ID :
27550
Thu, 10/30/2008 - 18:20
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/27550
The shortlink copeid
Emissions trading 'to cost $1 a day'
(AAP) Emissions trading will cost households a dollar a day when it starts in 2010.
Comprehensive economic modelling released by Treasury on Thursday has painted a rosy
picture of how emissions trading will affect the economy and households.
The modelling found the scheme would barely impact on economic growth and incomes,
both of which would continue to grow.
The biggest hit for households will be increases in prices for electricity and gas,
with bills to rise by $7 a week.
Poorer households and pensioners will feel the price hike more - but they will be
compensated by the government.
More than 50 boffins worked on the Treasury data, which was one of the largest
exercises of its kind in Australia's history.
The results have buoyed conservationists, who say the figures show Australia can
afford to dramatically cut emissions, and backed up the government's claim that
emissions trading will not cripple the economy.
The modelling found adopting a tough 2020 emissions target would not affect the
economy much more than adopting a soft target.
In key economic findings, the modelling concluded that emissions trading would shave
between 0.1 and 0.2 off economic growth.
Inflation would rise by between one and 1.5 per cent in the first year, more than
previously thought, but it's a one-off hit.
There were some quirky findings to come out of the number crunching - emissions
trading will cause people to eat less beef, drive less, and consume less coal and
aluminium.
But we'll be eating more chicken, taking the train more often, and using more wood
products and renewable energy.
The Treasury data should soothe some fears about how emissions trading will affect
the economy but there's some bad news.
The aluminium industry and petroleum refineries will be hit hard, and those sectors
may contract.
Some coal-fired power stations will close.
And the modelling found it will cost Australia more than most developed nations to
reduce greenhouse emissions, because of our reliance on emissions-intensive
industries.
As the world tackles climate change, Australia's terms of trade will decline because
the world will spurn our energy exports. This means the Australian dollar will lose
value.
However, the Treasury modelling debunked claims from some industries that emissions
trading would force them to move offshore.
It said in general there was no evidence this would happen.
"Fears of carbon leakage may be overplayed," the modelling found.
Sectors like coal, iron, steel and livestock would maintain or improve their
competitiveness under emissions trading.
Treasurer Wayne Swan said the modelling showed Australia could tackle climate change
in a way that did not cost jobs or economic growth.
"The Australian economy will continue with strong growth while we reduce emissions,"
he said.
"We can tackle climate change in a way that is affordable for families and
pensioners and still promote growth and competitiveness into the future."
But Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull criticised the modelling, saying it did not
show what would happen to the economy if Australia acted alone on emissions.
It also did not factor in the effects of the world financial crisis, a serious
omission, he said.
Conservation groups were pleased with the modelling and called for Australia to cut
its emissions by 25 per cent by 2020.
The government has not set a target. Climate adviser Ross Garnaut suggested a target
between five and 25 per cent.
Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne said the costs of tackling climate
change were "vanishingly small".
"The modelling shows that the government has no excuse whatsoever for refusing to
take on at least 25 per cent cuts by 2020," Senator Milne said.
Business groups were less convinced by the modelling.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said it remained "extremely
cautious" about the impacts of emissions trading on businesses and households.
Climate change expert Tim Flannery urged critics to look to Europe as a guide.
"There has been no impact in Europe and there is likely to be a small impact if any
in Australia in my view," he said.
"I would say if you've got a relative or you know someone living in Europe, ring
them up and ask them about carbon trading.
"Has it destroyed their business, has it added cost to their life, do they even know
about it?
"The answer you'll find is that people are totally comfortable and relaxed about this."
In other climate news, a report commissioned by the Australian Council of Trade
Unions found "green collar" work could create up to one million jobs in Australia by
2030.
Clean industries, including the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors,
could provide plenty of jobs in the long-term, according to the report, which was
co-commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation.
However, research by Australian National University professor Warwick McKibbin
suggests a worldwide carbon cap and trade scheme could hasten and widen unexpected
economic shocks like the credit crunch.
Prof McKibbin studied the impact of economic shocks on three different climate
change policies.
"We found that a global cap and trade regime would be extremely vulnerable to shocks
in any single economy," Prof McKibbin said.
