Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 August 2011:

With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:

(1) Is it factually correct that the results of Treasury modelling show that, for the medium global action scenario, the gross domestic product-per-person cost for countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 2050 will be around 20 or more times the estimated cost for the United States of America or the European Union.

(2) Is it also correct, based on the figures in Table 3.8 of the Treasury modelling and Treasury's real carbon price projections, that Treasury is forecasting that by 2050 the OPEC bloc will be collectively spending around US$150 billion a year in real, 2010 US dollars to buy carbon credits from other nations.

(3) What probability does Treasury attach to this actually occurring.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) Table 3.7 in the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report shows the projected effect on Gross Domestic Product-per-person by country or region expressed as a percentage deviation from the baseline. Since OPEC's Gross Domestic Product is significantly smaller than that of the United States of America or the European Union, the ratio of effects on Gross Domestic Product-per-person costs will be lower than shown in this table.

(2) The results in Table 3.8 indicate that it is cost effective for the OPEC countries to purchase some portion of any emission reduction from outside their region. This result is dependent on the abatement costs within the OPEC and the amount to which they choose to contribute to any global emission reduction target.

(3) The scenario modelling provides a projection of what could happen in the future, given the structure of the models and input assumptions, as acknowledged in page 24 in the Strong Growth, Low Pollution report.