There's nothing free or efficient about current Emissions Trading Scams

The policy starting point is clear. If anthropogenic emissions are warming the planet, this is a global problem requiring global mitigation action. So we need a global deal.

To maximize the chances of (eventually) getting that, the policy architecture embraced by each country needs explicitly to recognize and accommodate two key lessons we should have already learned.

The first is that a synchronized global emissions reduction programme adopted by all countries at the same time and to the same extent is a pipe-dream. It hasn't happened. It won't happen.

Second, if the chosen policy model has adverse competitive effects on countries adopting it, then 'first movers' will be both limited in number and will weaken their own policy responses to protect their markets. Worse, such a model encourages others not to follow suit at all. Such an avoidable policy design flaw itself undermines chances of a global deal, ever.

Yet the entire (unproductive) debate so far has been couched in terms of adopting just such a policy model (ie, the national emissions production model). Attempts to implement it globally have failed.

These are the clear lessons of the last quarter of a century. Persisting with the same failed approach in future and expecting different results is the classic definition of policy insanity.

Of course, other basic policy matters need sorting too. Ensuring we have credible emissions measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) arrangements is crucial if ETS is not to mean 'emissions trading scams' (as has been the case to date). Australia is up there with the best, but, globally, MRV is a work-in-progress.

European policy makers have a penchant for designing special (ie, rigged) markets. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is an awful example that has long disadvantaged Australia – and EU consumers.

Why on earth should Australia link to the European ETS market? This seems especially bizarre when, as with the CAP, to do so directly attacks Australia's comparative advantage, while our trade competitors are not following suit.

An independent review of the lessons of history should guide where Australia's climate policy goes from here.

It sure beats the policy insanity option.