Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Apr 22, 2010

Official: carbon leakage is wildly overstated

A new report does the numbers on the handouts to big polluters proposed in the government's emissions trading scheme and finds they would have been a colossal waste.


The Grattan Institute has demolished the central argument behind the Rudd government’s CPRS handouts to big polluters, in a major report.  In doing so, it has shown just how close Australia came to major and costly policy debacle when the Rudd-Wong CPRS narrowly failed to pass the Senate late last year.

The Institute was established in 2008 and counts the Federal Government and BHP-Billiton as key funders.  But its report has taken direct aim at a key Rudd Government policy.

Some of us have previously tried to place carbon leakage — the shift of carbon emissions offshore as Australian industries are made unviable by a carbon price and overseas industries take up the slack — in a broader context by examining issues such as exchange rate and resource price movements. But the Grattan Institute has thrown considerable resources at evaluating the impact of carbon prices on Australia’s biggest trade-exposed polluters at the plant and project level, and determining whether a carbon price would drive emissions and jobs offshore, either by making local industry uncompetitive against imports or by making Australian exports uncompetitive in global markets.

What is remarkable about the report is just how small the impact of a carbon price will be on even our heaviest polluters.  Modelling impacts based on a 5% emission reduction target and a $35 per tonne carbon price, the report finds that an ETS without compensation would have minor impacts on most of the biggest beneficiaries of CPRS largesse.

Alumina: a carbon price would have virtually no effect on the Australian alumina industry, which enjoys significant advantages over international competitors due to the proximity of alumina plants to large bauxite deposits.  With a carbon price and no free permits, alumina production costs at most plants would still be far below international alumina prices.  The industry was scheduled to receive more than $1.5 billion in free permits over the next decade.

LNG: Led by Woodside, the loudest whinger in the CPRS debate, the LNG industry managed to coax $3.5 billion over the next decade in CPRS handouts from the government.  However, the report shows a full carbon price would have no impact on investment decisions (in LNG, the issue is not the impact on projects currently operating, but on future investment decisions) because a carbon price would be a fractional component of overall costs.  The impact of a carbon price on rates of return is dwarfed by oil price movements or construction cost blow-outs.

Coal: a carbon price impact would be minimal for 90% of coal mines, the report found, and only significantly affect 10% of mines that are the most “gassy”.  However, even some of these mines are unlikely to close without compensation because they produce premium types of coal.  In any event, a carbon price makes it more likely production will shift to lower-emissions coal mines.

Cement: the report concluded that local production of cement clinkers could be replaced by imports, but the difference in emissions was so marginal that some form of assistance to keep production onshore was justified.  The report suggested a carbon tariff on clinker imports, rather than free permits.

Steel: The steel industry was likely to see poor returns if a carbon price was imposed without compensation, forcing higher-emissions blast furnace plants to close, while lower-intensity electric arc plants would remain.  If local blast furnace output was replaced by imported blast furnace output, the report suggested this might lead to an increase in global emissions, but not if it was replaced by imported electric arc plant output.  Again, the report suggested a carbon tariff on steel rather than free permits to keep production onshore.

On aluminium and oil the report found an uncompensated carbon price would lead to the closure of local plants; in the case of aluminium smelting, particularly when coupled with the scheduled end of state government electricity subsidies, and in the case of oil refineries, bringing forward closures that would happen anyway.  In the medium-term, aluminium smelting would be replaced by lower-emission foreign production, reducing global emissions, and oil refining would be carried out by significantly lower-emissions overseas plants.  In neither case was any assistance (the aluminium industry was to receive more than $8 billion under the CPRS, the oil industry $1.5 billion) justified, although there might be a case for assisting communities disproportionately affected by plant closures.

The report even suggested the impact of the CPRS on households would have been far lower than the ordinary price movements of petrol and electricity over the past decade.

The report also put an ETS in the context of other major economic reforms of recent decades and its conclusions are surprising.  While most of us have spoken of the transition to a low-carbon economy as a massive economic reform, the price impacts of an ETS would be significantly smaller than that of the GST.  And the industries most affected by a carbon price together employ 70,000 people, only a small number of whom are potentially affected by plant closures if no compensation was paid.  But the process of reform of the Australian automotive industry has cost 55,000 jobs over the past three decades; the textiles, clothing and footwear industry — which has never had powerful lobbyists to put its case in Canberra — has lost 60,000 jobs.

