Published by Todd Davies on 26 Mar 2010
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – Main Event or a Side Show?
I’m writing this article while working in Western Australia – the home of the black swan. Black Swans are common here, to the extent that most people here would consider white swans to be an incredibly rare thing.
Nicholas Taleb recently popularised the idea of a black swan as an event which someone didn’t see coming. He now has a best seller on the idea, asking questions like:
- Why don’t we anticipate big disruptions?
- Why didn’t we see subprime coming?
- What’s the next big disruption?
These days I spend most of my thinking time on these sorts of questions and keeping an eye out for black swans, elephants in the room and 800 pound gorillas.
In Australia, our version of an emission trading scheme (ETS) is taking shape, and is being branded as the CPRS. This CPRS is not to be confused with the Canadian Public Relations Society – it’s the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – which is useful branding in case we forget why the scheme was introduced as an industry builds around it.
Industry is now intensely focused on the CPRS. And why not? It’s in the media, it’s in black and white, it’s tangible and its proposed to be implemented in the next few years. Companies can do financial modelling to work out the day 1 winners and losers, and industry lobbyists can have a field day arguing for free permits and to keep their cost base as close to the status quo as possible.
At a presentation a few months ago, one of Australia’s leading risk experts pointed out that while an ETS and carbon accounting were important, there were bigger things afoot. He explained some of the consequences of climate change – increased frequency of severe weather events, issues with rainfall and water security and the like. He took pains to emphasise the bigger picture beyond this regulatory change.
Needless to say that I was a little surprised during the Q&A at the end of the event to find that nearly all questions from the audience revolved around carbon accounting and emissions trading. Had no-one been listening? Had the message failed to sink in? Why was this? Or to bastardise Taleb’s language, why was the swan still black even when shining a big spotlight on it?
The event in question was attended by senior public sector auditors and risk professionals – the sort of people we count on to ask such questions. I thought about why people gravitated to the accounting, reporting and compliance aspects rather than to the elephant in the room and I guess its human nature – it’s black and white, it’s tangible, it’s measurable and it requires a response in the short term. In other words this part of the issue is more tame than wicked, unlike the bigger problems that governments and their advisors are now attempting to tackle.
So what is the real elephant in the room you may well ask. As I see it there is no longer just one elephant – the ones I see tend to travel in herds.
We’ve already mentioned climate change – there’s plenty of literature on that. If you analyse search metrics on the web you’ll see the term’s popularity rise to a highly mainstream top of mind topic. This doesn’t mean people can see it clearly or are operationalising around it, (if fact it seems that many aren’t), but at least it means that they aware of a big lurking presence. This is a good start.
But there are others as well. A few spring to mind:
- The modelling is not yet public but there are indications that petrol prices could go up in the order of 5-10% under a CPRS. This seems like a significant jump, and for many industries this will be, but this needs to be taken in context. If popular opinion among energy forecasters is correct, then we are looking at a doubling, tripling of fuel prices or even more over the next 10 years. Within this context, a 5-10% carbon impost is not the main act – in fact it’s potentially a sideshow at best.
- The industrial revolution and the way we use air travel are driven by cheap energy. If energy prices jump what does this mean to complex supply chains that source lowest cost inputs from around the world? Will countries with cheap labour still be able to compete effectively in global markets in the absence of cheap freight? Was all this effort in establishing free trade agreements for nought? What does this mean to distribution of wealth and currency markets? What knock on effects will these have?
In taking the initial pain on CPRS in Australia, we need to remember that in other markets there was also an outcry by business before their emission trading schemes were introduced. In the years that followed, some argue that the carbon price fell dramatically because cutting carbon was far easier than initially anticipated. The carbon cap was possibly too low and some commentators believe this resulted in many years delay before reaching a sustainable carbon price and a lost opportunity for the environment that will never be regained.
Within this context one has to wonder whether the current bemoaning by some companies and industry groups about the CPRS is really about business disruption or just a clamour for free permits, and for protectionism of obsolete assets and ways of working.
Short term lobbying on the CPRS will generate short term winners and losers and perhaps will help some companies until their CEOs cash in their options.
The medium and long term winners will be those organisations and individuals with a deep understanding of emerging mega conditions and whole systems at a micro, macro and mega scale. Those entities that understand that you can’t lobby or cartel a black swan will be the ones on the journey towards resilience and ongoing prosperity.
Todd Davies
August 2008
Reprinted with permission from resilientfutures.org

Todd is a highly sought after speaker, commentator and evangelist in the fields of business, risk, governance and internal audit.