tag:theconversation.com,2011:/nz/topics/emissions-reduction-fund-8027/articlesEmissions Reduction Fund – The Conversation2023-01-09T05:34:07Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1974012023-01-09T05:34:07Z2023-01-09T05:34:07ZChubb review of Australia’s carbon credit scheme falls short – and problems will continue to fester<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503573/original/file-20230109-23-q8dj3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=15%2C30%2C5074%2C3362&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeremy Ng/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>An independent <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction/independent-review-accus">review</a> of Australia’s controversial carbon credit system released today concluded the scheme is essentially sound. But key questions remain unaddressed – a fact that will continue to undermine confidence in Australia’s central climate policy. </p>
<p>The review, led by former chief scientist Ian Chubb, followed <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/news-and-events/news/australia%E2%80%99s-carbon-market-fraud-environment">concerns</a> raised by our research team that the scheme lacked integrity and was not delivering genuine reductions in greenhouses gas emissions. The review panel, however, says it does “not share this view”.</p>
<p>Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen on Monday said the government accepted all 16 of the review panel’s recommendations.</p>
<p>But more must be done to ensure the Albanese government truly delivers the emissions reductions it has promised.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="smoke stack in front of setting sun" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The federal government has accepted the review’s recommendations – but more must be done to ensure genuine carbon abatement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Charlie Riedel/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Carbon credits underpin our climate policy</h2>
<p>Australia’s carbon credit system is central to reaching the federal government goal of 43% emissions reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050.</p>
<p>The scheme provides carbon credits to projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions using a number of approved methods, such as avoiding deforestation. These credits can be sold on the carbon market to entities that want to offset their emissions. </p>
<p>In March last year, our research team raised <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/news-and-events/news/australia%E2%80%99s-carbon-market-fraud-environment">serious concerns</a> about the scheme. In a <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/research/publications">series of papers</a>, we outlined systemic flaws in the way carbon credits were issued. </p>
<p>We concluded Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund – under which the scheme operates – has serious governance flaws, has issued a large number of low integrity credits and is wasting billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money.</p>
<p>Our analysis focused on three of the fund’s most popular methods – avoiding deforestation, human-induced regeneration of native forests and combusting methane from landfills. These account for 75% of the credits issued under the scheme.</p>
<p>We found that more than 70% of the credits issued under these methods do not represent genuine emissions abatement.</p>
<p>Following that criticism, in July last year, the Albanese government commissioned an independent review of the scheme. Those findings were released today.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="farm scene with trees and crops" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The author’s research found more than 70% of the credits issued under a number of carbon farming methods do not represent genuine emissions abatement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-blew-the-whistle-on-australias-central-climate-policy-heres-what-a-new-federal-government-probe-must-fix-185894">We blew the whistle on Australia's central climate policy. Here's what a new federal government probe must fix</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A ‘bewildering’ assessment</h2>
<p>The panel <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/independent-review-accu-final-report.pdf">concluded</a> the carbon credit arrangements are largely sound. How the panel reached this conclusion is hard to fathom.</p>
<p>Discussion of the rules governing human-induced regeneration, landfill gas and avoided deforestation projects spans less than six pages. </p>
<p>The report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions, and includes very little analysis to support its findings. And importantly, the panel does not address key questions around the integrity of the scheme’s rules.</p>
<p>Bewilderingly, in its assessment of the methods, the panel does not refer to the findings of a <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/review-four-methods-generating-australian-carbon-credit-units.pdf">review</a> it commissioned from the Australian Academy of Science to inform its considerations.</p>
<p>The academy reviewed the three main methods my research team analysed and a fourth, concerning carbon capture and storage.</p>
<p>It found numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes. For example, consistent with our analysis, it found a risk the human-induced regeneration method is crediting vegetation change brought on by rainfall, rather than project activities.</p>
<p>The academy also found problems with the landfill gas method – namely, that so-called “baselines” used to calculate carbon abatement don’t adequately account for other financial and regulatory incentives offered to operators for capturing and combusting methane. </p>
<p>This means credits are sometimes issued for actions the industry would take anyway. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/untenable-even-companies-profiting-from-australias-carbon-market-say-the-system-must-change-190232">I wrote</a> in The Conversation in September last year, so great are the problems with the landfill gas method that several large companies profiting from it have <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-06/companies-making-money-from-carbon-credits-speak-out/101400566">called for</a> changes to the system. </p>
<p>The academy is not alone in recognising these problems. The <a href="https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/independent-review-of-accu/submission/view/150">CSIRO</a> and <a href="https://wentworthgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Final-Chubb-Submission_Wentworth-Group.pdf">Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists</a> also found problems with the rules governing the issuance of credits.</p>
<p>The review panel acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says “it was also provided with evidence to the contrary”. Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="pipes collecting methane from site" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The landfill gas industry says credits are sometimes issued for actions the industry would take anyway.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/untenable-even-companies-profiting-from-australias-carbon-market-say-the-system-must-change-190232">'Untenable': even companies profiting from Australia's carbon market say the system must change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Integrity is essential</h2>
<p>The panel recommended significant changes to governance arrangements under the carbon credits scheme. It’s hard to understand the need for such changes if there are no material problems with the credits.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, most recommended governance changes are welcome, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>reducing the roles performed by the Clean Energy Regulator, to “enhance confidence and transparency” and reduce potential conflicts of interest</p></li>
<li><p>amend the scheme’s legislation to improve transparency to support greater public trust and confidence in the scheme.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>But these governance changes are not enough. Measures should be taken to prevent low-integrity credits being issued to existing projects. And polluting facilities should not be allowed to use low-integrity credits to meet their emission reduction obligations.</p>
<p>Without these changes, problems with the scheme will continue to fester, jeopardising the operation of the government’s climate policy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-relies-on-controversial-offsets-to-meet-climate-change-targets-we-might-not-get-away-with-it-in-egypt-193460">Australia relies on controversial offsets to meet climate change targets. We might not get away with it in Egypt</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197401/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Macintosh consults to various organisations about the carbon market and other environmental markets. He is also a Director of Paraway Pastoral Co., which has ERF projects. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Don Butler receives funding from the Australian Government and also consults to various organisations about the carbon market and other environmental markets. </span></em></p>More must be done to ensure the Albanese government truly delivers the emissions reductions it has promised.Andrew Macintosh, Professor and Director of Research, ANU Law School, Australian National UniversityDon Butler, Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1902322022-09-09T05:12:22Z2022-09-09T05:12:22Z‘Untenable’: even companies profiting from Australia’s carbon market say the system must change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483644/original/file-20220909-24-1uq3wz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C9%2C2044%2C1358&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nicolás Boullosa/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week, several of the largest companies that profit from Australia’s carbon market called for changes to the system. They <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-06/companies-making-money-from-carbon-credits-speak-out/101400566">said</a> the rules that govern the issuing of carbon credits to some projects were too lax and the market’s integrity should be improved.</p>
<p>The companies operate projects under what are known as “landfill gas methods”. Using these methods, landfill gas companies capture and burn methane generated by decomposing rubbish, turning it into carbon dioxide – a less potent greenhouse gas. In return, they receive carbon credits.</p>
<p>The industry’s decision to speak out is an important development. It shows a significant proportion of the carbon market is willing to work constructively to improve the system.</p>
<p>Australia’s carbon credit system is now being <a href="https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/independent-review-accus">reviewed</a>. The federal government must seize this opportunity to ensure the system performs well for taxpayers and the environment.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="two men seated in masks watch other man speak in parliament" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483649/original/file-20220909-16-5m1arw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483649/original/file-20220909-16-5m1arw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483649/original/file-20220909-16-5m1arw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483649/original/file-20220909-16-5m1arw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483649/original/file-20220909-16-5m1arw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483649/original/file-20220909-16-5m1arw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483649/original/file-20220909-16-5m1arw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has ordered a review of the carbon credit system.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What’s this all about?</h2>
<p>Under the Emissions Reduction Fund, projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are granted carbon credits. These credits can be sold to the federal government or to private entities that are required, or voluntarily choose, to offset their emissions. </p>
<p>The fund, which began operating in 2014, was the centrepiece of the Coalition government’s climate policy and will continue under Labor.</p>
<p>I’m a former chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, the government-appointed body that oversees the fund’s methods. Earlier this year, my colleagues and I went public with details of <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-blew-the-whistle-on-australias-central-climate-policy-heres-what-a-new-federal-government-probe-must-fix-185894">serious integrity issues</a> with the scheme, including landfill gas projects. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-and-contracts-registers/project-register">More than 100</a> landfill projects currently claim carbon credits for destroying landfill gas. They account for <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-and-contracts-registers/project-register">almost 30%</a> of carbon credits issued under the fund.</p>
<p>These projects are registered under four separate methods, including one established late last year for projects that use methane to generate electricity. The concerns about landfill projects centre on this method.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-blew-the-whistle-on-australias-central-climate-policy-heres-what-a-new-federal-government-probe-must-fix-185894">We blew the whistle on Australia's central climate policy. Here's what a new federal government probe must fix</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="pipes collecting methane from site" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Methane can be collected from landfill sites, such as this example in the United States.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What’s wrong with the new method?</h2>
<p>A key principle that underpins the integrity of carbon offset markets around the world is the concept of “additionality”. It means that the carbon abatement for which companies receive credits must be additional to what would have happened otherwise, without the incentive provided by the scheme.</p>
<p>In the case of landfill gas projects, additionality problems arise because most landfills would destroy methane even without the incentive provided by carbon credits. That’s because they’re required to do this under state laws governing air pollution and safety. These legal requirements mean not all carbon abatement at landfills is additional to what would have occurred anyway.</p>
<p>The landfill methods seek to address this issue using something known as a “baseline”, which is a prescribed proportion of the methane combusted at landfill sites. This baseline is deducted when calculating carbon credits. So for example, if a project has a 30% baseline and destroys 100 tonnes of greenhouse gases, it will be credited only for 70 tonnes.</p>
<p>To be conservative, the baseline proportion should at least represent what operators are legally required to destroy. This is made challenging by the fact that the state regulatory conditions are often drafted in imprecise terms. This makes it hard to set baselines that accurately reflect the regulatory requirements. </p>
<p>In 2011-12, when the original landfill gas methods were being devised, the government and industry agreed on a default minimum baseline <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/190430.pdf">of 30%</a>. But most of the biggest landfill gas projects were allowed to use baselines <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/erf_landfill_gas_method_-_an_assessment_of_its_integrity_16_march_2022.pdf">below 30%</a>, and roughly ten projects were given 0% baselines. </p>
<p>This was a product of a deal that allowed operators to use baselines that applied under older offset schemes. </p>
<p>These concessions were meant to expire around now. But the new landfill gas method extended the concessional arrangements, allowing the larger landfill projects to keep using their low baselines for <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022C00231">another five years</a>. </p>
<p>And there’s another problem. </p>
<p>Carbon credits are not the only means through which large landfill sites can profit from destroying methane. Using generators, they can harness the heat from burning methane to produce electricity. They can then sell this electricity, as well as earn and sell <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/Scheme-participants-and-industry/Power-stations/Large-scale-generation-certificates">renewable energy certificates</a>. So even if they don’t receive carbon credits, the sites with generators will often destroy more methane than they are legally required to. </p>
<p>The baselines should account for this fact, but they don’t. They assume that, in the absence of carbon credits, landfills would only ever destroy what they are required to by law. This assumption is not true, particularly at <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/erf_landfill_gas_method_-_an_assessment_of_its_integrity_16_march_2022.pdf">larger landfills</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-central-climate-policy-pays-people-to-grow-trees-that-already-existed-taxpayers-and-the-environment-deserve-better-186900">Australia’s central climate policy pays people to grow trees that already existed. Taxpayers – and the environment – deserve better</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="gas flares from pipe" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483647/original/file-20220909-20-tavou1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483647/original/file-20220909-20-tavou1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483647/original/file-20220909-20-tavou1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483647/original/file-20220909-20-tavou1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483647/original/file-20220909-20-tavou1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483647/original/file-20220909-20-tavou1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483647/original/file-20220909-20-tavou1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Burning methane converts it into carbon dioxide, a less potent greenhouse gas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Way forward</h2>
<p>The Clean Energy Regulator and the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee deny any problems with the new landfill gas method. But the industry’s statements this week have made their position untenable. </p>
<p>John Falzon, chair of LMS Energy, is among those calling for a change to the way credits are calculated. He told the ABC:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If the market doesn’t have integrity it’ll crash, so the business itself will collapse with that […] We would forgo some short-term revenue for the opportunity to participate in a market that is more robust and has more credibility and that provides a future.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The actions taken by the industry have created a unique opportunity to fix the landfill gas method and, in the process, showcase how to put Australia’s carbon credit system back on the rails.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>The Clean Energy Regulator, which oversees Australia’s carbon credit system, provided the following response:</strong></em></p>
<p><em>As has always been our practice, the Clean Energy Regulator welcomes genuine feedback and scrutiny. The independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), led by Professor Ian Chubb, is underway. The landfill gas method is within their terms of reference. The Clean Energy Regulator is actively assisting this review and is currently considering the new information on the method that has been reported in the last few days.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/methane-in-the-atmosphere-is-at-an-all-time-high-heres-what-it-means-for-climate-change-174908">Methane in the atmosphere is at an all-time high – here's what it means for climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190232/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Macintosh is a Director of Paraway Pastoral Co. Ltd, a pastoral company that undertakes projects under the Emissions Reduction Fund. He is also the former chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee.</span></em></p>The landfill industry’s decision to speak out about the integrity of carbon credits provides an opportunity to put the system back on the rails.Andrew Macintosh, Professor and Director of Research, ANU Law School, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1867782022-08-09T20:04:36Z2022-08-09T20:04:36Z‘Unacceptable costs’: savanna burning under Australia’s carbon credit scheme is harming human health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478203/original/file-20220809-20-woohko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C5%2C3860%2C2347&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Savanna burning projects in northern Australia provide <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721006307?via%3Dihub">economic benefits</a> to Indigenous communities and claim to <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/120251">reduce</a> greenhouse gas emissions. But our research suggests smoke from these projects is harming human health.</p>
<p>Northern Australia’s savannas cover <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/gcb.12686">about 25%</a> of Australia’s land mass. They’re among the most flammable regions in the world and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-best-fire-management-system-is-in-northern-australia-and-its-led-by-indigenous-land-managers-133071">comprise 70%</a> of Australia’s fire-affected area each year.</p>
<p>Savanna fire management involves strategically burning grasslands early in the dry season, purportedly to reduce the chance of large, intense, more carbon-intensive fires later in the season. Under Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund, land managers who undertake savanna burning receive financial rewards in the form of carbon credits.</p>
<p>But our research, focused on Darwin, has <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-022-01745-9">shown</a> savanna burning under the fund is making air pollution worse. A <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/29/chris-bowen-to-announce-review-of-carbon-credits-system-after-expert-labelled-it-a">review</a> of the fund now underway must consider these unacceptable costs to human health.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="aerial view of Darwin showing apartment buildings, trees and roads" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478197/original/file-20220809-26-8q92iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478197/original/file-20220809-26-8q92iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478197/original/file-20220809-26-8q92iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478197/original/file-20220809-26-8q92iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478197/original/file-20220809-26-8q92iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478197/original/file-20220809-26-8q92iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478197/original/file-20220809-26-8q92iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The research focused on air pollution in Darwin.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The Top End’s smoke problem</h2>
<p>Savanna fire management is currently a topic of substantial global interest – much of it stemming from its potential to reduce carbon emissions. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Pages/Choosing%20a%20project%20type/Opportunities%20for%20the%20land%20sector/Savanna%20burning%20methods/Savanna-fire-management-emissions-avoidance.aspx">underlying premise</a> is that early dry season burning releases fewer emissions than late dry season burning. This is because the fuel is moister and weather conditions milder — hence fires will be less extensive, less fuel will combust and less carbon will be released.</p>
<p>In Australia, savanna burning programs for carbon abatement were developed in the mid-2000s and integrated into the carbon market. Land managers are offered financial incentives to burn large amounts of savanna before the end of <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Pages/Choosing%20a%20project%20type/Opportunities%20for%20the%20land%20sector/Savanna%20burning%20methods/Savanna-fire-management-emissions-avoidance.aspx">July</a> each year. </p>
<p>The scheme has proved popular: registered projects now cover some <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721006307?via%3Dihub">25%</a> of Australia’s 1.2 million km² tropical savannas, including <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-022-01745-9">55%</a> of land within 500km of Darwin. </p>
<p>Australia now touts itself as a <a href="https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/emissions-reduction-fund-delivers-100-million-carbon-credits">world leader</a> in savanna burning. We are sharing the practice with other regions around the world, and savanna burning programs linked to carbon markets have been proposed <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04687-7">elsewhere</a>. </p>
<p>Yet the smoke pollution consequences of such programs are rarely considered. In Australia’s Top End, for example, thick and prolonged smoke blankets communities every dry season. Darwin, a city of 158,000 people, regularly <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512030918X#mmc1">exceeds</a> the Australian air quality standard for particulate matter. </p>
<p>In Darwin, smoky days bring more hospital admissions for <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10653-012-9489-4">lung and heart disease</a>, and more emergency department presentations <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2002/176/11/exposure-bushfire-smoke-and-asthma-ecological-study">for asthma</a>. These impacts <a href="https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-7-42">disproportionately</a> affect Indigenous people. </p>
<p>Almost all Darwin’s particulate pollution is caused by landscape fires. In the early dry season, almost all of this is generated by prescribed burning - and there’s been a marked increase in burning in recent years linked to carbon abatement schemes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-blew-the-whistle-on-australias-central-climate-policy-heres-what-a-new-federal-government-probe-must-fix-185894">We blew the whistle on Australia's central climate policy. Here's what a new federal government probe must fix</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="sky filled with black smoke above grass and flames" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478183/original/file-20220809-20-bohate.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478183/original/file-20220809-20-bohate.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478183/original/file-20220809-20-bohate.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478183/original/file-20220809-20-bohate.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478183/original/file-20220809-20-bohate.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478183/original/file-20220809-20-bohate.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478183/original/file-20220809-20-bohate.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Almost all Darwin’s particulate pollution is caused by landscape fires.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dean Lewins/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What our research found</h2>
<p>Our research considered the relationship between prescribed burning and smoke pollution in Darwin from 2004 to 2019.</p>
<p>We first assessed the very small particles found in smoke known as PM2.5. We then analysed fire activity within a 500km radius, and assessed the links between pollution, weather and fire.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-022-01745-9">results showed</a> air quality worsened in Darwin in the early dry season (particularly in June and July), with an increase in the annual number of severely polluted days. </p>
<p>Perhaps surprisingly, air quality did not change substantially in other seasons. In other words, shifting savanna burning to the early dry season did not appear to lead to better air quality later in the season.</p>
<p>Our findings highlight a complex story. Despite a substantial expansion of savanna burning for carbon abatement over our study period, net annual PM2.5 concentrations in Darwin did not decline. In fact, there was an increase in the number of times the national air quality standard was exceeded.</p>
<p>So what’s driving these results? One important factor involves large areas of savanna burned for carbon abatement to the southeast of Darwin in the early dry season. At that time of year, a steady south-easterly trade wind hits Darwin, bringing much of the smoke from these fires with it.</p>
<p>Fuel dynamics may also be at play. Native and non-native grasses which are highly flammable in the early dry season have been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242569/">expanding</a> on frequently burned savannas. Higher temperatures may be drying fuel out earlier in the dry season. These factors may make early dry season fires as extensive and intense as savannas burnt later in the season. </p>
<p>Our research comes with caveats. For example, we drew only broad inferences about the geographic sources of smoke over Darwin. Notwithstanding this, our results clearly demonstrate Darwin’s already significant air quality problem is worsening, rather than improving, in association with increased early dry season burning. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/air-pollution-causes-more-than-3-million-premature-deaths-a-year-worldwide-47639">Air pollution causes more than 3 million premature deaths a year worldwide</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="people sit and walk through leafy shopping street" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478198/original/file-20220809-18-n1hbii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478198/original/file-20220809-18-n1hbii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478198/original/file-20220809-18-n1hbii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478198/original/file-20220809-18-n1hbii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478198/original/file-20220809-18-n1hbii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478198/original/file-20220809-18-n1hbii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478198/original/file-20220809-18-n1hbii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Darwin’s already significant air quality problem is worsening, rather than improving.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A balancing act</h2>
<p>None of this means savanna burning should cease, nor that traditional owners should not be paid to manage fire on country. But it does mean policies should be designed so unintended harm is minimised and the benefits are maximised. </p>
<p>Policymakers must consider how to regulate burning to avoid smoke pollution exposure. In Darwin, particular attention may be needed in locations southeast of the city. One solution may be to regulate how much smoke can be released in a specific area on a given day.</p>
<p>Other factors should be considered too. For example, savanna burning in Australia <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35641570/">may</a> risk <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12685">harming biodiversity</a>. </p>
<p>But the Emissions Reduction Fund is a blunt tool which doesn’t consider these hidden costs and <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/WF19031">other</a> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14460">nuances</a>.</p>
<p>The new Labor government has ordered an independent review of the fund. For this review to fulfil <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/30/former-australian-chief-scientist-to-head-review-of-carbon-credit-scheme-after-whistleblower-revelations">its brief</a>, all unintended harms must be taken into account. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-central-climate-policy-pays-people-to-grow-trees-that-already-existed-taxpayers-and-the-environment-deserve-better-186900">Australia’s central climate policy pays people to grow trees that already existed. Taxpayers – and the environment – deserve better</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Penelope Jones receives funding from the Northern Territory Department of Health and has previously received funding from the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority. She also receives funding from ACT Health, the Tasmanian Department of Health, and the Commonwealth Department of Home Affairs, Asthma Australia and the Tasmanian Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Program. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bowman has received funding to study fire ecology and management from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub, Bushfire and Natural Hazard CRC, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fay Johnston receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the National Environment Science Program, the Health Departments of the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania, and the Tasmania Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Program.</span></em></p>Savanna grasslands are burnt early in the dry season to reduce the chance of large fires later. But it’s making air pollution worse.Penelope Jones, Research Fellow in Environmental Health, University of TasmaniaDavid Bowman, Professor of Pyrogeography and Fire Science, University of TasmaniaFay Johnston, Professor, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1869002022-07-14T20:03:25Z2022-07-14T20:03:25ZAustralia’s central climate policy pays people to grow trees that already existed. Taxpayers – and the environment – deserve better<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474020/original/file-20220714-9155-8zz34h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=39%2C0%2C5179%2C2933&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government has launched an <a href="https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/independent-review-accus">independent review</a> of Australia’s central climate policy, the Emissions Reduction Fund, <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/news-and-events/news/australia%E2%80%99s-carbon-market-fraud-environment">after we</a> and others raised serious concerns about its integrity.</p>
<p>The review will examine, among other issues, whether several ways of earning credits under the scheme lead to genuine emissions reductions.</p>
<p>One method singled out for scrutiny involves regrowing native forests to store carbon from the atmosphere. </p>
<p><a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/research/publications">Our new analysis</a> suggests the vast majority of carbon storage credited under this method either has not occurred, or would have occurred anyway. Here we explain why.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="man in suit speaks in front of flags" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474022/original/file-20220714-8948-wv4538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474022/original/file-20220714-8948-wv4538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474022/original/file-20220714-8948-wv4538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474022/original/file-20220714-8948-wv4538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474022/original/file-20220714-8948-wv4538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474022/original/file-20220714-8948-wv4538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474022/original/file-20220714-8948-wv4538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen has announced a review of the Emissions Reduction Fund.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steven Saphore/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The background</h2>
<p>The Emissions Reduction Fund provides carbon credits to projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For the past decade, it has been the centrepiece of Australia’s climate policy.</p>
<p>Under the fund, projects that reduce emissions receive carbon credits that can be sold to the federal government and private entities that are required, or choose to, offset their emissions.</p>
<p>We are experts in environmental law, markets and policy. The lead author of this article, Andrew Macintosh, is the former chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, the government-appointed watchdog that oversees the Emissions Reduction Fund’s methods.</p>
<p>Earlier this year, we went public with details of serious integrity issues in the scheme. One main concern involves <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Choosing-a-project-type/Opportunities-for-the-land-sector/Vegetation-methods/Human-Induced%20regeneration%20of%20a%20permanent%20even-aged%20native%20forest">a method</a> known as “human-induced regeneration of a permanent even-aged native forest”. </p>
<p>This method <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-and-contracts-registers/project-register">accounts for</a> almost 30% of the carbon credits that have been issued, roughly 30% of registered projects, and <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-and-contracts-registers/carbon-abatement-contract-register">more than 50%</a> of carbon credits contracted for sale to the federal government.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-blew-the-whistle-on-australias-central-climate-policy-heres-what-a-new-federal-government-probe-must-fix-185894">We blew the whistle on Australia's central climate policy. Here's what a new federal government probe must fix</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="steam flows from chimney" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474023/original/file-20220714-17585-ron91w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474023/original/file-20220714-17585-ron91w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474023/original/file-20220714-17585-ron91w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474023/original/file-20220714-17585-ron91w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474023/original/file-20220714-17585-ron91w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474023/original/file-20220714-17585-ron91w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474023/original/file-20220714-17585-ron91w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Companies can offset emissions by buying carbon credits under the scheme.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Problems with the method</h2>
<p>Under the method, landholders get credits for regenerating native forests by changing the way they manage their properties.</p>
<p>When the method was created, it was assumed projects would be located in areas where vegetation had previously been cleared, and where grazing and repeated clearing were suppressing regrowth. </p>
<p>But most projects have been located in parts of Australia’s arid and semi-arid <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/farm-food-drought/natural-resources/vegetation/rangelands">rangelands</a> where native vegetation has never been cleared (because it is not economic to do so). </p>
<p>There are two main problems with the method and how it’s been applied. We outline these below.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-white-colonisation-of-the-atmosphere-its-time-to-tackle-this-entrenched-racism-185579">Climate change is white colonisation of the atmosphere. It's time to tackle this entrenched racism</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Map of Australia showing locations of human-induced regeneration projects." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474054/original/file-20220714-20-6llaip.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474054/original/file-20220714-20-6llaip.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474054/original/file-20220714-20-6llaip.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474054/original/file-20220714-20-6llaip.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474054/original/file-20220714-20-6llaip.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474054/original/file-20220714-20-6llaip.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474054/original/file-20220714-20-6llaip.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clean Energy Regulator map showing locations of human-induced regeneration projects. Google satellite image, accessed 20th May 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/erf_project_mapping">https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/erf_project_mapping</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Problem 1: trees existed before projects began</h2>
<p>First, <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/DocumentAssets/Documents/Human%20induced%20regeneration%20-%20A%20spatiotemporal%20study%20Peer%20Reviewed.pdf">data published by the regulator</a> shows proponents have been allowed to include a substantial number of mature trees in the areas for which they receive carbon credits. This has led to substantial over-crediting – in simple terms, the carbon abatement is not real.</p>
<p>So how has this occurred?</p>
<p>Under the method, proponents do not have to measure tree growth - they estimate it using a model. </p>
<p>The model assumes all trees in the forest begin regenerating at the same time when the project activities start. The modelled tree growth starts slowly, then accelerates to peak when the forest is young and vigorous. It then slows as the expanding trees compete with each other. </p>
<p>The model cannot be validly applied to estimate tree growth in areas where substantial numbers of pre-existing mature trees exist. But this is what’s <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/short_-_hir_measurement_july_2022_final.pdf">happening</a>. </p>
<p>As a consequence, proponents are being issued credits for growing trees that were already there when the projects started. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="fence and field with trees in background" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474024/original/file-20220714-9184-84qrxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474024/original/file-20220714-9184-84qrxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474024/original/file-20220714-9184-84qrxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474024/original/file-20220714-9184-84qrxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474024/original/file-20220714-9184-84qrxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474024/original/file-20220714-9184-84qrxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474024/original/file-20220714-9184-84qrxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Proponents measure tree growth using a model.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Problem 2: rain, not the project activities, is making trees grow</h2>
<p>The method is based on the premise that changes in land management are necessary to regenerate the forests. But our <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/short_-_hir_additionality_july_2022_final.pdf">analysis</a> shows that, where trees are regenerating, it is due mainly to rainfall.</p>
<p>Almost all current projects seek to regenerate forests by reducing grazing pressure. For this to make sense, grazing would need to be responsible for dramatically reducing the prevalence of trees in the rangelands. It would also have to be possible to regenerate these “lost” forests by reducing grazing pressure. Neither of these are true. </p>
<p>For more than 30 years, there has been a heated debate in ecological and natural resource management circles about the causes of “woody thickening” (or increasing density of native trees and shrubs) in grazing areas. The two dominant, competing hypothesis are that woody thickening is:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>caused by grazing and an accompanying reduction in vegetation burning </p></li>
<li><p>a cyclical phenomena in which vegetation slowly accumulates over time, especially following runs of <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/11-1123.1">wet years</a>, until a drought causes woody plant cover to stabilise or decline. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>There’s no material evidence or support for the notion that grazing alone (in the absence of clearing) has significantly reduced tree cover over vast areas of the rangelands. </p>
<p>In fact, every year, between <a href="https://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/QueryAppendixTable.aspx">200,000 and 400,000 hectares</a> of land cleared for grazing is re-cleared. This demonstrates that grazing is rarely sufficient on its own to stop regrowth without mechanical or chemical interventions to kill trees. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-more-excuses-restoring-nature-is-not-a-silver-bullet-for-global-warming-we-must-cut-emissions-outright-186048">No more excuses: restoring nature is not a silver bullet for global warming, we must cut emissions outright</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="rain in puddle with trees in background" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474027/original/file-20220714-24-ab6s6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474027/original/file-20220714-24-ab6s6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474027/original/file-20220714-24-ab6s6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474027/original/file-20220714-24-ab6s6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474027/original/file-20220714-24-ab6s6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474027/original/file-20220714-24-ab6s6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474027/original/file-20220714-24-ab6s6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Evidence strongly suggests woody vegetation in the rangelands fluctuates according to rain cycles.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan Porritt/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Restoring integrity</h2>
<p>Regeneration of native forests in cleared areas is a valid and desirable way to reduce emissions and generate carbon credits. </p>
<p>But the human-induced regeneration method is deeply flawed. It has led to credits being issued for tree growth that is not real, or would have occurred anyway.</p>
<p>The review, to be led by former chief scientist Ian Chubb, is a chance to restore integrity to this method and ensure that credits are only issued for legitimate regeneration projects. </p>
<p>Because as climate change worsens, Australians need to know our most important climate policy is both value for money, and delivering real environmental gains. </p>
<p><strong>The Clean Energy Regulator, which operates the Emissions Reduction Fund, did not respond to The Conversation’s request for comment on the authors’ claims. However in a previous statement it said:</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Prof Macintosh and his colleagues have not engaged with the substance of the ERAC’s comprehensive response papers on human induced regeneration … The government has said it will undertake a review of the ERF and details will be announced shortly. We do not wish to pre-empt the scope of the review or its findings. We welcome the review and look forward to engaging substantively with the review process once it commences.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186900/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Macintosh is a Director of Paraway Pastoral Co. Ltd, a pastoral company that undertakes projects under the Emissions Reduction Fund. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Don Butler receives funding from the federal Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. He also works with the Queensland Department of Environment and Science as a science advisor for natural capital programs.. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan C Evans receives funding from the Australian Research Council through a Discovery Early Career Research Award and has previously been funded by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, WWF Australia, and the National Environmental Science Program's Threatened Species Recovery Hub.</span></em></p>Our new analysis suggests the vast majority of carbon credits granted for regrowing native forests either has not occurred, or would have occurred anyway.Andrew Macintosh, Professor and Director of Research, ANU Law School, Australian National UniversityDon Butler, Professor, Australian National UniversityMegan C Evans, Senior Lecturer and ARC DECRA Fellow, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1858942022-06-30T19:49:27Z2022-06-30T19:49:27ZWe blew the whistle on Australia’s central climate policy. Here’s what a new federal government probe must fix<p>Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen is today <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/29/chris-bowen-to-announce-review-of-carbon-credits-system-after-expert-labelled-it-a">expected</a> to announce a much anticipated review of Australia’s carbon credit scheme, known as the Emissions Reduction Fund.</p>
<p>In March, we <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/research/publications">exposed</a> serious integrity issues with the scheme, labelling it a fraud on taxpayers and the environment. We welcome the federal government’s review. Labor has promised a 43% cut in Australia’s emissions by 2030, and a high-integrity carbon credit market is vital to reaching this goal.</p>
<p>The fund was established by the Abbott government in 2014 and is now worth A$4.5 billion. It provides carbon credits to projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For the past decade, it has been the centrepiece of Australia’s climate policy. </p>
<p>In this and subsequent articles, we seek to simplify the issues for the Australian public, the new parliament and whoever is appointed to review the Emissions Reduction Fund.</p>
<h2>The background</h2>
<p>We are experts in environmental law, markets and policy. The lead author of this article, Andrew Macintosh, is the former chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee (ERAC), the government-appointed watchdog that oversees the Emissions Reduction Fund’s methods. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/research/publications">analysis</a> suggests up to 80% of credits issued under three of the fund’s most popular emissions reduction methods do not represent genuine emissions cuts that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.</p>
<p>Our decision to call the scheme a “fraud” was deliberate and considered. In our view, a process that systematically pays for a service that’s not actually provided is fraudulent. </p>
