Australian energy policy: getting the balance 'right'

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?

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'?

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