, 12 tweets, 5 min read Read on Twitter
The long expected modelling of Labor's climate policy by long-time coal consultant Brian Fisher, BAEconomics is out and it will be parroted by #greatworkme @AngusTaylorMP on @RNBreakfast this morning #auspol

Here are the many red flags in this work 👇
Firstly, it misunderstand Paris Agreement. It assumes the Coalition Government's 26% target is all Australia needs to comply.

It is not.

Coalition policy to hit 26% is rated as 'highly insufficient' according to @climateactiontr and in line with 4 degree global warming
Paris is asking for targets aligned with under 2 degrees global warming.

Labor's 45% target is just within this band according to the Climate Change Authority.

All countries are expected to regularly ratchet up its target to align with 2 degrees.

Fisher says he didn't model the cost of climate impacts. That is convenient cause they are HUGE, around $130billion per year (difference in 2 and 4 degree warming to Aus).

And that figure comes from modelling that Fisher himself lists in his work.

Fisher's cost of domestic emissions reductions are way off.

He claims that without trading it would hit over $400 a unit in 2030 (context - right now local spot market $18 unit) and based on his last work his figures align with the red line rather than Gov's cost curve.
Fisher's numbers around the excemptions for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries are arbitrary and his claims that international trading isn't fully agreed under the UNFCCC (true) but nor is using dodgy Kyoto carry-over credits (which he doesn't raise) #auspol2019
And where is this coming from?

Brian Fisher is a regular consultant to the @MineraIsCounciI and mining industry.

He claims he is paying for this work himself but he has a history of advising Coalition Governments against ambitious climate action dating back to Howard.
His work is an outlier

Warwick McKibben’s report for DFAT in 2015, multiple reports by leading academics like Frank Jotzo at the ANU, at UTS, Reputex, Frontier Economics, CSIRO, all show we can take stronger action on climate change with far smaller costs or with net benefits.
The Government has been readily using Fisher's modelling as credible advice because it self-serves.

Why hasn't the Government used the hundreds of economists in the public service to advise it?

Because they wouldn't provide such dodgy work

This builds off Brian Fisher's last piece which both the ALP and Government said didn't model their climate policies and which also raised a number major issues around its assumptions

@TheAusInstitute broke it down in detail here in

Also check out @Tom_Swann top threat on the last Fisher piece

Here is the pic
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Richie Merzian
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!