct

Comments on Dylan McConnell "How much does wind energy cost? Debunking the myths", 23/06/2015 

While two people have quite different figures, it is unclear which one is more reliable and accurate after reading this article. It seems to me this article is not without its own shortcomings. For example, are all the quoted favourable figures really all reliable and accurate in the first Place?

I must however confess that I have not read the other piece to which this article is debating. But it may be reasonably expected that piece should also contain some quoted figures as opposed all figures coming from that author alone.

Key to global deal for limate change - a fair deal on per capita basis

Comments on Pep Canadell "The widening gap between present emissions and the two-degree target", 4/12/2012, https://theconversation.edu.au/the-widening-gap-between-present-emissions-and-the-two-degree-target-11101

The author states "Perhaps the most immediate critical challenge to meet the 2°C target is the need to curb global fossil fuel emissions within the next ten years. This would require annual emission mitigation rates to around 3%. Some integrated assessment models show that this is possible globally without causing economic damage."


I would argue that those so called integarted assessment models are clearly unrealistic, given the annual growth in emissions over the past decade is 3% and to turn that into a reduction of 3% is a clearly acdemic excercise!

What it means is it is unrealistic and impossible to achieve the 2 degree limit (assuming the modellings for that 2 degree limits are correct) and the world has to learn to adapt to a warmer world more than 2 degree.

The first realistic step is to reduce the growth in emission to 0 for normal world economic conditions. After achieving that target, then the next step is to reduce emmissions.

The current difficulties in reaching an international binding agreement can only be overcome if a deal is fair and effective that requires per capita emissions have to be used as the basis for a deal. Failing to do that is unlikely to advance the cause very far.

A per capita deal is not aimed at achieving equal per capita consumption or emissions, it is to use per capita emissions as a key variable in determining which countries should pay to the international community and by how much for each and which countries should be paid and by how much for each.


This approach will focus on the current consumptions/emissions and will not look back at histories of emissions.

It should be based on the user pay concept on a global scale.

Alternative ways for CO2 capturing?

Comments on Fron Jackson-Webb "Clue to carbon storage in the Southern Ocean" 30/07/2012 https://theconversation.edu.au/clue-to-carbon-storage-in-the-southern-ocean-8490

If ocean can absorb CO2 in that way, then instead of the current research on much more costly CO2 capturing and storing underground technologies, perhaps studies should be undertaken to explore how make the CO2 (from power generations or large concentrations of some other CO2 producing processes) pass through water to be captured and and stored in water to be either put into the ocean or used in irrigation.

Would that be a feasible project or idea to deal with CO2 emissions?

Academic scholars in Australia shouldn't be Chinese-scholars bashing on climate change

Comments on Justin Norrie "Rich nations should do more on climate, say Chinese" 26/07/2012,  https://theconversation.edu.au/rich-nations-should-do-more-on-climate-say-chinese-8417#comments

It seems the tone of this article appears a little biased against China and Chinese scholars.
For example, the article states "It (China) produced 8.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2010 – an increase of 15.5% on the previous year".

Readers with a rational mind would naturally be surprised how an increase of that magnitude could occur in China at the current economic environment and at the current high level of emissions.

Then you have the more obvious first and second paragraphs:
"Greenhouse gas cuts pledged by developed countries will not be enough to stop temperatures rising by 2 degrees by 2100, according to Chinese researchers who argue wealthy nations should bear greater responsibility for tackling climate change.
The controversial assertion is contained in a paper published today in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper, produced by 37 Chinese climate scientists and statisticians, says that two types of modelling show developed nations were responsible for 60% to 80% of the global temperature rise, upper ocean warming and sea-ice reduction until 2005."

Why is that argument or viewpoint a controversial assertion? Is that because it was made by Chinese scholars?

Why in academic fields like the Conversation should people bash China and Chinese scholars?

Do we really need a new climate change paradigm?

Comments on Mutsuyoshi Nishimura "In search of a new climate change paradigm" June 15th, 2012, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/06/15/in-search-of-a-new-climate-change-paradigm-2/

Nishimura asks the following question: “what kind of carbon market is needed?”
The answer is quite simple, yet the world at large seems unable to get it.
If it is true that “there is a strong consensus that imposing a price on CO2 emissions is the most cost-effective way to motivate all players to use less fossil fuels and move to low-carbon or non-carbon economic systems”, as Nishimura states, then isn’t a global price for carbon emissions and an equal per capita distribution of the revenue from pricing revenue simply enough to do the job?
Isn’t what is taught in economics to deal with pollution issues?
Most economists in the developed world including many of its national leaders and politicians should understand this, but few of them advocate this simple, efficient and effective method/policy. Why?
The answer is also simple, but I leave that to the readers.

