The much anticipated Productivity Report into carbon pricing is out. The full executive suymmary is available here. I will provide full analysis tomorrow. In the mean time, The Australian reports that:
The report found Australia is currently spending between $44 and $99 per tonne on carbon abatement policies in the electricity generation sector.
…“As a proportion of GDP (gross domestic product), Germany was found to have allocated more resources than other countries to abatement policies in the electricity generation sector, followed by the United Kingdom, with Australia, China and the US mid-range,” the commission’s report states.
In most countries examined, carbon abatement measures had led to relatively small reductions in electricity consumption.
The key exceptions were Germany and the United Kingdom, where emissions-reduction policies had boosted electricity prices by 12 and 17 per cent and reduced emissions by 3 and 19 per cent respectively.
And AAP/Business Spectator that:
Germany spends $137 to $178 a tonne, the United States $43 to $50, the United Kingdom $75 to $198, Japan $156 to $287, South Korea $225 to $401, New Zealand $7 to $8 and China $35 to $57.
Germany is spending 0.28 to 0.33 per cent of its GDP on efforts to cut dangerous pollution. The United Kingdom is spending up to 0.1 per cent, while Australia is allocating up to 0.5 per cent of GDP.
China’s contribution is up to 0.4 per cent while the US and Japan are at 0.2 per cent.
And here are the key findings:
CARBON EMISSION POLICIES IN KEY ECONOMIES
- More than 1000 carbon policy measures were identified in the nine countries studied, ranging from (limited) emissions trading schemes to policies that support particular types of abatement technology.
- As policies have been particularly targeted at electricity generation and road transport emissions, the Commission analysed major measures in these sectors.
- While these disparate measures cannot be expressed as an equivalent single price on greenhouse gas emissions, all policies impose costs that someone must pay. The Commission has interpreted .‘effective.’ carbon prices broadly to mean the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions .— the .‘price.’ of abatement achieved by particular policies.
- The Commission.’s estimates essentially provide a snapshot of the current cost and cost effectiveness of major carbon policies.
- The subsidy equivalent, abatement achieved and implicit abatement subsidy have been calculated for policies and aggregated by sector in each country.
- As a proportion of GDP, Germany was found to have allocated more resources than other countries to abatement policies in the electricity generation sector, followed by the UK, with Australia, China and the US mid-range.
- Estimates of abatement relative to counterfactual emissions in the electricity generation sector followed a similar ordering, with Germany significantly ahead, followed by the UK, then Australia, the US and China.
- The estimated cost per unit of abatement achieved varied widely, both across programs within each country and in aggregate across countries.
- Emissions trading schemes were found to be relatively cost effective, while policies encouraging small-scale renewable generation and biofuels have generated little abatement for substantially higher cost.
- The relative cost effectiveness of price-based approaches is illustrated for Australia by stylised modelling that suggests that the abatement from existing policies for electricity could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost.
- However, the estimates cannot be used to determine the appropriate starting price of a broadly-based carbon pricing scheme.
- The estimated price effects of supply-side policies have generally been modest, other than for electricity in Germany and the UK.
- Such price uplifts are of some relevance to assessing carbon leakage and competitiveness impacts, but are very preliminary and substantially more information would be required.