LABOR'S EMISSIONS CUTS MORE COSTLY THAN ADVERTISED


Lefty economist John Quiggin reckons cutting Australia's emission by 60% is no big deal:

Overall, my assessment is that Stern’s central estimate, a cost of 1 per cent of GDP, is in the right ballpark. Stern is probably a bit on the optimistic side, but not wildly so.

Real-worlder John Daley isn't so optimistic:

"I expect the cost to be very much higher than the optimists tell us, especially if we have to effect change in sectors like agriculture and transport and it will be less costly if market instruments are used."

Federal Labor has pledged to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

Mr Daley says severe emission cuts could have severe economic consequences.

"One of ABARE's scenarios, and admittedly it's an extreme one, with Australia setting itself tougher targets than our competitors, going to 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, the economic impacts are very adverse for Australia with no less than 10.7 per cent reduction in GDP by 2050," he said.

A 60% reduction in food animal emissions would, well, require us to pretty much stop eating meat. Hey here's an idea for a trade-off, we can kill off the farting whales and keep the cattle.