Categories
Economics

[2571] Cars, duties, congestion, pollution, revenue and income effect

Several new points were raised with regards to my post on duties and cars yesterday. One was pollution, two was government revenue and three, in one way or another, income effect. It is not exactly income effect but close enough.

Concern number one is easy. But let us state the pollution concern. The concern is that there is already too many cars on the streets and there is a need to reduce pollution, which I take as carbon and other greenhouse gases emissions. I also take that as actually reducing the number of cars. But here is the thing, substitution to foreign cars may actual reduce emissions without having to reduce the number of car on the roads. The reason is that comparable foreign cars-European, Japanese and possibly Korean-have higher emission standard than locally-produced cars. With more competition, consumers have a chance to choose emission-efficient cars over relative gas-guzzlers without too much price variation. End result: less emission given the quantity of cars.

Concern number two deserves a very libertarian answer. Cut government spending instead. The duties on foreign cars were always meant as protectionist measure, not primarily for revenue-generating purpose. The revenue derived from the duties should really be considered as a bonus. Except that the government is so used to it, that it forgets. With the fiscal discipline, they need the bonus. One way to cut spending is to cut fuel subsidy. In fact, tax it. Yes, tax fuel purchase.

Concern number three is harder to address and I actually thought about it but ultimately decided to not touch it. As try to explain it below, you will understand why I decided against touching it.

Income effect (not exactly but close) or specifically, the new competitive environment may push prices down across the board. This may be true and I have alluded to this in an article I wrote for The Malaysian Insider earlier. In turn, this may increase vehicles on the road as more are able to purchase cars. Or it may not. There is a sound theoretical case for an increase, but there is also a sound theoretical case for the opposite.

Initially, I wanted to address this in terms of stickiness and temporally. In English, prices will adjust only slowly to a new reality. More technically, all-in prices of domestic cars are sticky and that of foreign cars are not.

Why do I apply stickiness on domestic cars but not foreign cars? It is because the abolition or the reduction of duties is easy to calculate. It is on top of the car price in the sense that pre-duties prices are associated with the way companies run their business. It is this pre-tax, pre-duties prices that are sticky.

Most of domestic car prices are made up of sticky components. For foreign-manufactured cars, a significant portion of its end prices are made up of non-sticky components, i.e. the tax and the duties. This is why I apparently apply stickiness only on domestic cars. In truth, I am applying stickiness on both domestic and foreign cars while taking into account domestic cars have significantly less portion of non-sticky components than foreign cars, within the context of import duties abolition.

Also, consider this. The net earnings of Proton in 2011 was not even 2% of its revenue. How much room Proton has for a serious price war? Not much in the near future. This, I think, is an indication that there is a price floor: there is not much incentive to push price of sedans down too much beyond whatever Proton is charging. Proton cannot charge less anyway.

So, in the short term, the specific income effect will not be present. And no traffic congestion issue.

The long term issue is hard to say. It depends on non-cooperation (it is quite possible for firms to achieve implicit understanding in price settings without getting into trouble with anti-trust law).

Ultimately, it depends on how efficient those under pressure can be. What is certain is that that takes time.

It also depends on how low prices would get. I have not done the calculation but I have a feeling, both Proton’s small margin and game theory will provide a floor how low prices can get. And foreign manufacturers definitely would not want to price their cars so low as to earn a loss. Furthermore, that would be dumping and they will get into trouble with that.

So, in the long run, it may, or it may not have effect on congestion.

Besides, if there would be worse congestion, it would be very naive to think there is no other accompanying policy to address it. I have one immediately in my mind: congestion fee within the cities.

Categories
Economics Environment

[2137] Of 40% cut in carbon intensity may not be something to shout about

Bernama wrongfully reported that the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, put up a conditional offer to cut 40% of Malaysia’s 2005 carbon emissions by 2020.[1] The same goes with the New Straits Times, except it did it more badly by not directly quoting the Prime Minister.[2] This is sloppy reporting. The truth is that it is a conditional cut of 40% to Malaysia’s carbon emissions intensity in terms of GDP within the base and time frame mentioned. Regardless of the inaccuracy, is the cut impressive?

The size of the cut seems big but cutting carbon emissions intensity is a lot easier than cutting outright carbon emissions; a cut in emissions is more expensive than a cut in carbon intensity. Achieving 5% cut as demanded by Kyoto is a lot harder than 5% cut in carbon intensity. The difference is clearer when one takes note that emissions itself can increase even under a situation of decreasing carbon intensity.

A demostration is in order. The most convenient way of showing this is by using intensity per capita as a unit rather than per GDP. In order words, this refers to emissions per person.

Assume that the emissions per person is 2 and there are a total of 10 persons in a neighborhood. The total emissions is therefore 20.

Assume further than emissions per person improves to 1.5 and total population increase to 15. Total emissions gets worse: it is now 22.5.

A cut in emissions will address total emissions. A cut in carbon intensity does not guarantee that.

A concrete example is the United Kingdom. According to the National Environmental Technology Centre of the UK, total emissions fell slightly between 1990 and 2005. Carbon intensity? It fell more or less by 40%. [3]

Hence, the act of stressing the difference is not a matter of splitting hair.

Carbon intensity has the tendency to decrease over time due to application of technology. The typical criticism directed at any commitment at reducing carbon intensity is that even without such commitment, carbon intensity will decrease anyway. This is especially true for developing countries where there is a lot of space for technological improvement through by merely copying.

Given this, the Prime Minister’s conditional offer is not something to shout about. China also made an offer to cut carbon intensity and it has been rightly criticized for trumpeting an unremarkable target and then demanding moral authority at the negotiation table in Copenhagen during the 15th Conference of the Parties that ended recently.

(Despite this tendency, Malaysia’s carbon intensity between 1990 and 2004 increased. I suspect a Kuznets curve.[4] The ratio may increase up to a certain level before decreasing. Malaysia after all was industrializing during the 1990s and now, Malaysia is largely done with industrialization.)

It should only be seen as a brilliant diplomatic maneuver and not a big effort at cutting emissions. It is brilliant not just because that the commitment is very likely to be achieved anyway and thus, making the offerers look good, it is brilliant because it makes demand for aid — and making the exercise cheaper than it would — even when the cut in carbon intensity is very likely to be achieved without any binding commitment.

This is not to dismiss the importance of cut in carbon intensity. I myself believe that technology is the answer to climate change but it is important to get the right message across while the Malaysian mass media failed the public miserably.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — COPENHAGEN, Dec 17 (Bernama) — Malaysia has agreed to reduce its carbon dioxide emission to 40 per cent by the year 2020 compared to the 2005 levels subject to assistance from developed countries.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the cut was conditional on receiving the transfer of technology and adequate financing from the developed world.

“I would like to announce here in Copenhagen that Malaysia is adopting an indicator of a voluntary reduction of up to 40 per cent in terms of emissions intensity of GDP (gross domestic product) by the year 2020 compared to 2005 levels,” he said in his speech at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 here, on Thursday,

United Nations data shows Malaysia’s carbon emissions in 2006 stood at 187 million tonnes or 7.2 tonnes from each Malaysian. [Malaysia Announces Conditional 40 Per Cent Cut In Emissions. Bernama. December 17 2009]

[2] — PM Najib says Malaysia is committed to do its best in combatting climate change.

MALAYSIA will voluntarily slash by up to 40 per cent her carbon emission by 2020 compared with 2005 levels.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who made this commitment yesterday, said the cut was part of Malaysia’s contribution to global efforts to combat climate change. [40 per cent reduction of carbon emission by 2020. Mimi Syed Yusof. New Straits Times. December 18 2009]

[2] — COPENHAGEN: A roadmap towards realising the 40% reduction of carbon emission per capita from the 2005 level by 2020 will be presented to the Cabinet soon. [40 per cent reduction of carbon emission by 2020. Mimi Syed Yusof. New Straits Times. December 18 2009]

[3] — [Page 18 and 19. Carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption in the UK. The National Environmental Technology Centre]

[4] — See Kuznets Curve at Wikipedia. Accessed on December 25 2009.

Categories
Environment

[1460] Of increasing Malaysian emissions

When I saw this…:

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: Carbon emissions in Malaysia have increased by 221 percent since 1990, the highest growth rate among the world’s top polluters, the United Nations said Thursday, as it urged the government to control climate-changing gases more vigorously.

Malaysia, which has rapidly transformed from an agricultural economy to an industrialized one in the last four decades, is now ranked the 26th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, said Richard Leete, the regional representative for the United Nations Development Program. [Malaysian growth of carbon emissions highest in the world, says UN. IHT. November 29 2007]

…I was prepared to defend Malaysia. After all, it is likely for a country’s emissions to increase in spite of improving efficiency (decreasing carbon per some unit of measurement, or in other words, carbon intensity). An economy may expand while emissions per capita dropped due to technological progress. In this case, there is effort to reduce emissions through growth. Indeed, many developing countries such as that in western Europe are experiencing this trend.

