Search

This paper summarises results from the inaugural China Carbon Pricing Survey. The survey elicited expectations about the future of China’s carbon price from China-based experts on carbon pricing and carbon markets during July to September 2013. The results indicate confidence that all seven of China’s pilot schemes will be implemented by 2015, with prices rising over time and having an effect on investment decisions; however there is significant uncertainty about price levels. There is strong confidence that China will proceed to introduce national emissions trading, probably in conjunction with a carbon tax. Carbon price levels are expected to rise, in time exceeding those currently prevailing in the EU emissions trading scheme. A large majority of respondents expect that China’s 2020 emissions intensity target will be achieved or surpassed, and almost all expect further targets to be taken on in 2025 and 2030, possibly in the form of absolute limits on emissions.

China is considering a national emissions trading scheme, to follow several pilot schemes, as part of the suite of policies to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. A carbon tax or tax-like scheme could be an alternative. However there are special challenges in a fast-growing economy where the energy sector is heavily regulated. This paper analyses policy design options based on principles, China’s circumstances, and Australian and European experiences. The main findings are the following. (1) Features such as variable permit supple, price floor/ceiling or a fixed permit price are desirable to provide a stable price signal, especially in China’s case. A carbon tax can be a viable alternative or complement to emissions trading. (2) Any free permits or other assistance to industry should be carefully designed to preserve incentives to cut emissions, limited so that governments can use carbon revenue to support households or pay for other policy measures, and regularly reviewed to avoid lock-in of unnecessary payments. (3) Broad coverage of emissions pricing is necessary for effectiveness, including in electricity supply and demand. Carbon pricing can be partly effective in the electricity sector ahead of comprehensive energy sector reform, ultimately however market-based energy pricing is needed. (4) Carbon pricing should be seen in the broader context of economic policy reform. It offers opportunities to support broader goals of fiscal, energy and environmental policy.

The inaugural Australia Carbon Pricing Survey elicits expectations about the future of carbon pricing from experts working for Australia‟s largest greenhouse gas emitting companies, the carbon finance and investment industry and selected other experts. The survey indicates pervasive uncertainty about the future of Australia‟s carbon pricing scheme, but also a strong expectation that carbon pricing will be a feature of Australia‟s economic policy framework in the medium to long term. 79% of respondents expect that there will be a carbon price in Australia in 2020. But 40% expect that the current scheme will be repealed by the end of 2016. Of those who expect repeal, almost half think that a carbon price will be re-instated by 2020. Factoring in expectations of a possible zero carbon price, the average expected effective Australian carbon price falls from its initial level of $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent to $10 to $11 per tonne during 2016-18, before climbing to $22 per tonne in 2025. Assessments vary greatly between respondents, illustrating the extent of policy uncertainty. Nevertheless, 69% of respondents from large carbon emitters indicate that their companies have cut emissions in anticipation of a carbon price, and 84% expect their company to do so over the next three years – not withstanding significant uncertainty about whether the carbon price may be repealed. The survey also covers expectations about future prices in the EU emissions trading scheme and credits under the Clean Development Mechanism, the Australian price floor and linking with the EU scheme, and the future of Australia‟s national emissions target.

Price floors in greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes can have advantages for technological innovation, price volatility, and management of cost uncertainty. Implementing the schemes, however, has pitfalls. This research report argues that requiring firms to pay an extra fee or tax is the best way to put a price floor in place. As well as providing budgetary advantages, the fee approach is more compatible with international permit trading than the alternative approaches currently dominating academic and policy debate. The fee approach can also be used for other emissions pricing schemes.

A detailed proposal for an economy-wide emissions trading scheme in Australia was tabled by the government in December 2008 with a proposed start date for mid-2010. The government proposes unilateral linking, with no initial bilateral linkages, through the clean development mechanism and joint implementation. The proposal has resulted in serious concern about significant permit price increases and price capping, leading to a ban on permit sales. This research paper evaluates the proposed Australian scheme in relation to international emissions trading and linkages. Different scenarios for the Australian permit price under unilateral linking are considered. Options for bilateral linking with the European Union and New Zealand schemes are also evaluated, including access to ‘hot air’ units. The research paper argues that Australia needs to dismantle linking obstacles, such as the price cap, and move towards suitable bilateral linking schemes.

Effective climate policy requires global emissions of greenhouse gases to be cut substantially, which in energy sectors can be achieved by lower emissions supply technologies, greater energy use efficiency, and substitution in demand. For policy to be efficient requires fairly uniform, pervasive emission pricing from taxes, permit trading, or hybrid combinations of the two, as well as significant government support for low-emission technologies. We compare the kind of technology-focused climate policies currently adopted by Australia and the USA, the 'Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate' (AP6), against this ideal policy yardstick. We find they 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 other important options.

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 fairly uniform, fairly pervasive emission pricing from taxes, permit trading, or combinations of the two, as well as 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 ideal 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 combined policy options.