There is an old rule in politics: Don't set up an inquiry unless you know what it is going to find. The Garnaut review is shaping up as yet another example of the rule in practice. Those wanting an independent and visionary report look like they are going to be disappointed.
The draft report issued yesterday contains signs of a merger between Professor Ross Garnaut's views on climate policy and those of the Government. The Government has a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050 Garnaut says this is a good place to start. The Government wants a slow start up to the emissions trading scheme so does Garnaut. The Government opposes the establishment of a nuclear power industry in Australia so does Garnaut. The Government aggressively supports clean-coal technology so does Garnaut. You get the picture.
In some cases the consistency between the Government and Garnaut can be explained on policy grounds; many Labor policies make good sense. But one gets the feeling Garnaut is doing the Government's bidding on the most politically contentious issues. Even where Garnaut seems to be getting ahead of Labor policy, he may be clearing space for his masters.
For example, Garnaut has indicated that emission-intensive, trade-exposed industries like the aluminium sector should be included in the emissions trading scheme. Yet this is subject to the qualification that they should be given assistance if other countries don't agree to equivalent measures. This is understandable, but it gives the Government the reasoning it needs to exempt the big polluters.
Similarly, Garnaut has proposed that all permits under the emissions trading scheme be auctioned, subject to the qualification that permits may be given free to trade-exposed industries. He has also indicated that claims for compensation by energy-intensive industries and fossil fuel generators should be given ''a low priority''. In both cases, Garnaut's position is defensible, but again it gives the Government wriggle room to bend to the pleadings of the fossil fuel lobby should it consider it politically expedient to do so.
This is not to dismiss the Garnaut review as pure political theatre. The draft report is reasonably thorough and contains a mountain of valuable information. Overall though, it is disappointing, especially the lack of medium-term emission targets.
Without an indication on what emission caps are going to be set for the period 2012-30, we have no idea what the scheme is going to cost or how environmentally effective it is going to be. All we know thus far is that Garnaut's preferred near-term targets are going to be lax.
His support for a 60 per cent target for 2050 as a starting point for emissions abatement was also surprising given the terms of reference for the review. The Labor Party asked r Garnaut to analyse the degree of Australian mitigation effort that would be necessary to support a global agreement to hold atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to 450 and 550 parts per million.
The thinking behind these targets is that they would provide a reasonable chance of preventing global average surface temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees and 3 degrees respectively. Warming in excess of 2 degrees could be accompanied by quite severe impacts for example, sea-level rise of several metres. Beyond 3 degrees, the risk of catastrophic impacts climbs considerably.
Recent scientific data suggest that a 60 per cent mitigation target for 2050 for developed countries is light years away from what is required if there is a desire to meet 450 and 550ppm targets. In fact, 450ppm may now be long gone and 550ppm may be lost unless we cut emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2030.
As Garnaut knows, preventing dangerous climate change is a time-sensitive business. If the global community takes a softly softly approach to abatement, options will be closed off and future generations will be forced to accept risks that many are likely to find unacceptable.
The draft report nods in the direction of the latest science on these issues, but does not fully explore the implications. It also bases some of its analysis on emission trajectories that are very much best-case scenarios, when prudence and arguably international law demands a more precautionary approach.
To get around the urgency of the situation, Garnaut lays out details of ''overshoot'' strategies for abatement, where greenhouse gas concentrations are allowed to exceed the desired targets and are then gradually reduced in the future. Theoretically, this strategy allows us to buy time and reduces the costs of abatement. However, such a strategy would require new technologies and approaches to suck carbon from the atmosphere and near-universal compliance with international emission laws.
History demonstrates that compliance with environmental requirements presents problems at the best of times. In a world with billions more people, with political and economic systems under pressure from climate change, the notion that emissions can be reduced to zero or below to enable overshoots to occur looks unlikely, if not fanciful.
Following an overshoot strategy to reduce abatement costs is a cop-out it allows politicians to say they will meet the necessary targets to avoid dangerous climate change, while passing costs and risks on to future generations. If we want to prevent dangerous climate change, we need to make radical changes now, not 50 years from now.
Andrew Macintosh is associate director of the Australian National University's Centre for Climate Law and Policy.