<p>The Clean Energy Regulator (which administers the fund) and the current ERAC reviewed our claims and, earlier this month, <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/About/Pages/News%20and%20updates/NewsItem.aspx?ListId=19b4efbb-6f5d-4637-94c4-121c1f96fcfe&ItemId=1114">dismissed</a> them. We have <a href="https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/response-to-emissions-reduction-assurance-committee">expressed</a> serious concerns with that review process, which we believe was not transparent and showed a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues. </p>
<p>This week, Bowen <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/29/chris-bowen-to-announce-review-of-carbon-credits-system-after-expert-labelled-it-a">said</a> our concerns were “substantial and real” and he took them “very seriously”.</p>
<p>The Conversation contacted the Clean Energy Regulator regarding the authors’ claims. The regulator pointed to its “comprehensive response” to the issues raised and also rejected allegations of fraud. The full statement is included at the end of this article.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="man in suit talking at lectern" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471785/original/file-20220630-11-dvkid7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471785/original/file-20220630-11-dvkid7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471785/original/file-20220630-11-dvkid7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471785/original/file-20220630-11-dvkid7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471785/original/file-20220630-11-dvkid7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471785/original/file-20220630-11-dvkid7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471785/original/file-20220630-11-dvkid7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said the authors’ concerns were ‘substantial and real’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bianca Di Marchi/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The 3 biggest problems</h2>
<p>Under the fund, projects that reduce emissions are rewarded with carbon credits. These credits can be sold on the carbon market to entities that want to offset their emissions. Each credit is supposed to represent one tonne of carbon abatement.</p>
<p>Buyers include the federal government (using taxpayer funds) and private entities that are required to, or voluntarily choose to, offset their emissions.</p>
<p>Under the scheme, a range of methods lay out the rules for emissions abatement activities. <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/serious-questions-over-whether-australia-s-emissions-cuts-are-real-20180710-p4zqln.html">Concerns</a> have been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/22/one-in-five-carbon-credits-under-australias-main-climate-policy-are-junk-cuts-research-finds">raised</a> about these methods for years. </p>
<p>Our initial criticism focuses on the scheme’s most popular methods, which account for about 75% of carbon credits issued:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong><a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/csf/how-it-works/explore-project-types/Pages/human-induced-regeneration-projects.aspx">human-induced regeneration</a>:</strong> projects supposed to regenerate native forests through changes in land management practices, particularly reduced grazing by livestock and feral animals</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Choosing-a-project-type/Opportunities-for-the-land-sector/Vegetation-methods/Native-forest-protection-(avoided-deforestation)">avoided deforestation</a>:</strong> projects supposed to protect native forests in western New South Wales that would otherwise be cleared</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Choosing-a-project-type/Opportunities-for-industry/landfill-and-alternative-waste-treatment-methods/Capture-and-combustion-of-landfill-gas">landfill gas</a>:</strong> projects supposed to capture and destroy methane emitted from solid waste landfills using a flare or electricity generator.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Our <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/research/publications">analysis</a> found credits have been issued for emissions reductions that were not real or additional, such as:</p>
<ul>
<li>protecting forests that were never going to be cleared</li>
<li>growing trees that were already there</li>
<li>growing forests in places that will never sustain them permanently</li>
<li>large landfills operating electricity generators that would have operated anyway.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-emissions-reduction-fund-is-almost-empty-it-shouldnt-be-refilled-92283">Australia's Emissions Reduction Fund is almost empty. It shouldn't be refilled</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="farm scene with trees and crops" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some credits were issued for growing trees that already existed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In forthcoming articles, we will detail the problems with these methods.</p>
<p>However, at a high level, the issues have arisen because the scheme has focused on maximising the number of carbon credits issued, to put downward pressure on carbon credit prices. This has resulted in attempts to use carbon offsets in inappropriate situations. </p>
<h2>A tricky policy lever</h2>
<p>Designing high integrity methods for calculating carbon credits is hard because it involves:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>trying to determine what would happen in the absence of the incentive provided by the carbon credit. For example, would a farmer have cleared a paddock of trees if they weren’t given carbon credits to retain it?</p></li>
<li><p>activities where it’s not always clear if carbon abatement was the result of human activity or natural variability. For instance, soil carbon levels can be increased by changing land management practices, but can also happen naturally due to rainfall</p></li>
<li><p>activities where it can be hard to measure the emissions outcome. For example, carbon sequestration in vegetation is often measured using models that can be inaccurate when applied at the project scale</p></li>
<li><p>dynamic carbon markets with fast-evolving technologies.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>These complexities mean mistakes are inevitable; no functional carbon offset scheme can ever get it 100% right. A degree of error must be accepted.</p>
<p>But decisions regarding risk tolerance must consider the consequences of issuing low-integrity credits, including contributing to worsening climate change. </p>
<h2>The dangers of sham credits</h2>
<p>The safeguard mechanism places caps on the emissions of major polluters and was <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-mr-morrison-the-safeguard-mechanism-is-not-a-sneaky-carbon-tax-182054">originally intended</a> to protect gains achieved through the Emissions Reduction Fund. It applies to about 200 large industrial polluters and requires them to buy carbon credits if their emissions exceed these caps. </p>
<p>When carbon credits used by polluters do not represent real and additional abatement, Australia’s emissions will be higher than they otherwise would be.</p>
<p>To avoid such risks, the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00281">legislation</a> governing the Emissions Reduction Fund requires the methods to be “conservative” and supported by “clear and convincing evidence”. </p>
<p>The fund’s main methods do not meet these standards.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-mr-morrison-the-safeguard-mechanism-is-not-a-sneaky-carbon-tax-182054">No, Mr Morrison – the safeguard mechanism is not a 'sneaky carbon tax'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Graphic showing one tonne of CO2 = 1 carbon credit" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471789/original/file-20220630-22-yytsyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471789/original/file-20220630-22-yytsyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471789/original/file-20220630-22-yytsyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471789/original/file-20220630-22-yytsyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471789/original/file-20220630-22-yytsyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471789/original/file-20220630-22-yytsyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471789/original/file-20220630-22-yytsyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Accurately calculating carbon credits is not as simple as it may appear.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>An open and transparent process</h2>
<p>Carbon credit schemes are, by nature, complex and involve a high risk of error. To maintain integrity, systems to promote transparency are needed. </p>
<p>This includes requiring administrators to not just expect, but actively seek out errors and move quickly to correct them. </p>
<p>To this end, rules are needed to:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>force the disclosure of information by the Clean Energy Regulator and ERAC</p></li>
<li><p>guarantee disinterested third parties the right to be involved in rule-making</p></li>
<li><p>give anybody the right to seek judicial review of decisions made by the Clean Energy Regulator and ERAC</p></li>
<li><p>require proponents to move off methods found to contain material errors.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The Emissions Reduction Fund has none of these features and needs urgent reform.</p>
<p>We hope the federal government review will be comprehensive and independent, with the power to compel people to give evidence. Because Australians deserve assurance that our national climate policy operates with the utmost integrity.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/us-scheme-used-by-australian-farmers-reveals-the-dangers-of-trading-soil-carbon-to-tackle-climate-change-161358">US scheme used by Australian farmers reveals the dangers of trading soil carbon to tackle climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong><em>The Clean Energy Regulator provided the following statement in response to this article.</em></strong></p>
<p><em>The comments made regarding the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) repeat generalised claims that ‘fraud’ is occurring and are rejected. No substantial evidence for claims of fraud has ever been provided. These are serious allegations and the CER is dismayed at the statement that attributes these alleged outcomes to the work done by the CER. We understand that ERAC has the same view.</em></p>
<p><em>The claims about lack of additionality and over-crediting are also not new. Prof Macintosh and his colleagues have not engaged with the substance of the ERAC’s comprehensive response papers on human induced regeneration and landfill gas and the CER’s response to the claims on avoided deforestation.</em></p>
<p><em>The government has said it will undertake a review of the ERF and details will be announced shortly. We do not wish to pre-empt the scope of the review or its findings. We welcome the review and look forward to engaging substantively with the review process once it commences.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185894/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Macintosh receives funding from the federal Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. He is also a Director of Paraway Pastoral Company Ltd, which has projects registered under the Emissions Reduction Fund.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Don Butler receives funding from the federal Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. He also works with the Queensland Department of Environment and Science as a science advisor for natural capital programs. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan C Evans receives funding from the Australian Research Council through a Discovery Early Career Research Award and has previously been funded by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, WWF Australia, and the National Environmental Science Program's Threatened Species Recovery Hub. </span></em></p>Labor has promised a 43% cut in Australia’s emissions by 2030 and a high-integrity carbon credit market is vital to reaching this goal.Andrew Macintosh, Professor and Director of Research, ANU Law School, Australian National UniversityDon Butler, Professor, Australian National UniversityMegan C Evans, Senior Lecturer and ARC DECRA Fellow, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1684742021-09-26T11:00:59Z2021-09-26T11:00:59ZThe clock is ticking on net-zero, farmers must not get a free pass<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423067/original/file-20210924-17-145afmf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C16%2C5469%2C3549&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Peled/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Political momentum is growing in Australia to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050. On Friday, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg was the latest member of the federal government to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/24/josh-frydenberg-to-make-case-for-net-zero-saying-australia-cant-risk-being-seen-as-a-climate-change-pariah">throw his weight</a> behind the goal, and over the weekend, Prime Minister Scott Morrison <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/25/scott-morrison-says-australia-really-good-at-digging-stuff-up-while-announcing-clean-energy-summit">acknowledged</a> “the world is transitioning to a new energy economy”.</p>
<p>But for Australia to achieve net-zero across the economy, emissions from agriculture must fall dramatically. Agriculture contributed about 15% to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 – most of it from cattle and sheep. If herd numbers recover from the recent drought, the sector’s emissions are projected to rise.</p>
<p>Cutting agriculture emissions will not be easy. The difficulties have <a href="https://theconversation.com/agitated-nationals-grapple-with-climate-debate-as-former-minister-chester-takes-a-break-from-party-room-168736">reportedly</a> triggered concern in the Nationals’ about the cost of the transition for farmers, including calls for agriculture to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/nationals-push-to-carve-farming-from-a-net-zero-target-is-misguided-and-dangerous-154822">carved out</a> of any net-zero target.</p>
<p>But as our new Grattan Institute <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/towards-net-zero-practical-policies-to-reduce-agricultural-emissions/">report</a> today makes clear, agriculture must not be granted this exemption. Instead, the federal government should do more to encourage farmers to adopt low-emissions technologies and practices – some of which can be deployed now.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nationals-push-to-carve-farming-from-a-net-zero-target-is-misguided-and-dangerous-154822">Nationals' push to carve farming from a net-zero target is misguided and dangerous</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="four people walk through dusty farm" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423068/original/file-20210924-22-1wf97es.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423068/original/file-20210924-22-1wf97es.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423068/original/file-20210924-22-1wf97es.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423068/original/file-20210924-22-1wf97es.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423068/original/file-20210924-22-1wf97es.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423068/original/file-20210924-22-1wf97es.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423068/original/file-20210924-22-1wf97es.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Morrison government must do more to help farmers get on the path to net-zero.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alex Ellinghausen AAP/Fairfax Media pool</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Three good reasons farmers must go net-zero</h2>
<p>Many farmers want to be part of the climate solution – and must be – for three main reasons. </p>
<p>First, the agriculture sector is uniquely vulnerable to a changing climate. Already, changes in rainfall have <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/products/insights/climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation#recent-changes-in-seasonal-conditions-have-affected-the-profitability-of-australian-farms">cut profits</a> across the sector by 23% compared to what could have been achieved in pre-2000 conditions. The effect is even worse for cropping farmers.</p>
<p>Livestock farmers face risks, too. If global warming reaches 3°C, livestock in northern Australia are expected to suffer heat stress <a href="https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/reports-and-publications/risks-australia-three-degrees-c-warmer-world">almost daily</a>. </p>
<p>Second, parts of the sector are highly exposed to international markets – for example, about <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/products/insights/snapshot-of-australian-agriculture-2021#around-70-of-agricultural-output-is-exported">three-quarters</a> of Australia’s red meat is exported. </p>
<p>There are fears Australian producers may <a href="https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/7112772/trade-partners-may-tax-aussie-ag-exports-if-no-carbon-neutral-target-is-set/">face a border tax</a> in some markets if they don’t cut emissions.
The European Union, for instance, plans to introduce tariffs <a href="https://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Reports/2021/Carbon_Border_Adjustments_Policy_Paper.pdf">as early as 2023</a> on some products from countries without effective carbon pricing, though agriculture will not be included initially.</p>
<p>Third, the industry recognises action on climate change can often <a href="https://farmersforclimateaction.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FCA-EY-FINAL-Report-Low-emissions-future-for-Agriculture.pdf">boost farm productivity</a>, or help farmers secure <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/natural-resources/landcare/sustaining-future-australian-farming/carbon-biodiversity-pilot">resilient revenue streams</a>. For example, trees provide shade for animals, while good soil management can preserve the land’s fertility. Both activities can store carbon and may generate carbon credits.</p>
<p>Carbon credits can be used to offset farm emissions, or sold to other emitters. In a net-zero future, farmers can maximise their carbon credit revenue by minimising their own emissions, leaving them more carbon credits to sell. </p>
<p>The agriculture sector itself is increasingly embracing the net-zero goal. The National Farmers Federation <a href="https://nff.org.au/key-issue/climate-change/">supports</a> an economy-wide aspiration to be net-zero by 2050, with some conditions. The <a href="http://rmac.com.au/red-meat-2030/">red meat</a> and <a href="https://australianpork.com.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/APL-Strategic-Plan-2020-2025.pdf#page=8">pork</a> industries have gone further, committing to be carbon neutral by 2030 and 2025 respectively. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/land-of-opportunity-more-sustainable-australian-farming-would-protect-our-lucrative-exports-and-the-planet-166177">Land of opportunity: more sustainable Australian farming would protect our lucrative exports (and the planet)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="hand presses soil" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423070/original/file-20210924-25-lncfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423070/original/file-20210924-25-lncfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423070/original/file-20210924-25-lncfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423070/original/file-20210924-25-lncfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423070/original/file-20210924-25-lncfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423070/original/file-20210924-25-lncfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423070/original/file-20210924-25-lncfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Good soil management aids a farm’s fertility.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
<p>Australian agricultural activities emitted about 76 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions in 2019. Of this, about <a href="https://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/UNFCCC.aspx">48 million tonnes were methane belched by cattle and sheep</a>, and a further 11 million came from their excrement.</p>
<p>The sector’s non-animal emissions largely came from burning diesel, the use of fertiliser, and the breakdown of leftover plant material from cropping.</p>
<p>Unlike in, say, the electricity sector, it’s <a href="https://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/196523/report-farms-forests-and-fossil-fuels.pdf">not possible</a> to completely eliminate agricultural emissions, and deep emissions cuts look difficult in the near term. That’s because methane produced in the stomachs of cattle and sheep represents more than 60% of agricultural emissions; these cannot be captured, or eliminated through renewable energy technology.</p>
<p>Supplements added to stock feed - which reduce the amount of methane the animal produces - are the most promising options to reduce agricultural emissions. These supplements include <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/4/951/htm">red algae</a> and the chemical <a href="https://www.mla.com.au/news-and-events/industry-news/the-feed-additive-reducing-methane-emissions-by-up-to-90/">3-nitrooxypropanol</a>, both of which may cut methane by up to 90% if used consistently at the right dose. </p>
<p>But it’s difficult to distribute these feed supplements to Australian grazing cattle and sheep every day. At any given time, <a href="https://www.feedlots.com.au/faq">only about 4%</a> of Australia’s cattle are in feedlots where their diet can be easily controlled. </p>
<p>Diesel use can be reduced by electrifying farm machinery, but electric models are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262100250X">not yet widely available</a> or affordable for all purposes. </p>
<p>These challenges slow the realistic rate at which the sector can cut emissions. Yet there are things that can be done today. </p>
<p>Many manure emissions can be avoided through smarter management. For example, on intensive livestock farms, manure is often stored in ponds where it releases methane. This methane can be <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Pages/Choosing%20a%20project%20type/Opportunities%20for%20the%20land%20sector/Agricultural%20methods/Animal-effluent-management-method.aspx">captured and burnt</a>, emitting the weaker greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, instead. </p>
<p>And better targeted fertiliser use is <a href="https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/reducing-nitrous-oxide-emissions-agricultural-soils-western-australia">a clear win-win</a> – it would save farmers money and reduce emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="sheep in lots" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423071/original/file-20210924-21-1wevd8d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423071/original/file-20210924-21-1wevd8d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423071/original/file-20210924-21-1wevd8d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423071/original/file-20210924-21-1wevd8d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423071/original/file-20210924-21-1wevd8d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423071/original/file-20210924-21-1wevd8d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423071/original/file-20210924-21-1wevd8d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Supplements added to stock feed are a promising way to cut emissions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dean Lewins/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Governments must walk and chew gum</h2>
<p>An economy-wide carbon price would be the best way for Australia to reduce emissions in an economically efficient manner. But the political reality is that carbon pricing is out of reach, at least for now. So Australia should pursue sector-specific policies – including in agriculture.</p>
<p>Governments must walk and chew gum. That means introducing policies to support emissions-reducing actions that farmers can take today, while investing alongside the industry in potential high-impact solutions for the longer term.</p>
<p>Accelerating near-term action will require improving the federal government’s <a href="https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/ERF%20Review%20Final%20Report%2020201009_2.pdf">Emissions Reduction Fund</a>, to help more farmers generate Australian carbon credit units. It will also require more investment in outreach programs to give farmers the knowledge they need to reduce emissions.</p>
<p>Improving the long-term emissions outlook for the agriculture sector requires investment in high-impact research, development and deployment. Bringing down the cost of new technologies is possible with deployment at scale: all governments should consider what combination of subsidies, penalties and regulations will best <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/net-zero-target-requires-three-legged-stool-of-action-20210423-p57luv">drive this</a>.</p>
<p>Agriculture must not become the missing piece in Australia’s net-zero puzzle. Without action today, the sector may become Australia’s largest source of emissions in coming decades. This would require hugely expensive carbon offsetting - paid for by taxpayers, consumers and farmers themselves.
