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

Can Copenhagen cut climate costs?

By Geoff Carmody - posted Wednesday, 25 February 2009


Political and business developments on Australian climate policy are diverging.

The Government’s House of Representatives inquiry into its policy (the Carbon Pollution Reduction Sheme or CPRS) was dropped a week later. Malcolm Turnbull rejected Andrew Robb’s carbon tax idea instead of an emissions trading system (ETS). Now, with an “open mind”, he’s pushing for a Senate review in place of the Reps Inquiry.

Those supporting current policy tried to stifle debate last week. But the Centre for Independent Studies and the Australia Institute (a broad church?) suggested a carbon tax instead of an ETS.

Advertisement

There’s been a rising tide against the CPRS.

Don Argus has suggested a carbon tax. Don Voelte has opposed the CPRS. Mitch Hooke (Minerals Council) has argued the debate isn’t over. Kate Carnell (Food and Grocery Council) asked why import competing businesses should face costs not borne by their import competitors. OneSteel is against the CPRS. The strongest Government supporter, Heather Ridout (Australian Industry Group), has done a U-turn, arguing for a “Clayton’s CPRS” until other countries act. The Business Council and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry now want a “dry run”. The finance sector wants to make a margin on the trading of permits under the ETS, whether or not emissions are reduced. Below the radar, the import-competing story is a slow-burning fuse with potentially concentrated political consequences.

Overseas, a shift is on. New Zealand has a Parliamentary inquiry into its ETS. The Obama administration is looking at a carbon tax. Similar questions are being asked in Canada. China has signalled “no deal” for Copenhagen. Sweden’s U-turned on nuclear policy. The EU “20-20-20” Poznan agreement has more back doors than dunnies at a Grand Final.

Australia could be wrong-footed on climate policy. Instead of “staying ahead of the curve”, it may end up behind the 8-ball.

I didn’t understand the Government’s Reps inquiry. Its U-turn is more comprehensible. Turnbull’s stifling of Robb reminds me of Costello’s reaction to Turnbull canvassing tax reforms. Confusion reigns.

The broad forces driving this shifting on climate change policy are understandable.

Advertisement

The global economic situation is bad, expected to worsen, and forecasts are being revised down. Job losses could be large. Trade protectionism is up (dairy in Europe, steel in America, and cars everywhere).

Australia’s CPRS doesn’t fit. Preserving jobs and the CPRS are incompatible. Minister Penny tries to have it both ways. She says an ETS is superior because it delivers emissions reduction certainty. She says more ambitious targets will lose jobs and emissions overseas. Both can’t be right. Emissions reduction certainty needs a trade-neutral consumption based model. Jobs and carbon leakage come from a production model (the CPRS) - unless we have an ineffective policy (“Emissions Watch”).

There’s a nasty virus in the CPRS. It will white-ant any global deal on climate policy.

The virus is self-inflicted cost disadvantage.

If we adopt a CPRS, and our trading partners don’t, our exports cop a carbon cost not borne by our competitors. Our import-competing industries do likewise.

Globally, carbon emissions are more likely to rise than fall. Ours might fall, but only as businesses shift to countries not acting. We lose competitiveness, jobs, and the world keeps warming anyway.

It’s worse.

Under the CPRS, we download this virus. Unless we adopt Ridout’s “Clayton’s CPRS”, (a cost to business for no reason) we suffer the virus and lose jobs. Our trading partners get a competitive edge.

With the global recession, they’re losing jobs too. So they won’t adopt our CPRS, precisely because we have. That way, they gain jobs as ours fall. Globally, emissions don’t fall. They just get shuffled away from Australia.

Those without a climate change policy have strong incentives not to follow suit. Those “on board” are tempted to “jump ship”. Enter Garnaut’s “prisoners’ dilemma”. Translation: “I’ll reduce my emissions after you”. Nothing gets done, as we’ve seen since Kyoto.

Climate change is a global problem. A global policy response is needed. The “prisoners’ dilemma” (or similar labels) describes the road-block to a global deal. This road-block is a government failure. Governments chose the wrong emissions model, and so have undermined efforts in this area.

A production-based model drives other countries away (gaining jobs in the process). We lose jobs, and shift emissions offshore. Worse, our action actually underwrites failure in Copenhagen 2009.

But we can do a deal at Copenhagen.

The UNFCCC goal: stabilising greenhouse gases at levels that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system should be the preamble. Acceptance countries won’t act simultaneously should also appear here.

An agreed framework of principles to guide policy design comes next. National policies should:

  1. raise relative prices for carbon, but minimise effects on real incomes;
  2. make the same contribution to lower emissions globally as nationally;
  3. minimise “free rider” impediments to a global deal;
  4. be comprehensive to minimise evasion and internal “carbon leakage”;
  5. be competitiveness-neutral at least until all countries are “on board”;
  6. allow countries freedom to choose between approaches, subject to principles 1 to 5; and
  7. minimise national compliance and administration costs.

This framework allows evaluation of alternative policies. A production model won’t comply with principles 1-5. A consumption model will.

These principles (especially 2) suggest international trading in emissions permits is just “carbon leakage”.

The Government claims an “evidence based” policy approach. The CPRS is very poor evidence.

On the evidence, we’ll soon see a really large reduction in emissions compared with (desired) “business as usual”. It has nothing to do with climate policies. It’s compliments of the international economic crisis.

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

First published n the Australian Financial Review on February 24, 2009.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 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 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy