Australia's Chief Scientist Has an Illogical Each Way Bet on Carbon Emissions. (July 19, 2004)

    Today the Fairfax papers reported Australia's Chief Scientist, Robin Batterham, as saying, "I'm talking about enormous reductions [in carbon emissions] - 80 per cent by the end of the century, 50 per cent by 2050, I think, is realistic," but he supported the Federal Government's decision not to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change because the reductions it set were not high enough.

    On Friday July 2^nd Dr Batterham had the following exchange with Green's Senator Bob Brown during the Senate Committee hearing on the Office of the Chief Scientist.

Senator Brown -- But surely you would not be opposed to Australia ratifying the Kyoto protocol?
 

Dr Batterham -- I do have some inherent opposition to signing the thing, and I am in a difficult position on it. My difficulty is one of principle that says that, if you put a target in front of people that you want to encourage them by and we use the elastic band analogy and if you put a target which is so far out that the stretch in the rubber band means that it breaks or that the view is one that is so far out that nobody signs onto it, you have failed. Conversely, if you put a target in front of people, when the real game is over there, which is only a small step away, then it tends to be too blasé. It tends to have such little impact that, again, you fail to move people in the direction that we have really got to go. So I do have a quandary on Kyoto.
 

Senator Brown -- Are you thinking that your counterparts in the UK and in the 100-plus countries that have signed up on Kyoto are being a little blasé?
 

Dr Batterham -- I think that they are coming from the viewpoint that any step in the direction of Kyoto is a good one. My pragmatism says no, it is actually a bit more serious than that. We have got to go a mile—or whatever unit of measurement you like—past Kyoto.

 

Senator Brown -- And you don’t take into account there the shortness of the political view in our democratic systems in particular, which is very short-sighted, and you don’t think short-term goals are an advantage in making this fast journey towards turning around climate change?
 

Dr Batterham -- I accept that there is a balance, as I have indicated, between short-term and long-term goals. I would much rather see my mark in this debate as getting people to think about 50 per cent reduction, not eight per cent increase.
 

Senator Brown -- Have you got a course to that 50 per cent reduction? Have you laid down the steps that need to be taken to get there?
 

Dr Batterham -- I think the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and others are laying out this course and it is one in which there is increasing engagement and -- I might add of course -- debate. I do have a course on how to get there. I have outlined this course in public arenas and quite consistently, I might add, for quite some time. I am happy to expand on that if we have time.
 

Senator Brown -- You might just present it to us in writing, if you would. I note that the IPCC, by the way, is in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

Apparently the British Government doesn't subscribe to Dr. Batterham's brand of logic; it has signed the Kyoto Protocol and committed itself to a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050.

[Note added July 20: In response to questions with notice posed during the hearing Dr Batterham submitted a three page letter dated July 16, 2004.]

It is interesting to juxtapose one specific response in Dr Batterham's letter where he refers to his reply to Senator Brown during the hearing:

From the July 16^th letter:

 As reported in the Hansard Proof, page 42: I think the IPCC and others are laying out this course and it is one in which there is increasing engagement and -- I might add of course -- debate. I do have a course on how to get there. I have outlined this course in public arenas and quite consistently, I might add, for quite some time. I am happy to expand on that if we have time.

 

Senator Brown responded: You might just present it to us in writing, if you would.

 

In subsequent dialogue with Senator Brown as reported in Hansard Proof, page 42, I provided this detail of four directions that need to be followed through to ensure Australia achieves deep reductions in its emissions levels by 2050.

From the section on page 42 referred to by Dr Batterham:

Dr Batterham --There are four directions that need to be followed to get through to deep reductions in emissions. Carbon capture and storage is one of them. That is not just sequestration into the ground; carbon capture and storage also includes forests. Renewables is route two. Route three -- and you can have these in any order that you like -- is energy efficiency and utilisation of energy. Route four is moving to lower carbon intensity fuels, which one notes might include nuclear if people can be satisfied on the safeguards for such operations, including the long-term handling of wastes.

Perhaps it all depends on your interpretation of  expansion and detail.