</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/agitated-nationals-grapple-with-climate-debate-as-former-minister-chester-takes-a-break-from-party-room-168736">Agitated Nationals grapple with climate debate, as former minister Chester takes 'a break' from party room</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168474/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p>Some Nationals want agriculture carved out of any net-zero target. Cutting emissions from farms won’t be easy, but it’s essential.James Ha, Associate, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1613582021-06-24T20:12:17Z2021-06-24T20:12:17ZUS scheme used by Australian farmers reveals the dangers of trading soil carbon to tackle climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407840/original/file-20210623-27-13co042.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5607%2C3732&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Soil carbon is in the spotlight in Australia. A key plank in the Morrison government’s <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/September%202020/document/first-low-emissions-technology-statement-2020.pdf">technology-led</a> emissions reduction policy, it involves changing farming techniques so soils store more carbon from the atmosphere.</p>
<p>Farmers can encourage and accelerate this process through methods that increase plant production, such as improving nutrient management or sowing permanent pastures. For each unit of atmospheric carbon they remove in this way, farmers can earn “carbon credits” to be sold in emissions trading markets.</p>
<p>But not all carbon credits are created equal. In one high-profile <a href="https://www.beefcentral.com/news/aus-cattle-company-makes-global-carbon-credit-sale-to-microsoft/">deal</a> in January, an Australian farm sold soil carbon credits to Microsoft under a scheme based in the United States. We analysed the methodology behind the trade, and found some increases in soil carbon claimed under the scheme were far too optimistic. </p>
<p>It’s just one of several problems raised by the sale of carbon credits offshore. If not addressed, the credibility of carbon trading will be undermined. Ultimately the climate - and the planet - will be the loser.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="sunset on farm with cattle and trees" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407842/original/file-20210623-21-k64xg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407842/original/file-20210623-21-k64xg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407842/original/file-20210623-21-k64xg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407842/original/file-20210623-21-k64xg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407842/original/file-20210623-21-k64xg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407842/original/file-20210623-21-k64xg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407842/original/file-20210623-21-k64xg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The integrity of soil carbon trading must be assured.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is soil carbon trading?</h2>
<p>Plants naturally remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air through photosynthesis. As plants decompose, carbon-laden organic matter is added to the soil. If more organic matter is added than is lost, soil carbon levels increase. </p>
<p>Carbon trading schemes require the increase in soil carbon levels to be measured. The measurement methods are well-established, but can be costly and complex because they involve collecting and analysing large numbers of soil samples. And different carbon credit schemes measure the change in different ways - some more robust than others.</p>
<p>The Australian government’s Emissions Reduction Fund has a rigorous approach to soil sampling, laboratory analysis and calculation of credits. This ensures only genuine removals of atmospheric carbon are rewarded, in the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/OSR/ANREU/types-of-emissions-units/australian-carbon-credit-units">form of</a> “Australian Carbon Credit Units”.</p>
<p>Farmers can choose other schemes under which to earn carbon credits, such as the US-based carbon offset <a href="https://www.regen.network/">platform</a> Regen Network.</p>
<p>Regen Network’s method for estimating soil carbon largely involves collecting data via satellite imagery. The extent of physical on-the-ground soil sampling is limited. </p>
<p>Regen Network issues “CarbonPlus credits” to farmers deemed to have increased soil carbon stores. Farmers then sell these credits on the Regen Network trading platform.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nJ3IFYuYlcY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Regen Network video explaining its remote sensing methods.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘A number of concerns’</h2>
<p>It was Regen Network which sold Microsoft the soil carbon credits generated by an Australian farm, Wilmot Station. Wilmot is owned by the Macdoch Group, and other Macdoch properties have also claimed carbon credits under the Regen Scheme. </p>
<p>Regen Network should be applauded for making its methods and calculations available online. And we appreciate Regen’s open, collaborative approach to developing its methods. </p>
<p>However, we have reviewed their documents and have a number of concerns:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the dry weight of soil in a known volume, also known as “bulk density”, is a key factor in calculating soil carbon stocks. Rather than bulk density being measured from field samples, it was calculated using an equation. We examined this method and determined it was far less reliable than field sampling</p></li>
<li><p>Estimates of soil carbon were not adjusted for gravel content. Because gravel contains no carbon, carbon stock may have been overestimated</p></li>
<li><p>The remote sensing used by Regen Network involved assessment of vegetation cover via satellite imagery, from which soil carbon levels were estimated. However, vegetation cover obscures soil, and research has found predictions of soil carbon using this method are highly <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/14/1683/htm">uncertain</a>.</p></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-wants-to-suck-co-out-of-the-atmosphere-here-are-7-ways-to-do-it-144941">The Morrison government wants to suck CO₂ out of the atmosphere. Here are 7 ways to do it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Wilmot increased soil carbon, or “sequestration”, through changes to grazing and pasture management. The resulting rates of carbon storage calculated by Regen Network were extremely high – 7,660 tonnes of carbon over 1,094 hectares. This amounts to 7 tonnes of carbon per hectare from <a href="https://regen-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/projects/wilmot/Wilmot+Monitoring+Report+2019.pdf">2018 to 2019</a>. </p>
<p>These results are not consistent with our experience of what is possible through pasture management. For example, the CSIRO has <a href="https://publications.csiro.au/publications/publication/PIcsiro:EP10121">documented</a> soil carbon increases of 0.1 to 0.3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year in Australia from a range of methods to increase pasture production.</p>
<p>We believe inaccurate methods have led to the carbon increase being overestimated. Thus, it appears excess carbon credits may have been awarded. </p>
<p>Many carbon trading schemes apply <a href="https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality-offsets/">rules</a> to ensure integrity is maintained. These include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>an “additionality test” to ensure the extra carbon storage in the soil would not have happened anyway. It would prevent, for example, farmers claiming credits for practices they adopted in the past</p></li>
<li><p>ensuring sequestered carbon is maintained over time</p></li>
<li><p>disallowing double-counting of credits – for example, by preventing a country claiming credits that have been sold offshore.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The Emissions Reduction Fund and other well-recognised international schemes, such as <a href="https://verra.org/project/vcs-program/">Verra</a> and <a href="https://www.goldstandard.org/">Gold Standard</a>, apply these rules stringently. Regen Network’s safeguards are less rigorous.</p>
<p>Responses to these claims from Regen Network and Macdoch Group can be found at the end of this article. A full response from Regen can also be found <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1neVVUoyoUsyD_UQM-xBzQ-cAvf3DxqNmHhrZxMmWzSg/edit">here</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="diagram. showing arms, money, laptop and leaves over world map" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407841/original/file-20210623-13-97dzfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407841/original/file-20210623-13-97dzfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=257&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407841/original/file-20210623-13-97dzfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=257&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407841/original/file-20210623-13-97dzfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=257&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407841/original/file-20210623-13-97dzfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407841/original/file-20210623-13-97dzfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407841/original/file-20210623-13-97dzfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Carbon trading is a way for farmers to make money by changing their land management practices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Not in the national interest?</h2>
<p>Putting aside the problems noted above, the offshore sale of soil carbon credits generated by Australian farmers raises other concerns.</p>
<p>First, selling credits offshore means Australia loses out, by not being able to claim the abatement towards our own <a href="https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/climate-change/net-zero-plan">government</a> and <a href="https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/Environment-sustainability/carbon-neutral-2030-rd/cn30/">industry</a> targets.</p>
<p>Second, soil carbon does not have unlimited emissions reduction potential. The quantum of carbon that can be stored in each hectare of soil is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.12194">constrained</a>, and limited by factors such as land availability and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016706118301216">climate change</a>. So measures to increase soil carbon should not detract from society’s efforts to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use.</p>
<p>And third, ensuring carbon remains in soil long after it’s deposited is a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32148267/">challenge</a> because soil microbes break down organic matter. Carbon credit schemes commonly manage this by requiring a “buffer” of unsold credits. If stored carbon is lost, farmers must relinquish credits from the buffer. </p>
<p>If the loss is greater than the buffer, credits must be purchased to make up the difference. This exposes farmers to financial risk, especially if <a href="https://www.greenbiz.com/article/carbon-offset-prices-set-increase-tenfold-2030">carbon prices rise</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-need-more-carbon-in-our-soil-to-help-australian-farmers-through-the-drought-102991">We need more carbon in our soil to help Australian farmers through the drought</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="farmer sits on rock" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407843/original/file-20210623-13-jvp69u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407843/original/file-20210623-13-jvp69u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407843/original/file-20210623-13-jvp69u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407843/original/file-20210623-13-jvp69u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407843/original/file-20210623-13-jvp69u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407843/original/file-20210623-13-jvp69u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407843/original/file-20210623-13-jvp69u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Poorly managed carbon trading schemes can put farmers at financial risk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Getting it right</h2>
<p>Soil carbon is a promising way for Australia to substantially reduce its emissions. But methods used to measure gains in soil carbon must be accurate. </p>
<p>Carbon markets must be regulated to ensure credit is awarded for genuine abatement, and risks to farmers are limited. And the extent to which offshore carbon markets prevent Australia from meeting its own obligations to reduce emissions should be clarified and managed.</p>
<p>Improving the integrity of soil carbon trading will have benefits beyond emissions reduction. It will also improve soil health and farm productivity, helping agriculture become more resilient under climate change.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Regen Network response</h2>
<p>Regen Network provided The Conversation with a response to concerns raised in this article. The full nine-page statement provided by Regen Network is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1neVVUoyoUsyD_UQM-xBzQ-cAvf3DxqNmHhrZxMmWzSg/edit">here</a>.</p>
<p>The following is a brief summary of Regen Network’s statement:</p>
<p><strong>- Limited on-ground soil sampling</strong>: Regen Network said its usual minimum number of soil samples was not reached in the case of Wilmot Station, because historical soil samples - taken before the project began - were used. To compensate for this, relevant sample data from a different farm was combined with data from Wilmot.</p>
<p>“We understand the use of ancillary data does not follow best practice and our team is working hard to ensure future projects are run using a sufficient number of samples,” Regen Network said.</p>
<p><strong>- Bulk density:</strong> Regen Network said the historical sample data from Wilmot did not include “bulk density” measurements needed to estimate carbon stocks, which required “deviations” from its usual methodology. However the company was taking steps to ensure such estimates in future projects “can be provided with higher degrees of accuracy”.</p>
<p><strong>- Gravel content:</strong> Regen Network said lab reports for soil samples included only the weight, not volume, of gravel present. “Best sampling practice should include the gravel volume as an essential parameter for accurate bulk density measurements. We will make sure to address this in our next round of upgrades and appreciate the observation!” the statement said.</p>
<p><strong>- Remote sensing of vegetation:</strong> Regen Network said it did not use vegetation assessment at Wilmot station. It tested a vegetation assessment index at another property and found it ineffective at estimating soil carbon. At Wilmot station Regen used so-called individual “spectral bands” to estimate soil carbon at locations where on-ground sampling was not undertaken.</p>
<p><strong>- Sequestration rates at Wilmot:</strong> Regen Network said while it was difficult to directly compare local sequestration rates across climatic and geologic zones, the sequestration rates for the projects in question “fall within the relatively wide range of sequestration rates” reported in key scientific studies.</p>
<p>Regen Network said its methodology “provides a conservative estimate on the final number of credits issued”. Its statement outlines the steps taken to ensure soil carbon levels are not overestimated.</p>
<p><strong>- Integrity safeguards:</strong> Regen Network said it employs standards “based both on existing standards of reputable programs […] and inputs from project developers, in order to come up with a standard that not only is rigorous but also practical”. Regen Network takes steps to ensure additionality and permanence of carbon stores, as well as avoid double counting of carbon credits generated through their platform.</p>
<p>A more detailed response from Regen Network can be found <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1neVVUoyoUsyD_UQM-xBzQ-cAvf3DxqNmHhrZxMmWzSg/edit">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Wilmot Station response</h2>
<p>Wilmot Station provided the following response from Alasdair Macleod, chairman of Macdoch Group. It has been edited for brevity:</p>
<p><em>We entered into the deals with Regen Network/Microsoft because we wanted to give a hint of the huge potential that we believe exists for farmers in Australia and globally to sequester soil carbon which can be sold through offset markets or via other methods of value creation.</em></p>
<p><em>Whilst we recognise that the soil carbon credits generated on the Macdoch Group properties in the Regen Network/Microsoft deal will not be included in Australia’s national carbon accounts, it is our hope that over time the regulated market will move towards including appropriately rigorous transactions such as these in some form.</em></p>
<p><em>At the same time we have also been working closely with the Australian government, industry organisations, academia and other interested parties on Macdoch Group properties to develop appropriate soil carbon methodologies under the government’s Climate Solutions Fund.</em></p>
<p><em>This is because carbon measurement methodologies are an evolving science. We have always acknowledged and will welcome improvements that will be made over the coming years to the methodologies utilised by both the voluntary and regulated markets.</em></p>
<p><em>In any event it has become clear that there is huge demand from the private sector for offset deals of this nature and we will continue to work towards ensuring that other farmers can take advantage of the opportunities that will become available to those that are farming in a carbon-friendly fashion.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161358/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aaron Simmons is a Technical Specialist in Climate Change Mitigation with the NSW Department of Primary Industries and an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow with The University of New England. Aaron has received funding from Australian Wool Innovation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Dairy Australia and the Commonwealth government. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Annette Cowie is a Senior Principal Research Scientist in the Climate Branch at the NSW Department of Primary Industries, and Adjunct Professor in the School of Environmental and Rural Science at the University of New England. She has received funding for soil carbon research from NSW and Commonwealth government programs. Annette is a member of Soil Science Australia, a not-for-profit, professional association for soil scientists and people interested in the responsible management of Australia’s soil resources.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Wilson is a member of academic staff and researcher at the University of New England and a Principal Research Scientist with NSW State Government. He has received research income from a range of State and Commonwealth organisations to engage in research relating to soil carbon.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Farrell has received funding for soil carbon research from Commonwealth, State and industry programmes. He is a member of Soil Science Australia, a not-for-profit, professional association for soil scientists and people interested in the responsible management of Australia's soil resources.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Tom Harrison is an Associate Professor and Systems Modelling Team Leader at the University of Tasmania. He receives funding from the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Government, as well as Meat & Livestock Australia. His research examines pathways for improving the sustainability of agricultural systems, including avenues for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation through soil carbon sequestration.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Grace has received funding from federal government sources and Rural Development Corporations with respect to sustainable agricultural systems and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Eckard receives funding from Commonwealth Government, as well as Meat & Livestock Australia and Dairy Australia. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vanessa Wong receives funding from the Victorian State Government and the Australian Research Council. She is currently the President of Soil Science Australia, a not-for-profit, professional association for soil scientists and people interested in the responsible management of Australia’s soil resources </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Warwick Badgery is a Research Leader in Rangelands and Pasture with the NSW Department of Primary Industries and has honorary positions with Melbourne University and China Agricultural University. He receives funding from the Federal Government, Meat and Livestock Australia and the food Agility CRC for agricultural systems and soil carbon research. </span></em></p>If problems in such schemes are not addressed, the credibility of soil carbon trading will be undermined. Ultimately the climate - and the planet - will be the loser.Aaron Simmons, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, University of New EnglandAnnette Cowie, Adjunct Professor, University of New EnglandBrian Wilson, Associate Professor, University of New EnglandMark Farrell, Principal Research Scientist, CSIROMatthew Tom Harrison, Associate Professor of Sustainable Agriculture, University of TasmaniaPeter Grace, Professor of Global Change, Queensland University of TechnologyRichard Eckard, Professor & Director, Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, The University of MelbourneVanessa Wong, Associate Professor, Monash UniversityWarwick Badgery, Research Leader Pastures an Rangelands, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1544782021-02-03T18:59:16Z2021-02-03T18:59:16ZMorrison has embraced net-zero emissions – it’s time to walk the talk<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/382122/original/file-20210203-21-1deumv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C20%2C4506%2C2974&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Monday <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/address-national-press-club-barton-act">acknowledged</a> what many Australian businesses, investors and others have long known: the global economy is transitioning to net-zero emissions, and so too must Australia.</p>
<p>Morrison said the nation should get to net-zero “as soon as possible”, and preferably by 2050. We welcome this move – a net-zero goal will provide clarity, lift ambition and create focus. But Morrison must back the rhetoric with investment and policy commensurate with the task.</p>
<p>We are researchers at ClimateWorks, an independent advisory body based at Monash University. For much of the past decade, we have investigated how Australia can reach net-zero emissions. </p>
<p>The transition will require targeted government spending and specific, forward-thinking policies for each sector. Without this, Australia risks missing the opportunities being seized by our international peers.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A wind farm" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/382125/original/file-20210203-13-kh0ynr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/382125/original/file-20210203-13-kh0ynr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382125/original/file-20210203-13-kh0ynr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382125/original/file-20210203-13-kh0ynr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382125/original/file-20210203-13-kh0ynr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382125/original/file-20210203-13-kh0ynr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/382125/original/file-20210203-13-kh0ynr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia is well-placed to seize the opportunities of the clean transition.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Australia needs a game plan</h2>
<p>Experts <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sgsm20411.doc.htm">say</a> developed economies such as Australia should aim to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 to meet their commitments under the Paris climate deal. The target must be achieved <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/%20https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">earlier</a> if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5°C, beyond which catastrophic climate change is predicted. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.climateworksaustralia.org/resource/decarbonisation-futures-solutions-actions-and-benchmarks-for-a-net-zero-emissions-australia/">research last year</a> examined mature and emerging technologies, and found Australia could reach net-zero by 2035. Here, we set out a possible course.</p>
<p>Australia boasts world-beating wind and solar energy and plentiful mineral resources. That means we could produce green steel, aluminium and hydrogen and export it to the world.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-now-scott-morrisons-preference-is-for-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-154394">View from The Hill: Now Scott Morrison's 'preference' is for net zero emissions by 2050</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Morrison government has good foundations on which to continue the clean transition. For example, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (<a href="https://arena.gov.au">ARENA</a>) and Clean Energy Finance Corporation (<a href="https://www.cefc.com.au">CEFC</a>) have proven effective vehicles for government investment. And the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF">Emissions Reduction Fund</a>, while far from perfect, creates a framework that could be scaled up. </p>
<p>The government also has state government partners and businesses willing to cooperate on climate action. And current low interest rates are good news for governments wanting to borrow to invest. </p>
<p>The Morrison government must now develop a more comprehensive approach to emissions reduction across all sectors of the economy. This should include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>using its purchasing power to stimulate demand for clean technologies. This might mean transitioning to all-electric government fleet cars and net-zero energy offices, and requesting net-zero options in government tenders</p></li>
<li><p>ensuring all federal government spending is assessed for its contribution to the net-zero transition</p></li>
<li><p>designing “decarbonisation roadmaps” for each sector of the economy in partnership with industry</p></li>
<li><p>setting higher energy efficiency standards in buildings, industry and transport.</p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371692/original/file-20201127-21-5zp0l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Tall buildings covered in green plants" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371692/original/file-20201127-21-5zp0l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371692/original/file-20201127-21-5zp0l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371692/original/file-20201127-21-5zp0l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371692/original/file-20201127-21-5zp0l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371692/original/file-20201127-21-5zp0l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371692/original/file-20201127-21-5zp0l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371692/original/file-20201127-21-5zp0l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia’s building sector is ripe for emissions reduction technologies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/SAKARET</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Time to hit the accelerator</h2>
<p>Economically feasible technologies for zero-emissions already exist across the economy. Now the task is to dramatically scale up.</p>
<p>In Australia’s electricity sector, renewable energy generation is being installed at <a href="https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/australia-sets-new-renewables-records-2020">record rates</a>. Yet as Australia’s ageing coal-fired generation retires, more investment and national policy is needed to ensure reliability and a smart, flexible grid.</p>
<p>This includes incentives for better energy management, storage and transmission. The transition to a fully renewable electricity sector would unlock emissions reductions in other sectors that are big electricity users - especially buildings, transport and industry.</p>
<p>Buildings can be more <a href="https://www.climateworksaustralia.org/resource/built-to-perform/">energy efficient</a> and fully electrified, producing lower energy bills and more comfort for users. Doing this in existing buildings can be complex, but state energy efficiency schemes are a start.</p>
<p>For transport, the solutions are well-established <a href="https://www.climateworksaustralia.org/project/transport/">overseas</a>. In Norway, for example, electric vehicles comprise <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/norway-electric-cars-majority-sales/">60% of new car sales</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/345953/original/file-20200707-18-1an5t76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/345953/original/file-20200707-18-1an5t76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/345953/original/file-20200707-18-1an5t76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345953/original/file-20200707-18-1an5t76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345953/original/file-20200707-18-1an5t76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345953/original/file-20200707-18-1an5t76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345953/original/file-20200707-18-1an5t76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345953/original/file-20200707-18-1an5t76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Electric vehicles are the answer to road transport emissions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/mastersky</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Where the challenges lie</h2>
<p>For industry, challenges exist in transitioning from old technologies and scaling up new ones. However clean technologies are emerging and some businesses are looking to invest. For example, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest wants his Fortescue Metals Group to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/boyer-lecture-andrew-twiggy-forrest-green-hydrogen-climate/13077070">pilot renewable hydrogen</a> to produce green steel.</p>
<p>The federal government’s Technology Investment <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/technology-investment-roadmap-first-low-emissions-technology-statement-2020">Roadmap</a> and $A1.3 billion <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/news/modern-manufacturing-initiative-and-national-manufacturing-priorities-announced">Modern Manufacturing Initiative</a> are a useful start, but don’t go far enough. The roadmap, for example, sets “stretch goals” for low-emissions steel and aluminium, but no timeframes or comprehensive plans. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-about-the-trade-spat-coal-is-passe-in-much-of-china-and-thats-a-bigger-problem-for-australia-153300">Forget about the trade spat – coal is passé in much of China, and that's a bigger problem for Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The government should implement policies tailored to each sector. It could follow the lead of the British government, which is <a href="https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2161948-uk-mulls-biojet-mandate-by-2025">considering</a> a sustainable aviation fuel mandate by 2025.</p>
<p>In Australia, major businesses are <a href="https://energytransitionsinitiative.org">partnering</a> with each other and research organisations to investigate net-zero pathways for industries such as steel, aluminium and chemicals. But other national governments are investing in these measures far more heavily than Australia’s. </p>
<p>If Australia wants to be globally competitive, it must match the net-zero ambition and technology investment of our international peers. The United Kingdom, for example, has laid out <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-ten-point-plan-for-a-green-industrial-revolution/title">sector strategies</a> for a green industrial revolution. And South Korea’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-koreas-green-new-deal-shows-the-world-what-a-smart-economic-recovery-looks-like-145032">Green New Deal</a> involves a US$61.9 billion (A$81.3 billion) investment targeting the creation of 659,000 by 2025.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="South Korean President Moon Jae-in, centre" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357090/original/file-20200909-17-1rqapmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357090/original/file-20200909-17-1rqapmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357090/original/file-20200909-17-1rqapmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357090/original/file-20200909-17-1rqapmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357090/original/file-20200909-17-1rqapmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357090/original/file-20200909-17-1rqapmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357090/original/file-20200909-17-1rqapmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">South Korean President Moon Jae-in, centre, has backed a huge investment in green technology.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yonhap/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The art of the possible</h2>
<p>In the post-pandemic economy, stimulus measures for zero-emissions technologies could provide a “triple dividend” - address climate change, strengthen the economy and create jobs. </p>
<p>In his first few weeks on the job, US President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55829189">has shown</a> the breadth of action possible to shift to a net-zero economy. Australia, if it dramatically scales up action, can get there too. </p>
<p>As Morrison <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/nationals-wary-about-pm-s-net-zero-plans-20210202-p56yn1">said</a> this week, the central question about achieving net-zero was “not when, it’s how”. Most parts of the economy already know how. Now it’s time to put the theory into action.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bidens-senate-majority-doesnt-just-super-charge-us-climate-action-it-blazes-a-trail-for-australia-153090">Biden’s Senate majority doesn't just super-charge US climate action, it blazes a trail for Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/154478/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Malos is part of ClimateWorks Australia which receives funding from philanthropy and project-based income from federal, state and local government and private sector organisations.
ClimateWorks Australia receives funding from several philanthropic foundations, and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Skarbek is CEO of ClimateWorks Australia which works within the Monash Sustainable Development Institute. ClimateWorks Australia receives its core funding from philanthropic foundations and also undertakes projects which attract funding from industry and government departments and agencies. Anna holds also non-executive director roles with Impact Investment Group, Sustainable Australia Fund, the Green Building Council of Australia and of the Centre for New Energy Technologies.</span></em></p>A net-zero goal will provide clarity, ambition and focus. But Morrison must back the rhetoric with investment and policy commensurate with the task.Anna Malos, Australia - Country Lead, Climateworks CentreAnna Skarbek, CEO at ClimateWorks Australia, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1416562020-08-16T20:13:59Z2020-08-16T20:13:59ZDishing the dirt: Australia’s move to store carbon in soil is a problem for tackling climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352411/original/file-20200812-18-w2xbci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C5973%2C3988&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>To slow climate change, humanity has two main options: reduce greenhouse gas emissions directly or find ways to remove them from the atmosphere. On the latter, storing carbon in soil – or carbon farming – is often touted as a promising way to offset emissions from other sources such as energy generation, industry and transport. </p>
<p>The Morrison government’s Technology Investment <a href="https://consult.industry.gov.au/climate-change/technology-investment-roadmap/supporting_documents/technologyinvestmentroadmapdiscussionpaper.pdf">Roadmap</a>, now open for public comment, identifies soil carbon as a potential way to reduce emissions from agriculture and to offset other emissions. </p>
<p>In particular, it points to so-called “biochar” – plant material transformed into carbon-rich charcoal then applied to soil. </p>
<p>But the government’s plan contains misconceptions about both biochar, and the general effectiveness of soil carbon as an emissions reduction strategy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Emissions rising from a coal plant." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352420/original/file-20200812-21-1k6x0vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352420/original/file-20200812-21-1k6x0vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352420/original/file-20200812-21-1k6x0vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352420/original/file-20200812-21-1k6x0vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352420/original/file-20200812-21-1k6x0vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352420/original/file-20200812-21-1k6x0vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352420/original/file-20200812-21-1k6x0vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Soil carbon storage is touted as a way to offset emissions from industry and elsewhere.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is biochar?</h2>
<p>Through photosynthesis, plants turn carbon dioxide (CO₂) into organic material known as biomass. When that biomass decomposes in soil, CO₂ is produced and mostly ends up in the atmosphere.</p>
<p>This is a natural process. But if we can intervene by using technology to keep carbon in the soil rather than in the atmosphere, in theory that will help mitigate climate change. That’s where biochar comes in. </p>
<p>Making biochar involves heating waste organic materials in a reduced-oxygen environment to create a charcoal-like product – a process called “pyrolysis”. The carbon from the biomass is stored in the charcoal, which is very stable and does not decompose for decades. </p>
<p>Plant materials are the predominant material or “feedstock” used to make biochar, but <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es902266r">livestock manure</a> can also be used. The biochar is applied to the soil, purportedly to boost soil fertility and productivity. This has been tested on grassland, cropping soils and in vineyards. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A handful of biochar." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Biochar is produced by burning organic material in a low oxygen environment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>But there’s a catch</h2>
<p>So far, so good. But there are a few downsides to consider. </p>
<p>First, the pyrolysis process produces combustible gases and uses energy – to the extent that when all energy inputs and outputs are considered in a life cycle analysis, the net energy balance can be <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es902266r">negative</a>. In other words, the process can create more greenhouse gas emissions than it saves. The balance depends on many factors including the type and condition of the feedstock and the rate and temperature of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065211310050029">pyrolysis</a>.</p>
<p>Second, while biochar may improve the soil carbon status at a new site, the sites from which the carbon residues are removed, such as farmers’ fields or harvested forests, will be depleted of soil carbon and associated nutrients. Hence there may be no <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01342.x">overall</a> gain in soil fertility.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-pretty-good-start-but-room-for-improvement-3-experts-rate-australias-emissions-technology-plan-132866">A pretty good start but room for improvement: 3 experts rate Australia's emissions technology plan</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Third, the government roadmap claims increasing soil carbon can reduce emissions from livestock farming while increasing productivity. Theoretically, increased soil carbon should lead to better pasture growth. But the most efficient way for farmers to take advantage of the growth, and increase productivity, is to keep more livestock per hectare.</p>
<p>Livestock such as cows and sheep produce methane – a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280743045_The_cost_effectiveness_of_a_policy_to_store_carbon_in_Australian_agricultural_soils_to_abate_greenhouse_gas_emissions_">Our analysis</a> suggests the methane produced by the extra stock would exceed the offsetting effect of storing more soil carbon. This would lead to a net increase, not decrease, in greenhouse gas </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Beef cattle grazing in a field" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352425/original/file-20200812-18-mrza4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352425/original/file-20200812-18-mrza4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352425/original/file-20200812-18-mrza4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352425/original/file-20200812-18-mrza4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352425/original/file-20200812-18-mrza4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352425/original/file-20200812-18-mrza4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352425/original/file-20200812-18-mrza4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Farmers would have to increase stock numbers to benefit from pasture growth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Peled/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A policy failure</h2>
<p>The government plan refers to the potential to build on the success of the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF">Emissions Reduction Fund</a>. Among other measures, the fund pays landholders to increase the amount of carbon stored in soil through carbon credits issued through the Carbon Farming Initiative. </p>
<p>However since 2014, the Emissions Reduction Fund has <a href="https://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/Chart_ANZSIC.aspx?OD_ID=1118999286">not significantly reduced</a> Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions – and agriculture’s contribution has been smaller still.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-dioxide-levels-over-australia-rose-even-after-covid-19-forced-global-emissions-down-heres-why-144119">Carbon dioxide levels over Australia rose even after COVID-19 forced global emissions down. Here's why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So far, the agriculture sector has been contracted to provide <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results/march-2020">about 9.5%</a> of the overall abatement, or about 18.3 million tonnes. To date, it’s <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results/march-2020">supplied</a> only 1.54 million tonnes – 8.4% of the sector’s commitment.</p>
<p>The initiative has largely failed because several factors have made it <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/25/1/012004">uneconomic</a> for farmers to take part. They include:</p>
<ul>
<li>overly complex regulations </li>
<li>requirements for expensive soil sampling and analysis </li>
<li>the low value of carbon credits (averaging <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/20e963a0-0226-4131-9b88-ff0c754edea1/files/erf-what-it-means-you.pdf">$12 per tonne</a> of CO₂-equivalent since the scheme began).</li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A farmer inspecting crops." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352871/original/file-20200814-22-1j7r208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352871/original/file-20200814-22-1j7r208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352871/original/file-20200814-22-1j7r208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352871/original/file-20200814-22-1j7r208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352871/original/file-20200814-22-1j7r208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352871/original/file-20200814-22-1j7r208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352871/original/file-20200814-22-1j7r208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">For many farmers, taking part in the Emissions Reduction Fund is uneconomic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A misguided strategy</h2>
<p>We believe the government is misguided in considering soil carbon as an emissions reduction technology. </p>
<p>Certainly, increasing soil carbon at one location can boost soil fertility and potentially productivity, but these are largely private landholder benefits – paid for by taxpayers in the form of carbon credits.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-are-we-doomed-if-we-dont-manage-to-curb-emissions-by-2030-143526">Climate explained: are we doomed if we don't manage to curb emissions by 2030?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If emissions reduction is seen as a public benefit, then the payment to farmers becomes a subsidy. But it’s highly questionable whether the public benefit (in the form of reduced emissions) is worth the cost. The government has not yet done this analysis. </p>
<p>To be effective, future emissions technology in Australia should focus on improving energy efficiency in industry, the residential sector and transport, where big gains are to be made.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141656/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A federal government plan to increase soil carbon stores is a folly that misunderstands the technology.Robert Edwin White, Professor Emeritus, The University of MelbourneBrian Davidson, Senior Lecturer, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1389402020-05-20T05:25:04Z2020-05-20T05:25:04ZMorrison government dangles new carrots for industry but fails to fix bigger climate policy problem<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336273/original/file-20200520-152320-w5er08.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=208%2C30%2C3629%2C2575&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The intricacies of climate change policy have not been front of mind for the Australian government this last half year, but the issue is now back on the agenda. Yesterday <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/expert-panel-report-examining-additional-sources-of-low-cost-abatement.pdf">a review</a> chaired by energy industry executive Grant King into new low-cost sources of emissions reduction was released. The government has accepted many of its recommendations.</p>
<p>Federal energy minister Angus Taylor <a href="https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/building-success-emissions-reduction-fund">says the changes</a> create new ways to reduce emissions across the industrial, manufacturing, transport and agriculture sectors.</p>
<p>The package spells a broadening of existing mechanisms and may open the door to some better outcomes. But the existing climate policy patchwork remains deeply inadequate, and in practice the changes may do little more than channel government funding to industry. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336274/original/file-20200520-152338-yks9py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336274/original/file-20200520-152338-yks9py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336274/original/file-20200520-152338-yks9py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336274/original/file-20200520-152338-yks9py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336274/original/file-20200520-152338-yks9py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336274/original/file-20200520-152338-yks9py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336274/original/file-20200520-152338-yks9py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate policy changes will funnel public money to private industry.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The role of carbon capture and storage and storage</h2>
<p>In line with the review’s recommendation, the government’s emissions reduction fund will be extended to projects using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. </p>
<p>CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide from sources such as power stations, gas plants or cement plants and pumping it underground. It tends to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-hydrogen-to-be-truly-clean-it-must-be-made-with-renewables-not-coal-128053">technically difficult</a> and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/05/03/carbon-capture-and-storage-an-expensive-option-for-reducing-u-s-co2-emissions/">costly</a> per unit of tonne of emissions saved, and usually does not capture all of the emissions.</p>
<p>The Emissions Reduction Fund (<a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/About-the-Emissions-Reduction-Fund">ERF</a>) has been the government’s primary climate policy mechanism. It gives subsidies to projects that are deemed to reduce carbon emissions – to date, mainly in agriculture and forestry. The policy is vastly less effective and efficient than the carbon pricing mechanism it <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-17/carbon-tax-repealed-by-senate/5604246?nw=0">replaced in 2014</a>. </p>
<p>The obvious criticism is that extending government support to CCS locks in some fossil fuel use, when Australia has great opportunities to put our energy system on a zero-emissions footing using cheap renewable energy. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-carbon-emissions-fell-during-covid-19-but-its-the-shift-away-from-coal-that-really-matters-138611">Yes, carbon emissions fell during COVID-19. But it's the shift away from coal that really matters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, in the path to decarbonising Australia’s economy, the technology may well have a role in some industrial applications such as <a href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/news-media/insights/worlds-largest-capture-pilot-plant-for-cement-commissioned-in-china/">cement production</a> and <a href="https://www.santos.com/news/santos-and-bp-enter-non-binding-agreement-on-moomba-carbon-capture-and-storage-project/">natural gas</a> processing. In principle it makes sense to include any technology in a policy mechanism, as long as it is cost-competitive. </p>
<p>The emissions reduction fund <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Pages/News%20and%20updates/News-item.aspx?ListId=19b4efbb-6f5d-4637-94c4-121c1f96fcfe&ItemId=785">currently pays companies about A$16</a> for every tonne of carbon dioxide presumed to be reduced.</p>
<p>In practice, carbon capture and storage projects in Australia would require far more to be economically feasible. This is because the additional cost per tonne of carbon dioxide removed is usually far higher than in typical agriculture and forestry projects. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, or saving energy through better efficiency, is typically also far cheaper than cutting emissions through CCS. </p>
<p>So on present settings, where all project types receive the same rate of subsidy, including CCS might be mostly just a nod to the relevant interest groups. Methodologies for establishing and monitoring projects would be established by the bureaucracy but it seems unlikely that many projects would happen. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336276/original/file-20200520-152338-1e22y5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336276/original/file-20200520-152338-1e22y5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336276/original/file-20200520-152338-1e22y5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336276/original/file-20200520-152338-1e22y5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336276/original/file-20200520-152338-1e22y5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336276/original/file-20200520-152338-1e22y5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336276/original/file-20200520-152338-1e22y5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">CCS traps carbon from sources such as coal stations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Energy technology support</h2>
<p>The King review also calls for expanding the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (<a href="https://arena.gov.au">ARENA</a>) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (<a href="https://www.cefc.com.au">CEFC</a>) to make them “technology neutral”, so the agencies could support technologies across all sectors of the economy. </p>
<p>This implies expanding ARENA’s research and development activities, and the CEFC’s project finance, to the transport and industry sectors. These are the next big areas for decarbonisation after electricity, and it makes sense to channel resources into them. </p>
<p>A “technology neutral” approach could include carbon capture and storage. ARENA and CEFC make their own decisions about their investments within a broad mandate by government. It is important this remains so, allowing the most promising technologies to be supported, irrespective of the apparent preferences by government for fossil fuel-based technologies. </p>
<h2>Broadening the ERF</h2>
<p>The review recommends other changes to broaden the ERF, including to make it easier for smaller projects in agriculture and forestry to participate. This may have been prompted by the fact that the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results">last two ERF auctions</a> resulted in only a small number of projects and small volume of contracted emissions reductions. </p>
<p>This change may get extra projects over the line. But it does not fix the fundamental problem with the ERF, or its successor the Climate Solutions Fund. </p>
<p>The scheme pays businesses, in the form of credits, when they take steps to reduce emissions relative to a hypothetical baseline. Since it is generally impossible to know whether a company’s action to reduce emissions <a href="https://theconversation.com/direct-action-not-giving-us-bang-for-our-buck-on-climate-change-59308">would have happened anyway</a>, we can’t know to what extent claimed reductions are real. Despite elaborate estimation methodologies, the fundamental problem remains. </p>
<p>Under an effective and efficient climate policy framework, the ERF would either not exist or have a relatively minor role. But Australia is a long way from effective and efficient climate policy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336278/original/file-20200520-152288-1n9chmk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336278/original/file-20200520-152288-1n9chmk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336278/original/file-20200520-152288-1n9chmk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336278/original/file-20200520-152288-1n9chmk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336278/original/file-20200520-152288-1n9chmk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336278/original/file-20200520-152288-1n9chmk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336278/original/file-20200520-152288-1n9chmk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia is a long way from an effective climate policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sergio Perez/Reuters</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Softly, softly towards carbon trading?</h2>
<p>Under the government’s <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/The-safeguard-mechanism">Safeguard Mechanism</a>, a company emitting carbon emissions beyond its baseline is required to buy emissions reductions credits to cover the excess. </p>
<p>But in practice, the baselines are set so high that projects rarely reach them, and those that do <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/08/big-polluters-again-allowed-to-lift-emissions-without-penalty">receive exemptions</a>.</p>
<p>The new recommendation, accepted by the government, is to give emissions credits to companies that stay below their baselines, if it was the result of investment in “transformative” emissions-saving measures. This would create an incentive to do better, rather than just the existing, muted incentive not to do worse than a very unambitious standard.</p>
<p>The question is, who would buy these credits? The review suggests the government, or companies that exceed their baselines, might buy them. The former would expand the subsidy approach to emissions cuts even further. This is quite unnecessary: private money in industry is available for relevant investments if the right incentives or regulations are in place.</p>
<p>But what holds promise is if companies emitting over their baselines have to buy credits from companies that operate below the baseline. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/want-an-economic-tonic-mr-morrison-use-that-stimulus-money-to-turbocharge-renewables-137074">Want an economic tonic, Mr Morrison? Use that stimulus money to turbocharge renewables</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>That would create a form of carbon trading. There would be a market price for emissions in industry, and companies would move towards establishing cost-effective measures to curb emissions. There would be no money flowing to or from government, as trades would be only between companies. </p>
<p>The safeguard mechanism was originally designed with this possibility in mind, and perhaps now the door is opening a fraction. </p>
<p>But to create real demand for emissions credits, and a meaningful price on emissions in industry, emissions baselines would have to be drastically lowered and no more exemptions granted. Companies running old, inefficient equipment, of which there are many in Australia, would be put on the spot.</p>
<p>Given the government’s deep aversion to carbon pricing, and the likely opposition by some industry players, this is perhaps more pious hope than imminent prospect. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336280/original/file-20200520-152315-ixe7b3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336280/original/file-20200520-152315-ixe7b3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336280/original/file-20200520-152315-ixe7b3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336280/original/file-20200520-152315-ixe7b3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336280/original/file-20200520-152315-ixe7b3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336280/original/file-20200520-152315-ixe7b3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336280/original/file-20200520-152315-ixe7b3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some industry players oppose carbon pricing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dave Hunt/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Spend, spend?</h2>
<p>At least for now, we will probably only see a government-funded carrot given to some, and no stick. Government handouts to individual companies will continue to be the measure of Australia’s climate policy. </p>
<p>In these times of dramatic fiscal spending, sending a few more billion dollars of public money to businesses to subsidise new equipment may not seem a big deal. But one day, all that money needs to be recouped through taxation. It will then be obvious that industry should have been required to spend its own funds to cut emissions, and that a comprehensive market mechanism would have led to more efficient and productive investment choices. </p>
<p>Abolishing Australia’s carbon pricing mechanism in 2014 was a consequential failure of politics. The fine-tuning of the patchwork of policies that followed does not make up for it. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-is-a-sliding-doors-moment-what-we-do-now-could-change-earths-trajectory-137838">Coronavirus is a 'sliding doors' moment. What we do now could change Earth's trajectory</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138940/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Jotzo leads research projects supported by different funders, including the Australian government via the Energy Transition Hub.</span></em></p>Changes to Australia’s emissions reduction policies may do little more than channel taxpayer money to industry.Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1240952019-11-01T02:44:54Z2019-11-01T02:44:54ZAustralia’s hidden opportunity to cut carbon emissions, and make money in the process<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298884/original/file-20191028-113962-sxfd8j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A seagrass meadow. For the first time, researchers have counted the greenhouse gases stored by and emitted from such ecosystems. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">NOAA/Heather Dine</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s no secret that cutting down trees is a main driver of climate change. But a forgotten group of plants is critically important to fixing our climate — and they are being destroyed at an alarming rate.</p>
<p>Mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrasses along Australia’s coasts store huge amounts of greenhouse gases, known as blue carbon.</p>
<p>Our research, published in <a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms">Nature Communications</a>, shows that in Australia these ecosystems absorb 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. That’s about the same as 4 million cars.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/rising-seas-allow-coastal-wetlands-to-store-more-carbon-113020">Rising seas allow coastal wetlands to store more carbon</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Worryingly, the research shows that between 2 million and 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide is released each year by the same ecosystems, due to damage from human activity, severe weather and climate change.</p>
<p>This research represents the world’s most comprehensive audit of any nation’s blue carbon. Around 10% of such ecosystems are located in Australia — so preserving and restoring them could go a long way to meeting our Paris climate goals.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298886/original/file-20191028-113998-ixf8zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298886/original/file-20191028-113998-ixf8zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298886/original/file-20191028-113998-ixf8zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298886/original/file-20191028-113998-ixf8zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298886/original/file-20191028-113998-ixf8zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298886/original/file-20191028-113998-ixf8zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298886/original/file-20191028-113998-ixf8zp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A pile of washed-up seaweed and beach erosion at Collaroy Beach on Sydney’s northern beaches. Storms can damage blue carbon ecosystems.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Megan Young/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Super-charged carbon dioxide capture</h2>
<p>Blue carbon ecosystems are vital in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. They account for 50% of carbon dioxide sequestered by oceans — despite covering just 0.2% of the world’s total ocean area — and absorb carbon dioxide up to 40 times faster than forests on land. </p>
<p>They do this by trapping particles from water and storing them in the soil. This means tidal marsh, mangrove and seagrass ecosystems bury organic carbon at an exceptionally high rate. </p>
<p>Globally, blue carbon ecosystems are being lost twice as fast as tropical rainforests despite <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043542%20">covering a fraction of the area</a>. </p>
<p>Since European settlement, about 25,000km² of tidal marsh and mangroves and 32,000km² of seagrass have been destroyed - up to half the original extent. Coastal development in Australia is causing further losses each year.</p>
<p>When these ecosystems are damaged — through storms, heatwaves, dredging or other human development — the carbon stored in biomass and soils can make its way back into the environment as carbon dioxide, contributing to climate change.</p>
<p>In Western Australia in the summer of 2010-11, about 1,000km² of seagrass meadows at Shark Bay were <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/ocean-heatwave-released-as-much-co2-from-shark-bay-as-1.6m-cars/9564754">lost due to a marine heatwave</a>. Similarly, two cyclones and several other impacts devastated a 400km stretch of mangroves in the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/03/shocked-scientists-find-400km-of-dead-and-damaged-mangroves-in-gulf-of-carpentaria">Gulf of Carpentaria</a> in recent years.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298876/original/file-20191028-113962-1u8h1sh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298876/original/file-20191028-113962-1u8h1sh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298876/original/file-20191028-113962-1u8h1sh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298876/original/file-20191028-113962-1u8h1sh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298876/original/file-20191028-113962-1u8h1sh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298876/original/file-20191028-113962-1u8h1sh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298876/original/file-20191028-113962-1u8h1sh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The beach and Cape Kimberley hinterland at the mouth of the Daintree River in Queensland.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brian Cassey/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Such losses likely increase carbon dioxide emissions from land-use change in Australia by 12–21% per year.</p>
<p>Aside from the emissions reduction benefits, conserving and restoring blue carbon ecosystems would also increase the resilience of coasts to rising sea level and storm surge associated with climate change, and preserve habitats and nurseries for marine life. </p>
<h2>How we measured blue carbon - and why</h2>
<p>The project was part of a collaboration with <a href="https://www.csiro.au">CSIRO</a> and included 44 researchers from 33 research institutions around the world.</p>
<p>To accurately quantify Australia’s blue carbon stocks, we divided Australia into five different climate zones. Variations in temperature, rainfall, tides, sediments and nutrients mean plant productivity and biomass varies across regions. So ecosystems in a tropical climate such as North Queensland store carbon dioxide at a different rate to those in temperate climates such as southeastern Australia.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/un-climate-change-report-land-clearing-and-farming-contribute-a-third-of-the-worlds-greenhouse-gases-121551">UN climate change report: land clearing and farming contribute a third of the world's greenhouse gases</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We estimated carbon dioxide stored in the vegetation above ground and soils below for each climate area. We measured the size and distribution of vegetation and took soil core samples to create the most accurate measurements possible.</p>
<p>Blue carbon must be assessed on a national scale before policies to preserve them can be developed. These policies might involve replanting seagrass meadows, reintroducing tidal flow to restore mangroves or preventing potential losses caused by coastal development.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298889/original/file-20191028-113962-1jtfpsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298889/original/file-20191028-113962-1jtfpsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298889/original/file-20191028-113962-1jtfpsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298889/original/file-20191028-113962-1jtfpsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298889/original/file-20191028-113962-1jtfpsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298889/original/file-20191028-113962-1jtfpsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298889/original/file-20191028-113962-1jtfpsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Seagrass at Queensland’s Gladstone Harbour.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Cook University</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>There’s a dollar to be made</h2>
<p>Based on a carbon price of <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results/july-2019">A$14 per tonne</a> - the most recent price under the federal government’s Emissions Reduction Fund - blue carbon projects could be worth tens of millions of dollars per year in carbon credits. Our comprehensive measurements provide greater certainty of expected returns for financiers looking at investing in such projects.</p>
<p>Restoring just 10% of blue carbon ecosystems lost in Australia since European settlement could generate more than US$11 million per year in carbon credits. Conserving such ecosystems under threat could be worth between US$22 million and US$31 million per year.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-landmark-report-confirms-australia-is-girt-by-hotter-higher-seas-but-theres-still-time-to-act-124096">A landmark report confirms Australia is girt by hotter, higher seas. But there's still time to act</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Blue carbon projects cannot currently be counted towards Australia’s Paris targets, but federal environment authorities are developing a <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/publications/erf-method-blue-carbon">methodology for their inclusion</a>. The reintroduction of tidal flow to restore mangrove and tidal marsh ecosystems has been identified as the most promising potential activity.</p>
<p>Other activities being explored include planning for sea level rise to allow mangrove and tidal marsh to migrate inland, and avoiding the clearing of seagrass and mangroves.</p>
<p>There are still questions to be answered about exactly how blue carbon can be used to mitigate climate change. But our research shows the massive potential in Australia, and allows other countries to use the work for their own blue carbon assessments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124095/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Oscar Serrano receives funding from Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carlos Duarte received funding from CSIRO, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology and Aramco</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Trisha B Atwood receives funding from an Early Career Research Fellowship from the Gulf Research Program of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Lovelock and Paul Lavery do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a world-first, scientists have counted the greenhouse gas absorbed and emitted by Australia’s mangroves, seagrass and other ocean ecosystems.Oscar Serrano, ARC DECRA Fellow, Edith Cowan UniversityCarlos M. Duarte, Adjunct professor, King Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyCatherine Lovelock, Professor of Biology, The University of QueenslandPaul Lavery, Professor of Marine Ecology, Edith Cowan UniversityTrisha B Atwood, Assistant Professor of aquatic ecology, Utah State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1239912019-09-25T20:41:42Z2019-09-25T20:41:42ZAustralia’s carbon market needs to be faster and smarter. Blockchain can help<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293725/original/file-20190924-54793-1c1s2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C1%2C900%2C471&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Using blockchain to power Australia's carbon market could deliver tangible results.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.piqsels.com/sv/public-domain-photo-zbaaq">Piqsels.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article and the research it describes were co-authored by <a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/sam-hartmann-b7933267">Sam Hartmann</a>, who led the work as a graduate researcher at the University of Melbourne.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Since 2013, Australia’s policy response to climate change has been the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a>, which awards government contracts to projects that reduce carbon emissions by planting trees, flaring landfill gas, improving energy efficiency, and other methods. It is supported by a “<a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/publications/factsheet-erf-safeguard-mechanism">safeguard mechanism</a>” that imposes a cap on the largest emitters. </p>
<p>Under the Emissions Reduction Fund, the government has <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results/july-2019">contracted</a> 192 million tonnes of emissions reductions from 433 projects, at an average price of about A$12. There are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-02/emissions-reduction-fund-carbon-abatement-federal-government/11379424">mixed views</a> about whether these projects will be delivered and if they will effectively reduce emissions. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-emissions-reduction-fund-is-almost-empty-it-shouldnt-be-refilled-92283">Australia's Emissions Reduction Fund is almost empty. It shouldn't be refilled</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Emissions Reduction Fund has been <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/review-emissions-reduction-fund">criticised</a> for its high transaction costs and administrative complexity. It also limits the development of a secondary market, whereby people would be able to trade carbon credits among themselves rather than directly under contract to the government. </p>
<p>Despite these criticisms, earlier this year the fund was extended and rebranded as the <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund">Climate Solutions Fund</a>.</p>
<p>This policy is set for the foreseeable future, but may eventually be replaced with a more open market mechanism. It is important to consider how to improve the current system and lay foundations for future developments. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/blockchain-11427">Blockchain</a> is an emerging technology that promises to transform how individuals, industry, and government operate. The current Australian carbon market is ripe for such a technical transformation. </p>
