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

Who is really fiddling while the climate burns?

By Geoff Carmody - posted Wednesday, 18 March 2009


A carbon tax allows a steady, predictable, ramping up of the price of carbon over time, allowing business (and, ultimately, consumers) to plan against this prospect and shift to lower emissions technology and more efficiency in energy use.

Kyoto has failed. Much of the world had not adopted ETS-type policies. Most that have will miss the emissions targets they pledged to meet (unless the “Great Recession” is really bad). They’ve adopted policies that effectively exempt large slabs of their emissions production. This situation won’t change as a result of Copenhagen, December 2009.

Why? The policy model is wrong. It’s based on emissions production. A global deal on production made sense under the model envisaged before the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. Ironically, the original European vision was the harmonised introduction of a global carbon tax!

Advertisement

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol shattered the foundations for that model. It allowed different countries - notably developed versus developing countries - to act on climate change at different times. Suddenly, trade competitive disadvantage appeared as a corrupting virus affecting climate policy deliberations. The Kyoto Protocol contains the mutation of the UNFCCC vision responsible for its failure.

The cancer will get worse.

Countries are sliding into protectionist measures because of the global recession. Ignore pious G20 communiqués and the like. They’re all cheating (we are too) - e.g., via the multiplying “buy local” campaigns. It’s hard enough stopping countries doing the equivalent of raising tariffs on imports and adding subsidies for exports. It’s much harder to sell a policy that puts a new tax on exports and a negative tariff on imports. So it should be. It’s dumb.

That’s what the CPRS requires of Australia.

Because of these “negative tariff” effects, those supporting the Kyoto policy model will continue to fiddle, while the climate change problem they claim to be worried about continues to build.

Gittins’ claim that “most” economists are fiddling while the climate burns, at best, is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Ross, put your climate policy bow down. Your music ain’t pretty and your fiddle’s no Stradivarius. Your support for a new market in funny bits of paper (the CPRS) after the fall-out from the global financial crisis is also puzzling.

Advertisement

My motivation?

I’d like to see adoption of a policy model that maximises chances of getting a global deal, as soon as possible, but starting with recognition that the real world will not deliver simultaneous adoption of climate change policy. This reality means production-based models will continue to fail. We need a new policy base.

Gittins has highlighted the carbon tax/ETS debate, but has ignored this more important debate. To accelerate prospects for a global deal on climate change, we need to shift from a national production-based policy model to a national consumption-based policy model. But that’s a topic for another article.

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

An edited version of this article was first published in The Australian on March 17, 2009.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 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 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy