Why we're going slow on climate change

Every time I go to the Byron Bay Writers’ Festival I’m asked the same question: since there’s no policy issue more important than responding to global warming, and we’re doing so little about it, why do I ever write about anything else?

I give the obvious answer. Though I readily agree that climate change is the most pressing economic problem we face, if I banged on about nothing but global warming three times a week, our readers would soon lose interest.

But even as I make my excuses, my Salvo-trained conscience tells me they’re not good enough. Even if I can’t write about it every week, I should raise it more often than I do.

I’m still combing through the budget’s fine print, but I’ve yet to remark that its thousands of pages make almost no mention of climate change.

Even the federal government’s latest, 2015 “intergenerational report” peering out to 2055, devotes only a few paragraphs to “environment” and avoids using words starting with c.

I fear that history won’t be kind to the present generation – and particularly not to people with a pulpit like mine.

We’ve known of the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming since the late-1980s. Since then the evidence has only strengthened. And by now we have the evidence of our own senses of hotter summers and autumns and warmer winters, plus more frequent extreme weather events.

And yet as a nation we procrastinate. Our scientists get ever more alarmed by the limited time we have left to get on top of the problem, and yet psychologists tell us that the harder the scientists strive to stir us to action, the more we turn off.

Our grandchildren will find it hard to believe we could have been so short-sighted as to delay moving from having to dig our energy out of the ground to merely harnessing the infinite supply of solar and wind power being sent to our planet free of charge.

What were we thinking? Did an earlier generation delay moving from the horse and buggy to the motor car because of the disruption it would cause to the horse industry?

The biggest mistake we’ve made is to allow our politicians to turn concern about global warming into a party-political issue, and do so merely for their own short-term advantage.

The initial motives may have been short term, but the adverse effects have been lasting. These days, for a Liberal voter to worry about climate change is to be disloyal to their party and give comfort to the enemy.

Apparently, only socialists think their grandkids will have anything to worry about. The right-thinkers among us know the only bad thing our offspring will inherit is Labor’s debt.

Global warming used not to be, shouldn’t be and doesn’t have to stay a right-versus-left issue. In Europe it’s bipartisan. Margaret Thatcher was a vocal fighter for action on climate change, and the Conservative Party is anti-denial to this day.

If you remember, John Howard went to the 2007 election promising an emissions trading scheme. The big debate in that campaign was whether Labor’s rival plan was better because it started a year earlier.

The econocrat who designed Howard’s scheme, Dr Martin Parkinson, was the same person the Rudd government appointed to develop its scheme. The Department of Climate Change was a virtual outpost of Treasury. Indeed, I know of few economists who aren’t supporters of putting “a price on carbon”.

At the time, the Libs’ strongest supporter of action on climate change was a Malcolm someone. I wonder whatever happened to him?

As Liberal opposition leader, Turnbull was offering bipartisan support for Rudd’s emissions trading scheme when he was thrown out by Tony Abbott, who quickly changed his views to become leader of the party’s then-minority of climate change deniers.

I don’t doubt there are many, many Liberal voters who accept that global warming is real and would like to see the Coalition acting more decisively, but feel obliged to keep a low profile and let Dr John Hewson do the talking for them.

The fossil-fuel industry is no doubt generous in its support to any party willing to help it stave off the evil hour, but the attitude of business generally is different.

Initially, it accepted that the move to renewable energy was inevitable. In which case, the government should just get on with it, reducing uncertainty by making the rules for the transition as clear and firm as possible.

But when the Libs succumbed to the deniers, business savoured the temporary relief of doing nothing. Now, however, the electricity and gas industries are in such a mess that business is back to demanding certainty in the inevitable move to renewables.

The Coalition, unfortunately, is utterly incapable of agreeing to anything meeting that description.

Which brings us to the mystery of the seemingly denier-packed National Party. How any farmers or people from country towns can doubt the reality of climate change is beyond me. The National Farmers’ Federation certainly doesn’t.

But we can’t put all the blame on short-sighted politicians and crony capitalism. If enough of us did more to voice our disapproval, the pollies would change their tune PDQ.

And we’d have a more convincing story to tell our grandkids when they want to know what we did in the climate war.

Read more >>

CPI a more accurate measure of living costs than we imagine

Ask any pollie, pollster or punter in the pub and they'll all tell you there are no political issues hotter than the soaring cost of living. But this week the Australian Bureau of Statistics issued its consumer price index for the December quarter.

Oh no. It showed prices rising by 0.6 per cent in the quarter and a mere 1.9 per cent over the year to December.

That's a soaring cost of living? What are these guys smoking? Has the government got to the statisticians? Or do the bureaucrats sit in some office in Canberra making up the numbers?

None of the above. In truth, the bureau puts an enormous amount of expertise, care and effort into making the CPI as accurate as possible. Which is not to say the indicator is without its limitations – nothing in the real world is.

The care is shown in an explanatory paper the bureau issued this week to accompany its latest six-yearly updating of the index.

The CPI is purpose-built to measure changes in the price of a fixed quantity of goods and services bought by people living in metropolitan households.

"Metropolitan" means the eight capital cities, and the households include wage-earners, the self-employed, self-funded retirees, age pensioners and social welfare beneficiaries. That covers almost two-thirds of all Australian households, leaving out only those in regional areas.

The index measures the change in the price of a metaphorical basket containing fixed quantities of goods and services bought in each of the capital cities. It looks at thousands of prices of individual items, divided into 87 expenditure classes, 33 sub-groups and 11 major groups.

These are: food and beverages (accounting for 16 per cent of the total basket), alcohol and tobacco (7 per cent), clothing and footwear (4 per cent), housing (23 per cent), furnishings, household equipment and services (9 per cent), health (5 per cent), transport (10 per cent), communication (3 per cent), recreation and culture (13 per cent), education (4 per cent), and insurance and financial services (6 per cent).

How does the bureau know which particular goods and services to include in the basket and, more especially, what "weight" (relative importance) to give each class of expenditure?

Every six years it conducts a survey of more than 10,000 households, asking them to keep diaries of the spending they do. As spending patterns change over time, it updates the contents and the weights given to the items in the basket.

This week it applied new weights derived from the household expenditure survey it conducted in 2015-16.  From now on, however, the weights will be updated yearly.

The bureau checks the prices consumers are being charged by regularly visiting shops and offices, by phoning businesses, and, increasingly, by checking online supermarket sites and records of scanner transactions in stores.

It checks the prices of items at least once a quarter, but more frequently if prices – petrol, for example – keep changing. It aims to show the average price charged during the quarter.

It measures the retail prices we actually pay, so prices include the goods and services tax, and excise taxes, embedded in them, but also any government price subsidies for items such as private health insurance or childcare.

It takes account of widespread "specials", provided the items are of normal quality. It seeks to measure "pure" price changes, meaning it tries to exclude price changes attributable to a change in the quality or quantity of the latest version.

If some producer tries to disguise a price increase by leaving the price of a can of baked beans unchanged, but reducing the amount of beans, the bureau uses the actual price increase per gram.

When the latest laptop or mobile phone is more powerful than the previous model, or does more tricks, the bureau tries to take account of this quality improvement by calculating the underlying or "pure" price change – often a price fall.

But if the bureau takes so much care to measure price changes accurately, why do its figures invariably seem much lower than our impression of the price rises we've experienced?

Short answer: because we don't take nearly as much care as it does. We don't keep meticulous records, but form impressions. And, as behavioural economists tell us, our memories of prices changes are subject to predictable biases.

Price changes we don't like stick in our minds, while those we don't mind are soon forgotten. We remember clearly a few big price increases – the shock we got when we saw our quarterly electricity bill – but don't remember price falls (of which there are far more in these days of digital disruption). And it never occurs to us to take account of all the many items whose prices hardly change.

As a statistician would say, we don't attach the right weights to the price changes (including zero changes) that come our way.

So, for instance, we carry on (justifiably) about ever-rising power prices, but forget that electricity accounts for just 2.2 per cent of the average household's total consumer spending.

Of course, no particular household's experience is likely to be perfectly represented by such a broad average. The index lumps together people in different cities, smokers and non-smokers, drinkers and non-drinkers, renters, mortgagees and outright home owners.

The bureau tries to reduce this problem by also publishing special living cost indexes for certain types of households. Over the year to September, in which the CPI rose by 1.8 per cent, living costs rose by 1.5 per cent for employee households, 1.6 per cent for self-funded retirees, 1.7 per cent for age pensioners, and by 2.1 per cent for unemployed households.

Sorry, but the notion that the prices I pay rose way more than other people's did is just another of our happy self-delusions.

Read more >>

Who's ripping it off? Competition theory and reality

Puzzling over the rich economies' poor productivity improvement and weak wage growth (but healthy profits), American economists are pointing the finger at reduced competition between firms. But can this explain Australia's similar story?

Jim Minifie, of the Grattan Institute, set out to answer this in his report, Competition in Australia.

Economists regard strong competition between businesses as essential to ensuring market economies function well, to the benefit of consumers and workers.

Competition is what economic theory says stops us being ripped off by the capitalists. Firms that overcharge for their products lose business to firms that undercut them.

So competition pushes prices down towards costs (which economists – but not accountants – define as including the "cost of capital", or "normal profit", the minimum rate of profit needed to induce firms to stay in the market).

Competition helps ensure that economic resources - land, labour and (physical) capital – move to the uses most valued by consumers.

Competition also encourages firms to come up with new or better products – or less costly ways of producing a product – in the hope of higher profits. But those that succeed in this soon find their competitors copying their ideas, and bidding down the price to get a bigger slice of the action.

The innovations improve the economy's productivity (output per unit of input), but competition soon takes away the higher profits, delivering them into the hands of consumers, who often get better products for lower prices.

That's the theory. Question is, to what extent does it hold in practice? And does it hold less in recent years than it used to?

The simple theory assumes any market has a large number of sellers, each too small to be able to influence the market price. In practice, however, many of our markets are dominated by two, three or four big firms.

Why? Mainly because of the presence of economies of scale. It's very common that the more you produce of something – up to a point – the less each unit costs.

So, it makes great sense to have a small number of big firms doing much of the production – provided competition ensures most of the cost saving is passed on to customers in lower prices. Which, as a general rule, it has been over the decades.

Trouble is, big firms do have some degree of control over prices. And it's common for the few big firms in an industry to come to an unspoken agreement to compete using advertising or product differentiation, but not price.

Firms can increase their pricing power by taking over their competitors to get a bigger share of the market. It's the role of "competition policy" – run in our case by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission – to prevent overt collusion between firms, and takeovers intended to increase market power. But how well is that working?

"Natural monopolies" – where it simply wouldn't make economic sense for more than one firm to serve a particular market, such as rival sets of power lines running down a street, or two service stations in a small town - are another common departure from the theoretical model.

So, what did Minifie find in his study of competition in practice? He found evidence it had lessened in the United States, but not here.

He found plenty of markets where a few firms did most of the business. But "the market shares of large firms in concentrated sectors are not much higher in Australia than in other countries [of comparable size], and they have not grown much lately," he says.

Nor have their revenues (sales) grown faster than gross domestic product. The profitability of firms – profits relative to funds invested - hasn't risen much since 2000.

Minifie identifies eight industries characterised by natural monopoly (in descending order of size): electricity transmission and distribution, wired telecom, rail freight, airports, toll roads, water transport terminals, ports and pipelines.

Then there are nine industries where large economies of scale mean they're dominated by a few firms: supermarkets, wireless telecom, domestic airlines, then (of roughly equal size) internet service providers, pathology services, newspapers, petrol retailing, liquor retailing and diagnostic imaging.

Next are eight industries subject to heavy regulation by government: banks, residential aged care, general insurance, life insurance, taxis, pharmacies, health insurance and casinos.

(Often, these industries are heavily regulated for sound public policy reasons, but the regulation often acts as a barrier to new firms entering the market, thus allowing them to be dominated by a few firms.)

But note this: by Minifie's calculations, natural monopolies account for only about 3 per cent of "gross value added" (a variant of GDP), while high scale-economies industries account for 5 per cent and heavily regulated industries for 7 per cent.

So that means the parts of the economy where "barriers to entry" limit competitive pressure make up about 15 per cent of the economy. Then there are 29 industries with low barriers to entry making up the rest of the "non-tradables" private sector, and about half the whole economy.

That leaves the tradables sector (export and import-competing industries) accounting for 14 per cent of the economy and the public sector making up the last 20 per cent.

Even so, Minifie confirms that, in industries dominated by a few firms, many firms make "super-normal" profits – those in excess of what's needed to keep them in the industry.

By his estimates, up to half the total profits in the supermarket industry are super-normal. In banking it's about 17 per cent.

Other companies and sectors with substantial super profits include Telstra, some big-city airports, liquor retailers, internet service providers, sports betting agencies and private health insurers.

Comparing this last list with the lists of natural monopolies and heavily regulated industries suggests governments could be doing a much better job of ensuring the regulators haven't been captured by the companies being regulated.

Read more >>

Everyone has a different excuse for the electricity stuff-up

The electricity market is such a mare's nest of stuff-ups and problems it's impossible to see the deeply divided Turnbull government making much progress in fixing it.

The goals of halting runaway power prices and reducing the risk of summer blackouts wouldn't be quite so daunting, for instance, were it not for the third goal of "sustainability" – the euphemism you use when you can't say "climate change".

It's tempting to focus on the first two and forget the third, but even that wouldn't work because the inescapable reality of climate change means that, until the Turnbull government ends the "policy uncertainty" about its treatment of fossil fuels relative to renewables, it's unlikely to get sufficient investment in new production capacity to keep prices controlled.

Even if Turnbull were to patch together some weakened version of an (already toned down) clean energy target, that wouldn't do the trick if it failed to win the endorsement of the alternative government.

Even so, the industry's line that ending the policy uncertainty is pretty much all you need to fix the problem is self-serving bulldust.

Ditto the Coalition's line that government subsidies (via the renewable energy target) to renewable energy, with its fatal flaw of "intermittency", are the heart of the problem.

The environmental damage done by burning fossil fuels is a significant "social cost" to the community. If you're not prepared to use some form of carbon pricing to internalise this "externality" then subsidising the cost of emissions-free energy is the next-best policy.

The good news is that the cost of renewable energy and storage is falling so fast it won't be long before it can compete against socially unpriced fossil fuels without explicit subsidy.

Economic rationalists are always preaching that governments shouldn't attempt to "pick winners" by subsidising the establishment of new industries.

The reality, however, is that they've wasted far more taxpayers' money over the years by "backing losers" – propping up declining industries in defiance of technology-driven economic change.

The Coalition's attempt to prop up steaming coal – a sunset industry if ever there was – and demonise renewables may be the worst example of loser-backing since Barnaby Joyce's ancestors' fight to save the horse and buggy from the depredations of those dangerous and smelly horseless carriages.

And this from the prime minister who used to sermonise on the need for much greater innovation and agility. Which, of course, should be "technology neutral".

Yet another strand in the spaghetti diagram links the malfunctioning of the electricity market with the way we've stuffed up the eastern seaboard gas market.

Did you know that domestic gas users – particularly manufacturers, but also the gas-fired power stations we were relying on to tide us over the intermittency problem – are now paying far more for gas than are foreigners buying our exported LNG?

Beat that for a stuff-up. But, says the gas industry's own self-serving bulldust, the problem is easily solved by letting it frack all over NSW and Victoria.

Apparently, no responsibility should attach to the three big companies that built no less than six liquefaction "trains" near Gladstone to cash in on the supposed humungous gas bonanza.

How could they be expected to know that the citizens of NSW and Victoria would object to being fracked over, or even that the price of oil wouldn't stay at $100 a barrel?

Far from these firms accepting the consequences of their high-return/high-risk investment decisions, we're told that for the Turnbull government to protect manufacturers and households from the consequences of this public/private balls-up is a heinous example of "sovereign risk".

Yet another dimension of the problem is the abject failure of the whole micro-reform project of establishing a national electricity market.

We've gone from four separate state-owned power monopolies to a national market dominated by just three vertically integrated oligopolists, and all we've got to show for it is a massive real increase in prices.

This stuff-up is partly explained by the federal government's belated recognition that it must accept ultimate responsibility for any national market.

But explained much more by the state governments' preference for putting the health of their budgets ahead of the need for genuinely competitive markets, through their practice of maximising the sale price of their privatisations by including pricing power in the package.

It's not good enough, however, for economists to tell themselves their reforms would have worked fine were it not for those appalling politicians.

The reformers' mistakes were imagining they'd get vigorous competition between many firms instead of the usual non-price competition between two or three oligopolists, and imagining the regulators of a government-created market wouldn't be "captured" by the oligopolists.

Read more >>

How micro reform of electricity has failed

The soaring price of electricity is testament to the disastrous failure of a major item on the 1990s agenda of micro-economic reform – establishing a national electricity market.

In practice, nothing worked out the way the reformers' economic textbooks told them it would.

The failure occurred because the people charged with implementing the reforms – governments and their bureaucrats – did so in ways that defeated the object of the exercise.

They either had ulterior motives, or people charged with regulating the national market in the interests of consumers were "captured" by the big businesses they were regulating.

These are the conclusions I draw from the exposition of the market's many problems given by Rod Sims, chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, in a speech this week.

Before reform began, the electricity industry consisted of separate state government-owned monopolies, each generating, distributing and selling electricity, with little trading of power between them.

The reformers' idea was to get a competitive market going, with individual power stations across the eastern states competing to sell electricity into a national grid, and competing electricity retailers at the other end buying the power and selling it to households and businesses.

There was no reason the power stations had to be government owned, so they could be privatised, as could the retailers. New retail firms could be allowed to compete with the big privatised retailers.

The transmission and distribution networks remained natural monopolies, of course, but there was no reason they too couldn't be privatised – provided there was regulation of the prices they could charge.

Victoria's Kennett government was the first to sell off everything in 1994, joined much later and more hesitantly by South Australia, NSW and Queensland.

The consumer price index shows retail electricity prices have doubled in real terms over the past decade, whereas the competition commission's calculations show the average retail consumer's bill has increased by "only" about 50 per cent in real terms.

Three main factors explain the difference. First, the price index is based on the retailers' "standing offer" price, whereas some households have taken advantage of cheaper offers.

Second, many households have responded to price increases by finding ways to reduce the amount of electricity they use, thus reducing the increase in their quarterly bills.

Third, many households with solar panels buy a lot less power from the grid and many get unrealistically high credits for the power they put into the grid.

Sims' people estimate that, of the total increase in household power bills, 41 per cent is explained by increased charges for the distribution network, 19 per cent by increased "wholesale" prices for power generation, 24 per cent by increased retail costs and profit margin, and 16 per cent by the increased cost of the renewable energy target and household solar power incentive schemes.

The excessive increases in charges by the natural monopoly distribution networks of poles and wires occurred because, about a decade ago, the state governments – which owned most of the network businesses and greatly profited from them – succeeded in weakening the rules for regulating their prices.

Some states also lifted their standards for avoiding blackouts to unrealistic levels, thus allowing their networks to increase the cost base on which they get a set rate of return.

When a regulator tried to stop the networks charging for "inefficient costs", the NSW and ACT governments took her to court and got her stopped. Although the NSW government was in the process of privatising its networks, it wanted to preserve their profitability so as to maximise their sale price.

For most of the past decade, the highly sophisticated wholesale market designed by the reformers worked well, keeping prices low while generating capacity exceeded demand.

But now that's changed as ageing coal-fired generators are closed and aren't sufficiently replaced by new generators because of the "regulatory uncertainty" created by the present federal government and its climate-change deniers.

Apart from the contribution the misregulation of the gas market is making to higher wholesale electricity prices, prices are also rising because two or three big companies – Origin, AGL and Energy Australia – have been allowed to dominate both the wholesale and retail ends of the market.

Reformers' models always envisage a market composed of a large number of firms competing vigorously on price, but it hasn't worked out that way. It's taken less than a decade for the national electricity market to become oligopolised, giving the few big firms greater pricing power and ability to induce regulators to "see it my way".

State governments have been happy to sell businesses to the aggrandising oligopolists because they offered higher prices than other buyers. The competition commission's efforts to block these takeovers were unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, the oligopolists were figuring out ways to game the wholesale bidding system.

Retail electricity prices were regulated for many years, but the reformers persuaded state governments to deregulate them since competition between the many electricity retailers could be relied on to keep prices in check.

It hasn't worked out that way. Oligopolistic firms are adept at non-price competition, and so it's proved.

The commission's estimate that 24 percentage points of the overall increase in real power costs have come from the retail level breaks up into 7 points for higher profit margins and a remarkable 17 points for higher costs – mainly, I presume, the costs of marketing, advertising and sales people to flog an essential service. Remarkable.

Being entirely a creation of government policy, the national electricity market is heavily regulated by at least three agencies.

But the regulators have been surprisingly slow to recognise that the market is falling far short of what the reformers promised, and also slow to implement their corrective actions.

They've been far more conscious of the need to avoid annoying the oligopolists than the need to stop consumers having to pay more than they should.

Read more >>

Why electricity prices are high and going higher

It's never my policy to feel sorry for any politician, so let's just say I wouldn't like to be in Malcolm Turnbull's shoes when he meets the electricity retailers he's summoned to Canberra on Wednesday.

His hope is to persuade them to do more to help their customers find the best prices on offer, so that any savings customers make reduce, to some extent, the further big price rises that are on the way.

Trouble is, it's long been the practice of many big businesses – telcos, internet service providers, electricity retailers – to make it as hard as possible for their household customers to find the "plan" that meets their needs most economically, and also to take advantage of any trusting customer on a more expensive plan than they need.

So, whatever noises they make after their meeting with the Prime Minister, I can't see the likes of Energy Australia, Origin Energy and AGL – which between them have about 70 per cent of the retail market – volunteering to help their customers pay less.

Turnbull seemed to begin the year hoping to shift the blame for high electricity prices to Labor – which, federal and state, certainly has contributed to the problem – but it finally seems to have dawned on him that, if further big price rises are coming through right now, voters are likely to lay most of the blame on whoever happens to be prime minister at the time.

And, after all, it was Tony Abbott who sought election in 2013 on the claim that the big rise in power prices was caused almost solely by Ju-liar Gillard's price on carbon, and that abolishing the tax would fix things.

In truth, the story of why retail electricity prices have risen so far – doubling over the past decade, even after allowing for inflation – is long. But let me summarise.


About the first 30 per cent of the retail price is accounted for by the wholesale price – the cost of generating the power.

This component didn't contribute greatly to the price doubling of the past decade, but is now the chief source of the recent price rises of 15 to 20 per cent in some states, with more to come.

About the next 40 per cent of the retail price comes from network distribution costs – the cost of taking electricity from the power stations and transmitting it, first, through the high-voltage power lines and then through the poles and wires that distribute it to our homes.

It's this component that explains the great bulk of the doubling in the real retail price.

Because the distribution network is a natural monopoly, the prices the privatised or still government-owned distribution companies are allowed to charge are controlled by the Australian Energy Regulator, using a cost-plus formula.

Trouble is, with connivance by the NSW and Queensland governments, which retained government-owned distributors, the companies soon found ways to game the formula.

They claimed they needed to spend big on strengthening their networks to ensure that the spike in demand for power on just a few hot afternoons each year could be met without blackouts.

There were much cheaper ways to reduce the risk of blackouts – such as by rewarding some users for cutting back on those few days of peak demand – but these wouldn't have been as lucrative for the companies.

After years of big price rises to pay for this "gold-plating" of the network, the regulator finally woke up and tried to wind back some of the increase.

The NSW Coalition government, anxious to maximise the sale price of the poles-and-wires companies it was about to partially sell off, took the regulator to court and got the price roll back stopped in its state.

This brings us to the final 30 per cent or so of the retail price accounted for by the electricity retailers' margin.

Price control over these margins was lifted some years ago in the belief that competition between retailers would keep their margins in check, but it hasn't really worked.

This is partly because the companies try to avoid competing on price, and partly because not enough people use the government website, energymadeeasy.gov.auhttps://www.energymadeeasy.gov.au, to check every few years that their existing supplier isn't taking advantage of them.

But now the formerly stable wholesale generation part of the market has begun producing big price increases, with more to come.

This is partly because very old power stations are being closed and not sufficiently replaced by new generators, thanks to uncertainty about how the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is to be managed.

Having abolished Labor's carbon tax, the Coalition has so far failed to replace it with any other mechanism because of opposition from its climate-change deniers.

But also partly because miscalculations by one of the three gas companies permitted by the previous Labor government to build big gas export facilities in Queensland has pushed gas prices way above even the higher export-parity price.

Apart from crippling some industries, this has greatly reduced the ability to use gas-fired power stations to cover the "intermittency" of wind and solar power, pending the arrival of adequate storage technology.

Turnbull has threatened to use the feds' export powers to reserve sufficient gas for domestic use, but we're yet to see this have its effect. Much potential price pain lies ahead.

Read more >>

Labor’s professed preference for policy purity is phoney

For the growing number of us who care more about good policy and effective governance than party loyalties, the news isn't good. With one main exception, Labor is allowing the supposed perfect to be the enemy of the good.

The exception is a good one: although the "clean [or low] emissions target" for the national electricity market recommended by the Finkel report is far from perfect as the chief means by which the Turnbull government seeks to reduce our carbon emissions in line with our Paris commitment, Bill Shorten has indicated that the opposition would be open to supporting a "well-constructed LET" in the Senate.

There aren't many issues more important than filling the policy vacuum left by Tony Abbott's abolition of the carbon tax three years ago. And, in the process, greatly assisting efforts to fix the ailing electricity market, reducing the risk of blackouts and further price rises.

Everyone bar the Coalition's crazy backbench climate-change deniers knows coal's days are numbered, which is why both sides of the electricity industry – fossil fuels and renewables – are desperate for greater certainty about how the government plans to manage the transition.

But it's not just that the government needs to make up its mind. It's also that the alternative government isn't planning to change the Coalition's arrangements.

This explains why pretty much all the adults involved have agreed that a CET or LET is the best way forward, given the aforementioned crazies' rejection of anything more sensible.

And why Labor deserves a tick for seeking bipartisanship by moving from its own, better policy for an "emissions intensity scheme" and accepting a LET, provided it isn't too badly compromised.

Now it's up to Malcolm Turnbull to get his troops' agreement to a "well-constructed" LET – which won't be easy.

Sorry, but it occurs to me to wonder whether, should Turnbull fail, Labor isn't positioning itself to claim the moral high ground on both climate change and a workable electricity market.

I wonder about Labor's motives because, on most other policy issues, Shorten is putting his electoral ambitions well ahead of the nation's interest in good policy and effective governance.

All in the name of more nearly perfect policy, naturally.

It's hard to avoid the suspicion that, though he wants to be seen as positive and co-operative, his true motive is to pay the Coalition back for the way Abbott tried to destabilise and neuter the Gillard government and to keep alive the policy differences – on health, education and budget fairness – that brought him so close to unseating Turnbull at last year's election.

Take Shorten's utterly unreasonable position on needs-based funding of schools, that because Labor's version is supposedly superior to the Coalition's, Labor should do all in its power to block the government's legislation in the Senate and leave needs-based funding in limbo until Labor's re-election.

Shorten professes to care deeply about disadvantage students, but it makes you wonder.

As Dr Peter Goss, of the Grattan Institute, has argued, "Gonski 2.0 is a precious opportunity to lock in fairer deals on school funding. It should be seized by all sides of politics.

"Australia's long and toxic funding wars must end so we can move onto other much-needed education reforms."

In any case, Goss's analysis suggests that most of the extra $22 billion over 10 years that Labor says should be spent wouldn't be directed to student need.

Next is Labor's opposition to covering the rising cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme with a 0.5 percentage point increase in the Medicare levy, in two years' time.

Since such an increase would be roughly proportional – hitting high and low income-earners by a flat percentage increase – Shorten wants to impose the increase just on those earning more than $87,000 a year.

For good measure, he wants to continue the Coalition's temporary 2-percentage-point budget repair levy on income above $180,000 a year, beyond its promised expiry at the end of this month.

All very virtuous (and I wouldn't object to paying either impost). But not if it's used as an excuse to block the government's increase in the Medicare levy.

It's easy for those out of power to advocate making the tax scale more progressive, but this would be a first for Labor in office.

Should Shorten win the next election, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to reimpose the 2 per cent levy. And he doesn't want us to remember that funding the disability scheme with a 0.5 percentage point Medicare levy increase was perfectly fair enough for the Gillard government.

Somehow, I don't think these guys are fair dinkum.

Read more >>

Turnbull must act on climate if he's not to be a Trumpette

We are trying – admittedly, without much success so far – to make our home a Tr*mp-free zone. It's just too depressing. Watching a great nation disgrace itself before the rest of the world.

The former proudly self-proclaimed leader of the free world suffering a loss of confidence and applying for early retirement.

A nation that every year scoops the pool of Nobel prizes, electing a crazy, ignorant, wilful old man, not so much Trump as Chump.

His latest stroke of genius – reneging on America's commitment to the Paris climate agreement – has been almost universally condemned, including by a great number of Americans, especially many business leaders.

But, congenital optimist that I am, I see some perverse comfort in all this. The American people are being brought face-to-face with what it means for their future when the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases decides that the minor disruption of doing something to protect itself from the huge disruption of continuing global warming just isn't worth it.

This rational self-interest?

I'm prepared to bet that the next elected president will have climate protection at the top of his to-do list. Indeed, Donald Trump's becoming such an embarrassment to his compatriots I'd bet the next president's platform will be to do the opposite to Trump on 'most everything.

Then there's the band of American state governments – led by the two most powerful, California and New York – willing to step into the leadership vacuum their federal government has left. And the mayors of many cities.

Of course, as we know from earlier this year – when our federal government sought to use South Australia's blackouts for political point-scoring rather than a cue for policy correction, thus obliging the SA Premier to step in with expensive local interventions to a national problem – having states try to make up for a federal government's refusal to accept responsibility is far from ideal.

Which bring us to Malcolm Turnbull, whose statements and actions as Prime Minister contrast markedly with what every voter knows are his long-held views on climate change.

One thing to be said for Trump is that at least he's made an honest man of himself. He has no concern about global warming and isn't willing to do anything to combat it, but doesn't pretend otherwise.

Here, Turnbull professes eternal loyalty to the Paris Agreement and reaffirms our (inadequate) target to achieve a 26 to 28 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels, without having any credible policy by which to achieve it.

Actually, we haven't had a credible policy to reduce emissions since Tony Abbott abolished Julia Gillard's carbon tax-cum-emissions trading scheme in July 2014.

Abbott's professed reason for doing so was the claimed huge increase in the price of electricity and gas the scheme caused, and the massive economic damage this would lead to.

Prices did come down a bit, but soon continued on their upward way. Truth is, the carbon tax – and the renewable energy target – were never a major part of the reason for the big increases in energy prices since the turn of the century.

Even so, concerns about climate change are at the heart of the problems we're having maintaining an energy system that avoids blackouts without costing the earth (in the earlier sense of that phrase).

That, plus the various problems that have emerged with that finest flower of micro-economic reform, the national electricity market (the greatest source of price increases).

Ancient coal-fired power stations are being closed down, while no business in its right mind would invest in new coal-fired stations that are unlikely to be used for much of their 30 to 50-year potential working lives.

At the same time, however, businesses are reluctant to invest in industrial-scale renewable energy when the Coalition government has displayed such hostility to renewables and created such uncertainty about their future.

Have you noticed how our response to climate change and our problems with electricity have morphed into the same issue?

There's little concern to limit emissions except from the generation of electricity. And there's no solution to reliable, reasonably priced power that doesn't involve controlling emissions.

On Friday the chief scientist, Professor Alan Finkel, will deliver his long-awaited report on "the future energy security of the national electricity market".

What's needed is a mechanism to regulate the transition from fossil fuels to renewables in a way that reduces emissions while providing certainty to both kinds of energy providers.

Last year all the key players agreed the best approach would be an "emissions intensity scheme". All bar the Turnbull government, which ruled it out the moment its climate-change denying backbenchers objected.

So now, we're told, Finkel has come up with a compromise, a "low emissions target", or LET, which sets the proportion of electricity production that must come from low-emission sources.

It's similar to the present RET – renewable energy target – except the list of low-emission sources would be expanded to include gas-fired power and "clean" coal-fired power with carbon capture and storage (should such a thing ever exist).

This compromise has been widely canvassed, and has a lot of support in business. Even the Labor opposition has indicated its willingness to accept some form of mechanism rather than continuing inaction.

The heat will now be on Turnbull to get his Trumpettes across the line.

Read more >>

Too many stuff-ups about to put economic reform into reverse

I have bad news and worse for advocates of micro-economic reform. First, the jig is up. There'll be few if any further major reforms. Second, the backlash against mounting wreckage from failed reforms is about to begin.

Since the reform push has degenerated into little more than business rent-seeking – let's cut tax on business and increase it on consumers; let's push the legislated balance of power in industrial relations further in favour of employers – it's neither surprising nor regrettable that voters have called a halt.

Micro reform has lost all credibility with voters. Most oppose company tax cuts for big business, cuts in penalty rates and a freeze on the minimum wage. Neither side of politics will pursue these "reforms" with any enthusiasm.

Economic rationalists will blame all this on irrational populism, but if they were more honest with themselves they'd admit the economic case for bizonomic​ reforms – what's good for business must be good for the economy – is debatable and often unconvincing.

And who could blame the public for holding economists accountable for all the stuff-ups committed in the name of reform over the years: the implosion of the deregulated wool price scheme, the wasteful public-private partnerships, the dubious effectiveness of the Job Network, the disastrous admission of for-profit providers of childcare.

The dodgy education businesses selling access to permanent residence to foreign students, the "contestable" pink batts scheme, the failure of encouraging competition between government and private schools, the huge rip-offs of students and taxpayers arising from federal and state efforts to make vocational education and training "contestable", the privatisation of airports and ports with their monopolies intact.

Economic rationalists are so heavily into confirmation bias they've managed not to notice this record of disasters, but they'll be hard pressed not to see the next one, when for-profit providers rip off the disabled in the name of making the National Disability Insurance Scheme "contestable".

Last week the former high priest of micro reform (and Productivity Commission boss) Gary Banks attacked a politician for daring to blame the failures of energy policy on the private sector's lack of enterprise.

Leaving aside his one-eyed criticism of government subsidies for renewable energy (while just happening not to notice the implicit subsidy of fossil-fuel generators arising from the absence of a price on carbon), Banks was right.

The blame must go to the econocrats who designed the national electricity market and the politicians who took their advice.

That we've gone from about the cheapest to about the dearest electricity – and that without a price on carbon – can be blamed on the malfunctioning of micro reform.

The "market" is the utterly artificial creation of government, run by several government agencies with a 6000-page rule book, responsible to a committee of nine governments.

The reformers' wholesale electricity market seemed to be working well, but now lacks the flexibility to cope with energy emergencies. The price regulation of largely privatised natural monopoly network operators was gamed for years before the regulators woke up, and price competition between electricity retailers is weak and margins high.

Historically, economic rationalists under-rate market failure, but are highly conscious of "government failure" – where government intervention intended to correct market failures ends up making things worse.

This is the rationale for micro reform. Governments have mixed objectives, with little motivation to keep things efficient. Much better to leave it to the private sector, driven by the profit motive to put efficiency above all else.

Really? Economic rationalists and econocrats are naive, partly because many of them have never actually worked for the private sector, and are shocked to discover how powerful is the profit motive in motivating business people to game the system, look for loopholes and, far too often, simply break the law.

Private businesses are always overbidding for privatised businesses and underbidding for contracts to provide government services. Governments think this is terrific, until the businesses wake up to their error and try to extract some profit by overcharging or cutting quality, exploiting the incomplete contracts they signed.

Much of this is bureaucratic incompetence, but it's also conservative governments seeing privatisation and out-sourcing in partisan rather than efficiency terms: it's about moving economic assets and activities from the "them" column to the "us" column, so more businesses are beholden to your party and happy to donate.

Turns out the push to reduce "government failure" has produced reverse government failure. We start out trying to stop government intervention to correct market failure that's making things worse, but end up making them worse than they already were.

Then we wonder why the punters want no more "reform".

Read more >>

Cost-of-living talk provokes bulldust

I read that the Turnbull government has decided to make the cost of living its focus for the year. Oh dear. In that case, brace yourself for a year of con jobs and flying bulldust.

There's a long history of politicians professing to be terribly concerned about "the cost of living" and nothing good ever comes of it. It's always about saying things to keep or win your vote and rarely about doing anything real – let alone sensible – about prices.

Politicians start "focusing" on the cost of living when the spin doctors running their party's focus groups report that the cost of living keeps coming up in the things the punters are saying.

But this is a strange time for the cost of living to be high on people's list of complaints. The rate of inflation has been below the 2 per cent bottom of the Reserve Bank's target range for two years.

My theory is that the cost of living is what you complain about when you've got no bigger worries. Say, that unemployment is shooting up and you're worried about losing your job.

Politicians' professed concern about the cost of living invariably leads to bulldusting because, where prices are set by private businesses operating in the market, pollies have neither the ability nor the desire to do anything about them.

Any price you have to pay is a price some business receives. And it'd be very lacking in generosity should any government want to lower that price.

That's why so often pollies limit themselves merely to continually repeating "I feel your pain".

It seems, however, that Malcolm Turnbull's spinners are using "the cost of living" as a catch-all for "focusing" on three prices in particular: for energy, childcare and housing.

