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

Australian energy policy: getting the balance 'right'

By Geoff Carmody - posted Thursday, 15 June 2017


Most of the energy policy debate will be on what we are doing locally.

But, wrongly, most of that will focus on emissions outcomes Australia cannot deliver alone, no matter what we do. It shouldn't. That's a global matter.

Shouldn't we be advocating a global climate deal that has a chance of succeeding?

Advertisement

On global emissions abatement, Trump's hit the headlines. Is there substance behind the sizzle?

  • Are there any grounds on which, objectively, his claims could be justified?
  • Could remedies for these be applied, not just to the USA, but to all other nations?
  • Would those remedies mean a better chance of an effective global climate Agreement?

On the Paris Agreement, Trump has a powerful point:

  • Trump says it erodes USA competitiveness relative to competitors such as China.
  • Given the differential emission abatement pledges made by signatories, he is right. Why?
  • Because delivering these pledge centres on national emissions production.
  • Those with the largest pledges lose competitiveness compared with others; trade shifts to the latter.

Differential abatement undermining national trade competitiveness is a potent barrier to making promises or actually delivering them. The Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Agreement both feature this barrier.

What would Trump want in 'a better deal'?

Advertisement

1. Trade competitiveness neutrality

Any new agreement that ensured trade competitiveness neutrality while allowing for differential emissions reduction commitments over time should appeal to Trump and many others.

2. How? Border tax adjustments that are WTO-compliant

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 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 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy