• Energy Research
• Australian Research Council (ARC) close

In this study, we examine the wealth effects associated with the announcement of the Australian Carbon Pricing Scheme (the “carbon tax”), made by the then Prime Minster Julia Gillard on 24 February 2011. Building on studies that use the event study method originally developed by Fama et al. (1969) and Ball and Brown (1968), we propose a novel approach to analyzing announcements with unresolved uncertainty. With this approach, we separate out the news effect and the value effect associated with the announcement of the Australian Carbon Pricing Scheme. Our findings show that the average news effect associated with the announcement is 1.11% (A$254 million dollars), indicating that the market was favorably disposed towards the news that the government was taking action on climate change. The average value effect was −4.46% (−A$1.12 billion dollars), indicating that the scheme destroyed significant value for existing firms. The announcement of the Australian Carbon Pricing Scheme was more value-destructive for carbon-intensive firms (−6.97%) than for the other firms (−3.67%). The method presented in this study can be applied to any policy announcements with unresolved uncertainty.

To date there has been an absence of cross-country empirical studies on the efficacy of carbon pricing. In this paper we present estimates of the contribution of carbon pricing to reducing national carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fuel combustion, using several econometric modelling approaches that control for other key policies and for structural factors that are relevant for emissions. We use data for 142 countries over a period of two decades, 43 of which had a carbon price in place at the national level or below by the end of the study period. We find evidence that the average annual growth rate of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion has been around 2 percentage points lower in countries that have had a carbon price compared to countries without. An additional euro per tonne of CO2 in carbon price is associated with a reduction in the subsequent annual emissions growth rate of approximately 0.3 percentage points, all else equal. While it is impossible to fully control for all relevant influences on emissions growth, our estimates suggest that the emissions trajectories of countries with and without carbon prices tend to diverge over time.

This paper examines the effects of combining an international cap-and-trade scheme with national carbon taxes. We consider a two-country stochastic partial equilibrium model with log-normally distributed uncertainty. The situation is analogous to the situation where European countries impose national carbon taxes in addition to the EU emissions trading. The allowance price in the joint cap-and-trade scheme depends on the tax rate, the relative size of countries and abatement options, the magnitude of uncertainty, and correlation of abatement costs. In most cases, the additional tax will not lead to additional production of the public good beyond the fixed targets. The additional tax results in higher costs of abatement to the country introducing the additional tax, and higher costs overall.

Abstract In the absence of a global agreement to reduce emissions, Australia adopted a carbon tax unilaterally to curb its own emissions. During the debate prior to passing the carbon tax legislation in 2011, there were concerns about the challenge that Australia’s emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries may face in terms of decreasing international competitiveness due to the unilateral nature of the tax and hence the potential for carbon leakage. In order to address these concerns, this paper explores possible border adjustment measures (BAMs) to complement the domestic carbon regulation in Australia using the multi-sector computable general equilibrium approach. We consider four border adjustments: border adjustments on imports based on domestic emissions; border adjustments on exports via a rebate for exports; a domestic production rebate; and full border adjustment on both exports and imports. We compare the numerical simulation results of these scenarios with a no border adjustments scenario from the standpoint of welfare, international competitiveness and carbon leakage. The key finding is that BAMs have a very small impact on the overall economy and on EITE sectors. In other words, the different BAMs have minimal impact on the outcomes of carbon pricing policy. This finding is consistent with studies for EU, USA, Canada and other countries. Hence, we conclude that the border adjustments are ineffective instruments to safeguard EITE industries in Australia.