Â鶹ÒùÔº

This month, the Australian government will release its emissions-reduction target for 2035, likely to be . A 70% cut would mean reducing Australia's emissions from of carbon dioxide equivalent down to 132 million metric tons.

Ahead of its release, a split has emerged over whether achieving rapid cuts to emissions in ten years will be a net cost or benefit to Australia. Last week, Australia's top business lobby group suggesting A$500 billion of investment would be needed to cut emissions 70% by 2035.

The report, by the Business Council of Australia, calls for an "ambitious" but "achievable" 2035 target on the path to net zero. But this report seems more likely to be used as ammunition by those opposing an ambitious target, because it includes costs—but no benefits. By contrast, an suggested climate action would give GDP a boost.

Cutting emissions requires both public and private investment. It can also spur on new industries. Climate change is already costing a great deal of money and will cost far more if allowed to continue unchecked.

Is climate action a net cost or benefit? To date, the most detailed analysis in both Australia and the United Kingdom give the same answer: when the escalating damage done by climate change is accounted for, climate action has vastly more benefit than cost.

The cost of action—without the benefits

The Business Council's $500 billion estimate has already become the used in the media as an estimate of the "cost" of ambitious climate action. This is unfortunate.

The $500 billion figure refers to the estimated capital investment required to achieve a 70% reduction in greenhouse emissions.

This figure is towards the upper limit of a wide band. And while $500 billion sounds huge, it is only around 1% of Australia's likely total GDP over the coming decade.

The Business Council report is also based on "current costs and technologies." But many of the technologies needed to achieve net zero, such as renewable energy, electric cars and grid-scale batteries, have more efficient and affordable. These trends are unlikely to halt.

The report also omits any benefits. It did not include any longer-term considerations, such as the costs of climate inaction and climate impacts. Neither did it attempt to measure GDP benefits associated with new investment.

Climate investment brings benefits

Iron ore magnate and green industry backer Andrew Forrest has the Business Council report over the missing benefits, claiming it "underplays the opportunities for our economy."

Forrest's company, Fortescue, has led a of more than 500 businesses pushing for more ambitious emissions cuts.

This group—Business for 75%—recently suggesting cutting emissions by 75% rather than 65% over the next decade would increase investment by $20 billion a year. This would lead to a net benefit. Under a 75% reduction scenario, Australia's GDP would be $227 billion higher than under a 65% reduction. There would be more exports and more jobs.

In 2021, the Business Council on achieving a net-zero economy. The more comprehensive modeling here suggested substantial net benefits. On average, each Australian would be $5,000 (in today's dollars) better off in 2050, assuming a smooth transition to net zero. Regional Australians would be even better off.

Who should we believe?

To date, arguably the most extensive modeling of the cost of climate action in Australia is the , led by David Gruen, who is now the .

The Treasury study concluded the economic cost of climate action in Australia would reduce the growth rate of real GDP by 0.1% per year.

These costs are much less than the economic damage expected from climate change. One suggests:

"The cumulative loss of wealth for Australia from the impacts of climate change on agricultural and labor productivity is expected to reach $4.2 trillion by 2100."

Globally, the 2006 in the UK remains arguably the most respected and comprehensive study.

The review found cutting emissions to limit global heating would cost around 1% of the world's GDP a year. That's a lot. But it's dwarfed by the damage climate change will do if allowed to continue—an estimated 5%–20% of global GDP.

Estimates of how much climate change will cost since then. Slow progress in reducing emissions has made action more urgent. Fortunately, the costs of renewable energy have dropped.

What does economics tell us?

Australian economists action is needed to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Most pricing carbon emissions is the most efficient method. This is an example of a —measures aimed at discouraging activities that cause other people harm.

Unfortunately, carbon pricing has been seen as politically unviable in Australia after a pioneering scheme in 2014, despite .

What Australia has instead is the , which is akin to a carbon price. It sets gradually declining limits on emissions from Australia's highest-emitting industrial facilities, which collectively produce of Australia's greenhouse emissions. The will cut emissions from cars.

If politically viable, an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax would be the best approach. It would raise revenue for the government, which could be used to reduce or replace the most . While critics might call it a tax on everything, it would bring widespread benefits.

Action stations

Many Australians like to think of themselves as minnows on climate change. But this is wrong.

The long economic success of comes in part from cheap domestic coal and gas, as well as current exports of coal and liquefied natural gas. Australians are some of the highest of greenhouse gases.

But Australia also has world-beating potential in green industries, from solar power to critical minerals to green iron. As a largely arid nation, it is likely to be hit hard by climate change.

Business leaders can often be cautious about change. But climate change will bring large, escalating and unwelcome change. The best modeling we have suggests the benefits of acting fast on climate far outweigh the costs.