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: a zero sum game?

By Josh Fear - posted Wednesday, 9 September 2009


Individuals motivated by a desire to “do their bit” donate billions of dollars to charity each year. It is inconceivable that a government would introduce legislation that, while encouraging people to continue to contribute to charity, withdraws one dollar of funding for every dollar donated.

On the contrary, governments sometimes promote matching grants where they promise to match amounts equivalent to those already donated. Such an approach serves to motivate individuals in exactly the opposite way to the proposed CPRS.

This weakness in the CPRS can be overcome by establishing a causal link between the amount of emissions saved through voluntary action and the setting of the national target. If it can be shown that individuals or communities have made savings that are greater than would be expected through the introduction of a price signal alone, the number of pollution permits issued the following year could be reduced accordingly. We have termed this a “cap-and-slice” approach.

Advertisement

Without an effective way to incorporate the benefits of voluntary action, the CPRS will send a contradictory signal to Australian households and business. On the one hand, higher prices for energy and energy-intensive products will encourage reduced consumption; on the other hand, the absence of a causal link between behaviour and overall emissions will discourage co-operative contributions in the spirit of climate goodwill.

The cap-and-slice proposal allows policymakers to avoid an unnecessary choice between voluntary, co-operative action and exclusive reliance on a strict regulatory approach.

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

The paper Zero-sum game? The human dimensions of emissions trading by Josh Fear and Richard Denniss is available here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 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

Josh Fear is is Deputy Director of the Australia Institute, an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra. He is co-author (with Dr Richard Denniss) of Zero-Sum Game? The human dimensions of emissions trading, and Money and Power: The case for better regulation in banking.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Josh Fear

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy