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

Does the CPRS need CPR?

By Geoff Carmody - posted Monday, 1 September 2008


Accepting climate change is a global problem we can influence, we need all countries to do their bit. Ross Garnaut has noted a big road-block to a global deal is the “prisoners’ dilemma” (or “free rider”) problem. Why should we act if others won’t? If we all take that view, no action will be taken.

Faced with this problem, imagine a policy response whose design makes the “free rider” problem worse than it need be, reducing the odds of cutting a global deal - the very thing we need most.

Worse, attempts to offset its fundamental design flaws result in arbitrary “carve outs” from the greenhouse gas emissions covered by the policy, drastically shrinking the scope of the policy in Australia, and emasculating its effects. Still worse, it encourages business to shift offshore at the margin, diverting, rather than reducing, greenhouse gas emissions, and costing jobs in the process.

Advertisement

Businesses with competing interests present a less-than-coherent response by trying to “band-aid” the flawed policy design, some ending up sounding like “new protectionists” as a result. Unions generally appear supine or policy-supportive, despite likely job losses (even as business conditions weaken for other reasons). The WTO threatens to challenge the “band-aids” offered by the government, and pushed further by business, as being free trade-inconsistent.

Government is caught between “Emissions Watch” (an ineffective policy because it puts a low price on carbon), and “Jobs Overboard” (an ineffective policy because a high carbon price pushes emissions and jobs overseas). Politics won’t allow the latter. The WTO may not allow the former.

This scenario is fanciful, isn’t it? Not at all, it’s alive and well in Australia. It’s called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, (or CPRS, for the acronym aficionados). Given the politics, some nasty people have dubbed it the Carbon Reduction Avoidance Program.

The root cause of this mess is the decision to focus on Australian production of greenhouse gas emissions as the target for the CPRS. We have a choice here. We could choose production (as embodied in Australia’s Gross Domestic Product - GDP), or consumption (as embodied in Australia’s Gross National Expenditure - GNE).

If all countries acted together, it wouldn’t matter whether we focused on GDP or GNE. But they won’t act together. Indeed, the Kyoto Protocol says they won’t. So the choice matters. Why?

We need to get real. Australia can’t control production of greenhouse gas emissions globally. If we try to control our own, and this just pushes them offshore, we just displace them. The only thing we reduce is our jobs. We can control our consumption of greenhouse gas emissions. These are embodied in local production consumed locally, plus our imports. We have the policy instruments to deal with both. Done properly, our actions are WTO-consistent. And our actions don’t damage our international trade competitiveness.

Advertisement

What’s more, this same model works for other countries, in exactly the same way as the production-based model doesn’t (with apologies to The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy)!

Could a consumption-based model be the basis for a global deal on greenhouse gas abatement policy? It’s certainly a “no regrets” trade policy model. It allows individual countries to choose when, and how fast, to pursue this objective, without threatening their trade competitiveness. It’s far superior to the production-based model.

Can a consumption-based policy be easily implemented? No, it will be difficult, and needs more research. Is it impractical? It’s too soon to know. But one thing is for sure: a production-based model won’t work. It won’t facilitate a global deal. It will run up against WTO concerns. It will maximise chances that policy will be cosmetic and resource-wasteful, rather than being effective and efficient.

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


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 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 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy