Government Sits On Secret Modelling Of Climate Policy Costs

Fairfax - Nicole Hasham

Controversial economist Brian Fisher has accused the Morrison government of failing to act transparently over secret modelling it commissioned on the costs of climate action, saying even he has not seen the findings despite contributing to the work.
Debate has raged during the federal election campaign over the cost of taking meaningful action on climate change, fuelled by competing modelling that predicts wildly different outcomes for the economy.

Modelling on the costs of acting on climate change has been a topic of hot debate throughout the election campaign. Credit: Andrew Taylor

Dr Fisher’s own work predicted Labor’s 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 would cause gross domestic product to fall by up to $542 billion – findings trumpeted by the Coalition. The findings have been vehemently criticised by experts and Labor for relying on inaccurate assumptions and failing to consider the economic cost of failing to act on climate change.
Dr Fisher told the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age that the government is withholding a second set of modelling commissioned by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, to which he contributed earlier this year.
He said Canberra-based Cadence Economics conducted the work but he has not been informed of the findings, despite being asked to advise on modelling scenarios.

The secret modelling is understood to model the effects of climate action on the minerals and resource sectors. Credit: BHP Billiton

“It’s all been rather un-transparent … the details of what Cadence did in the end are not available to me,” he said, adding he did not know if his advice was adopted.
“[The modelling] was being done in the run-up to the election and I think the prospect was that it might be available before that … it would be interesting to read it.”
The modelling examines the cost of climate action on the resources and minerals sectors, and was delivered to the government before the election was called.
It raises the possibility that the findings favour Labor and so will not be made public, or alternatively they support the Coalition’s attacks on Labor and will be released closer to the election.
A department spokesman refused to answer questions about the modelling, including how much it cost, what the projections found and why it has not been made public despite taxpayers footing the bill.
When pressed, the spokesman said: “I’m not going to go into it, I’m just telling you what I’m telling you.”
Coalition campaign headquarters also failed to provide any details about the modelling, yet claimed it was “more evidence that the cost of emissions reductions can be measured, even though Bill Shorten refuses to … cost his own policies”.
Labor says it is not possible to accurately estimate the cost of its climate policy because the onus would be on polluting businesses to determine how their obligations are met.

Labor's climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler questioned whether the government was using taxpayer-funded modelling to fuel a "baseless" scare campaign. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Labor’s climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler said the unreleased modelling raised “serious questions about the possible inappropriate use of taxpayer money to fuel a baseless political scare campaign against genuine climate action”.
“The Liberals have spent more time and effort trying to discredit Labor’s climate policies than developing serious climate policies themselves,” Mr Butler said.
“The Liberals have only proven one thing – there is no floor to how low they will go to try and scare Australians from taking serious climate action.”
Australian Conservation Foundation climate change program manager Gavan McFadzean said the Coalition must be up front about whether taxpayers’ money has been spent on modelling “to politically attack other parties’ policies to cut climate pollution”.
Cadence Economics did not respond to a request for comment. In modelling released last year, the firm claimed Labor’s proposed changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax would lead to fewer jobs and less building activity.

Links

• Australia’s Election Is A Chance To Regain Our Leadership On Climate Change
• Both Parties Still In Climate Policy Black Hole
• Experts Find 'Integrity Issues' With Coalition's Direct Action Policy
• The Carbon Brief Profile: Australia
• Adaptation Is The Poor Cousin Of Climate Change Policy
• In Australia, Climate Policy Battles Are Endlessly Reheated
• Coalition Hits Bottom Of Barrel With Fake News Campaign Against Electric Cars
• Electric Vehicles An Opportunity For Local Government
• Be The Change You Want To See In The World: How Individuals Can Help Save The Planet From Climate Catastrophe
• News Corp Launches Offensive Against Labor's Climate Policy Amid Glowing Budget 2019 Previews
• The Challenge Facing Labor On Climate Change
• ALP Climate Policy Requires Serious Scrutiny
• Hopes Emerge For A 'Great Era Of Bipartisanship' On Clean Energy Policy
• Australia Stops Payments To Green Climate Fund