Thursday, November 26, 2009

Some quick thoughts on the Oz emissions trading scheme

We have a good idea now of what the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is going to look like, after the Government and Opposition hammered out a deal on Tuesday and it was endorsed (barely) by the Liberal Party in a turbulent day yesterday. It seems that the Government now has the numbers to get the Bill through the Senate, with enough opposition senators willing to support it.

Environmentally, it is modest indeed: it should deliver the Government's committment of a 5% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020. The Government has committed to a 15% reduction by 202 if there is an effective global agreement but, first, that looks unlikely and, second, even if there is, after the way the scheme was been watered down and watered down as it goes through the political process, I really don't have much confidence that the Government could get a scheme up that delivers 15% reductions by 2020. It's also probably worth noting that those 5% reductions won't all happen in Australia - under the scheme as it is, most reductions will be achieved by Australia buying credits from overseas schemes. I don't have a big problem with that - it essentially means Australian money driving additional reductions overseas - but a lot of people feel that when we commit to reducing our emissions, we should actually reduce our own emssions rather than paying others to reduce theirs.

Economically, I've heard it described as a "rent-seeker's paradise" and a massive transfer of wealth from households and small business to big polluters and I think those statements are pretty fair. It contains massive compensation for affected industries, and reasonable compensation for low-income households. Everyone else pays. Surprisingly, it is revenue-negative for government.

The questions is whether it's better than nothing at all. I'm not sure. On the plus side, it will drive some reduction in emissions and, probably more importantly, it establishes the machinery for dealing with the problem - we'll gain experience with an emissions trading scheme that can, in theory, be improved in the future. The Greens are adamant, however, that it will "lock in failure" and I think there's something to this argument. They claim it will actually unleash a lot of investment in coal-fired electricity generation and other polluting industry. I think they may be right: carbon-intensive industries have been worried about carbon policy and the CPRS gives them certainty that the policy environment will be very friendly for them for at least a decade. It also showers them with cash - it seems to me the dirtiest industries will actually profit from the scheme. You also have to wonder about the political likelihood of it being strengthened in the future - I think things would have to be looking pretty grim for the climate to get the political impetus to genuinely fix it up.

It's all pretty disappointing for someone who has high hopes in the ability of market-based policies to deliver good environmental outcomes at low cost and spread fairly over the community. If this is what an emissions trading scheme looks like in practice, the fact that I think a purer scheme could work really well in theory is pretty hollow.

13 comments:

Jerome said...

I have to agree with most of your sentiments DJ. Now I am not sure if the Greens played the wrong card when they refused to play ball with the Government about the ETS and ended up with an even worse scheme when the Government took the decision to deal direct with the Libs. Hindsight is 20/20 sure but I think politicians with the experience of BB should have known better.

I do have some misgivings about the fact that most of our reductions would be "imported" from overseas. If it is generally correct to say that reducing emissions is costly, then there is a high chance that developing countries end up paying the price of emissions reduction in the developed countries.

While they will get compensation, the compensation may not necessarily reflect the true costs of whatever reduction scheme they are exporting.

Justin Agar said...

I do have some misgivings about the fact that most of our reductions would be "imported" from overseas. If it is generally correct to say that reducing emissions is costly, then there is a high chance that developing countries end up paying the price of emissions reduction in the developed countries.

Anonymous said...

哈佛英文補習班除提供留學、遊學代辦外,還備有提升托福多益 (toeic)及雅思等課程。

Anonymous said...

搬家是很辛苦的,對於無殼族搬家卻是常會發生的,購買系統家具OA辦公家具則可以減少搬家整理的麻煩,讓搬家的痛苦降低。

Anonymous said...

室內裝潢工程是件不容易的事,所以找到好的空間設計公司,向專業的室內設計師諮詢,是必要的。

Anonymous said...

搬家公司是大家都會有的經驗,現在的搬家公司制度完備多了,但選擇時還是要找政府立案的搬家公司,或口碑好的搬家公司為宜。也就是多收集搬家公司的資料,讓搬家達人幫忙完成,上搬家公司網站是不錯的選擇。

Anonymous said...

蔡佳祝高雄皮膚專科提供淨膚電射飛梭雷射電波拉皮服務,另配合高雄復健者需求,設有震波復健。

Anonymous said...

搬家公司紛設台北搬家新竹搬家桃園搬家等分公司,主要為提供台北搬家、新竹搬家或桃園搬家者更完善的服務。

Anonymous said...

徵信社廣告隨處可見,但真的有徵信需要時,還是找有立案的徵信社,因為徵信社徵信人員很重要,除了影響徵信調查的結果外,不好的徵信人員會假冒徵信社向您收取不當的利益。當您需要法律諮詢時,也可洽徵信社,他們也提供免費法律諮詢服務。

Anonymous said...

三信商業銀行提供個人信貸服務,可幫您取得資金,請洽台中三信銀行

Anonymous said...

酒瓶雕刻專家提供您最特別的婚禮或生日禮品

jim rogers farmland said...

Its a great idea

rain bow said...

This article is mind blowing I read it and enjoyed. I always find this type of article to learn and gather knowledge.

flood damage monterey