<h2>How does blockchain work?</h2>
<p>Blockchain is a record of transactions, also known as a ledger. It is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/demystifying-the-blockchain-a-basic-user-guide-60226">design and process</a> of blockchain that distinguishes it from other established ledgers. </p>
<p>Blockchain uses online networks to conduct, validate, and record transactions. These can range from simple transactions to more complex <a href="https://theconversation.com/blockchain-is-useful-for-a-lot-more-than-just-bitcoin-58921">smart contracts</a> that only execute when defined conditions are met. </p>
<p>Network members can access the distributed ledger and independently verify transactions. Once the network is satisfied that a collection of transactions (known as a “block”) is legitimate, they are added (or “chained”) to the ledger, creating a permanent record. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1759-3441.12266">research</a> explored how blockchain could be applied to the Australian carbon market. We used a structured <a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7930224">design process</a> to consider each technical component of a carbon market blockchain. </p>
<p>The key element of our design was a partially decentralised blockchain, featuring smart contracts of the type described above. A regulator would have particular powers to issue and verify carbon credits, and administer decentralised transactions. This decentralisation would be backed by smart contracts that would automate transactions if certain conditions were met.</p>
<p>Suppose a company has a government contract to provide a certain amount of emissions reductions by planting trees. Once these reductions were achieved, the blockchain would verify that the activity was complete. The company might then be able to plant more trees, and potentially sell further carbon credits to a non-government client. This could be a company that needed to offset its own emissions that had gone above the levels set in the safeguard mechanism, for example.</p>
<p>In this case, the blockchain would allow all parties to transparently see the verified reductions and ensure that no credits were double-counted.</p>
<h2>How can this help the Australian carbon market?</h2>
<p>Currently the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/">Clean Energy Regulator</a> is intimately involved in every aspect of project monitoring, reporting, and verification. But there is a smarter way.</p>
<p>Smart contracts could be programmed according to a project’s particular emissions reduction method (tree planting, improving energy effiency, and so on). Market rules could then be designed to automate the regulator’s functions. </p>
<p>As a project met conditions specified in its smart contract - meeting a certain amount of emissions reductions, for instance - it would be verified and issued with the carbon credits it has earned. For projects currently contracted to the Emissions Reduction Fund, an extension could be added to automatically award the credits. </p>
<p>Using smart contracts could create a more independent regulator. The regulator would be able to demonstrate transparency and consistency in credit issuing and purchasing. This would remove the uncomfortable conflict of interest that currently exists, whereby the regulator is currently in charge of both issuing and buying the credits.</p>
<p>Smart contracts would also create a more effective regulator, with access to real-time information about the performance of projects, rather than having to wait months or years for reporting. This would enable the regulator to more quickly identify non-compliance or suspicious activity in projects. </p>
<p>Smart contracts would also speed up processing times for project reporting and encourage more frequent reporting. This would benefit projects by cutting transaction costs and allowing credits to be issued more quickly, thereby improving cash flow. </p>
<p>At the scheme level, lower administrative burdens and improved project cash flow would reduce overall project costs. This would in turn lead to more projects, promote more competition in Emissions Reduction Fund auctions, and thus allow the government to save money when buying emissions reductions. </p>
<p>Smart contracts would let the government monitor its portfolio of contract projects more closely. This would allow faster reallocation of funds from poorly performing projects.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-blockchain-according-to-experts-in-the-energy-sector-111780">The future of blockchain according to experts in the energy sector</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Australian government often declares its commitment to free markets. But the current system puts all the responsibility for the carbon market squarely on the government’s shoulders. This must be uncomfortable, and an alternative approach would surely be attractive.</p>
<p>Introducing a blockchain technology to the market’s processes would boost transparency, security, efficiency, and integrity. It would also reduce costs, increase competitiveness, and improve equity for participants in the market.</p>
<p>An Australian carbon market blockchain is an attractive potential solution to some of the problems with the current approach to emissions reductions, and a promising foundation for a more open Australian carbon market in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123991/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sebastian Thomas is part of the Carbon Market Institute's Professional Member Network. </span></em></p>Under the current rules, the federal government takes the most responsibility for buying carbon credits. A blockchain-driven market would be faster, smarter, and much more open.Sebastian Thomas, Lecturer in Sustainability Governance and Leadership, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1124122019-02-25T19:10:05Z2019-02-25T19:10:05ZThe government’s $2bn climate fund: a rebadged rehash of old mistakes<p>Australia’s new flagship Climate Solutions Fund, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-25/scott-morrison-announces-new-%242bn-climate-change-policy/10844922">announced this week</a> by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, will spend more than A$2 billion on cutting greenhouse emissions by 2030.</p>
<p>While action on climate change is welcomed, this announcement seems to be a faithful reprise of the previous Emissions Reduction Fund, which was <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-emissions-reduction-fund-is-almost-empty-it-shouldnt-be-refilled-92283">beset with problems</a>. </p>
<p>The government has put a new name on an existing scheme, while steadfastly refusing to learn from mistakes made along the way. In cruder terms, it’s slapped a gleaming coat of lipstick onto a pig of a policy.</p>
<p>Add to that the A$1.38 billion pledged today for building the Snowy 2.0 scheme – another plan hatched by one of the government’s former incarnations – and there’s not a lot of imagination on display as Morrison’s government scrambles for some much-needed climate credibility ahead of this year’s election.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-emissions-reduction-fund-is-almost-empty-it-shouldnt-be-refilled-92283">Australia's Emissions Reduction Fund is almost empty. It shouldn't be refilled</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Currently Australia’s main tool to try and reduce emissions is the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), a “<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-todays-direct-action-reverse-auction-work-40152">reverse auction</a>” that lets businesses voluntarily reduce pollution and be rewarded with taxpayer cash. Successful bidders for funding have to sign a contract to reduce their pollution over several years.</p>
<p>So far, <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/emissions-reduction-fund-update">193 million tonnes of pollution reduction has been secured</a> at an average cost of A$12 per tonne. In total, around A$2.5bn will have been used to help businesses reduce pollution under the ERF’s original incarnation.</p>
<p>The Climate Solutions Fund is basically a rebranding exercise. It will build on the existing ERF but now expands the scope of participants, including allowing farmers to <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/coalition-to-announce-35b-climate-solution-fund-20190224-h1bnjx">drought-proof their farms</a> and subsidising businesses to pursue energy-efficiency projects.</p>
<h2>Experience tells us it’s a bad idea</h2>
<p>The aim for any climate policy should be to reduce our emissions to the agreed 2030 levels at the lowest possible cost. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen with the Climate Solutions Fund.</p>
<p>This fund will inherit many of the ERF’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-emissions-reduction-fund-is-almost-empty-it-shouldnt-be-refilled-92283">existing problems</a>.</p>
<p>One of the ERF’s main issues is with its so-called “safeguard mechanism”. This was set up to ensure that large polluters could not cancel out the progress achieved by the fund’s participants. But this has failed: many large polluters’ “benchmarks” (the amount of emissions they are allowed to release before being penalised) have increased over time and, consequently, much of the work done by the fund has indeed been undone. Because of this, the fund has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/up-in-smoke-what-did-taxpayers-get-for-their-2bn-emissions-fund">not given good value for money</a>, despite awarding funding to the lowest bidders.</p>
<p>There are deeper problems. The way the funding is awarded – with public funds going to project proponents who promise to do a good job – the participants inevitably know more about the details of the projects than the government does. This “informational asymmetry” may mean that businesses overquote, asking for more money than they would be prepared to accept.</p>
<p>The successful projects that have signed up may not even be genuinely “<a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/108879/3/01_Burke_Undermined_by_Adverse_Selection_2016.pdf">additional</a>”, in that they may well have gone ahead regardless of whether or not they won government backing. In other words, we could be paying for something that would have happened anyway!</p>
<h2>But we know what works</h2>
<p>Economists have known for decades the best way to encourage pollution reduction. It involves putting a price on carbon. </p>
<p>Implementing a carbon tax or (more likely) a carbon trading market will give business the flexibility to choose their own pollution control measures, while also ensuring that overall emissions are reined in.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/one-year-on-from-the-carbon-price-experiment-the-rebound-in-emissions-is-clear-44782">One year on from the carbon price experiment, the rebound in emissions is clear</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A carbon price will spur industry to invest in cleaner technologies (and increase the potential for jobs growth in these areas) and ensure we meet our climate goals. </p>
<p>Despite prophesies of economic doom, a carbon price can be used to decarbonise the economy, simulate growth in new industries, and redistribute the revenue to ensure equity. It’s using economic levers to help the environment.</p>
<p>Putting lipstick on a pig does not change the fact that it is still a pig.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112412/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian A. MacKenzie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scott Morrison’s pledge to spend billions on a Climate Solutions Fund is a thinly veiled rehash of the widely criticised Emissions Reduction Fund, which had much of its work undone by fine print.Ian A. MacKenzie, Senior Lecturer in Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1041362018-10-14T19:05:03Z2018-10-14T19:05:03ZBig firms voice lack of faith in ‘cumbersome’ and ‘impractical’ Emissions Reduction Fund<p>Four years after it was launched, the federal government’s A$2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) has still not attracted the participation of many of Australia’s highest-emitting companies.</p>
<p>Our research on corporate managers’ attitudes suggests that the scheme, which remains the Coalition government’s flagship policy to curb Australia’s rising greenhouse emissions, is plagued by significant policy uncertainty, lack of visible commercial imperatives, lack of clear policy guidance, and strict and unrealistic qualifying conditions. </p>
<p>The new federal environment minister Melissa Price last month <a href="http://melissapricemp.com.au/Media-News/Media-Releases/ID/510/Australias-2030-Emissions-Reduction-Target">signalled her desire</a> to continue relying on the ERF – which uses a series of “reverse auctions” to allocate funding to emissions-reduction projects – as the main policy to reach Australia’s 2030 climate targets. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-emissions-reduction-fund-is-almost-empty-it-shouldnt-be-refilled-92283">Australia's Emissions Reduction Fund is almost empty. It shouldn't be refilled</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The government claims a main objective of the ERF is to create an incentive for Australian businesses to adopt smarter practices to reduce their greenhouse emissions. But our surveys of the business community suggest the policy has not achieved this objective. </p>
<p>Research conducted in 2015 found that big businesses were taking a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-biggest-emitters-opt-to-wait-and-see-over-emissions-reduction-fund-77160">wait-and-see approach</a> on whether to opt into the scheme. Our latest results suggest this cynicism has become even more entrenched. </p>
<p>During 2018 we interviewed 14 senior executives involved in managing the emissions of large corporations in the materials, industrial, utility and consumer staples industries. Their responses, some of which are quoted anonymously below, reveal the ERF has not been effective in attracting the trust and participation of high-emitting companies:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ERF process is long-winded, cumbersome […] and it’s just impractical. </p>
<p>The functions of auctions and the secondary market are unclear; industrial methods are difficult to use, which hinders participation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Many interviewees believe the ERF process is costly, and the scheme does not offer visible commercial incentives for companies to participate: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>for the amount of work and the number of audits that are required it’s very expensive and time-consuming to apply.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some participants also claimed the conditions to qualify for funding are overly strict, unrealistic and complicated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the projects didn’t qualify because we had ordered a part for [that] project at a date prior to registering the project […] This was a project that would have had considerable reductions associated with it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some interviewees also suggested the ERF does not focus enough on high-emitting sectors such as electricity generation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the sector that produces the most emissions and where the technology exists now to get the best reductions is the electricity generation sector. It’s completely exempted from this policy.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Minimal participation</h2>
<p>Only four of the nine companies represented in the interviews participated in the ERF, and three of these submitted only one project each. Some companies preferred state-run schemes over the national ERF:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have purposely avoided the ERF and gone with the New South Wales ESF scheme […] because the ESF scheme has much better rules, it’s much easier to work with.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A minority of our interviewees described the plan to extend the ERF scheme as a waste of taxpayers’ money. But while most remained in favour of the policy, they stressed it needs to be improved – particularly with regard to its “safeguard mechanism” which aims to stop big emitters cancelling out the progress made elsewhere. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[T]he ERF should be funded along with implementing changes to the safeguard mechanism and other policies to make sure it’s more effective in its outcomes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Almost all the managers highlighted the need for a stable, long-term policy to motivate significant emissions reductions in the corporate sector. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We want some level of policy certainty over a long period of time, so we can make informed and considered investment decisions. It’s the same thing we’ve been asking for for a while.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-biggest-emitters-opt-to-wait-and-see-over-emissions-reduction-fund-77160">Australia’s biggest emitters opt to 'wait and see' over Emissions Reduction Fund</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Overall, the study suggests carbon emissions regulation in Australia has been politicised and bureaucratised to such an extent there is now a disconnect between regulators and corporations. As a result, ERF funding has been skewed towards the land and agriculture sectors, and high-emitting industries have been <a href="https://bit.ly/2Qmw7bH">distanced from the fund</a>. This is clearly detrimental to emissions reductions as a whole. </p>
<p>Australia’s carbon emissions <a href="https://bit.ly/2Nk2nKz">continue to rise</a>, adding further jeopardy to our <a href="https://bit.ly/2Nln5d4">already threatened</a> efforts to meet our Paris targets. </p>
<p>Therefore, leaving high-emitting companies to regulate their own carbon emissions may not be a rational decision. Boosting ERF funding may be necessary, but not before a critical review of the policy so as to ensure the highest emitters actually sign up to the scheme.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104136/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The federal government has signalled its intent to prolong the Emissions Reduction Fund. But surveys of business leaders reveal widespread cynicism about a scheme perceived as politicised and bureaucratic.Jayanthi Kumarasiri, Lecturer in Accounting, RMIT UniversityAbeyratna Gunasekarage, Senior Lecturer, Monash UniversityChristine Jubb, Professor of Accounting, Associate Director Centre for Transformative Innovation, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/941122018-04-06T04:26:18Z2018-04-06T04:26:18ZThe Nationals should support carbon farming, not coal<p>National Party MP George Christensen has invited other Nationals to join the recently formed pro-coal “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pro-coal-monash-forum-may-do-little-but-blacken-the-name-of-a-revered-australian-94329">Monash Forum</a>”. But is coal in the best interests of their rural constituents, particularly farmers? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pro-coal-monash-forum-may-do-little-but-blacken-the-name-of-a-revered-australian-94329">The pro-coal 'Monash Forum' may do little but blacken the name of a revered Australian</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Farmers stand to lose from any weakening of the government’s climate change policies. That is why farmers and their political representatives should be concerned about a current <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/consultations/86381168-b3cf-405a-bc79-90eb651c5731/files/safeguard-mechanism-consultation-paper-2018.pdf">review</a> of the government’s greenhouse gas reduction policy. </p>
<p>What is at stake here is the strange-sounding idea of carbon farming. To explain this idea takes several steps, so bear with me.</p>
<p>The policy under review is a legacy of the Abbott era. As prime minister, Tony Abbott abolished the carbon tax and replaced it with an <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/about">Emissions Reduction Fund</a> (ERF). The ERF was to be used to pay businesses to reduce their carbon emissions, or to capture and sequester (store) carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-axed-how-it-affects-you-australia-and-our-emissions-28895">Carbon tax axed: how it affects you, Australia and our emissions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As it turns out, most of the funding has gone to rural enterprises that have developed various farming projects that qualify for funding – hence the term, carbon farming. </p>
<p><a href="http://carbonmarketinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Carbon-Farming-Industry-Roadmap.pdf">For example</a>, these projects include:</p>
<ul>
<li>regenerating native forest on previously cleared land</li>
<li>changed farming practices to allow for crop stubble retention</li>
<li>capturing and destroying the methane from effluent waste at piggeries.</li>
</ul>
<h2>How does carbon farming work?</h2>
<p>To make it all work, the government first created the system of Australian Carbon Credit Units (<a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/OSR/ANREU/types-of-emissions-units/australian-carbon-credit-units">ACCU</a>s). This system commodifies the outputs of carbon farming, so these can be traded. </p>
<p>In this system, a carbon farmer must show either a reduction in emissions, or carbon sequestration (or ideally both), according to clearly specified criteria. The government will then issue (free of charge) one credit for every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) – or CO₂ equivalent – abated in this way. Farmers can then sell these credits, thus receiving a direct financial return for their efforts. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://carbonmarketinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Carbon-Farming-Industry-Roadmap.pdf">primary buyer</a> of ACCUs at the moment is the government, via its Emissions Reduction Fund. Farmers (individually or as collectives) who want to embark on carbon farming projects are asked to nominate a price they would need to make it profitable for them to go ahead with the project. Through a <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-todays-direct-action-reverse-auction-work-40152">reverse auction</a>, the fund selects the lowest-price proposals. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-todays-direct-action-reverse-auction-work-40152">Explainer: how does today's Direct Action reverse auction work?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In this way, the government gets the greatest carbon abatement for the least money. Successful bidders embark on their projects knowing that they have a guaranteed price for their carbon abatement outcomes. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. It is simply the price at which the buyer and sellers of carbon credits find it mutually advantageous to do business.</p>
<p>The average price paid at the last auction round was <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/energy/carbon-price-jumps-in-maiden-run-for-tony-abbotts-emissions-trading-scheme-20180313-h0xfhl">A$12 per tonne</a> of CO₂ abated. This is the current carbon price in this particular market. </p>
<h2>The Safeguard Mechanism</h2>
<p>A second potential set of buyers of carbon credits was created by the Safeguard Mechanism, introduced by the Abbott government. This caps emissions from big industrial emitters in order to to ensure that abatement achieved by the ERF is not offset or cancelled out. </p>
<p>The cap is set at whatever the maximum emission rate from the emitter has been. So it is not designed to reduce emissions from these big emitters, but simply to hold them to current levels. </p>
<p>The scheme covers just over 150 facilities, which are responsible for about <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/consultations/86381168-b3cf-405a-bc79-90eb651c5731/files/safeguard-mechanism-consultation-paper-2018.pdf">half of Australia’s emissions</a>. Emitters that go over their limit can remain in compliance by buying enough carbon credits to compensate for their “excess” emissions and <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/The-safeguard-mechanism">surrendering these to government</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-biggest-emitters-opt-to-wait-and-see-over-emissions-reduction-fund-77160">Australia’s biggest emitters opt to 'wait and see' over Emissions Reduction Fund</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This policy is now beginning to bite. The government has just <a href="http://carbonmarketinstitute.org/safeguard-mechanism-reboots-australias-carbon-market/">announced</a> that in the first period for which the policy has been in effect, some 16 large emitters were in excess and had to buy 448,000 carbon credits to remain in compliance. Among the biggest buyers were:</p>
