Garnaut under scrutiny from Ergas

Will Gillard’s Court Jester ever realise that he and his Queen have no clothes — even as they still insist on global warming?

Henry Ergas has delivered a sober punch to the nonsense in Ross Garnaut’s report, Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Climate Change Action. Will he be questioned by our compliant media and be held to account?

Garnaut is not a climate scientist but he is meant to be an economist. Ergas makes a pretty simple economic point.

It is obvious, however, that no one would accept an offer to invest $1 today in a project that would return only $1                  70 years from now …

Taking into account these benefits of postponement both in the scenario in which agreement is reached and in that in which it is not, the report’s logic would again tell against unilateral action.
The report avoids this conclusion by not modelling costs and benefits in the scenario in which we abate but the world as a whole does not. It ignores that scenario altogether.
This is inconsistent with the risk assessment framework it rightly recommends.

The report’s conclusions are therefore not properly made out. Until they are, its calls for immediate unilateral action, with all its costs, remain unconvincing.

Another critic, Bjorn Lomborg will be coming to Melbourne in March to further look at the futility of expensive carbon abatement measures. He accepts that global warming is real, but thinks that it can be solved at relatively low cost without compromising social and economic development.

This also may be too difficult for our media to honestly deal with.

%d bloggers like this: