Australia's emission levels are overstated

In a chapter of a recentIy published Anthology, ''Energy, Sustainability and the Environment'' edited by F.P. Sioshansi, I observed that ''International trade means countries that export energy intensive products incur emissions on behalf of other countries.  This tends to reduce the national emission levels of many developed countries, while exaggerating those of some developing countries and resource rich countnes like Australia.''

Recently released UN data confirms and quantifies this.  It shows that about 11 percent of the US's carbon dioxide emissions are outsourced -- that is they are incorporated within imports.  In Japan it is 18 per cent and for Switzerland over 50 per cent.

AUSTRALIA'S EMISSION LEVELS ARE OVERSTATED

By the same token Australia's emission levels are overstated because we are a net exporter of goods that incorporate carbon dioxide.  While on the basis of production, our carbon dioxide emission levels are 16 tonnes per capita, on the basis of consumption they are only 13.3 tonnes.  This means that Australia's per capita emissions are lower than those in nine of the 35 developed world countries

MARKEDLY CHANGES THE COMPARISON

The vastness of Australia is one reason why we use more energy -- and hence have higher carbon dioxide emissions -- than many other countries.  But Australia's sheer size also means the continent is a significant natural sink for carbon dioxide emissions.  If Australia is credited with these natural sequestrations this markedly changes the comparison with other countries.  Australia's land mass naturally absorbs around 137 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum.  If this is subtracted from the 550 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (or its equivalent) that is actually emitted, Australia would be average among the developed countries.

EMISSION LEVELS ARE SWOLLEN

There are further reasons why Australia's emission levels are swollen relative to those of other countries.  Among these is the relative saturation of hydro power availability (though additional capacity would be available in Tasmania if the ALP-Green alliance lifted its veto).  Similarly we have no nuclear power, again in part because of politics.  These two emission free power sources account for nearly 20 per cent of the electricity generated by developed countries but less than five per cent for Australia.

In reality, all these numbers are simply propaganda tools.  Every country emits carbon dioxide levels consistent with its stage of development, costs of different energy and raw material sources and economic structures.  And, though some countries have more aggressively introduced regulations that force reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, aside from the EU, Australia appears to have been as willing as any other country to impose the costs these entail.

On 13 April, Climate Minister Greg Combet's spin for a carbon tax pushed new frontiers.  In the art of being economical with the truth.  He said, ''Australia ... release(s) more pollution per person than any other country in the developed world -- more than the US ... we were not pulling our weight.''

To craft evidence for this, he decided to prejudge the Productivity Commission report his Government commissioned to obtain information on different countries' effective carbon tax rates.  Instead he drew from material assembled by London based Vivid Economics, which though he did not acknowledge it, his department commissioned.  And, as Gary Johns showed in The Australian of 28 April (''Dodgy figures, wrong questions plague debate''), the material contains some howlers.

ELECTRICITY MARKET REFORM

Among these was a claim that China has a carbon price of $8 per tonne.  This was arrived at by assigning, as a carbon tax, China's policy of ceasing to favour small (and carbon intensive) electricity producers.  Australia implemented that measure with the electricity market reform introduced by the Victorian Kennett Government and supported by the Keating Commonwealth Government's competition policy reforms.  Needless to say, nobody here claims this to be a form of carbon tax.

Mr Combet also used the Vivid Economics report to falsely claim that the US and India were acting to introduce such taxes and that, based on the report, we were delinquent in our own levels of carbon tax.  But for Australia, the Vivid Economics material failed to acknowledge the Commonwealth's requirement that 20 per cent of electricity by 2020 must be sourced from exotic forms of renewable energy.  This scheme is L.A.W. law.  It Imposes high cost wind and solar on the consumer and has a carbon price effect which grows year by year, reaching $13 per tonne by 2020.  The proposed Commonwealth's carbon tax at $20-30 per tonne would be on top of this.

CREATING NEW TRADING MARKETS

Laughably, Mr Combet added that acting to introduce a tax was also in our national interest.  What we are in fact finding is that some businesses think it is in their interest to introduce a ''carbon price'' with all the potential this offers them for creating new trading markets.

Many other businesses think it is a good idea as long as they are immune.

These include the motor industry, many miners (recently joined by BHP, a former proponent of the tax), several banks (as long as the measure provides tradeable financial instruments rather than a tax) and some agricultural interests (as long as they can profit from becoming carbon sinks).  There are also businesses which realise there can be no winners and courageously say so in spite of government pressures on them.

GOVERNMENT IMPOSED COSTS

More significantly, opinion polls show a rising majority of people do not think it is in our national interest to introduce a carbon tax.

Very few people would actually be prepared to pay the tax necessary (at least $1,000 per annum).  Recognising this, the Government refers to ''big polluters'' who will pay but neglects to say that the ''big polluters'', if that is what they are, are ordinary Australians.

Firms can be stung for government imposed costs initially but they very quickly pass those costs onto the consumer or just as quickly go out of business.