The US has been the main obstacle in climate change

Comments on Judith Sloan “Doha is dead and there's no case for reviving it”, 27/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/doha-is-dead-and-theres-no-case-for-reviving-it/story-fnbkvnk7-1226254691086

The US has been the worst international culprit in terms of international climate change responsibility and agreement, typified by its refusal to join the Kyoto agreement. So there is no credibility in any of its arguments in this area and there is no persuasion for citing that against demand and arguments of the developing countries.

The US stance and the fact that no other countries could do anything about it was the main reason why Canada, Japan and Russia have taken their recent stances.

It is only fair and legitimate that developing countries argue for what they have been argued for.

The fundamental issue of the difficulties in reaching an binding international agreement on this issue has been that the developed countries, especially the US, have all failed to adopt the simplest and fairest approach, that is, equal per capita right of emissions and the user pay principle.

Had that been adopted, developing countries with low emissions are entitled for payments for below average emissions.

Sloan should be able to acknowledge this without too much difficulty, given her strong economic background.

Accountability of international aids

Comments on Amritha Thiyagarajan “Global climate financing must face greater scrutiny”, 13/12/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/12/13/global-climate-financing-must-face-greater-scrutiny/#more-23391
While the issue is obviously an important one, does Australia offer transparency in its criteria used in determining which countries and which areas should the funding be used, or should Australia hand over the funding to an UN agency to determine more fairly according to international standard, so there is accountability on both sides?

Greg Combet is disappointing too

Comments on Joe Kelly “The Greens say the carbon tax will need to be far above $40 a tonne, while the Government says it will be 'well south'”, 17/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-greens-say-the-carbon-tax-will-need-to-be-far-above-40-a-tonne-while-the-government-says-it-will-be-well-south/story-fn59niix-1226057359647

Greg Combet is becoming less and less competent in his role as the climate change minister which has the key role in setting the policy for the proposed carbon tax, although his job is inherently and undoubtedly very difficult.

All the time he has been saying that the carbon price has not been set, yet now he is also saying that the tax will be well south of $40 per ton.

Does he know or not know the likely tax?

If what he is now saying is correct, then he has been misled the public all the time.

If he has been right all the time in terms of the tax, then he is kidding himself now.

Such a display of politics by a minister is unhelpful to the debate on climate change and the carbon tax and very disappointing.

The public had high hopes for Combet to advance or at least to resolve the issue of ETS or a carbon tax. He appeared to be more flexible than his predecessor, Senator Wong, in terms of dealing with other parties in the failed negotiations for the Rudd/Wong ETS.

But it seems those have been misplaced.

Moran may add more confusion to climate debate

Comments on Alan Moran “We emit less carbon than Combet gives us credit for”, 17/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/we-emit-less-carbon-than-combet-gives-us-credit-for/story-e6frgd0x-1226057027444

This post appears to add more confusion to the debate rather than make it clearer, by introducing this nonsensical and unclear emissions imbedded in trade into the picture.

It is not too different from using whatever arguments available to suit own statement irrespective its logic and soundness.

So what implications for climate change policies would Mr Moran want to draw from the introduction of this issue?

PS: Mr Moran quoted a statement from a chapter of a recently published anthology, Energy, Sustainability and the Environment, edited by F.P. Sioshansi and says ‘I observed: "International trade means countries that export energy-intensive products incur emissions on behalf of other countries.’


“This tends to reduce the national emission levels of many developed countries, while exaggerating those of some developing countries and resource rich countries like Australia.”

What does that mean? It means that the developed countries as a whole emit more than the current country statistics show. It points to more responsibility for the developed countries including Australia to reduce emissions and to pay for their above world average emissions they have.

Canada not necessarily a good carbon copy for Australia

Comments on Gerard Henderson “Look to Canada for a good carbon copy”, 10/05/2011, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/look-to-canada-for-a-good-carbon-copy-20110509-1efp1.html

While Canada might be an example to look at, it is unwise to set the lowest denominator and to race to the bottom in terms of the order of international citizenship.