Particularly in the case of childcare, these are prices heavily influenced by government policy. The government has never wanted to talk about housing affordability, so the focus groups must be telling it to do something.

As for childcare and energy, my guess is the government has thought of these itself, believing them to offer it an edge against Labor in the eternal blame game.

If the government's latest omnibus bill passes through the Senate, it will be able to trumpet the late arrival of the big cuts in the cost of childcare first promised in the budget of May 2015.

If the omnibus doesn't make it through, the government will be loud in blaming the high cost of childcare on Labor.

There's no industry more heavily government regulated than energy. Indeed, the "national energy market" was artificially created by federal and state governments in the late 1990s. It's governed by a rule book of more than 1000 pages.

The government has three goals in energy, with plenty of room for conflict between them: to keep energy flowing without blackouts, meet our Paris commitment to reduce carbon emissions, and keep price rises to a minimum.

The industry is going through huge disruption as renewables replace fossil fuels, and the government hasn't yet come up with a policy to achieve its conflicting goals, but that's not the point.

It believes it has more credibility with voters on energy prices than Labor has, so it will have little trouble shifting the blame for price rises and blackouts to Labor. That's especially so since responsibility for energy is shared with the states, and most of the premiers are Labor.

Focusing on energy prices will also divert attention from a topic where the Coalition's credibility with voters is much less than Labor's: climate change.

Do you buy "energy"? People I know buy electricity and maybe gas as well. The pollies have switched to talking about "energy" because they don't want to mention that three-letter word "gas".

That's because the big price hikes in recent times have been for gas. It's gone from being a third of the price of gas in America 10 years ago, to three times the American price today.

When the boss of BlueScope Steel warns of a looming "energy catastrophe", that's what he's referring to. Our manufacturers now face hugely higher prices for the gas they use.

Politicians on neither side want to talk about gas prices. Why? Because federal governments of both colours were responsible for letting it happen. They allowed the development of a liquefied natural gas export industry in Queensland.

Now, all the gas produced in eastern Australia can be exported to Japan or China for much higher prices. If we want some, we have to pay the "export parity" price.

This has given a huge windfall gain to our gas producers. But it's also disrupted the electricity market by making our gas-fired power stations uneconomic.

But please don't think about that. The real problem, we're told, is too much renewable energy which, though it's been encouraged by the renewable energy target begun by John Howard and continued by Tony Abbott, is all Labor's fault.

It appals me the way first, climate change, and now energy policy have been turned into partisan, salute-the-flag issues. If you vote Liberal you're expected to be dubious about climate change and have a grudge against renewable energy, particularly wind turbines; if you vote Labor it's compulsory to love both.

There'll be a lot of game playing on energy this year, but much less effort put into fixing the problems while minimising price increases.

Read more >>

How Shorten is wedging Turnbull at our expense

Eighteen lobby groups ranging from the Business Council to the ACTU have pleaded with political leaders on both sides to "stop partisan antics" and reach agreement on reform of the energy market, ending all the uncertainty. Fat chance.

They're quite justified, of course. When businesses are making hugely expensive investments in generation plants that may last for 50 years, they need to know what the government's rules are – and that the other side won't come along and change everything.

But such a plea assumes our politicians are prepared to give the good government of the nation top priority.

They're not. On both sides top priority goes to winning the next election.

These days, the two sides of politics are quietly busy getting issues lined up in a way that gives them the advantage in that election.

The pollies play an unending game of "wedge and block". You try to take a position on a particular issue that drives a wedge between the different wings of the other party.

It has to decide whether to be pragmatic and take the position it knows is popular with voters, or stick with the position it nominally stands for and favours the interests and prejudices of the party's base.

If it takes the popular position you've taken, it's successfully blocked your move (but left its heartland unhappy). If it stands its traditional ground, its base is happy, but it's lost votes to you.

You've successfully driven a wedge between it and the voters, putting you on the way to winning.

Each side's goal is to manoeuvre the other side into a situation where the election campaign is dominated by those issues that favour you.

You seek to wedge the other side on those issues where you have a natural advantage (your biases align with the voters') while blocking the other side's attempted wedges on issues where it has the natural advantage.

Labor voters are proud of its advocacy of the national disability insurance scheme and the Gonski schools funding reform, yet Julia Gillard damaged both by trying to use them to wedge Tony Abbott at the 2013 election.

She belatedly proposed an increase in the Medicare levy to help fund the NDIS, hoping Tony No-tax-increases Abbott would oppose it, so she could accuse him of hating the disabled.

Abbott woke up and quietly agreed to the tax increase.

Gillard delayed the introduction of Gonski until the election year (meaning most Coalition states wouldn't sign up) hoping Abbott would oppose it and she could accuse him of hating public schools.

Abbott and his elite private-school shadow cabinet denigrated "Conski" until he woke up and claimed he was on a "unity ticket" with Labor on schools funding – a commitment he ditched the moment he'd won the election.

Look behind all the present argy-bargy between the pollies and you see Bill Shorten trying to keep alive all the key policy issues that got him so close to winning last year's election.

He's having remarkable success retaining last time's wedges against the government because Malcolm Turnbull is hamstrung by the dominant hard right faction on his backbench, which is insisting on doctrinal purity.

Last week internal party pressure caused Turnbull to disown talk of tightening the capital gains tax discount for rental properties, even though this would have blocked Labor's use of opposition to negative gearing to attract younger voters (as well as helping the budget).

Far more voters' kids go to government than non-government schools. We desperately need to move to needs-based funding regardless of school sector, so we can get on with the more pressing issue of lifting students' performance.

But Gillard's version of Gonski is way too expensive (incongruously, because of Labor's visceral fear of offending elite private schools).

It's clear the minister, Simon Birmingham, is working on a compromise, but Labor is refusing to countenance anything but "the full Gonski".

It wants to keep the issue alive and the Coalition successfully wedged.

Most voters accept the reality of climate change and want effective action to help limit it, but with the minimum increase in energy prices.

People of goodwill developed a face-saving way for Turnbull to make progress on emissions reduction without much increase in retail prices, called an "emissions intensity scheme".

Since Labor has a similar scheme, Turnbull could have blocked the climate change wedge without political risk. But the disguised deniers sitting behind him were so opposed he had to swear off it.

Neither side of politics has any interest in finding a compromise that would give our energy sector the policy stability needed for it to adjust to the world's low-carbon future.

Read more >>

Our new comparative advantage: renewables

The old joke says the questions in economics exams don't change from year to year, but the answers do. Welcome to the economics of energy and climate change, which has changed a lot without many people noticing - including Malcolm Turnbull and his climate-change denying mates.

They've missed that the economics has shifted decisively in favour of renewable energy, as Professor Ross Garnaut​, of the University of Melbourne, pointed out at an energy summit in Adelaide last October.

Garnaut is chairman of Zen Energy, a supplier of solar and battery storage systems. But there aren't many economists who know more about the energy industry and climate change than Garnaut, who's conducted two federal inquiries into the subject.

He says that, since his second review in 2011, there have been four big changes in the cost of renewable energy relative to the cost of energy from coal or gas.

First, the cost of renewable energy generation and energy storage equipment has fallen "massively".

The modelling conducted for his inquiry assumed the cost of photovoltaic solar generation would fall by a few per cent a year. In practice, costs have fallen by about five-sixths since that assumption was made.

"Similarly large reductions have occurred in the cost of lithium ion batteries and related systems for storing energy," he says.

There have been less dramatic but substantial reductions in costs of equipment for electricity from wind and other renewables.

The cost reductions come from economies of scale in the hugely increased production by China and others, plus savings through "learning by doing". Advances in technology will keep prices falling after scale economies have been exhausted.