"They would change the way that growth shocks would otherwise be transmitted between
regions."
Comprehensive economic modelling released by Treasury on Thursday has painted a rosy
picture of how emissions trading will affect the economy and households.
The modelling found the scheme would barely impact on economic growth and incomes,
both of which would continue to grow.
The biggest hit for households will be increases in prices for electricity and gas,
with bills to rise by $7 a week.
Poorer households and pensioners will feel the price hike more - but they will be
compensated by the government.
More than 50 boffins worked on the Treasury data, which was one of the largest
exercises of its kind in Australia's history.
The results have buoyed conservationists, who say the figures show Australia can
afford to dramatically cut emissions, and backed up the government's claim that
emissions trading will not cripple the economy.
The modelling found adopting a tough 2020 emissions target would not affect the
economy much more than adopting a soft target.
In key economic findings, the modelling concluded that emissions trading would shave
between 0.1 and 0.2 off economic growth.
Inflation would rise by between one and 1.5 per cent in the first year, more than
previously thought, but it's a one-off hit.
There were some quirky findings to come out of the number crunching - emissions
trading will cause people to eat less beef, drive less, and consume less coal and
aluminium.
But we'll be eating more chicken, taking the train more often, and using more wood
products and renewable energy.
The Treasury data should soothe some fears about how emissions trading will affect
the economy but there's some bad news.
The aluminium industry and petroleum refineries will be hit hard, and those sectors
may contract.
Some coal-fired power stations will close.
And the modelling found it will cost Australia more than most developed nations to
reduce greenhouse emissions, because of our reliance on emissions-intensive
industries.
As the world tackles climate change, Australia's terms of trade will decline because
the world will spurn our energy exports. This means the Australian dollar will lose
value.
However, the Treasury modelling debunked claims from some industries that emissions
trading would force them to move offshore.
It said in general there was no evidence this would happen.
"Fears of carbon leakage may be overplayed," the modelling found.
Sectors like coal, iron, steel and livestock would maintain or improve their
competitiveness under emissions trading.
Treasurer Wayne Swan said the modelling showed Australia could tackle climate change
in a way that did not cost jobs or economic growth.
"The Australian economy will continue with strong growth while we reduce emissions,"
he said.
"We can tackle climate change in a way that is affordable for families and
pensioners and still promote growth and competitiveness into the future."
But Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull criticised the modelling, saying it did not
show what would happen to the economy if Australia acted alone on emissions.
It also did not factor in the effects of the world financial crisis, a serious
omission, he said.
Conservation groups were pleased with the modelling and called for Australia to cut
its emissions by 25 per cent by 2020.
The government has not set a target. Climate adviser Ross Garnaut suggested a target
between five and 25 per cent.
Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne said the costs of tackling climate
change were "vanishingly small".
"The modelling shows that the government has no excuse whatsoever for refusing to
take on at least 25 per cent cuts by 2020," Senator Milne said.
Business groups were less convinced by the modelling.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said it remained "extremely
cautious" about the impacts of emissions trading on businesses and households.
Climate change expert Tim Flannery urged critics to look to Europe as a guide.
"There has been no impact in Europe and there is likely to be a small impact if any
in Australia in my view," he said.
"I would say if you've got a relative or you know someone living in Europe, ring
them up and ask them about carbon trading.
"Has it destroyed their business, has it added cost to their life, do they even know
about it?
"The answer you'll find is that people are totally comfortable and relaxed about this."
In other climate news, a report commissioned by the Australian Council of Trade
Unions found "green collar" work could create up to one million jobs in Australia by
2030.
Clean industries, including the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors,
could provide plenty of jobs in the long-term, according to the report, which was
co-commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation.
However, research by Australian National University professor Warwick McKibbin
suggests a worldwide carbon cap and trade scheme could hasten and widen unexpected
economic shocks like the credit crunch.
Prof McKibbin studied the impact of economic shocks on three different climate
change policies.
"We found that a global cap and trade regime would be extremely vulnerable to shocks
in any single economy," Prof McKibbin said.
"They would change the way that growth shocks would otherwise be transmitted between
regions."