There are better examples, there are worse examples than Canada in terms of climate change policies.

Arguably Australia should aim at an effective and efficient climate change policy that not only fulfil its international obligations as one of the heaviest emitters to contribute to the reductions of carbon greenhouse gases emissions, but also do so that does not unnecessarily disadvantage its own economy much in the process.

It is not an unattainable goal or an unachievable task.

For example, to have a broad based, simple, broadly trade neutral and explicit carbon tax, and also to have it revenue neutral by returning all the revenue from the carbon tax to residents who have the rights to better environment in terms of collective ownership to the environment.

Of course, to be fair internationally, the trade neutrality principle should be supplemented with appropriate regime of international compensation or reimbursement by country (as opposed to individual firms) according to the level of their emissions per capita.

To conclude, I would urge our commentators to think more broadly and strategically than just simply seek an easy solution of non-actions. Non-action is unlikely to be in Australia’s own interest, given that even the Kyoto allowed Australia to have an increase in emission levels while most other OECD countries had a target of reduction in emissions. Australia should recognise the international goodwill shown to it at Kyoto and don’t spoil it by unwiseness.

Gillard government is doing a 94.5 per cent compo for businesses and none for many consumers

Comments on Sid Maher “Carbon tax compensation fires up industry”, 14/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-compensation-fires-up-industry/story-fn59niix-1226038762894


The government and Climate Change minister Greg Combet have bowed to business pressure and sold the majority of the public out. See the following from the report:

"But seeking to counter warnings from big business about the impacts of the carbon price on their international competitiveness, Mr Combet said under a $20 a tonne carbon price and 94.5 per cent assistance, the steel industry would face a cost based on its core pollution of only $2.60 for every tonne of steel out of a current global price of $800 a tonne. And the aluminium industry would face a cost of $18.70 a tonne of aluminium, out of a price of about $2500 a tonne."

Note the number of "94.5 per cent assistance" to industry.

What does it mean? It means millions possibly well over ten millions of Australians will not get any compensation, or very little compensation for higher energy prices.

The Gillard government is no different from the Rudd one in terms of catering to large businesses at the expense of consumers and personal taxpayers.

Why should large businesses be compensated by "94.5 per cent assistance", and many consumers not at all? What is the rationale of that? This is in spite of the fact that businesses can pass on most of the costs to consumers and consumers on the other hand can’t pass any on to others.

It is a shame of an incompetent government.

A strategy for government on compensations for big polluters - 'three birds using one stone"

Comments on Joe Kelly “Greens warn Labor against punishing households while rewarding big business”, 4/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-warn-labor-against-punishing-households-while-rewarding-big-business/story-fn59niix-1226033132019

So far the debate has been heavily focused on simple compensations.

But there are better strategies that the government could adopt to satisfy most sides.

Rather than simply providing compensations to big polluters, a better strategy is to provide them with options to have the priority to access government funded renewable or low emission programs.

It will be good for the government both politically, economically and environmentally.

That would be ‘hitting three birds with one stone’.

So why shouldn’t the government adopt this superior strategy?

Clearly it should. But it needs to employ competent people.

Can't simply follow EU's past

Comments on Seamus French “Follow the EU and US on a carbon price or we will just export jobs”, 4/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/follow-the-eu-and-us-on-a-carbon-price-or-we-will-just-export-jobs/story-fn59niix-1226032905550

How much is the EU carbon price now?

If we don't do anything and only start it in 100 years later, then should we still adopt the EU starting carbon price and its trajectory?

Isn't it absurd?

Many argue that we only emit 1.4%, but never mention at the same time that we emit more per capita than EU. How much is Australia’s share of the world population? And what is EU’s share of that?

What logic is that?

It is misleading, isn't it? Or it is not too far from hypocrisy, is it?

PS: while the argument that carbon leakage and distortions of international competitiveness and trade have some merits, most people conveniently forget the fact that high per capita emission countries of industrialised economies including and particularly Australia should compensate the low emission developing countries for damages to their equal rights to good climate.

Taking that into account, while Australia can have a carbon price and a scheme of broad and country specific border carbon adjustments, it should also reimburse to the governments if not pay more to most developing countries.