Carbon Politics Down Under

The final word in my short recent series on the developments in carbon policy in Australia should be given to Clive Spash , who was there on the inside and, as an academic economist of the social-ecological position, in a strong position to analyse the policy outcomes from a planetary perspective.

Spash has produced a paper describing how Julia Gillard was able to depose the previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, also of the Labour Party, because of the unpopularity of his carbon emissions trading scheme. The powerful mining sector lobbied strongly against this and the opposition thus generated, most on the basis of untrue claims about the effect on ordinary Australians, allowed Gillard to successfully challenge Rudd and create a new government with support of Green and independent MPs.

Spash describes how the political compromise involved a temporary carbon tax for three years, to be followed up by an ETS very similar to that which had been proposed by Rudd and at considerable political cost:

'That cost extends to allowing major emitters to make guaranteed windfall profits from pollution permits. The emission trading scheme suffers numerous problems, but the issues raised show taxes can also be watered down and made ineffectual through concessions. Taxpayers will get no assets from the billions of dollars to be spent buying-off the coal generators or other polluters. The scheme hopes to stimulate private investors to create an additional 12 percent in renewable electricity generation by 2020.'

Spash sets a much more stringent target of a wholesale shift to 100% renewable energy within a decade, the only proposal he considers 'serious' given the urgent nature of the issue of climate change. His working paper explores the difficulties of implementing meaningful greenhouse gas taxes in Australia.
. Tweet

Carbon Floored

However many cheers we decide to cheer in response to Australia's introduction of a carbon tax , it is an encouraging sign that a country dominated by mining and energy interests and one of the highest carbon polluters is introducing an unpopular policy. What about the UK? Should we be arguing for a carbon tax here? Interestingly, it appears that this discussion is already underway, although in strong contrast to the situation in Australia, it is happening between the government and business, with little or no public debate at all. It is also happening without any mention of the word tax, and yet it is hard to find any other interpretation of the consultation document about a 'carbon price floor' published this March.

The first graphic illustrates the need for such a 'price floor'. It shows the price at which carbon was trading (bear with me on this nonsense) during the first phase of the EU's carbon trading scheme. The collapse in the price in 2007 resulted from the over-issue of a permits as a result of industry lobbying. There were more permits than companies needing to emit CO2, hence no scarcity, hence no price and the market failed.

The second graphic illustrates the government's proposal to use the Climate Change Levy to create a predictable upward trend in the 'price' of carbon to give a clear signal to industries reliant on fossil fuels that they had better increase their efficiency and/or shift their source of energy. This is a purely indicative graphic, with no suggested price, although later the document suggests 'Three illustrative carbon price scenarios for the UK power sector: £20, £30 and £40/tCO2 in 2020 rising to £70/tCO2 in 2030.'

This is one of the major problems with carbon pricing as a solution to climate change: we have no idea what the price should be. Real solutions to the problem of excessive emissions begin with a scientifically determined cap, and then find some way of sharing out the emissions the cap implies. Trading leaves the field wide open for industrial emitters to lobby to increase the number of permits available, and hence fix the market price. We can see from the first graphic that the current carbon price in the EU system appears to be stabilising at around €15 per tonne. As one of my students recently pointed out, given that our individual carbon quotas are around one tonne per year, and our actual emissions are 2.5 times that, he could easily afford to pollute to his heart's content, even on a student income.
. Tweet

Defending Dissent

In support of the courage of dissenting economists I posted the news that Clive Spash had been forced to resign from his post at Australia's publicly-funded research body CSIRO almost exactly two years ago. The political disagreements over how Australia, one of the greatest carbon emitters per head of population, should address its climate sins, has resulted in the carbon tax also discussed recently on this blog.

The behaviour of CSIRO has now reached the Australian parliament, with questions raised over CEO Megan Clark's involvement with financial organisations involved in carbon trading and the fact that Simon McKeon, executive chairman of Macquarie Bank’s Melbourne office, was appointed as CSIRO’s chairman. In connection with the paper 'The Brave New World of Carbon Trading' that was at the heart of the dispute, Senator Colbeck asked:

'CSIRO’s internal review concluded that the original paper did not report new research or present empirical evidence to support all of the authors’ conclusions. The paper was also viewed as offering opinion on matters of government policy by applying a critique of neoclassical economic theory to the ETS. Therefore it was not approved for publication. Were those issues to have been rectified as CSIRO strived to do with Dr Spash, CSIRO would have supported the publication of that paper and any public comments that related to the papers findings.'

As Peter Earl notes in his post on the Real World Economics blog:

'This organisation apparently rejects institutional analysis, historical analysis, descriptive analysis and policy analysis . . . it is now evident that the fact that [Spash's] critique was levelled against the use of neoclassical economics as foundations for the policy was the heart of the problem. Their statement explicitly supports neoclassical economic theory and rejects anything critical of that theory because it is being used to support carbon emissions trading. According to the CSIRO this was not about the content or politics!'

This is a rare explicit statement of the role that neoclassical theory plays, much more one of catechism than of scientific theory. As the global economy spawned by four decades of neoclassical theory founders between the Scylla of ecological disaster and the Charybdis of the renewed credit freeze, we need thoughtful pragmatic economists like Spash more than ever.
. Tweet