The compensation being handed to the biggest polluters will cost, on average, $65,000 per job.  In the aluminium industry, the cost is as high as $180,000 per job.  It would be far cheaper simply to let it close and pay displaced workers average weekly earnings.

As the institute points out, the CPRS compensation would have totalled more than $20 billion over the next decade and would have muted any benefits from the CPRS in terms of driving the transition to lower-emission intensities.

Bear that in mind if the government ever tries to revive that appalling scheme.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

19 thoughts on “Official: carbon leakage is wildly overstated

  1. Billy Blogs

    The incompetence of this government is mind blowing. Good bye Malcolm, you were part of this too.

    I wonder if Krudd will hold a presser to make this announcment.

  2. Mark Duffett

    In the medium-term, aluminium smelting would be replaced by lower-emission foreign production

    Hmmm. On my quick reading of the main and detailed reports, there are several brave assumptions behind at least this conclusion.

  3. jack jones

    The report looks good and confirms long held suspicions. Great effort to bust through the hysterical spin and also deflate any excuses the govt has for not dealing with the Greens post election on a real CPRS vs the pretend one they’ve got now. Wot chance though that they’ll go for an even more p***weak deal with a Hockey lead ‘moderate’ opposition rather than genuine action which Greens could support….will probably dependon how the election plays out.
    Only question I had was whether the sponsorship (apparently in part at least) of this report by BHP has skewed the findings on steel at all, as the piece above suggests though they haven’t gone for the lazy option of free permits at least.

  4. JamesK

    Yes. And bear in mind that there has been massive carbon ‘leakage’ in Iceland just recently.

    Saving that much ‘carbon’ which isn’t really what Rudd means by ‘carbon’ what he means is actually carbon dioxide, would cost the whole Aussie workforce and then some…

    On the positive side sometimes apparently Rudd does like fewer words…

  5. Michael James

    Hmm, wasn’t Crikey a major voice calling for the CPRS to be passed without delay?

    Crikey, take a lesson from this, try reporting the news as it is, instead of trying to influence the issue by slanting the coverage.

    You and your writers are quick to scream bias at News when they barrack for a position you do not subscribe to, on several issues you seem to be just as guilty.

  6. surfer

    They don’t like Kevin since he changed his Asylum Seeker policy. Before that he was seen as the Messiah usually.

  7. Rohan

    Michael James – certainly this author has consistently slammed the CPRS as a dog from the very beginning.

    Of the top of my head can’t think of any other regular contributors that have supported it.

  8. EnergyPedant

    On the issue of who funds the Grattan Institute.

    Vic Govt., Feds, UniMelb and BHP all contributed to an endowment. My understanding is that there is no on-going sponsorship. The cash (many millions) was handed over and the institute runs based on the revenue stream. So now that it is established there is no external interference in what is produces.

    Other than electricity generation the carbon cost for almost everything adds only a relatively small percentage to total costs.

  9. JamesK

    @ Rohan. The ‘author’ has consistently attacked the ETS but only from the left ie. that it’s not quite looney enough for his taste. The ‘author’ is aghast that the Coalition voted against it and aghast that The Greens didn’t support it but he has never actually articulated a criticism of our looney Greens.

    What about it Bernard: Do you support the Greens position?

  10. eclectic eel

    Good article Bernard.

    Maybe Tony Abbott’s rise to Liberal leadership is more of a blessing than I thought.
    Apart from being an appalling choice as leader, he’s sunk the hopelessly inadequate and expensive
    (from the point of view of the taxpayer) proposed CPRS.

    If Rudd can win the senate at the next election perhaps he will have the balls to follow the
    Garnaut recommendations or introduce a carbon tax.

    Global warming does not go away because
    politicians want it to. And don’t give me the bit about Australia only contributing a small percentage of the total carbon emissions. That’s a childish response – we’re a rich and resilient country.

    The Grattan Institute has shown that profitable enterprises will not
    collapse because of a carbon capping scheme. Business has been ready for some time to
    adapt to it.

    We coped with two world wars the GST, and the GFC – this will be a walk
    in the park with good leadership. Get on with it!

