http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/questions-for-ross-garnaut/story-e6frg6zo-1226079511723

THE Productivity Commission's research report, Carbon Emission Policies in Key Economies, has valuable, evidence-based, messages for politicians of all stripes, and some of their advisers.

There are more efficient and less efficient ways of abating emissions. Within the eight countries ultimately reviewed by the commission both are evident. (Nine countries were covered in the commission's terms of reference, but India did not participate.)

Australia can further cut the cost of the emissions reduction being delivered. A broadly based price on emissions of about $9 a tonne would achieve equivalent emissions reductions at a greatly reduced cost compared with the present 230 policies, the worst of which cost more than $1000 a tonne.

As with tariff cuts, unilateral action to reduce the cost of our existing emissions reduction effort is to our national benefit. This is the classic productivity enhancing finding we should expect from a commission doing its job.

However, under the government's terms of reference and tight time constraints, the commission was unable to deal with two central questions, even though securing a global climate policy deal hinges on answers to them.

First, what action is being taken to reduce emissions by our trade competitors? It is vital to understand that Australia's seven trading partners in the review do not cover this group well.

If the average answer for our trade competitors is zero or not a lot, the results imply Australia is ahead of countries from which it has most to fear from carbon leakage and related activity/job losses and is ahead of the global average.

The government's climate change adviser Ross Garnaut concedes concern about loss of trade competitiveness is the most important single impediment to securing a global deal. In light of the commission's report, it would be useful for Garnaut and others to provide public, evidence-based, answers, rather than mere assertions, to the following questions:

First, do they agree with the commission's findings that, of the countries examined, Australia's emissions reductions effort is in the middle of the range and, if not, what evidence supports their disagreement?

Second, can they reconcile the finding that Australia is in the middle of the pack on emissions abatement with Garnaut's assertions that Australia is "falling behind" on emissions abatement?

Third, in praising the Chinese effort on emissions abatement, does Garnaut exclude its Large Substitute for Small program? This is the policy under which the Chinese shut down small, inefficient and highly polluting generators and replace them with lower cost big ones. The commission excluded the program because the emissions abatement is a by-product of moving to more efficient energy production at a negative cost. That is, the LSS is a "no regrets" policy. Such technological advances have already been undertaken by developed countries such as Australia and certainly don't count as part of our emissions reductions efforts.

Fourth, accepting the finding that broad, price-based policies such as an ETS are more cost-effective than selective subsidies such as direct action, what's the most cost-effective broad price-based option? Should a broad-based emissions price apply to production or consumption? Garnaut concedes in his updated report that a price on consumption would be better for Australia because it would not erode our trade competitiveness. He rejects it because he claims it is too late to persuade the rest of the world to pursue a price based on consumption.

This seems absurd given that Copenhagen collapsed and the Kyoto protocol hasn't been implemented and is about to expire.

Did its terms of reference allow the commission to answer this crucial question? To do so requires modelling of emissions pricing options under different assumptions about what our trade competitors are likely to do. The commission is well aware of this issue. It is well placed to model different price-based approaches to emissions abatement.

These policy options could be modelled (under different assumptions about what our competitors are doing) as production or consumption-based taxes.

Compared with the morass the commission had to deal with in preparing its research report, this modelling exercise would have been relatively easy. (I already have some preliminary results, but I'd rather the commission did the job.)

I'm prepared to bet the Treasurer's recent claims that a carbon tax of about $20 a tonne will have a minor effect on Australian per capita incomes assumes our trade competitors also take action as part of a global deal. That's the assumption that underpinned the modelling for the carbon pollution reduction scheme a couple of years ago. Alternative assumptions weren't explored.

Suppose that, under government instruction or otherwise, the Treasury modelling makes this assumption. This would ignore the adverse activity, income and jobs implications of unilateral action by Australia to increase its existing average price on emissions.

