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

Emissions trading: getting the balance wrong

By Geoff Carmody - posted Wednesday, 21 January 2009


It shouldn’t have been surprising that production-based climate policy models allowing different national implementation dates would fail globally, reflecting concerns about “carbon leakage” and associated job losses.

Even if the supporters of the UNFCCC and Kyoto did not see it then, we can see it clearly now. The production model has failed, both within the EU and Australia (because of major policy “carve-outs” and exemptions), and more generally (because countries like the USA, China, India, etc, have not adopted such policies at all).

This is basic economics. When nations act at different times or to different degrees, production models undermine trade competitiveness of early movers compared with others. Result? No deal.

Advertisement

A national consumption model gets us to the same global end-point over time as a production model. The real clincher is that it’s much more likely actually to get us there!

Ross Garnaut asserts the “prisoners’ dilemma” prevents a global deal on climate change policy. This “dilemma” reflects concerns about “carbon leakage” and job losses. The production model is the cause. A consumption model solves this problem.

So why pursue a production-based model given its now-long history of failure? I’ve been told: “It’s too late to change course.” Why? We need a comprehensive long-term global deal. Is it really “too late”?

The emissions consumption model is practical. It starts with the production information required under the Green/White Papers. It uses Australia’s existing Tax Invoice system to pass carbon cost signals transparently down the supply chain to consumers, zero-rates exports (which then have carbon prices imposed by importers), and imposes a trade competitiveness-neutral border tax adjustment on competing imports. This ensures trade-neutrality and is WTO-compliant.

There are no job losses overseas, and Australia’s own emissions reductions make the same net contribution to global emissions reductions. All countries should adopt this model.

Production model supporters have dug themselves into a policy hole. If serious about climate change, they must do two things.

Advertisement

First, stop digging. Second, switch to “Plan B” - a consumption-based policy model. “Plan A” is a fizzer.

Let me summarise.

Globally, two roads can get us to a comprehensive climate change policy deal. One road targets national production of emissions. Another targets national consumption. Both roads reach the same destination: global emissions production equals consumption.

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

First published in the Australian Financial Review on January 15, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 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 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy