The Times Australia
The Times World News

.

Here's how the government's modellers concluded net-zero would leave us better off

  • Written by Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
Here's how the government's modellers concluded net-zero would leave us better off

The government’s decision to target net-zero emissions by 2050 will leave each Australian nearly A$2,000 better off by then compared to no Australian action.

That’s what we were told in a six-point summary of the government’s economic modelling released at a press conference on Thursday October 26[1], days before the prime minister left for the Glasgow climate talks.

Slide from the prime minister’s October 26 press handout.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said at the time the actual modelling would be released “in due course”, later clarifying that it might not be released for a fortnight, after which the Glasgow climate talks would be almost over.

The 100-page government summary of modelling prepared for it by the consultancy McKinsey & Company was released on Friday afternoon[2] as the climate talks were concluding.

The document tells us both how the result was arrived at and the question that was asked.

The question that was asked

McKinsey was asked to compare economic outcomes in 2050 after 30 years of “no Australian action” with economic outcomes in 2050 after 30 years of “the plan”.

“No Australian action” meant that every country other than Australia cut its emissions to net-zero by 2050, and that every country other than Australia did whatever else was needed to hold global warming to 2°C.

Australia would find it harder to raise money because of its reluctance to commit to net-zero (meaning its borrowing costs would incorporate a “risk premium”) and would get access to only those improvements in technology that were available elsewhere.

“The plan” involved Australia continuing “to invest in technological breakthroughs,” acting as an “enabler to support consumer choice and voluntary adoption of other technologies”.

Australia would adopt a target of net zero by 2050, escaping a risk premium.

The government would invest more than A$21 billion to support the development and deployment of low emissions technologies including clean hydrogen, ultra low-cost solar, energy storage, low-emissions materials, carbon capture and storage and soil carbon to 2030, and continue to play a “direct role” beyond that.

Read more: Between the lines, the plan has coal on the way out, the future bright[3]

Otherwise, emissions would be reduced on “a voluntary basis”.

Importantly, and so the size of the voluntary action can be incorporated into the modelling, the voluntary emissions reductions are assumed to be the same as what would be expected if Australians faced a carbon price (or tax) that climbed to A$24 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050.

Emitters finding it hard to cut emissions as much as they or consumers or investors wanted would be able to buy international “offsets” (overseas emissions reductions) at a price that would climb to A$40per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050.

$2,000 per person better off

Australia’s long-term emissions reduction plan: modelling and analysis, November 12, 2021[4] The modelling concludes that under “the plan” each Australian would be almost A$2,000 better off in 2050 compared with under “no Australian action”. That’s $2,000 per year in so-called gross national income per capita, but it’s less impressive than it sounds. The latest stats[5] have gross national income per capita approaching A$80,000. That’s not what’s received by any one individual, but what’s received by businesses and all sorts of other entities averaged across the population. Compounding economic growth means that by 2050 that dollar sum will be two to three times as big, against which (and given all the uncertainties) a projection of an extra $2,000 amounts to little difference. A reasonable way to interpret the modelling is that, compared to “no Australian action”, the “plan” won’t impose significant costs on Australians. Where the $2,000 comes from Which isn’t to say that there won’t be big costs. The world will move away from coal and liquefied natural gas – two of Australia’s biggest exports – but what is assumed is that will happen in any event, under both “the plan” and the “no Australian action” scenarios. Unless you were to assume that the rest of the world won’t pull its weight in getting to net-zero (and the modelling does not assume this) Australia not pulling its weight does almost nothing to rescue its exports. Read more: COP26: what the draft agreement says – and why it's being criticised[6] The $2,000 comprises two parts. $375 is the benefit to Australia of avoiding investors being less keen to invest in a country that isn’t pulling its weight. McKinsey says Australia would score an average of 5.5% less investment per year under the “no Australian action” scenario compared to under “the plan”. The other $1,625 derives from the development of new industries, spurred in part by the government’s $21 billion, the most important being hydrogen production which McKinsey says by itself would lift national income per person by about $1,000 of the $2,000. What was released Friday afternoon is not the modelling itself but a government-authored “summary”. Although it is difficult to compare the McKinsey[7] modelling with the Treasury[8] modelling prepared for the Gillard government ahead of the 2012-2014 carbon pollution reduction scheme, it is notable that both arrived at a similar conclusion: that over time, action to reduce emissions will cost Australia little. References^ Thursday October 26 (www.pm.gov.au)^ Friday afternoon (www.industry.gov.au)^ Between the lines, the plan has coal on the way out, the future bright (theconversation.com)^ Australia’s long-term emissions reduction plan: modelling and analysis, November 12, 2021 (www.industry.gov.au)^ latest stats (www.abs.gov.au)^ COP26: what the draft agreement says – and why it's being criticised (theconversation.com)^ McKinsey (www.industry.gov.au)^ Treasury (treasury.gov.au)

Read more https://theconversation.com/heres-how-the-governments-modellers-concluded-net-zero-would-leave-us-better-off-171743

Times Magazine

Building a Strong Online Presence with Katoomba Web Design

Katoomba web design is more than just creating a website that looks good—it’s about building an online presence that reflects your brand, engages your audience, and drives results. For local businesses in the Blue Mountains, a well-designed website a...

September Sunset Polo

International Polo Tour To Bridge Historic Sport, Life-Changing Philanthropy, and Breath-Taking Beauty On Saturday, September 6th, history will be made as the International Polo Tour (IPT), a sports leader headquartered here in South Florida...

5 Ways Microsoft Fabric Simplifies Your Data Analytics Workflow

In today's data-driven world, businesses are constantly seeking ways to streamline their data analytics processes. The sheer volume and complexity of data can be overwhelming, often leading to bottlenecks and inefficiencies. Enter the innovative da...

7 Questions to Ask Before You Sign IT Support Companies in Sydney

Choosing an IT partner can feel like buying an insurance policy you hope you never need. The right choice keeps your team productive, your data safe, and your budget predictable. The wrong choice shows up as slow tickets, surprise bills, and risky sh...

Choosing the Right Legal Aid Lawyer in Sutherland Shire: Key Considerations

Legal aid services play an essential role in ensuring access to justice for all. For people in the Sutherland Shire who may not have the financial means to pay for private legal assistance, legal aid ensures that everyone has access to representa...

Watercolor vs. Oil vs. Digital: Which Medium Fits Your Pet's Personality?

When it comes to immortalizing your pet’s unique personality in art, choosing the right medium is essential. Each artistic medium, whether watercolor, oil, or digital, has distinct qualities that can bring out the spirit of your furry friend in dif...

The Times Features

NSW has a new fashion sector strategy – but a sustainable industry needs a federally legislated response

The New South Wales government recently announced the launch of the NSW Fashion Sector Strategy, 2025–28[1]. The strategy, developed in partnership with the Australian Fashion ...

From Garden to Gift: Why Roses Make the Perfect Present

Think back to the last time you gave or received flowers. Chances are, roses were part of the bunch, or maybe they were the whole bunch.   Roses tend to leave an impression. Even ...

Do I have insomnia? 5 reasons why you might not

Even a single night of sleep trouble can feel distressing and lonely. You toss and turn, stare at the ceiling, and wonder how you’ll cope tomorrow. No wonder many people star...

Wedding Photography Trends You Need to Know (Before You Regret Your Album)

Your wedding album should be a timeless keepsake, not something you cringe at years later. Trends may come and go, but choosing the right wedding photography approach ensures your ...

Can you say no to your doctor using an AI scribe?

Doctors’ offices were once private. But increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI) scribes (also known as digital scribes) are listening in. These tools can record and trans...

There’s a new vaccine for pneumococcal disease in Australia. Here’s what to know

The Australian government announced last week there’s a new vaccine[1] for pneumococcal disease on the National Immunisation Program for all children. This vaccine replaces pr...