A panel of government-appointed experts has uncovered "integrity
issues" with the Coalition's flagship climate change policy, triggering a
warning that some of the emission reductions claimed by Australia may
not be genuine.
The findings relate to the Abbott-era Emissions Reduction Fund, established in 2014 to replace Labor's so-called "carbon tax". The Morrison government extended the fund in February with a $2 billion injection of taxpayer funds, and renamed it the Climate Solutions Fund.
The findings relate to the Abbott-era Emissions Reduction Fund, established in 2014 to replace Labor's so-called "carbon tax". The Morrison government extended the fund in February with a $2 billion injection of taxpayer funds, and renamed it the Climate Solutions Fund.
 |
| An official committee has raised concerns over carbon farming methods under the Emissions Reduction Fund. Photo: Bloomberg |
An
official panel of experts has identified "integrity issues" with two
revegetation methods under the fund. Among the committee's findings are
that some projects may have received credits for carbon sequestration
that has not yet occurred and may never occur - for example, because the
land is not capable of growing forest cover.
The chair
of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, Australian National
University law professor Andrew Macintosh, said there was no guarantee
that all carbon credits issued to existing projects would accurately
reflect the carbon abatement they achieved.
Environment Minister Melissa Price said the committee raised concerns during the review process that have now been addressed.
In one sample cited in the panel's report, almost
half the projects had not achieved the required vegetation seven years
after they commenced.
The findings pose a
concern because half the 193 million tonnes of emissions cuts claimed
by the Coalition government under the fund relate to projects using one
of the methods under a cloud.
 |
| The Emissions Reduction Fund is the government's central tool for tackling climate change. Credit: Jessica Shapiro |
The
methods under review, known as carbon farming, involve changes to
farming practices such as limiting cattle grazing and managing feral
animals, to allow native plants to regrow. The plants draw carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it as carbon.
Professor
Macintosh said that the extent to which projects may have been
forward-credited or over-credited could not yet be measured because some
still had decades to run.
He said
forward-crediting posed one of the greatest material risks to the
scheme. This occurs when carbon credits are issued for sequestration
that has not yet occurred. If it never occurs - for example if
vegetation grows slowly - credits may be wrongly issued.
The
government recently introduced changes to the scheme's guidelines.
Professor Macintosh said the changes took a stricter approach to new
projects than those that had already begun. This was because creating
uncertainty in the rules might deter future participation in the scheme.
Proponents of existing projects, and their investors, were also opposed to retrospective changes.
Professor
Macintosh said the changes ensured new projects were robust. However he
said the government should have more flexibility, within reason, to
change the rules for existing projects "to address integrity issues".
Professor
Macintosh said projects that required the vegetation to remain intact
for only 25 years presented an "elevated" risk because they were less
likely to catch up in the case of forward-crediting, in which case
"there's an over crediting problem".
"Can
I sit here and say there is no chance that existing projects will be
forward-credited or over-credited? No I can't. But we will just have to
see how the projects perform over the next five or ten years," he said.
He added that the scheme was designed so over-credited projects would in most cases be balanced out by under-credited projects.
Australian
Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy said the
concerns identified in the review "aren't minor technical issues".
"It
is further evidence the Morrison Government's climate plan is riddled
with holes and cannot be relied upon to do the heavy lifting to cut
Australia's growing climate pollution," she said.
 |
Environment Melissa Price said the committee's concerns had been addressed. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
|
"The
report, and the changes that the government has already made to these
methods, demonstrates the integrity of the Emissions Reduction Fund and
its organisational and institutional arrangements," she said.
Labor's climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler said the party "has been critical of the ERF for years".
"This is an ineffective policy that hasn't seen emissions fall, while costing taxpayers $2.5 billion," he said.
Labor
will dump the fund if it wins office, but will continue with carbon
farming methods, including improving their robustness, he said.
Links
Links
- Scott Morrison pledges $2 billion, 10-year boost to Direct Action fund in election climate pitch
- What Are Major Parties’ Climate Change Policies?
- Adaptation Is The Poor Cousin Of Climate Change Policy
- In Australia, Climate Policy Battles Are Endlessly Reheated
- Coalition's Climate Solutions Fund Must Last A Further Five Years
- Greens Set 2030 Cut-Off For Coal Exports And Coal-Fired Power Stations
