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

A brief submission to the Climate Change Committee

By Geoff Carmody - posted Thursday, 28 October 2010


The difference between the appropriate policy responses for the second and third groups is the amount of policy effort, not policy type.  The second group should favour a stronger emissions price response than the third group.  But both should use the most cost-effective policy.

With this policy spectrum, what can be said about mooted options for dealing with global warming?

First, "direct action" should be off the menu.  Those believing global warming is "crap" should not be supporting any policy response.  They believe nothing needs fixing.  Moreover, the evidence available is that various "direct action" measures are horrendously expensive in terms of the dollar cost per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions avoided.  The looming story of costly "feed-in tariffs" for solar panels will reinforce this point.  "Direct action" is unlikely to qualify as a sensible policy response, whatever your views on the science.

Advertisement

Bizarrely, amongst all possible options, it is "direct action" that has broad support.

The Coalition, the Commonwealth Government, and the Greens support "direct action" of various types.  Commonwealth and State Governments have implemented some of the least efficient "direct action" measures.  Some of these (eg, "green car" assistance) are discriminatory local producer subsidies that may violate World Trade Organisation anti-protection rules.

Given recent Government lecturing about "green protectionism" in Europe and elsewhere, this is ironic.  Australia is at least a contender for the trade policy "pot calling the kettle black" award.

Second, the policy spectrum collapses to putting a price on emissions as cost-effectively as possible.  That policy should be broad-based, trade-neutral, shouldn't attempt to "pick winners", and should encourage the market to find the best ways to reduce emissions by setting the price for not doing so. 

The policy spectrum also should exclude all restrictions on options that otherwise might become cost-effective as the emissions price rises (including nuclear power). 

This spectrum covers all three groups' views on the science of climate change.  For the first group, the appropriate emissions price is zero.  For third group, the price is positive.  For the second group, the price is positive and higher than for the second group.

Advertisement

This leaves just one question.  What's the most cost-effective way to price emissions?  With that answer, we can calibrate the policy to set a price reflecting any given weighting of views on global warming.

The matrix below classifies broad policy options, reflecting basic design criteria that action taken by Australia in advance of our trading partners should meet.

The criteria are:  (i) cost-effectiveness as discussed above; (ii) ensuring Australia does not lose (or gain) international competitiveness, while complying with WTO rules; (iii) ensuring emissions price certainty to overcome investment barriers; (iv) and ensuring any reduction in Australian emissions is also a net contribution to global emissions reductions.

I think the choice is between a national emissions consumption-based "cap and trade" scheme (with no offshore permit trading), and a national consumption-based emissions levy. 

Evidence favours the latter.  What does the Productivity Commission think?  Will it be asked its opinion?

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

This article was first published in The Australian on October 25, 2010



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