  11. Tony Kevin

    Proceeding from Bernard’s final concluding rejection of the CPRS – a judgement with which I now agree, though I was still not decided when I completed my book ‘Crunch Time’ nine months ago – what is the alternative market mechanism to get CO2 emissions down? Quite obviously now, it is James Hansen’s carbon tax: a simple national tax on calculated carbon dioxide emissions, levied once only on entry into the national economy of all carbon-burning fuels, either at the mine or wellhead or port of entry, and refunded immediately and in full to all Australian citizens or permanent residents on an equitable per capita basis (which means it could not credibly be criticised by Tony Abbott as ‘a big new tax’).

    The over-complex corruption-prone CPRS was a folly, it is now clear in retrospect. A Hansen-model carbon tax is simple, transparent, corruption-and special-interest proof, and has the desired impact of creating real and quick-acting economic market incentives for reduced carbon emissions practices and technologies, throughout the production-consumption train. The rate can be varied according to society’s evaluation of the seriousness of the climate crisis and how much it wants to spend on decarbonisation of the national economy; and whatever the rate, it comes straight back to consumers” wallets.

    It is not too late for Kevin Rudd to change trains on this. Let’s just admit it now, the CPRS, like CCS and pink batts, was bad climate crisis policymaking. I see this now – s0 should the Rudd government. We need a real decarbonisation policy in Australia – for the climate crisis is not waiting for Labor’s election timetable. Get on with it, Kevin.

  12. Flower

    So why not shake a leg and get on with it?

    If Australia discharges around 1.6% of the world’s total CO2 and there’s around 195 countries, doesn’t that put this nation in the “bad boys” bracket?

    ‘Germanwatch’ on countries’ climate change performances claims that Australia is coming second last out of all the OECD nations, just slightly in front of planet trashers, Canada:


    Therefore, at least in the interim period, why not a Royal Commission enquiry into the corruption of the Environmental Protection Acts in this nation? After all if the EPAs were enforced tomorrow, Departments’ of Environment could no longer act as industry boosters and industry sycophants such as Premier Colin Barnett in the West, could no longer override environmental impact assessments to dirty things up with impunity.

    In the event of enforcement, pollutant industries would be hastily installing scrubbers and pollution prevention technologies to comply with the already legislated, carbon capping scheme which dodgy state governments have corrupted and industry polluters have largely gotten off scot free for 40 years.

    Which reminds me, why are we paying so much attention to Mr Rudd and his ETS while state governments are the whore boys of pollutant industries which are responsible for the majority of Australia’s man-made, environmental catastrophes and all from “prescribed” premises too? Huh?

  13. Peter Wood

    I agree that the assistance to emission intensive industries is a bad idea, and is a large waste of taxpayers money, and bad policy.

    But it is totally irrelevant to the environmental effectiveness of the CPRS. How effective it is only depends on the targets, and the process for setting the targets – and there are serious problems here too. But the question is what are the chances that if the CPRS is not passed, there will be something better in the near future? And if it is passed, could it be improved after people realise that the rent-seekers were wrong and the sky did not fall in.

    The Greens proposal is the best feasible option because it has a process for introducing targets after people realise that the sky didn’t fall in because of a carbon price. Unfortunately Kevin Rudd has gone AWOL on climate change, so Australia may not have a carbon price for some time.

  14. Michael R James

    To the other Michael James 3:02 pm: No. Bernard Keane for Crikey, Christine Milne for the Greens, Clive Hamilton, Richard Denniss for Australia Institute and this M.James were all deploring the heavy subsidy of the fossil fuel miners. Read Tony Kevin 6:23 pm to learn something..

    JAMESK at 2:58 pm: And bear in mind that there has been massive carbon ‘leakage’ in Iceland just recently.

    No. Volcanoes do not necessarily release much CO2 but do generally release SO2 (which of course has a global dimming effect thence a cooling effect; I don’t now if this eruption is big enough to show as a slight dip in temperatures when all the data comes in). Because the jet planes have not been flying–just like after 9/11–there is a likely to be a slight warming effect due to less global dimming due to less SO2 from the jet pollution. Counterbalancing that they have calculated that minus the volcano CO2 there is a net reduction of about 200,000 tonnes of CO2.

