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.


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...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


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

raju reddy said...

that's awesome :)

Kezya Wulandari said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along.I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Please don't forget to visit My Blog
Best Android
KitKat Launcher
Big Launcher
Anti Virus Apk
YouTube Downloader Pro Apk
MyniLyrics For Android
Thankyou ;)

housing finance said...


Are you in need of Urgent Loan Here all problem regarding Loan is solve between a short period of time with a low interest rate of 2% and duration more than 20 years what are you waiting for apply now and solve your problem or start a business with Loan paying of various bills I think you have come to the right place just email us.
Contact us on whatspp +447513195409
Mr Osman Ibrahim

Osman Ibrahim said...

Do you Need Personal loans?
Debt consolidation loans?
Venture capital Loan?
Business Capital Loans?
Education loans?
Home loans?
Loans for any reason?
This gives you a real chance to get the funds.
Email us:
Cell No +919205467093
Mr. Osman Ibrahim