But when I read that Malaysian carbon intensity of energy (amount of carbon emitted per some unit of energy; kt CO2 per kt of oil equivalent) and intensity of growth (carbon emitted per some unit of GDP;kt CO2 per million 2000 PPP USD) have increased from 2.44 to 3.13 and 0.56 to 0.76 respectively from 1990 to 2004, I decided to frown instead.

Anyway, the Human Development Index initiative under the United Nations Development Program has tables of data for abuse.

And, the Bali Summit on post-Kyoto climate change action starts tomorrow.

Categories
Economics Environment Politics & government

[1257] Of a sensible US proposal but a better German option

Anthropogenic climate change is a contentious issue in the international arena; it is a tragedy of the global commons. The latest high profile debate took place at the Germany-hosted G8 summit in the week of June 6 2007. The discussion stayed true to the current trend that no longer doubts the existence of human-induced climate change but rather, seeks to mitigate the effects of climate change. At the meeting, two road maps were presented: one by Germany and another by the United States with the former being supported by a clear majority. Within this context, I fall within the majority but that does not necessarily mean I reject the US version outright.

The German proposal calls for the halving of the 1990 global carbon dioxide level by 2050. Such suggestion would limit temperature increase to between 1.5 and 2.5 ºC. If it is adopted as the son of Kyoto, it would be binding just like Kyoto. As a note, the Kyoto Protocol demands a 5% cut of carbon dioxide as well as five other greenhouse gases from the 1990 level by 2012.

The US has refused to that proposal and has come up with an alternative of its own. Instead of reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it seeks to concentrate on reducing carbon intensity. Carbon intensity is simply a fancy word describing the ratio of carbon emissions to gross domestic product (GDP): the lower the figure, the more efficient the economy operates in term of carbon emissions.

While politically angry at the US, I am sympathetic to the US suggestion after giving it a fair inspection.

It is typical to blame countries with the larger total annual emissions of contributing to climate change. Applying the total annual national emissions as a basis of comparison is dependent on the size of the country, population and geography-wise. The larger a country is, the higher the emissions would be with all else equal. For instance, Malaysia contributed 0.6% of global emissions in 2002. If ASEAN is to be taken as a state, it, inclusive of Malaysia, would produce approximately 3.7% of global carbon emissions in 2002. That would rival a smaller Germany which contributed 3.3% of global emissions in the same year; Germany according to Wikipedia, based on figures produced by the United Nations Statistics Division, was the sixth largest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2002. Such comparison does not control for population or economy size. Without such control, the data is noisy and produces misleading conception.

In other words, using annual national carbon emissions for comparison purpose is almost meaningless and unfairly put too much blame related to climate change on the shoulders of large countries. What would be better for comparison purpose is the carbon intensity measurement as proposed by the US. Or, perhaps, my favorite, emissions per capita.

Take a look at annual national emissions in 2002:

GFDL. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions.PNG

Then, observe carbon intensity in 2005 (in this graph, the red is below world’s average and green is above; the dimension is GDP/emissions. The inversed dimension means higher figure equals to higher efficiency):

GFDL. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_world_map_deobfuscated.png

For emission per capita in 2003:

GFDL. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_world_map_deobfuscated.png

Despite me preferring carbon intensity used as comparison purpose to annual national emissions, why would I not lending my support to the US proposal?

The answer is this: we need to lower the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In fact, not just carbon dioxide but other sensible greenhouse gases. Lower carbon intensity alone does not do that job. Indeed, effort to lower carbon intensity does not mean lower global carbon level. During a period of economic boom and technological progress, efficiency as well as the carbon level could increase. Depending on the rate and volume, it would lead to increase in carbon level in the atmosphere.

How is that possible?

Efficiency is essentially a multiplier and it basically could reflect emissions reduction know-how. Greater technological level could permit greater efficient; lower rate. Then we have volume which could be interpreted as economic activities. Finally, of course, there is some rate of carbon absorption by nature. The diagram below illustrates the flow versus level model which is typical in economics:

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

The product of efficiency and volume, subtracted with the amount of absorption could be positive. To make it clearer, assuming increased efficiency leads to lower emissions, ceteris paribus, a sufficient increase in volume could erase any reduction made possible through higher emissions if volume is held constant.

The US proposal does not address that but the German proposal does. Hence, my support. Despite that, the German proposal should incorporate the other suggestion without losing sight of the level reduction goal.