11/12/2021

(AU Fact Check) Scott Morrison Says There Are Only Four Countries In The G20 With A Better Emissions Record Than Australia. Is That Correct?


Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Australia has reduced emissions by more than 20 per cent, a record he says is bettered by only four countries in the G20.(ABC News: Matt Roberts)


The claim

Under attack for the government's emissions policies after bruising appearances at the G20 in Rome and the COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been keen to spruik Australia's achievements in the area.

In an interview with Sunrise on Channel Seven, Mr Morrison said that Australia has "reduced our emissions by more than 20 per cent".

"There are only four countries in the G20 that have actually done better than Australia on that front," he said.

Is Australia doing better on reducing emissions than all but four countries in the G20? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

The verdict

Mr Morrison's claim is misleading.

Data from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change shows four G20 countries in front of Australia for emissions reductions on 2005 levels (Mr Morrison's chosen starting point) to 2019, including the land use, land-use change and forestry sector.

These parameters are the most advantageous to Australia when making international comparisons; excluding LULUCF or changing the starting year to 1990, when the data begins, puts Australia further behind the pack.

And this particular dataset, though authoritative, doesn't include nine nations of the G20 which were developing when the convention was signed. Other datasets that include these countries put between seven and nine G20 countries in front of Australia.

However, more problematic is the Prime Minister's use of a 2020 figure ("more than 20 per cent") for Australia in his comparison, when data is only available to 2019 for other countries.

The 2020 figure includes the effect of the pandemic, which experts told Fact Check contributed to a large drop in emissions world wide.

If a like-for-like comparison were able to be made using 2020 data for all countries, it is possible Australia would rank worse.

Most G20 nations have not yet released their figures for 2020 emissions. (ABC News: Michael Barnett)
Have emissions decreased by 20 per cent?

When asked about the 20 per cent figure, a spokesman for Mr Morrison directed Fact Check to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, published by the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources.

The department publishes quarterly updates of the inventory, dating back to 1990. The latest available when Mr Morrison made his claim was for March 2021.

Mr Morrison did not specify a starting point for the reduction he claimed. His spokesman nominated 2005.

That data showed that emissions in the year to March 2021 were 19.85 per cent lower than in the year to March 2005.

However, Mr Morrison made a comparison with G20 countries. Countries typically report their emissions on a calendar year basis.

Fact Check considers that in comparing countries it is necessary to standardise their reporting years, so will use December 2020, as the final figure.

In his claim, Mr Morrison said Australia's emissions were down by "more than 20 per cent".

The only way Fact Check could find a reduction of over 20 per cent using a calendar year was by calculating the difference between the quarterly December 2020 figure and the quarterly December 2005 figure, which yields a fall in emissions of 20.5 per cent.

The spokesman confirmed that this was the basis for Mr Morrison's calculation.

Experts contacted by Fact Check pointed to a range of problems with using quarterly figures.

Firstly, quarterly emissions figures are subject to some variation. Mark Howden, the director of the Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions at Australian National University, referred to this calculation as "cherrypicking".

"I think using quarterly figures is really problematic, because, you know, emissions go up and down the cost of the different quarters. And, and they do that differently for different sectors," he said.

"You can go into the NGGI and look at their annual numbers versus their quarterly numbers. And you can see the different trends there."

Secondly, 2020 encompasses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had a profound effect on emissions world wide.

In Australia, for example, Victoria was in lockdown for much of the December quarter to which Mr Morrison refers.

Pep Canadell, chief research scientist at the CSIRO Climate Science Centre and the executive director of the Global Carbon Project, told Fact Check the sudden drop of around 5 per cent between 2019 and 2020 was the result of "a pandemic problem that has nothing to do with structural changes of energy, or economic system".

Put simply, government policy did not cause this large annual reduction.

The following graph shows this drop in emissions and compares reductions on 2005 levels using a rolling annual total of emissions (calculated by Fact Check), compared with quarterly emissions.


Apples and oranges

But perhaps the largest problem here is Mr Morrison's comparison of a 2020 figure for Australia, which includes the effects of the pandemic, with 2019 figures from other countries, which do not.

The Liberal Party has made this kind of comparison before. In a Facebook post on November 2, the party posted an infographic comparing Australian emissions to those of the US, Japan, New Zealand and Canada, as well asthe OECD average.

However, in the fine print, Australia's data is sourced from 2020, while all other countries are sourced from 2019. The OECD average is sourced from 2018.

Dr Canadell noted that emissions in 2020 for carbon dioxide only, not including other greenhouse gases which are reported to the UNFCCC, had declined by around 5.6 per cent in Australia, but around 10 per cent in the US, according to figures from the Global Carbon Project.

If 2020 figures were available for other countries, this could significantly change the standings amongst them.

Fact Check was unable to find any source with complete greenhouse gas emissions reporting for the year 2020 for any of the G20 countries other than Australia.

To be able to make fair comparisons among countries, Fact Check considers that the starting and finishing years for emissions reductions should be the same for every country.

