Fiddling while carbon burns: why climate policy needs pervasive emission pricing as well as technology promotion

Effective climate policy requires global emissions of greenhouse gases to be cut substantially, which can be achieved by energy supply technologies with lower emissions, greater energy use efficiency and substitution in demand. For policy to be efficient requires at least fairly uniform, fairly perv...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics 2008-03, Vol.52 (1), p.97-110
Main Authors: Pezzey, John C.V, Jotzo, Frank, Quiggin, John
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Asia-Pacific Partnership
Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6)
Climate change
Climate policy
Cooperation
Economic theory
Emissions
Emissions control
Emissions trading
Environmental economics
Environmental policy
Evaluation
Global warming
Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gases
Kyoto Protocol
Partnering
Pollution control
Prices
pricing
Productivity
Studies
Technology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Effective climate policy requires global emissions of greenhouse gases to be cut substantially, which can be achieved by energy supply technologies with lower emissions, greater energy use efficiency and substitution in demand. For policy to be efficient requires at least fairly uniform, fairly pervasive emission pricing from taxes, permit trading or combinations of the two; and significant government support for low-emission technologies. We compare the technology-focused climate policies adopted by Australia and the 'Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate' (AP6), against this policy yardstick. We find that such policies omit the need for emission pricing to achieve abatement effectively and efficiently; they over-prescribe which abatement actions should be used most; they make unrealistic assumptions about how much progress can be achieved by voluntarism and cooperation, in the absence of either adequate funding or mandatory policies; and they unjustifiably contrast technology-focused policy and the Kyoto Protocol approach as the only two policies worth considering, and thus ignore important policy combinations.
ISSN:1364-985X
1467-8489
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2008.00403.x