Are we helping others increase global emissions?

Reducing emissions must cost us versus 'business as usual'. Otherwise we'd have done it by now. But we can minimise costs.

Globally, emissions production = emissions consumption. We 'consume' all the emissions produced. They're included in all purchases of goods & services. Globally, targeting emissions consumption spending is the same thing as targeting emissions production.

The consumption model works like an EU VAT (GST in ANZAC lingo). Countries adopt it at a pace they choose. Unlike the production model, no adverse national trade competitiveness losses ensue. Exports are zero-rated. Imports are priced like local production. It can be done as a tax or an emission trading scheme.

It's fairer. Rich high emissions-consuming countries pay most in total and per capita. Poorer countries pay much less.

Does a national emissions consumption model guarantee global emissions reduction? No. But it eliminates impediments to countries cutting their own emissions because of concerns about loss of trade competitiveness. These concerns wreck the production model.

A mix of energy sources best meeting affordability, reliability and lower emissions criteria is needed. Let science, not ideological assertion, speak first, then choose that mix. As Europe reminds us, don't forget reliability.

Stable science-based policy criteria support long-term investment. Markets can deliver within that framework.

Should we try to reduce human-caused greenhouse gas emissions?

If you say evidence doesn't support human-caused global warming, you'll say 'no'.

If you say science suggests human global warming, or are agnostic but risk-averse, you'll look at the world's major emitters and global arithmetic. If big emitters are increasing theirs, Australian action is largely futile. At 1.2% of global emissions production, and falling, we don't make much difference. If our action causes activity to shift to higher-emissions countries, we make things worse.

If you think humans add to global warming, you must advocate an effective global response. The current focus on national emissions production must stop. A national emissions consumption policy is better and fairer. With the current production model, history says we'll continue failing, COP summit after COP summit.

Many voters feel Australia should do something by reducing its own emissions. Many believe equally reliable renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, because politicians and others assert they are. If reliable, they're not. Some expect others to pay. NIMBY reigns.