The source of the claim
UNFCCC emissions data, though authoritative, does not allow comparisons between all G20 countries. (Pool via Reuters: Christopher Furlong)


Indeed, when Fact Check asked Mr Morrison's office for the source of his comparison with G20 countries, a spokesman responded with figures from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has data from 1990 to 2019.

He provided the following percentage falls from 2005 to 2019:

  • The UK: -34 per cent

  • France: -19 per cent

  • Germany: -20 per cent

  • Italy: -32 per cent

  • Australia: -15 per cent

The spokesman acknowledged that this was the latest comparable data.

The UNFCCC is "the United Nations entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change".

The convention is the parent treaty to the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, and maintains the registry for national determined contributions to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

One-hundred-and-ninety-seven countries are parties to the convention, but not all of them report their greenhouse gas emissions to its secretariat every year or in the same way.

Annex I countries, comprised of members of the OECD in 1992 "plus countries with economies in transition (the EIT Parties), including Russia, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States," report their greenhouse gas emissions annually. This cohort includes Australia.

The latest year reported for these countries is 2019. Other countries do not need to report as frequently. 

Nine members of the G20 are not Annex I countries.

Thus, nearly half of the G20 has not provided figures to the UNFCCC to the year 2019.

The graph below shows the emissions reductions as a percentage of 2005 for all Annex I countries who are also members of the G20, including in the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector.

Table: RMIT ABC Fact Check Source: UNFCCC Get the data

Indeed, the UK, France, Germany and Italy are the only single G20 countries ahead of Australia in this dataset.

The European Union (not shown on this graph), a member of the G20, whose emissions are composed in part by these four countries, is also ahead of Australia, with a reduction of 22.5 per cent.

Alison Reeve, the deputy director of the Grattan Institute's climate change and energy program, told Fact Check it would be better to compare individual countries in the G20 with Australia, rather than blocs of countries like the EU.

In making his claim, Mr Morrison referred to countries, not members, or blocs, of the G20.

As the four countries ahead of Australia in the UNFCCC data are EU countries (including the UK to 2019) Fact Check has decided to analyse them separately and omit the EU bloc from further analysis.

To LULUCF or not to LULUCF?
Land use, land-use change and forestry is an emissions sector reported to the UNFCCC. (Reuters: Ueslei Marcelino)
The UNFCCC recognises human activity through land use, land-use change and forestry as a carbon "sink", which can remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Planting trees through afforestation or reforestation, for example, stores carbon, removing it from the air.

However, whether it should be used in international comparisons is the subject of much debate.

Australia's Greenhouse Gas Inventory includes LULUCF.

Professor Howden said there are concerns about the accuracy of measuring emissions in this sector.

"They're clearly more difficult to measure than things like fuel usage where we know how many litres of petrol [are used]," he said.

"So it's a more difficult thing to quantify, [with] obviously, higher uncertainty levels."

Furthermore, the inclusion of LULUCF in international comparisons can advantage Australia over other countries where the sector is much smaller. Professor Howden cited a comparison between the island city-state of Singapore and the large Latin American nation of Brazil.

"My view is that if you're actually doing a fair comparison with other countries, those other countries that have very different land-use change elements sitting in inventory, so if you're comparing, for example, Singapore and Australia, clearly it's a bit of an apples with oranges sort of comparison.

"Whereas if you look at Brazil, presumably that's got a significant land-use change element."

Professor Howden added that most of the emissions reductions the government has been claiming in recent years are "actually due to policies reducing land-use change instigated during the Rudd-Gillard governments".

"Reductions in emissions stemming from those previous policies in my view should not be used to claim that current policy settings are effective."

Malte Meinshausen, an associate professor of climate science at the University of Melbourne's School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and a lead author of the IPCC's sixth assessment report, told Fact Check the "main time series" under the Kyoto Protocol excludes LULUCF, which he said "provides a better measure for actual energy, transport, building and industry emissions".

"Including LULUCF is always the way in which Australia looks good (and is not actually the standard international comparison)," he said.

Ms Reeve said: "Not every country includes LULUCF in the bases against which they measure their targets — so to make a good comparison between countries, it's useful to exclude it."

Indeed, when excluding LULUCF, other nations in the UNFCCC dataset compare much more favourably with Australia, which has increased emissions to 2019 on this basis by 4 per cent.

Choosing a starting year

Another factor which affects how a country's emissions reductions record might appear is the choice of starting year.

The year 2005, as chosen by Mr Morrison, is a year which advantages Australia.

Professor Howden noted that emissions that year were slightly under the peak of Australia's emissions.

Choosing a starting year of 1990, which is where the UNFCCC data begins, yields a different result.

"The best base year to use for international comparisons is 1990, as this is the year in which most countries start their emissions accounts," Ms Reeve said.

"However, any base year has its problems — there's an argument that 1990 provided an advantage for the EU and Russia because the collapse of heavy industry in the USSR and Eastern Bloc in the early ‘90s delivered an emissions dividend without any government policy."

Below, Fact Check has re-analysed the UNFCCC data using 1990 as a starting point.

Using 1990 as a starting year and including LULUCF adds a fifth country to the list of those with higher reductions than Australia — Russia.

Percentage change in emissions of UNFCCC Annex I countries
from 1990 to 2019 including LULUCF

Only G20 countries which are Annex I signatories are shown

Table: RMIT ABC Fact Check Source: UNFCCC Get the data

Excluding LULUCF, Australia has increased its emissions since 1990 by 28.7 per cent, which is only lower than Turkey.

Table: RMIT ABC Fact Check Source: UNFCCC Get the data

Australia, for example, has in the past assessed its progress against the year 2000 for the second Kyoto Protocol period.

And the recent agreement made in Glasgow references a global target of a 45 per cent reduction on 2010 levels by 2030.

These choices may make some countries look better or worse, but they mean very little for the climate.

Noting the somewhat arbitrary nature of these choices, Fact Check will continue assessing further data in this article using both 1990 and 2005 as starting points.

Data for other G20 countries
Brazil is a member of the G20, but it is not an Annex I signatory under the UNFCCC. (AP: Bruna Prado)
There are a range of reputable non-UNFCCC datasets which attempt to calculate the annual emissions of countries around the world, including all of those in the G20.

Experts contacted by Fact Check expressed a range of opinions on which should be used.

Professor Howden opined that any data source should use the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodologies.

Dr Canadell recommended the European Union's Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR).

EDGAR includes data for all greenhouse gases to 2018, including sporadic LULUCF data to 2015.

Ms Reeve preferred using data from the World Resources Institute's Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT).

CAIT uses non-UNFCCC data to maximise comparability between countries from organisations such as the International Energy Agency, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and the US Environmental Protection Agency. The data goes as far as 2018.

Associate Professor Meinshausen preferred data from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, (PIK) which Fact Check has cited previously.

The data uses UNFCCC data where available, and fills in the gaps with third-party data where it is not. The latest year in this dataset is 2019.

However, this data does not include emissions from LULUCF, citing the unreliable nature of estimating emissions in this sector, including high annual fluctuations.

To compare the data including LULUCF, Fact Check will use the CAIT data. For data excluding LULUCF, Potsdam Institute data will be used.

The CAIT figures

Data from CAIT including all G20 countries paints a different picture to data from the UNFCCC.

In this dataset, to 2018, Australia has increased emissions by 3.5 per cent on 2005 levels, behind the UK, Brazil, Italy, Canada, France, Germany, the US, Argentina and Japan, putting it around the middle of the pack.

Percentage change in emissions of G20 countries
from 2005 to 2018 including LULUCF

Table: RMIT ABC Fact Check Source: World Resources Institute Get the data

It's important to note that these figures for Annex I countries differ from those from the UNFCCC. However, they are the only figures Fact Check could find which include LULUCF and compare Annex I countries with non-Annex I countries.

On 1990 levels, Australia has increased emissions including LULUCF by 0.5 per cent, behind the UK, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, Japan and the United States.

Percentage change in emissions of G20 countries
from 1990 to 2018 including LULUCF
Table: RMIT ABC Fact Check Source: World Resources Institute Get the data
The PIK figures

Taking LULUCF out of the equation, data from PIK changes the picture once again.

Australia's emissions increased by 4 per cent on 2005 levels, with the UK, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, the United States and Canada all recording decreases in emissions.

Percentage change in emissions of G20 countries
from 2005 to 2019 excluding LULUCF
Table: RMIT ABC Fact Check Source: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Get the data

On 1990 levels, Australia's emissions increased by 28.4 per cent, with all of the same countries mentioned above ahead, plus Russia.

Percentage change in emissions of G20 countries
from 1990 to 2019 excluding LULUCF
Table: RMIT ABC Fact Check Source: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Get the data

The big picture

Of all these datasets, the one selected by Mr Morrison is most favourable to Australia for international comparisons.

It's important to note that this is not new in international comparisons. When making commitments to reduce emissions, for example, countries select their own starting year, which can advantage their own situation.

And not all countries are able to take advantage of LULUCF to reduce their emissions as Australia can, something that Dr Canadell referred to as "low-hanging fruit".

Ms Reeve said international comparisons "matter amongst like countries, because it tells us if any one country is trying to free ride".

But she said it is important that the profiles of countries being compared are similar.

"Comparing amongst G20 or OECD countries is less useful, because member countries have very different economic bases (so Australia/Canada are resource-intensive economies, South Korea/Japan are not, but all are members of the G20)."

Ultimately, however, what matters to the climate is not which country's record is better, but whether what countries are doing is enough to limit global warming in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

"It matters more whether actions are consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement – one country doing more than another is irrelevant if both are doing less than required – you might be able to run faster than me but neither of us are close to qualifying for the Olympics!" she said.

Principal researcher: Online Editor Matt Martino

Links
at No comments: