Tag Archives: climate
Carbon Market Flaws Evident
TIM WILSON From: The Australian April 18, 2013 A European Commission plan to cut emissions permits for up to seven years and thus push up their price was rejected on Tuesday by the European parliament because it would pass on higher costs to struggling industries and consumers. Emissions trading is supposedly a market system based on supply and demand. But behind the jargon, trading schemes are just government-mandated markets influenced by political interests. When too few companies are required to buy emissions permits, or too many permits are allocated, or both, the price collapses. This reality is unfolding in Europe. A tonne of emissions is now $3.20, and is expected to fall to $1.20 compared with $7 earlier this year, a 2008 starting price of nearly $50 and Australia’s $23 carbon tax, which will increase to $24.15 on July 1. The European carbon price crash is not unprecedented. The voluntary Chicago climate exchange traded permits for about $7.50 in 2008, but bottomed out at 5c when the scheme closed in 2010. Political manipulation of carbon pricing for private interests was always likely. Even Ross Garnaut argued in his 2008 review, “If there is a chance that political pressure will reap rewards in the form of special treatment, then the system will promote a large diversion of management resources towards rent seeking from governments”. European politicians have recognised how little public appetite there is to increase their hip pocket costs to cut emissions and reward rent seekers. All this bodes poorly for Australia. Under the government’s plan the Climate Change Authority will recommend our emissions target with the assumption our elected officials would blindly adopt it. That assumption is now exposed for the hokum it always was. Politicians can always make political capital opposing tax increases. The only difference with Europe is Julia Gillard included an automatic target cut if the parliament can’t agree on an alternative. The capacity for political manipulation ensures carbon markets never deliver the certainty their supporters claim. That might not matter if they cut emissions, but they fail there too. A report by the UN’s climate change secretariat concluded Europe would largely meet its Kyoto targets because of economic decline. By comparison the US Energy Information Administration reported a rapid drop in US emissions last year, to their lowest level since 1992. This was achieved “during a year of positive growth in gross domestic product” from expansion in the use of cheap, fracked gas. Meanwhile the Treasury’s Strong Growth, Low Pollution modelling shows that despite having the world’s most broadly applied, highest cost carbon tax Australia’s emissions will continue to rise. It’s probably the only assumption Treasury got right. Comprehensive modelling would have assumed realistic scenarios about whether countries would impose their own equivalent schemes and sign up to a global carbon cutting agreement. Instead Treasury assumed an utterly unrealistic global carbon price of $29 in 2015, and that each country would have carbon taxes, or their equivalent. The scheme, linked to the lower European price, exposes a fiscal gap between the fixed “over-compensation” and the billions in expected government revenue. It is a mess. Technocrats advocate for trading schemes in theory because it is the most efficient way to price emissions, in practice they can be manipulated like any other regulation. The European parliament’s action this week to avoid increasing taxes on households has exposed the problems of emissions trading. Europe should abandon its structurally flawed scheme, and Australia should learn from their mistakes and follow. Tim Wilson is director of the IP and Free Trade Unit and Climate Change Policy at the Institute of Public Affairs. Continue reading
€10bn A Year: The Cost Of Keeping EU Biofuel Policy Alive
April 17, 2013 Biofuels cost cash-strapped EU member states €10bn in 2011-the same as the bailout of Cyprus-and a figure that is projected to get bigger as Europe increases its use of the fuel. A new report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) reveals that increasing biofuel volumes from a current requirement for 5 per cent in transport fuel to 8.6 per cent by 2020 would require between €28.8bn and €33.1bn of additional cumulative public support between 2014 and 2020. Economic and environmental cost It’s not just the cost of the EU biofuel policy that is under fire-earlier research has revealed that the policy is doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport and in some cases is actually emitting higher emissions than diesel fuel, when indirect land-use changes (ILUC) are accounted for. T&E’s programme manager for fuels, Nusa Urbancic, said: “We already know that the EU’s biofuels policy does not help the climate, and this study demonstrates that it does not help our economy either. “The annual €10bn of support Europe gives to biofuels equals a Cyprus bailout every year. This amount may double if countries insist on meeting the 10% target. Member States should realise that freezing biofuels at current levels, as the Commission proposes, will not only save emissions, but a lot of money to,” she adds. ISSD’s study, entitled ‘Biofuels – At What Cost? A review of costs and benefits of EU biofuels policies’, evaluates the amount of support that the biofuel industry receives compared to its turnover, and analyses what the financial impacts of meeting the EU’s 10 per cent Renewable Energy Directive (RED) target would be between 2014 and 2020. Support outstripping investment The study, co-funded by IISD and environmental organisations BirdLife Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Transport & Environment (T&E), shows that the support rate is well over half of the turnover of the European biofuels sector, which was around €13bn to €16bn in 2011. The annual support is also higher than the total investment in biofuel production facilities from 2004 till now, which stands at about €6.5 billion. This suggests that the current support is particularly inefficient in protecting these investments. EEB’s Agriculture and Bioenergy Senior Policy Officer, Faustine Defossez, said: “The industry clamours that biofuels investment must be protected at all costs, yet yearly support to keep biofuels afloat is greater than the total initial investment in production facilities. We are paying to keep this inefficient machine running despite the fact that it does not deliver the environmental and economic goods initially sought!” The study also suggests that tighter CO2 standards for cars are a more cost-effective and environmentally sound way to reduce GHG emissions from transport. If invested in low carbon cars, €10.7bn spent annually in support of the industry could save 40MT of CO2 and pay for itself through reduced oil imports. €10.7bn is roughly the cost of imposing a 80g of CO2/km average for new cars, instead of 95 g/km of CO2 by 2020 as currently proposed, and would allow the EU to cut emissions by this impressive figure. “This policy is just too expensive for what it delivers, as governments are already struggling to financially support an import dependent policy that does not even distinguish between biofuels,” concluded Trees Robijns, EU Agriculture and Bioenergy Policy Officer at BirdLife Europe. . Continue reading
A Farmer in Africa: Property Rights
In developing countries around the world, rural people are losing their land and natural resources with often profound adverse effects on local livelihoods a… Continue reading