    Oh, and though Labour don’t want to upset the big miners, these awful subsidies were built into the CPRS at least partly to keep the Libs on board, which they were if you remember. (…and I continue to think why do you two guys read Crikey…)

  15. JamesK

    Volcano CO2 ~200,000 tons per day X 30 days of eruption so far = 6,000,000 tons of CO2.

    Carbon priced at $30 per ton = $180 million.

    Now I think $180 million would leak a few jobs Michael R James

  16. Lovard

    Does anyone else make the connection between all these “lost jobs” and the skills shortages in other industries. The vast majority of those working if fields affected by any form of carbon trading/tax would quickly be snapped up by industries requiring many of the same skills sets. On top of this, the jobs and economic growth in sustainability and carbon reduction would be substantial in itself. There is no point comparing the loss of jobs in dissimilar industries (like textiles).

    It is clear from those countries going it (somewhat) alone in improving industry sustainability (Sweden, Germany etc.) haven’t seen the huge economic backlash people seem to be expecting for Australia. Yet those countries are geographically close to lower cost rivals. On top of that they were far more sustainable with non-renewable resources than Australia has been for over 50 years.

    Another thing that seems forgotten from the carbon reduction argument is the depletion of fossil fuel reserves and the lack of viable alternatives. It is this reason companies such as Royal Dutch Shell have been pushing for global carbon emissions reductions for years. There are few (if any) oil companies with currently viable reserves of fossil fuels capable sustaining current consumption beyond 2025. The continued increase in consumption reduces the lifespan of these reserves. Of course their is more coal, oil and gas to be found, but increasingly it is the most remote parts of the globe left untapped with the remainder being of such low quality refining of the fuel uses more than 50% of it’s initial energy capacity.

    The future of fossil fuels is doomed, the quicker we get on board with sustainable energy, the more capable we will be at exporting the technologies skills and experience learned to those slower to move. Perhaps it’s already too late for Australia to be a leader, but it is not too late for Australia to innovate in the same way we have at the times that make us most proud of our history.

    Industry needs incentive to change, not incentive to continue and that is where the CPRS fell down in my opinion. The Greens solution is not perfect either, but what public policy ever is? At least policy should achieve it’s aims without rewarding those for ignorance in the first place.

  17. Flower

    “No. Volcanoes do not necessarily release much CO2”

    Well they do Michael R James , however anthropogenic emissions of CO2 trumps volcanoes emissions – big time!

    “The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).”


  18. Michael R James

    JamesK 10:52 am and Flower 3:01pm:

    I cannot understand what you are saying. What I said was that volcanoes do not NECESSARILY release much CO2. I said that because that is what is being reported for this eruption of Eyjafjallajokul (but to be strictly technical I would imagine it is a bit early to be getting definitive):. If that is true (see below, which doesn’t prove it…yet) then the drop due to not flying planes outweighs the volcano by a factor of about ten. Bottom line is that none of this is enough other than to have very minor blip on the charts.

    “The eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull isn’t likely to have any significant effect on the climate, but the global grounding of aircraft due to the European no-fly zones has resulted in a small decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.
    ………Grounded aircraft worldwide had not emitted the more than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide as of Tuesday that they would have if the flight ban had not been imposed, according to the Environmental Transport Association.
    It’s estimated that Eyjafjallajokull spewed about 15,000 tons of CO2 each day during the most powerful phase of its eruption.”

    Here’s nice graphic (dunno if any of these figures flying around are accurate; except one would suppose the jet estimates should be):

  19. JamesK

    Where did Michael R James get his 15,000 tons of CO2 per day at most figure from?

    All estimates that I have seen have been “on average” daily emissions of between 150,000 tons and 300,000 tons.

    He seems to be quoting a source but he doesn’t bother to tell us which.
    Maybe Michael R James’s ‘tons’ aren’t what tons used to be?

    For my guesstimate pricing above I quoted a conservative 200,000 tons/day over the 30 days approx that it has been erupting at an also conservative carbon pricing of human produced carbon dioxide of $30/ton.

    I’m also at a loss as to what Michael R James’ quoting and comment of my original post is apropos of.


https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/22/official-carbon-leakage-is-wildly-overstated/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.