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

Can China change the Copenhagen consultations?

By Geoff Carmody - posted Monday, 30 March 2009


The production path causes what Ross Garnaut calls the “prisoners’ dilemma”. This (not that accurate) theoretical label is better expressed as: “I’ll cut my emissions after you cut yours.” Obviously, on this basis, nothing gets done.

That pretty much summarises the results of the Kyoto Protocol to date. If we continue with the failed production model pursued over the last couple of decades, it also indicates the likely outcome of the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009: “I’ll cut my emissions after you cut yours.”

Garnaut’s so-called “prisoners’ dilemma” is almost entirely due to governments choosing a production-based climate policy model. If they switch to a consumption-based model, the “dilemma” largely disappears. The roadblock to a global climate policy deal is eliminated.

Advertisement

Isn’t this a radical change in the policy approach? Not at all. The European emissions trading scheme and Australia’s CPRS already modify the production approach by “carving out” large sections of emissions production in the “trade exposed sector”. As a result, they - badly - attempt to steer away from a production model to a consumption model.

Why address the “trade exposed sector” problem badly when we could do the job properly?

Garnaut suggests a “principled approach” to the treatment of the “trade exposed” sector is needed. I agree.

A “principled approach” is to exempt exports (which are then subject to the carbon price in the importing country) and ensure imports attract the same carbon cost as locally produced substitutes.

We have a model to guide us. Indeed, we can use the Tax Invoice system already operating under this existing model to “tweak” the CPRS to get to the right result. It’s our GST system. I find it ironic that the three blocs or countries trying to implement a production-based climate policy already have in place a system allowing them to implement a far superior consumption based policy.

Europe already has a Value-Added Tax (VAT). Australia and New Zealand have their antipodean counterparts: the GST.

Advertisement

China’s given the rest of the world a lead. Will we take it? We should. It leads to the same emissions end-point, but is much more likely to get us there.

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

First published in The Age on March 20, 2009.



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