Bunch of New CCEP Working Papers

We have added six new working papers to the series, so far in July and August:

How Many Jobs is 23,510, Really? Recasting the Mining Job Loss Debate,
Bruce Chapman and Kiatanantha Lounkaew, July 2011, CCEP Working Paper 1106

It is commonplace in Australian policy debate for groups presumed to be adversely affected by proposed policies to provide estimates of the undesirable consequences of change. A fashionable form relates to predictions of job losses for the group affected, usually accompanied by counter-claims made by the government of the day or other groups in favour of the policy. A highly public example of the above is the claim by the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), based on work done in 2009 by Concept Economics (2009) that the then-planned Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would result in 23,510 fewer jobs in Australian mining than would otherwise be the case. Our research reports on findings using three different data series and methods to put into context the supposed jobs loss figure. Our results should not be taken to mean that economic policy reform is costless to all employees who might be affected by sectoral changes in the labour market, and there remain clear roles for government to minimise the personal costs for those so disadvantaged. As well, the details of this research cannot be translated into precise analyses of the employment effects of the carbon price policy being developed by the current government. But the essential points concerning the size and meaning of mining sector employment effects should not be in dispute; the alleged Òjobs lossesÓ aspect of the climate change policy debate is not in any sense important to the overall discourse.

Nordhaus, Stern, and Garnaut: The Changing Case for Climate Change Mitigation,
Stephen Howes, Frank Jotzo, and Paul Wyrwoll, July 2011, CCEP Working Paper 1107

Today the idea that climate change requires a gradual and moderate response no longer commands consensus support among economists. A more demanding approach is gaining ground. This paper traces the changes in economic thinking concerning the case for action on climate change, through an analysis of the work of three eminent economists: William Nordhaus, Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut. It shows how from Nordhaus to Stern to Garnaut the case for more urgent and radical mitigation has been strengthened as temperature targets have been lowered and business-as-usual emissions projections raised. It also shows that Stern and especially Nordhaus, who has been working on this subject the longest, have changed their own views in favour of more urgent and radical mitigation. Some disagreements remain between these three economists, and some other economists have more moderate views, but the old consensus has been shattered.

Challenges in Mitigating Indonesia's CO2 Emission: The Importance of Managing Fossil Fuel Combustion,
Budy P. Resosudarmo, Frank Jotzo, Arief A, Yusuf, and Ditya A. Nurdianto, August 2011, CCEP Working Paper 1108

Indonesia is among the largest 25 carbon dioxide emitting countries when considering only fossil fuels, and among the top three or five when emissions due to deforestation and land use change are included. Emission per capita from fossil fuels are still low in comparison with other countries, but have been growing fast, and are likely to overtake those from deforestation and land use change in the future. This paper argues the importance for Indonesia to start developing strategies to mitigate its emissions from fossil fuel combustion. It analyses the main drivers of the increase in emissions, identifies the options and challenges in reducing the future growth in emissions. Policy options are reviewed that would enable the Indonesian economy to keep on growing, but with a much lower carbon output.


Green Fiscal Policy and Climate Mitigation in Indonesia,
Budy P. Resosudarmo and Abdurohman, August 2011, CCEP Working Paper 1109

In common with other archipelagic countries, Indonesia is vulnerable to such impacts of climate change as prolonged droughts, increased frequency in extreme weather events, and heavy rainfall resulting in floods. These threats, coupled with the fact that Indonesia has been declared one of the three biggest greenhouse gases emitters, has induced the Indonesian government to place a high priority on climate change issues. In particular, the government considers its fiscal policy to be a key instrument in both mitigating against and adapting to climate change. This paper reviews Indonesia's implementation of green fiscal policies and discusses recent Indonesian fiscal policy responses to its commitment to reduce its emissions by 2020. In general, one can conclude that although progress has been made in the area of green fiscal policy in Indonesia, a more vigorous approach is needed to protect Indonesia's environment and to cope with the new challenges of controlling CO2 emission in the era of climate change.

Five Perspectives on an Emerging Market: Challenges with Clean Tech Private Equity,
Eric R. W. Knight, August 2011, CCEP Working Paper 1110

Private equity investment in technologies which deliver low carbon energy has grown as an area of both economic and social performance. This article offers a perspective on some of the challenges in the industry. It relies on case studies drawn from thirty five interviews with leading clean tech investment managers across Silicon Valley, New York and London. The findings suggest that despite the long-term growth opportunities, some investors have struggled to find attractive risk-reward premiums in early stage investments.

Where in the World is it Cheapest to Cut Carbon Emissions? Ranking Countries by Total and Marginal Cost of Abatement,
David I. Stern, John C. V. Pezzey, N. Ross Lambie, August 2011, CCEP Working Paper 1111

Countries with low marginal costs of abating carbon emissions may have high total costs, and vice versa, for a given climate mitigation policy. This may help to explain different countries' policy stances on climate mitigation. We hypothesize that, under a common percentage cut in emissions intensity relative to business as usual (BAU), countries with higher BAU emissions intensities have lower marginal abatement costs, but total costs relative to output will be similar across countries; and under a common carbon price, relative total costs are higher in emissions-intensive countries. Using the results of the 22nd Energy Modeling Forum, we estimate marginal abatement cost curves for the US, EU, China, and India, which we use to estimate marginal and total costs of abatement under a number of policy options currently under international debate. The results of this analysis provide support for our hypotheses.