Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Climate Change Committee: getting the process right

By Geoff Carmody - posted Thursday, 7 October 2010


Hitherto, Australian climate policy “debates” have been conducted under very restrictive, paternalistic, terms of reference. “Official family” modelling of the CPRS was based on idealistic, not real-world, assumptions. The question of how best to achieve a given emissions reduction was suppressed.

The Climate Change Committee can operate differently - if it wants to.

I think there are important “process” matters determining whether the Committee’s work is productive.

Advertisement

First, the Committee should commission research from an independent agency to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative policies for pricing emissions. This would allow the various options to be ranked on the basis of their “bang for buck” emissions reduction outcomes.

Specifically, this exercise should guide the Committee in choosing which policy option produces the largest emissions reduction for the cost involved. Alternatively it could rank options based on which achieves a target emissions reduction for the lowest emissions price.

I think the Productivity Commission is ideally placed to undertake this “keystone” policy analysis. The analysis should be published for community education, consideration and debate.

Second, I assume the Committee is working towards a policy that Australia could adopt unilaterally. This is realistic. Ever since Rio, and certainly since Kyoto and Copenhagen, everybody knows that a global deal where all countries act simultaneously is not on. Differentiated national action, both as to timing and scope, is the only realistic option.

Accordingly, policy options for pricing emissions should be evaluated not only from a cost-effectiveness viewpoint, but also by whether or not they are trade competitiveness-neutral.

“First movers” in pricing emissions should not have to face reduced competitiveness versus others not acting. That sets up incentives for nobody to go first (or only to adopt sham versions of emissions pricing). It also encourages others to delay action or never to act at all.

Advertisement

The global emissions outcome of adverse competitiveness effects can be increased emissions, rather than reductions. Moreover, those acting and reducing emissions (as activity shifts to other countries) can end up actually increasing their consumption of emissions by importing them, as Dieter Helm of Oxford University recently pointed out for the United Kingdom.

Pricing emissions on a national basis must be trade competitiveness-neutral. Otherwise, the chances of a global deal will be as slim as the evidence of the past 20 years has demonstrated. If this criterion is not met in the Committee’s policy recommendations, Australia should take no action before others.

Third, the Committee’s work should be linked to the Tax Summit on the Henry Report. This opens up some important matters that can debunk the notion of a carbon tax as a “great big new tax on everything”.

For example, it allows consideration of increased reliance on consumption taxes and reduced reliance on income taxes (as recommended by the IMF) to leave real after tax incomes unchanged while increasing emissions prices. The increased reliance on consumption taxes is a way of increasing GST-like taxes, where “consumption” is consumption of emissions. Overall tax burdens shouldn’t increase.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in the Australian Finanical Review on Ocotber 4, 2010.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Geoff Carmody is Director, Geoff Carmody & Associates, a former co-founder of Access Economics, and before that was a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury. He favours a national consumption-based climate policy, preferably using a carbon tax to put a price on carbon. He has prepared papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Geoff Carmody

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy