The costs for climate (in) action

As the federal election approaches, debate over the climate policies of the major parties continues – along with a lot of misinformation over how to evaluate the relative merits and shortcomings of what each party is offering.

Flooded intersection of Eagle and Charlotte Streets, Brisbane floods 2011. 

With recent polling showing that the majority of Australians see climate change as the number one threat, we need to understand whether the climate policies pledged by the major parties would get Australia on track to meet its Paris commitments, and how these climate policies compare to what other countries are doing.

Read the Pursuit story from the University of Melbourne by Kate Dooley - “The costs for climate (in) action.”

Government killed emissions scheme despite knowing it could shave $15 billion off electricity bills

The Turnbull government is sitting on advice that an emissions intensity scheme - the carbon policy it put on the table only to rule out just 36 hours later - would save households and businesses across the country up to $15 billion in electricity bills over a decade.

While Malcolm Turnbull has publicly rejected this sort of scheme by claiming it would push up prices, an analysis in a Australian Electricity Market Commission report handed to the government months ago finds it would actually cost consumers far less than other approaches, including doing nothing.

It finds that would still be the case even if the government boosted its climate target to a 50 per cent cut in emissions by 2030.

Assuming average electricity use, the analysis by scheme architect Danny Price, of Frontier Economics, found costs would be $11.2 billion lower over the decade to 2030 if the government introduced the scheme and met its existing climate target.

Read Adam Morton’s story in the Melbourne Age - “Government killed emissions scheme despite knowing it could shave $15 billion off electricity bills.”