News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Finance 
 Emissions trading could boost economy by $6b 

Emissions trading could boost economy by $6b

24 May, 2009 06:19 PM
THE Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme could deliver a massive investment surge that would add more than $6 billion a year to the economy, according to secret economic modelling work produced as Parliament considers the fate of controversial climate-change laws.

An internal report by National Australia Bank seen by The Sun-Herald suggests the emissions trading debate in Australia has been dominated by claims about the short-term costs, and scant attention has been paid to new investment opportunities.

"The average year-on-year investment created by the [Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme] could be up to 60 per cent greater than that committed for infrastructure in this year's budget," the report says.

It warns there has been "little consideration of the investment stimulus" that would be created as the economy becomes less greenhouse-intensive.

"This is unfortunate, as discussion of any costs should be balanced with an examination of the opportunities."

The modelling work traces the impact of the three possible emissions reduction targets announced by the Government.

It assumes that the price of emissions will gradually rise from from $20 a tonne of carbon dioxide to $100 a tonne as the Government progressively reduces the number of permits.

The report also assumes that 30 per cent of Australia's investment efforts to cut emissions will leak to foreign countries.

It found national investment triggered by the scheme would initially be boosted by $860 million in 2012.

Under the least onerous scenario - a mandatory cut in carbon emissions of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 - investment would be boosted by $5.8 billion a year by 2020 and by $10.8 billion by 2050, or an average of $6.2 billion a year.

Assuming a 15 per cent cut below 2000 levels, the average annual gain would be about $6.3 billion a year.

A 25 per cent cut - which will become Government policy if there is a strong international agreement an United Nations meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December - would boost investment by about $6.5 billion a year, on average, over the next 40 years.

Treasury modelling produced for the Government concluded the emissions trading scheme would only have a small net impact on employment.

But the Minerals Council says the mining sector will lose 23,510 jobs over the next decade if a 5 per cent target is adopted.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I'd say banks have a lot to gain from an emisions trading scheme. Hence the potentially skewed NAB report. Let's see the report so we can "digest" it. Australia has just lost its producer of solar panels. One of the geothermal projects is broken. Just where is all the investment coming from and going too?? I must have missed the announcement that we are to going nuclear power. Is the NAB funding this project??
Posted by John Michelmore, 24/05/2009 6:27:43 PM
What a load of poppycock! The story doesn't give any information as to how it will generate any real wealth only that it will attract massive investment dollars. Since it does nothing to generate real wealth it can only get the investment money by taking it away from other investments, some at least of which would go into real wealth producing investments. Any body, Govts included, that is genuinely concerned about GHG abatement will pursue the issue by stopping production of the gases that are claimed to be causing the problem. Stop burning coal in electricity generating stations and use geothermal energy (no pollution, no consumption of resources, no byproducts, minimal use of water). Stop burning up fossil fuel in high flying aircraft which leave GHGs behind in the upper atmosphere. Electrify and expand the rail system so that heavy transport is minimised thus reducing GHGs (and with the added bonuses of reduced road accidents and deaths and massive savings on road maintenance and construction).
Posted by DAW, 24/05/2009 10:15:52 PM
Spain is an excellent example of what happens to an economy jumping into ETS without proper analysis. Employment down. Electricity costs up bt 30 to 100%. Each new environmental job created costs $700,000. Yes let follow the other lemmings over the cliff.
Posted by John Michelmore, 25/05/2009 9:49:07 AM
The coal industry needs to be a bit more realistic about its demands and gripes. Jobs will be lost in coal regardless of an emissions trading scheme simply because of the global situation. They will be jobs in export coal, not home consumption. For too long the coal industry has distanced itself from the environmental harm of sending coal off in boats. Out of sight out of mind. Once it goes over the horizon it ceases to be Australia's problem. Wrong! From an accounting perspective we've too long wiped our hands of what happens in China, from the moral perspective it's time for us to wake up and act responsibly. However, it may be too late.
Posted by Brucemc, 25/05/2009 9:50:44 AM
There are a great many wild assertions about jobs costs and cost benefits in the climate debate. All of this discussion fails to address the fundamental question. If we are polluting, like sulphur dioxide emmissions causing acid rain, we need to change what we do. In the case of carbon dioxide the jury is still out and when taking water vapour into account the changes we can achieve are miniscule. There is no proof of carbon dioxide causing global warming. Heating of the ionosphere not detected. Recent science shows a greater correlation between sunspot activity and climate than carbon dioxide. Peter Clark, Mount Gambier
Posted by petrc, 25/05/2009 12:37:03 PM
It seems the only foriegn investment of any note in the last few years has been headed straight to cattle production and coal mining, the two industries under the most threat from CPRS or any form of ETS. Why don't we just start with the basics and reduce emisions on a personal level and worry about fundamental changes later. For example make hybrid cars and gas conversions free of any for of tax or import duty. Subsidise any form of energy production that is not a derivative of fossil fuel, etc etc. This is not rocket science.
Posted by Sam Gunn, 25/05/2009 5:12:16 PM
I would have thgought there will be a massive disinvestment after ETS, as jobs and manufacturing are moved off shore. As Wong and her idiotic henchmen are including cattle into ETS (at $14.70 per head in the first year) into ETS. So Sam Gunn investment into cattle production will cease.
Posted by farmerrex, 26/05/2009 2:57:09 PM
Economics seems to be a complicated science. But the fundamentals are not complicated. However, in the vast majority of economic management the fundamentals are taken for granted, never considered. In time this develops a situation where most managers ignore them completely. Some do not even know what the fundamentals are. The relevant fundamental issues here are 1. that an ETS is a tax levied on production in advance of production. Therefore it will depress production of goods, and 2. services are dependent on goods. No amount of services can compensate for a deficiency in goods. For 35 years now economic managers have been ranking goods and services at parity. This error is about to bite back. The $6 billion claimed here is in services, not in goods. Goods will suffer as a result.
Posted by Ted O'Brien, 27/05/2009 11:06:36 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
20 May, 2009
22 May, 2009
24 May, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you believe human activity is the cause of climate change?

Yes
(43.6%)

No
(48%)

Undecided
(8.4%)

Total Votes: 1138
Poll Date: 24 May, 2009

Most popular articles




North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...