Last night the world’d most prominent conservative commentator, the FT’s Martin Wolf, wrote that:

We do not have a Chinese or an American atmosphere. We have a global atmosphere. We cannot run independent experiments upon it. We have instead been running a joint experiment. This was not a conscious decision: it happened as a result of the industrial revolution. But we are consciously deciding not to stop. Conducting irreversible experiments with the only planet we have is irresponsible. It would only be rational to refuse to do anything to mitigate the risks if we were certain the science of man-made climate change is bogus. Since it rests on well-established science, it would be ludicrous to claim any such certainty. On the contrary, any reasonably open-minded reader of the Summary for Policymakers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would reach the conclusion that any such certainty on the science would be ludicrous. It is rational to ask if the benefits of mitigation outweigh the costs. It is irrational to deny the plausibility of man-made climate change. …I have secretly hoped the deniers would be proved right. Only then would failure to respond to this challenge prove costless. But we are very unlikely to be that lucky.

Well, Martin, not Downunder, here we are very definitely counting upon luck, as is our want. As The Australian reports today, the costs of the Coalition’s rollback of carbon mitigation policies is mounting swiftly:

THE green energy sector has put $15 billion of new investment on hold pending a review of the Renewable Energy Target and warned that Australia’s foreign investment credentials are on the line if the RET is scrapped or ­watered down. In a dramatic escalation of a debate that echoes the big miners’ attacks on the Rudd and Gillard governments over the carbon and mining taxes undermining investor certainty, the nation’s biggest infrastructure manager, IFM ­Investors, and Spanish giant Acciona both said their future investment in the country is at risk. And $20bn of investments into Australia since the former Howard government introduced the RET would also face heavy writedowns unless the scheme was maintained and extended.

And, the mining method is ready to roll:

…John Grimes, chief executive of the Australian Solar Council, said if the RET was scrapped the industry would harness the popularity of solar with Australian households to “run a dedicated marginal seat campaign” against the Abbott government. “Solar is hugely popular in the electorate and we are going to bring that message home to every marginal seat around the country and we will see what the government does in the face of popular opinion,’’ Mr Grimes said.

These are the fruits of hapless policy. If you scrap the market-based price that was triggering change this is where you end up. Instead of everyone, everywhere adapting to the reality that excessive carbon emissions are a damaging form of pollution, everyone, everywhere fights over the scraps of Government largesse and decisions. It is the most politically destructive and economically inefficient path to change possible as individual businesses waste time, money and effort on influencing the polity and government’s flip flop with the moods of the electorate.

I’ll not endorse the green rentier’s campaign but I won’t condemn it either given its fighting against a tide of carbon-intensive rentiers on the other side of policy.

And let’s not forget that the Abbott Government is defying its own modelling, delivered by ACIL Allen, which concluded that the RET will lower energy costs beyond 2020 versus alternative paths and the bigger it is (up to 30%) the cheaper are power prices:

I’ll leave you with one final thought. With the carbon price gone and “Direct Action” under assault, the RET is Australia’s only remaining major carbon mitigation policy. Without it, how do we intend to deliver on UN-committed reductions?

I can’t see how Coalition climate change policies and process can be viewed as anything other than irrational.