EnviroEconomics.ca

The climate change policy debate in the media and behind closed doors goes something like this…”it is too expensive, we can’t afford it.” I call this “globe and mail” economics, where questions of affordability dominate and questions of benefits aren’t asked. This is happening in Bali now (see here) and it is certainly going on in Canada. But does this focus on affordability matter?

From an economist’s narrow efficiency lens, it does. The economist would prefer a policy that enables cost-effective reductions at the level of abatement where the costs and benefits are balanced. While economists have said quite a lot about the merits of emission pricing to enable cost-effective reductions, there is less of a contribution to the policy discourse on the desired level of abatement. Simply, information on the scope and scale of the possible benefits of action are too uncertain to lead to recommendations of policy stringency.

As a result, our climate debate is informed by a conceptual understanding of the abatement or adaptation benefits but a very acute understanding of the costs.

Because of this information asymmetry, it is likely that we will continue to be locked into a policy cycle of questioning the appropriateness of action to attain targets, regardless of their stringency. Indeed, without a balanced view of what we get for what we spend, we will continue to set targets, discuss policy options, reveal the associated costs and then ultimately question the affordability and distributive impacts of target attainment.

As climate policy transitions to a longer view, as it has under the Regulatory Framework’s (Turning the Corner) that aspires to substantial reductions by 2020 (-20% below current) and 2050 (-60% to 70% below current), this lack of a balanced view will become particularly acute. This is because the scale of the action implied under these longer-term targets is substantial. With a Canadian economy about doubling bymid-century and a GHG intensity that is only moderately declining, total Canadian emissions will about double by mid-century. To achieve the mid-century objective, therefore, GHG intensity improvements will need to be 20 times greater annually than the forecast no climate policy levels. And recent modeling suggests that emission prices will need to rapidly climb to in excess of $200 per tonne of CO2e to hit the targets. The need for such costs to achieve domestic abatement targets will only intensify domestic questions of cost, affordability and distributional impact.

So, an important climate policy challenge for Canada and indeed globally is to reveal the benefits of action and then, perhaps, the climate debate in Canada can proceed in more balanced and measured fashion. But then again, economic ruin is a better story.

Once again we see “Globe and Mail” economics dominating the climate debate, where the costs of action and the threats of adverse competitiveness impacts drive the discourse. What Minister Baird is saying here, is that our abatement targets are going to drive firms out of Canada:

“If we simply move production from Canada and the European Union to China or the United States, we won’t have accomplished anything for the environment.”

Well, recent modeling completed by MKJA and myself indicate that the large final emitters would see production cost increases of about 1% in 2020 from a 25$ emission price, and would rise to about 3% at ~75$, the minimum emission price needed to hit the current government’s Regulatory Framework targets (-20% from 2006 in 2020). So, are cost differentials of about 3% on products enough to trigger companies to put their production lines on a slow boat to China? If this is the case, Canada has a much larger productivity issue that should, perhaps, be the focus of more political hot air and broadsheet ink. But, since productivity is not the burning issue, perhaps Canada could move forward for a change.