Second, there have been "transformational improvements" in battery storage technology, used at the level of the electricity grid, to ensure balance between supply and demand despite renewables generators' "intermittency​" (inability to operate when the sun's not shining or the wind's not blowing).

Third, there's been a dramatic reduction in the cost of borrowing the money needed to cover the capital cost of generation equipment.

Real interest rates on 10-year bonds are below or near zero in all developed countries, including Australia.

"These exceptionally low costs of capital are driven by fundamental changes in underlying economic conditions and are with us for a long time," Garnaut says.

Low interest rates reduce the cost of producing, storing and transporting renewable energy more than they reduce the cost of fossil-fuel energy because renewable costs are overwhelmingly capital (sun and wind cost nothing), whereas fossil fuel costs are mainly recurrent (digging more coal out of the ground).

Fourth, there's been a dramatic increase in the cost of gas - and thus gas-fired electricity.

Ten years ago Australia had the developed world's cheapest natural gas - about a third of prices in the US. Today, our prices are about three times higher than in the US.

Why? Because the development of a liquid natural gas export industry in Queensland has raised the gas prices paid in eastern Australia to "export parity" level - the much higher price producers could get by selling their gas to Japan or China (less the cost of liquefaction and freight).

It's worse than that. Because foreign investors were allowed to install far too much capacity for LNG exports - meaning none of them is likely to recover their cost of capital - they've been so desperate for throughput they've sometimes bid gas prices well above export parity.

Apart from making gas-fired power more expensive relative to renewables, this has implications for how we handle the transition from "base-load" coal-fired power (once you turn a generator on, it runs continuously) to intermittent solar and wind production.

It had been assumed that gas-fired power would bridge the gap because it was cheap, far less emissions-intensive than coal, and able to be turned on and off quickly and easily to counter the intermittency of renewables.

Now, however, without successive federal governments quite realising what they'd done, gas has been largely priced out of the electricity market, with various not-very-old gas-fired power stations close to being stranded assets.

What now? We thank our lucky stars the cost of energy storage is coming down and we get serious about storage - both local and at grid level - using batteries and such things as "pumped hydro storage" (when electricity production exceeds immediate needs, you use it to pump water up to a dam then, when production is inadequate, you let the water flow down through a hydro turbine to a lower dam).

In other words, the solution is to get innovative and agile. Who was it who said that?

Turnbull's party seem to be pro coal and anti renewables partly because they know we have a comparative advantage in coal.

We can produce it cheaply and we've still got loads in the ground. The rest of the world is turning away from coal and the environmental damage it does, but let's keep opening big new mines and pumping it out, even though this pushes the prices our existing producers get even lower.

If the banks are reluctant to finance new coal mines at this late stage, prop them up with government subsidies. Join the international moratorium on new mines? That would be unAustralian.

But get this: Garnaut says we also have a comparative advantage in the new world of renewables.

"Nowhere in the developed world are solar and wind resources together so abundant as in the west-facing coasts and peninsulas of southern Australia. South Australian resources are particularly rich...

"Play our cards right, and Australia's exceptionally rich endowment per person in renewable energy resources makes us a low-cost location for energy supply in a low-carbon world economy.

"That would make us the economically rational location within the developed world of a high proportion of energy-intensive processing and manufacturing activity.

"Play our cards right, and Australia is a superpower of the low-carbon world economy."

Read more >>

Real energy problem is our secret gas parity-pricing policy

Malcolm Turnbull wants us to believe he's an energy magician, able to pull off a "policy trifecta" of eliminating blackouts and greatly reducing our emissions, all without much increase in the price of electricity and gas.

The main trick magicians use is to direct the audience's attention away from the place where they're doing their sleight-of-hand. That's what Turnbull's up to.

He wants to shift the blame for blackouts away from the feds and onto the states, while doing exactly the same for the big jump in gas prices.

He wants to blame our problems on a too-fast shift to renewables, to justify a new subsidy for new coal-fired power stations.

But the main thing he – and the gas industry – desperately wants to stop us noticing is that the leap in gas prices is a consequence of long-standing federal government policy and has nothing to do with the states' reluctance to let the gas producers frack all over their farmlands.

The balance of supply and demand for natural gas on our eastern seaboard was fine – and would still be today, were it not for the feds' earlier decision to allow foreign investors to build (too many) liquefaction plants near Gladstone in Queensland.

As the feds understood full well, once you can liquefy natural gas you can ship it overseas. And once you do that you've taken the relatively tiny, closed eastern Australian gas market and opened it up to the huge East Asian gas market, where prices are much higher.

The inevitable consequence was a leap in the price of gas on the eastern seaboard – plus a huge windfall gain to our eastern gas producers.

Now do you see why the gas industry and federal politicians of both stripes keep repeating the economic lie that the problem has been caused by the states' bans on fracking, and could be solved by lifting them?

No amount of increased gas supply on our part would be sufficient to lower the East Asian price of gas, which means no new producer of coal seam gas would be prepared to sell it to local consumers and manufacturers for anything less than they could get by selling it to Japan or China.

Unless, of course, the federal government obliged them to.

I don't object to the policy of export-parity pricing but, like its predecessors, the Turnbull government wants to keep the policy a deep, dark secret because it's so much harder to defend a super-rational policy in these days of populist indulgence than it was when Malcolm Fraser did something similar to petrol prices.

Turnbull wants to keep the super-rational policy, but shift the blame for its economic and political consequences to others.

Had he the courage, he could oblige the gas industry to use its windfall profits to compensate the household and business losers for losses arising from an implicit government policy change.

Turnbull blames South Australia's blackouts on its excessive enthusiasm for renewable energy which, pending the development of storage arrangements, has a problem with intermittent production.

He doesn't admit his parity-pricing policy is contributing. It was expected that gas-fired power generation would ease the transition from coal-fired to renewable generation.

That's because gas-fired power stations emit far less carbon dioxide and can be turned on and off as required to counter renewable energy's intermittency.

Guess what? South Australia has a new and big gas-fired generator at Pelican Point, near Adelaide, but it's been mothballed.

Why? Because the operator had a long-term contract for the supply of gas at a price set at the pre-export-parity level, and decided it was more lucrative to sell the gas into the East Asian market.

Last week Turnbull had the effrontery to argue that now gas-fired power had become uneconomic, we needed to fill the gap by subsidising new-generation "clean" coal-fired power stations.

Small problem. They're hugely expensive, only a bit less emissions-intensive than existing coal-fired stations, can't easily be turned on and off, and would supposedly still be operating 60 years later.

If there's a case for subsidising any fossil fuel-powered generators the obvious candidate is the gas-fired plants the feds' export-parity pricing policy has rendered uneconomic.

So great is the coal industry's hold over the Coalition that, not content with subsidising increased supply of coal from Adani and others at a time when coal is a sunset industry, Turnbull is now making up excuses to subsidise increased demand for coal by local electricity producers.

Economists are always telling politicians not to try picking industry winners. In reality, the politicians are far more inclined to back known losers.

Read more >>

Experts agree emissions intensity scheme the way to go

If ever there was proof that modern-day politicians are more followers than leaders, Malcolm Turnbull must be it. Last week, under pressure from the Coalition's climate change-denying rump, he dropped the ball on global warming.

He inherited from Tony Abbott a commitment under the Paris agreement to reduce our carbon emissions by 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, plus a plan for a review in 2017 to determine what policies were needed to achieve that target.

Everyone's agreed that the government's existing direct action approach, taking money from the budget to pay farmers and others to cut their carbon emissions, is quite inadequate to achieve the new target.

The authorities responsible for advising the government on energy and climate change – the Climate Change Authority, the Chief Scientist, the Australian Energy Market Commission – have each decided the best approach would be to introduce an "emissions intensity scheme" on the electricity generation industry.

But last week, when Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg mentioned that the review would include examining an intensity scheme, the Coalition's deniers went ape and Turnbull summarily excluded such schemes from the review, claiming they would add too much to electricity costs.

We're not all climate change deniers, however – and far from all Coalition voters – so if we think something decisive should be done, the way forward is to convince Turnbull this is what most of his potential followers want.

In other words, it's our community and our economy and prime ministers don't get to dismiss options without us even being allowed to think about them and decide what we prefer.

Since electricity generation accounts for about a third of our total carbon emissions, it's pretty clear it will be the main focus of our efforts to reduce emissions, especially because of the emergence of renewable energy from wind and solar.

The final report of the energy market commission, released at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on Friday, evaluated three different policies for achieving the pledged reduction in emissions.

The first was one that would appeal to many environmentalists: extending the existing large-scale renewable energy target.

At present, the target is to achieve 33,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy a year by 2020. To achieve our commitment under the Paris agreement, we'd have to more than double the target to 86,000 gigawatt hours a year by 2030.

The second approach was for a government regulator to work out which coal-fired power stations should be required to close down at which times, as renewable energy expanded.

You'd start with the oldest generators, including the particularly polluting brown coal generators.

The third approach was the one Turnbull rejected sight unseen: imposing an emissions intensity scheme on electricity generators.

You start by measuring the industry's present emissions intensity by dividing its total emissions of carbon dioxide in a year by its total production of electricity in the year.

This average becomes the industry's emissions intensity standard. Those generators operating above the standard have to get down to it by buying "credits" from those that are below it.

The standard is lowered – made more demanding – each year by the set amount needed to achieve the desired reduction in emissions.

See how it would work? The "dirtiest" generators – the coal-fired generators – also happen to be the ones whose electricity is cheapest to produce, whereas the cleanest producers – wind and solar – are the ones whose electricity is dearest.

So the cheap dirty generators are required to subsidise the expensive clean producers, thus creating a price incentive for the clean producers to expand and the dirty producers to contract.

It also means the overall price doesn't change much.

So how do the three approaches compare, according to the modelling done for the report – remembering that all modelling is built on a host of assumptions?

The extended renewable energy target turns out to be the worst approach. It leads to almost the biggest increase in the cost of electricity to consumers over the years to 2030.

It also has the highest cost per tonne of emissions reduced – $42 a throw.

This is because it doesn't allow businesses to pick the type of technology most appropriate to their needs. Dirtier brown coal would remain in the market for longer, while black coal and gas-fired generation were forced out.

Regulated closure of generators would cause the highest increase in prices to consumers, though its cost of emissions reduction is the second lowest - $19.50 a tonne.

The bureaucrats and politicians making decisions about which generators to close would have to get it right, avoiding the temptation to take account of political pressures and the interests of generous donors to party funds.

This leaves the emissions intensity scheme. It has the lowest effect on consumer prices relative to what the model assumes would happen to prices even if no attempt were made to reduce emissions.

It assumes consumer prices would still go up under "business as usual", but would rise by less under the intensity scheme.

It also has the lowest cost of reducing emissions – $17.50 a tonne.

So the option the formerly studious Turnbull rejected without considering is the best, and the one least likely to put prices up.

Well done, Malcolm. Especially as it's a safe bet Labor will be offering such a scheme at the next election.

Read more >>

Let's not blow our big chance for progress on climate change

Our attitudes to climate change are becoming like our attitude to death: we know we must face up to it one day, but right now we'd prefer to think about something else.

This may explain why the media's coverage of a potentially breakthrough report from the government's Climate Change Authority focused on environmentalists' criticisms of it rather than its actual content.

Similarly, why focus on the world's two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, China and the United States, using the G20 meeting in Hangzhou to ratify the Paris climate change agreement – thus encouraging other countries to do likewise and raising hope the deal will come into effect this year – when you can speculate about conflict over the South China Sea and foreign investment?

Forgive me, but I'd never make a card-carrying greenie, righteously condemning any proposal to act on climate change that's less than heroic – as both the Paris agreement and the climate authority's report on the policies we need to ensure we deliver on our commitment, most certainly are.

I've never believed that if you can't have it all, you're better off having nothing. Nor that if you make a less than perfect start, this precludes you from getting better over time.

Our commitment – reached when Tony Abbott was still in charge – is to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide by 26 to 28 per cent on their level in 2005 by 2030.

This is less demanding than many other countries' commitments and, in any case, all the commitments aren't enough to achieve the stated goal of limiting global warming to below 2 degrees.

Although the climate authority was established by Julia Gillard, the Coalition has replaced most of its members with people not known for their deep commitment to environmentalism.

It's chaired by a former director of the National Farmers Federation, joined by, among others, a former Liberal chief minister and boss of a top industry lobby, and a former National Party minister.

When Abbott abolished Gillard's euphemistically named "price on carbon" – it was an emissions trading scheme, but initially with the price set by the government at $23 a tonne of carbon dioxide – he replaced it with a "direct action plan" consisting of a taxpayer-funded emissions reduction fund used to pay farmers and others to reduce their emissions.

This was combined with a "safeguard mechanism" designed to prevent gains from the purchased reductions being undone by increases in emissions elsewhere in the economy.

Under the safeguard, about 140 large businesses that each have plants with direct emissions of more than 100,000 tonnes a year have been given an emissions "baseline" they must not exceed.

Many experts have criticised direct action as inadequate to achieve our new commitments, especially considering the government's budget pressures.

The greenie evangelists are calling on the government to confess the error of its ways, repent its manifold sins, scrap its evil direct action plan and replace it with measures so politically painful as to prove it is truly born again.

The climate authority's proposals are a little more conscious of politicians' aversion to losing face. They thus have a good chance of being accepted.

Whatever it says, the government must know its present arrangements are insufficient to meet its international commitments without hugely increased cost to taxpayers.

That's particularly true since, as the authority points out, the Paris agreement itself requires countries to review and improve their commitments over time.

The authority avoids the trap of proposing the government scrap what it's doing and start again from scratch. Rather, it shows how the government can build on its existing policies to strengthen its efforts.

Rather than proposing restoration of an emissions trading scheme, or the imposition of some economy-wide carbon tax, the authority takes the less economically virtuous but more practical approach of choosing between price-based and regulation-based measures, depending on the circumstances of particular industries.

That's why its report is titled Towards a Climate Policy Toolkit.

Since electricity generation is by far the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, the authority proposes that the industry's present baseline under the safeguard mechanism be replaced with an "emissions intensity scheme", whose baseline would be reduced to zero between 2018 and "well before 2050".

In practice, this would require fossil fuel-based generators to subsidise renewable generators, eventually causing almost all generation to be from renewables. It would raise retail electricity prices somewhat, but by far less than under the Gillard scheme.

For other industries covered by the safeguard mechanism, their emissions baselines should decline in line with our Paris commitments.

Elsewhere, the authority wants the government to impose emissions reduction standards on new vehicles, continue and strengthen household appliance standards and building codes, and tighten regulation of emissions from landfill waste.

This toolkit approach minimises the risk of hip-pocket opposition from consumers. Building on existing arrangements rather than starting again is attractive to business groups.

The proposals not only build a bridge for the government to move to policies more adequate to the challenge we face, they build a bridge to a bipartisan climate change policy because the authority's proposals fit well with those Labor took to the election.

And bipartisan policy provides just the certainty needed for business to stop arguing the toss and accept that, since our move to a decarbonised economy is now inevitable, it should get on with adjusting.

Read more >>