'Scary' carbon policy: three things to remember when the debate gets crazy

The headlines will hyperventilate about the (frightening) cost of curbing carbon emissions, so it's best to be armed with some facts

It appears we are heading for another climate policy "debate" based on meaningless "scary" numbers. Here are three things to bear in mind when contemplating the hyperventilating headlines.

1. All costs look big if you add up their dollar value each year for a decade. On Monday, the Sydney Daily Telegraph, outlined a "devastating blow" contained in modelling that has been publicly available for at least two years showing the "massive" cost of a target that Labor hasn't actually committed to yet. (Labor's conference agreed to adopt targets recommended by up-to-date advice from bodies like the Climate Change Authority. The CCA previously recommended targets of between 40% and 60% by 2030. What Labor will eventually do is anyone's guess). The Tele looked at the historic modelling and found Labor's secret "$600bn carbon bill". The modelling actually shows the economy would continue to grow strongly while meeting such a target, but by a slightly lower rate than it would if we did nothing. If you add up the dollar value of that slightly lower growth rate from now to 2030, you get $450bn. If you adjust that from 2012 dollars you apparently get $600bn. But that is $600bn reduction in GDP from cumulative GDP increase of $44 trillion. Which makes the number a lot less scary.