“On any important decision, there are many gaps in our knowledge. When  we can form views on the basis of experience with similar issues in the past, we are talking about risk. When repeated experience can provide no reliable guide, we are talking about uncertainty. The human mind builds castles in the air to make decisions possible under conditions of uncertainty. The castles disappear like Macbeth’s witches as breath into the wind with new knowledge and experience. But we are still called on to make decisions about the uncertain matters. Decisions and life go on.”

“There was and is a similarity of view amongst almost all of the world’s mainstream climate scientists. To the prejudiced mind, that might suggest conspiracy. To the experienced judge of the evidence, it establishes a presumption of truth to be tested.
Nothing that happened at Copenhagen changes the odds about the mainstream science being broadly right. If there were high risks of dangerous climate change in the absence of effective mitigation in November 2009, there are high risks in January 2010.”

“So did the fiasco at Copenhagen change anything?
Maybe, and Yes.
Maybe. .......I hope that the international community learned at last that the important decisions will need to be made wisely by a group of major countries, drawing on detailed numerical work by experts representing heads of Government.
Yes, the inclusion in what I call the Obama Accord of principles and some numbers for transfers from developed to developing countries in support of mitigation and adaptation are important steps towards the emergence of an effective global climate change policy.”

“Games theory suggests that Australia should take the leaders of China, the United States and other major developing countries at their word, and initially set its targets accordingly. It should monitor the performance of others, and adjust its own commitments in the light of any failure of delivery, or excess of achievement.”

“The Review favoured an ETS over a carbon tax for Australia (but not for all countries) because it provided greater certainty of emissions reduction; because it was compatible with the approaches which were developing in the Australian and international policy discussion; and because it provided a stronger foundation for international trade in emissions entitlements. “

“It must be said that the ETS that emerged from the Government’s negotiations with the Opposition falls a long way short of the ideal described in the Climate Change Review. The highly political processes for adjustment of targets will generate uncertainty and periodic invitations to rent-seeking business behaviour. Since the withdrawal of Opposition support, the certainty of continued political disputation will cause market participants to apply a higher risk premium to investment in emissions permits and increase price volatility and the risk of periods when the permit price is low to the point of derision.”

“As thoughtful citizens, let us all recognise that it is important soon to introduce a price on carbon; that the contemporary political environment makes that difficult in any form; that an imperfect ETS is better than delay; and be ready to support the Government if it is bold enough to go seek the dissolution of both houses on this issue at an early date.”

Excerpts from Professor Ross Garnaut’s speech Keynote Address to the Annual Conference of Supreme & Federal Court Judges
Canberra 25 January 2010

Link to copy of full speech:

Global Warming After The Obama Accord - Keynote Address to the Annual Conference of Supreme and Federal Court Judges - Canberra 25 January 2010
by Professor Ross Garnaut