Here are some more learnings lefties

As soon as the Productivity Commission came out with the report I immediately drew your attention to the Term of Reference (ToR)

The ToR relates to the parameter by which the report is done.

ToR were meant to focus the report on certain issues - but it can be manipulated to produce a biased outcome.

The ToR was set out by the Multi-Part Climate Change Commission which is all stacked with people who wants a report that supports a Carbon Tax

So what are the chances they would have set the ToR to get that result?

They are trying to use the Productivity Commission to hide their bias

LOL, Macca...your naked ego is showing...again...

:o

Equitist wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2011 at 8:31am:

LOL, Macca...your naked ego is showing...again... :o

8-)  ;)

Maqqa wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2011 at 8:21am:

Here are some more learnings lefties As soon as the Productivity Commission came out with the report I immediately drew your attention to the Term of Reference (ToR) The ToR relates to the parameter by which the report is done. ToR were meant to focus the report on certain issues - but it can be manipulated to produce a biased outcome. The ToR was set out by the Multi-Part Climate Change Commission which is all stacked with people who wants a report that supports a Carbon Tax So what are the chances they would have set the ToR to get that result? They are trying to use the Productivity Commission to hide their bias

It would seem around the globe, that anything with TOR gives an indication of steering away from what they dont want the people to know. Labor being no different.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2011 at 8:21am:

Here are some more learnings lefties As soon as the Productivity Commission came out with the report I immediately drew your attention to the Term of Reference (ToR) The ToR relates to the parameter by which the report is done. ToR were meant to focus the report on certain issues - but it can be manipulated to produce a biased outcome. The ToR was set out by the Multi-Part Climate Change Commission which is all stacked with people who wants a report that supports a Carbon Tax So what are the chances they would have set the ToR to get that result? They are trying to use the Productivity Commission to hide their bias

The ToR were Gillards dictating rule, make sure 2 plus 2 equals 6!!!

Maqqa wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2011 at 8:21am:

Here are some more learnings lefties As soon as the Productivity Commission came out with the report I immediately drew your attention to the Term of Reference (ToR) The ToR relates to the parameter by which the report is done. ToR were meant to focus the report on certain issues - but it can be manipulated to produce a biased outcome. The ToR was set out by the Multi-Part Climate Change Commission which is all stacked with people who wants a report that supports a Carbon Tax So what are the chances they would have set the ToR to get that result? They are trying to use the Productivity Commission to hide their bias

These commissions are all appointed and comprised of Gillard's supporters eg Tim Flannery & Ross Garnaut.  
So their reports are fate compli!
And they don't even refer to each other so as to be consistant, otherwise they wouldn't contradict each other! HILARIOUS :D :D :D

TOR = solves the "if you don't like the answer, you should not have asked the question" problem

When anyone spout s "TOR", they are on at LEAST 250K$ for a meeting that has no meaningful result.

Maqqa is a Blog Scientist! :D

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/

About
We are not afraid to be called climate "deniers". In fact we embrace it as medal of honor bestowed on us by our alarmist foes. Galileo was a Denier. It is not an insult. I call this blog "Denier Depot" for that reason.

Welcome to my climate science blog.

I believe that one day all science will be done on blogs because we bloggers are natural skeptics, disbelieving the mainstream and accepting the possibility of any alternative idea.

We stand unimpressed by "textbooks", "peer review journals" and so-called "facts". There are no facts, just dissenting opinion. We are infinitely small compared to nature and can't grasp anything as certain as a fact.

Nothing is settled and we should question everything. The debate is NOT over Gore! When so-called "experts" in their "peer reviewed journals" say one thing, we dare the impossible and find imaginative ways to believe something else entirely.


:D :D :D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2011 at 1:45pm:

TOR = solves the "if you don't like the answer, you should not have asked the question" problem When anyone spout s "TOR", they are on at LEAST 250K$ for a meeting that has no meaningful result.

Instead Gillards ToR are here's the answer no matter what the question is!