<ul>
<li>Anglo Coal’s Capcoal mining operations</li>
<li>Glencore’s Tahmoor Coal</li>
<li>Rio Tinto’s Alcan Gove aluminium operations</li>
<li>BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Coal/BM Alliance.</li>
</ul>
<p>These companies bought their credits from carbon farmers who abated more carbon then they had calculated, and so had a surplus left over for sale. </p>
<p>But what is most interesting is the <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/energy/carbon-price-jumps-in-maiden-run-for-tony-abbotts-emissions-trading-scheme-20180313-h0xfhl">price</a> that excess emitters were willing to pay for the surplus credits. Most of the sales were in the region of $14-15 per tonne (T), but the price rose to $17-18/T as the deadline approached. </p>
<p>This means that the price spiked at 50% higher than the most recent ERF auction price of $12/T.</p>
<p>Commentators describe this as a secondary market, and the price in this market is exciting news for carbon farmers. <a href="http://carbonmarketinstitute.org/safeguard-mechanism-reboots-australias-carbon-market/">According to Australian Carbon Market Institute CEO Peter Castellas</a>, “Australia now has a functioning carbon market.” Carbon farmers – who make up an increasing proportion of the Nationals’ constituency – will do well if this market expands. </p>
<p>One way to develop the market would be to slowly lower the caps on big emitters so they must either buy more carbon credits or find ways to reduce their own emissions.</p>
<p>From this point of view, there is good reason to progressively and predictably reduce the emissions allowed under the Safeguard Mechanism.</p>
<h2>The current review</h2>
<p>Here’s where we get to the current review. As already noted, the Safeguard Mechanism does not seek to reduce emissions from big emitters. In fact, it allows for an increase in emissions to accommodate business growth. Nevertheless, big emitters are <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/biggest-polluters-get-clear-path-to-hike-emissions-under-plan-20180227-p4z1y1.html">still unhappy</a>.</p>
<p>The government’s review is a response to business concerns. An initial <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/consultations/86381168-b3cf-405a-bc79-90eb651c5731/files/safeguard-mechanism-consultation-paper-2018.pdf">consultation paper</a> has proposed making it easier to raise the cap on a company’s emissions as its activity grows. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-emissions-reduction-fund-could-work-if-well-designed-20460">An Emissions Reduction Fund could work, if well designed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If the rules are altered in this way, the demand for carbon credits may stall, and even decline, bringing to an end to this promising new source of revenue for farmers. </p>
<p>That is why members of parliament with rural constituencies should take note. Rural MPs should not sit by and allow the government to respond to the interests of the coal industry and other lobby groups.</p>
<p>Carbon farming depends on reducing the caps under the Safeguard Mechanism, not raising them. This would also be a step in the direction of achieving the emissions reduction target to which Australia agreed at the Paris meetings in 2015.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94112/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Hopkins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Proposed changes to the government’s climate change policies may stall, or even close down, the market for ‘carbon farmers’ to profit from reducing carbon dioxide emissions.Andrew Hopkins, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/922832018-02-25T19:19:33Z2018-02-25T19:19:33ZAustralia’s Emissions Reduction Fund is almost empty. It shouldn’t be refilled<p>Australia’s flagship climate policy, the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a> (ERF), has come in for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/19/emissions-increases-approved-by-regulator-may-wipe-out-260m-of-direct-action-cuts">fresh questions</a> over whether the emissions allowances offered to big businesses will wipe out much of the progress made elsewhere.</p>
<p>This voluntary scheme – the central plank of Australia’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030 – allows interested parties to reduce pollution in exchange for a proportion of the A$2.55 billion fund. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-is-miscounting-greenhouse-emissions-reductions-88950">The government is miscounting greenhouse emissions reductions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So far, through successive rounds of “<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-todays-direct-action-reverse-auction-work-40152">reverse auctions</a>”, the scheme has <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/emissions-reduction-fund-update">secured</a> 191.7 million tonnes of emission reductions, at a price tag of A$2.28 billion.</p>
<p>As the budget for this scheme is nearly exhausted, it is important to ask whether it has been a success, or whether Australia’s carbon policy needs a radical rethink. Overall, the answer seems to be the latter.</p>
<h2>Safeguards not so safe</h2>
<p>Much of the problem stems from the ERF’s <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/publications/factsheet-erf-safeguard-mechanism">safeguard mechanism</a>, which puts limits on the greenhouse emissions from around 140 large polluting businesses. Under the mechanism, these firms are not allowed to pollute more than an agreed “baseline”, calculated on the basis of their existing operations.</p>
<p>The mechanism is described as a safeguard because it aims to stop big businesses wiping out the emissions reductions delivered by projects funded by the ERF. But it doesn’t appear to be working.</p>
<p>The government has already <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/National%20greenhouse%20and%20energy%20reporting%20data/Safeguard-baselines-table">increased the emission baselines</a> for many of these businesses, for arguably specious reasons. Some firms have been given extra leeway to pollute simply because their business has grown, or even just because they blew their original baseline.</p>
<p>Worryingly, on February 21, 2018 the federal government released a <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/consultation/safeguard-mechanism">consultation document</a> which favours “updating baselines to bring them in line with current circumstances” and suggests that “to help prevent baselines becoming out-of-date in the future, they could be updated for production more often, for example, each year”.</p>
<p>It doesn’t take a genius to realise that if baselines are continually increased over time, the fixed benefits of the ERF will inevitably be wiped out.</p>
<p>This underlines the importance of having a climate policy that operates throughout the economy, rather than only in certain parts of it. If heavily polluting businesses can so readily be allowed to undo the work of others, this is a recipe for disaster.</p>
<h2>Contract problems</h2>
<p>Even within the ERF process itself, many emissions reduction contracts have already been <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-and-contracts-registers/project-register">revoked</a>. This is worrying but also avoidable if the contracts are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpr057">written correctly</a>.</p>
<p>It is important to note that these contracts run for around seven years, and thus it is possible that the planned carbon reductions never eventuate. Currently only about 16% of the announced 191.7 million tonnes of emissions reduction have actually been <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results/December-2017">delivered</a>.</p>
<p>For the ERF to work effectively, the government needs to know the “counterfactual” emissions – that is, firms’ emissions if they decided not to participate in the ERF. Yet this is completely unknown.</p>
<p>This means that projects that successfully bid for ERF funding (typically the cheapest ones) <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/108879/3/01_Burke_Undermined_by_Adverse_Selection_2016.pdf">may not be “additional”</a>. In other words, they may have established these emissions reduction projects anyway, with or without funding from the taxpayer.</p>
<p>Another problem with the ERF is that it is skewed towards projects from lower-polluting sectors of the economy, whereas heavily polluting industries are underrepresented. The <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Infohub/Media-Centre/Pages/Resources/ERF%20media%20resources/Emissions-Position-as-at-January-2018.aspx">largest proportion</a> of signed contracts have involved planting trees or reducing emissions from savannah burning.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the firms covered by the safeguard mechanism are largely absent from the ERF itself, despite these firms accounting for <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/about/safeguard-mechanism">around 50%</a> of Australia’s greenhouse emissions.</p>
<p>The bare fact is that Australia’s flagship climate policy doesn’t target the prominent polluters.</p>
<h2>A different way</h2>
<p>Australia’s climate policy has had a <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-repealed-experts-respond-29154">colourful past</a>. Yet the economics of pollution mitigation remain the same.</p>
<p>If we want to reduce pollution in a cost-effective way that actually works, then we must (re-)establish a carbon price.</p>
<p>This would provide the much-needed certainty about the cost of genuine pollution reduction. This in turn would allow all major polluters to make strategic, long-term investments that will progressively reduce emissions.</p>
<p>Instead of spending A$2.55 billion to pay for modest emissions reductions that might be cancelled out elsewhere, creating a carbon price will allow for the generation of tax revenue that can be used for a host of purposes.</p>
<p>For example, distortionary tax rates (such as income and corporation tax) could be lowered, or the revenue could be used to fund better schools and hospitals.</p>
<p>A clear example of such a success can be taken from the northeastern states of the US. The <a href="https://rggi.org/">Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative</a> is a cap-and-trade market that sells tradeable pollution permits to electricity companies. Estimates have shown that US$2.3 billion of lifetime <a href="https://www.rggi.org/investments/proceeds-investments">energy bill savings</a> will occur due to investments made in 2015.</p>
<h2>To tax or cap?</h2>
<p>If the ERF is to be replaced, what type of carbon price do we want? Do we want a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade market?</p>
<p>While advantages exist for both, most <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.05.004">evidence</a> shows that carbon taxes are more efficient at driving down emissions. Moreover, taxation avoids the potential problems of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.04.009">market power</a>, which may exist with a small number of large polluters.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-biggest-emitters-opt-to-wait-and-see-over-emissions-reduction-fund-77160">Australia’s biggest emitters opt to 'wait and see' over Emissions Reduction Fund</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A carbon price would also remove much of the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-017-0401-8">political rent-seeking</a> that is encouraged by Australia’s current policy settings. A simple, economy-wide carbon tax would be more transparent than the safeguard mechanism, under which individual firms can plead for leniency. </p>
<p>With the ERF fund almost empty, the federal government should ask itself a tough question. Should it spend another A$2.55 billion of taxpayers’ money while letting major polluters increase their emissions? Or should it embrace a new source of tax revenue that incentivises cleaner technologies in a transparent, cost-effective way?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian A. MacKenzie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia’s flagship climate policy, has spent more than $2 billion on emissions reductions, yet big businesses could wipe all this out. Time to resurrect the idea of a simple carbon tax.Ian A. MacKenzie, Senior Lecturer in Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/893722017-12-19T19:24:18Z2017-12-19T19:24:18ZThe federal Climate Policy Review: a recipe for business as usual<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199870/original/file-20171219-27595-13grrdp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The new climate policy review proposes loosening the rules on Australia's biggest-emitting companies, such as power generators.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marcella Cheng/The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government’s newly released <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/18690271-59ac-43c8-aee1-92d930141f54/files/2017-review-climate-change-policies.pdf">Climate Policy Review</a> is hugely disappointing, but far from surprising. It does not depart from what the Turnbull government has been saying for some time: it plans to loosen compliance obligations for emissions-intensive companies even further, reintroduce international carbon offsets, and implement the planned <a href="https://theconversation.com/infographic-the-national-energy-guarantee-at-a-glance-85832">National Energy Guarantee</a>. </p>
<p>The review was first announced November 2016, when Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-to-ratify-the-paris-climate-deal-under-a-large-trump-shaped-shadow-68586">ratified the Paris Climate Agreement</a>, committing it to a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">2030 emissions target of 26-28% below 2005 levels</a>. A year later, the final report claims that Australia is on track to meet this target with its existing climate change policies. </p>
<p>The review indicates plans to keep the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a>, a A$2.55 billion pot of public money from which companies can bid for funding to implement emissions reductions. But it does not promise new funding beyond the existing A$2.55 billion, nor does it address <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-is-miscounting-greenhouse-emissions-reductions-88950">ongoing</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/direct-action-not-giving-us-bang-for-our-buck-on-climate-change-59308">problems</a> with the scheme. </p>
<p>The Climate Policy Review is also not surprising because it continues a longstanding, bipartisan tradition in weak climate policy formulation. It echoes four enduring features of Australia’s ineffective climate policy since the 1990s. We can think of them as a recipe for business as usual.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">Australia's 2030 climate target puts us in the race, but at the back</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Step 1: Pursue a weak emissions target.</strong></p>
<p>Australia’s 2020 and 2030 emissions targets are <a href="http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia.html">modest</a>. The 2020 target of reducing emissions by 5% below 2000 levels (a reduction equivalent to 294 million tonnes of carbon dioxide) will be met largely on the back of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-hit-its-kyoto-target-but-it-was-more-a-three-inch-putt-than-a-hole-in-one-44731">loophole Australia secured way back in 1997</a> when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated.</p>
<p>The Turnbull government ratified the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=paris+climate+agreement+at+a+glance">Paris Agreement</a> in 2016, having pledged to <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">cut emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030</a>. The review provides no clear answer as to how the 2030 target will be met. However, there are signs that domestic emissions will continue to rise, and that international carbon offsets will have to be bought to “balance” the national carbon account. </p>
<p><strong>Step 2: Loosen obligations for industry as much as possible.</strong></p>
<p>Weak compliance obligations for industry are the reason why emissions may rise in the future. The review signals changes to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-new-cap-on-emissions-is-a-trading-scheme-in-all-but-name-47035">Safeguard Mechanism</a> – a key plank of its existing <a href="https://theconversation.com/direct-actions-here-but-how-will-australia-cut-carbon-after-2020-33642">Direct Action</a> policy suite, which aims to encourages large businesses not to exceed their historical emissions levels. </p>
<p>The problem is that the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/publications/factsheet-erf-safeguard-mechanism">Safeguard Mechanism</a> is already weak, and only covers around 140 of Australia’s most emissions-intensive firms. </p>
<p>The Safeguard Mechanism requires companies to report on their emissions against an historical baseline rate. If they exceed this baseline, they can meet their obligations by buying carbon credits. The baseline is already <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/The-safeguard-mechanism/Managing-excess-emissions">very flexible</a>. For instance, companies can ask for their baseline to be recalculated if their overall emissions have increased but their emissions intensity (the amount of emissions per unit of economic productivity) has improved. </p>
<p>The Climate Policy Review says the government plans to increase this flexibility still further, and will work with industry to change baseline calculations. It makes the bizarre argument that the problem with baselines is that they reflect the historical activity of businesses which might be emitting more today if they increase production to remain competitive. </p>
<p>The proposed solution? “Broaden access to baseline increases”, which could mean the government plans to rewrite baseline rules to ensure companies are not obliged to reduce their emissions if their production grows. This goes against the very grain of climate policy, which should be to encourage high-emitting companies to change how they do business.</p>
<p>Of course, this isn’t the first time a government has sought to be generous to emissions-intensive industries. The Keating and Howard governments made emissions reduction schemes entirely voluntary. </p>
<p>The Rudd and Gillard governments also invented similar loopholes to the one suggested by the new review. Both Rudd’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and Gillard’s carbon pricing scheme included incredibly generous <a href="http://cmeaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/130218-final-report-on-Victorian-generator-compensation-_1.pdf">industry compensation</a> to the most emissions-intensive industries in the form of free permits and cash payments. These were <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/restructuring-the-australian-economy-to-emit-less-carbon/">weakly justified</a> on the basis of international competition. </p>
<p><strong>Step 3: Shift the heavy lifting elsewhere.</strong></p>
<p>The review signals a return to another policy tactic to avoid cutting emissions in the domestic economy. In a major departure from the Abbott government’s position, the current review embraces once again the idea of buying international carbon credits. </p>
<p>Carbon offsets have been a longstanding part of Australian climate policy, dating back to early reports on emissions trading <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/ClimateChron">in the 1990s</a>. More recently, the Howard government’s <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/72614/20070601-0000/www.pmc.gov.au/emissionstrading/index.html">emissions trading taskgroup</a> and the <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/">Garnaut Reviews</a> both argued for international offsets as a source of “flexibility”.</p>
<p>Carbon credits are generated from projects that propose to reduce emissions, usually in industries and places not covered by national emissions trading schemes. In Australia, they are produced mostly in the land sector under the Emissions Reduction Fund, while globally these projects have been centred on China, India, Brazil, and <a href="http://www.redd-monitor.org/redd-an-introduction/">rainforest nations</a>.</p>
<p>The idea behind these projects is that they deliver “additional” emissions reductions that would not have happened without the investment from those buying the carbon credits. In reality it’s <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09505430500216783">much more complicated</a>. Carbon offsets shift the hard work away from industries and countries that should really be working the hardest – such as Australia’s electricity sector.</p>
<p>By offshoring the heavy lifting, governments delay real, meaningful change in cutting emissions. Federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg summed up the false logic of international carbon offsetting in his <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-review-turnbull-government-will-allow-companies-to-purchase-foreign-carbon-credits-20171218-h06zia.html">recent comments</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When it comes to helping the environment, it doesn’t matter if you’ve reduced a tonne of CO₂ here in Australia or in another country.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But it does matter. Sure, carbon offsetting allows flexibility in the short term, but it makes it much harder in the long term to move away from fossil fuels if we’re not investing in renewable energy infrastructure right now.</p>
<p><strong>Step 4: Act as if it’s out of the question for governments to plan and build a low-carbon economy.</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/infographic-the-national-energy-guarantee-at-a-glance-85832">National Energy Guarantee</a> (NEG) requires electricity retailers to buy or generate electricity at or below a particular emissions intensity. The government is fond of telling us how the policy is “technology-neutral”, replacing the Renewable Energy Target which specifically encouraged low-carbon energy investments.</p>
<p>The details of how the NEG will be designed are still sketchy, but it is likely to take the form of a sort of market mechanism.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-the-national-energy-guarantee-hit-pause-on-renewables-85978">Will the National Energy Guarantee hit pause on renewables?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Market mechanisms will do little in the absence of structural change in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-renationalising-australias-electricity-grid-73951">failing electricity market</a>. The history of energy infrastructure development in Australia and across the globe tells us that concerted planning and public investment is essential for energy transformations. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the more recent political and practical <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Pricing-Carbon-in-Australia-Contestation-the-State-and-Market-Failure/Pearse/p/book/9781138230583">failures of carbon pricing</a> show that a techno-market fix will not “solve” climate politics for the current or future governments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89372/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Pearse does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The federal government’s keenly awaited review of Australia’s climate policies continues a longstanding bipartisan traditional of weak policy development in this area.Rebecca Pearse, Lecturer, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/889502017-12-12T19:14:20Z2017-12-12T19:14:20ZThe government is miscounting greenhouse emissions reductions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/198729/original/file-20171212-9410-trz6re.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some projects shouldn't be receiving funding from the government. Yet, lack of proper monitoring has caused huge amounts of wasted money.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.goodfreephotos.com/australia/western-australia/perth/perth-landfill-australia.jpg.php">www.goodfreephotos.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), established in 2014 with funding of A$2.55 billion, is mostly spent. With just A$200 million left to be allocated, the Climate Change Authority this week released a <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/review-emissions-reduction-fund">report on the fund’s progress</a> that can be best described as magnanimous. </p>
<p>The federal government claims that 189 million tonnes of emissions have been diverted or prevented from entering the atmosphere under the scheme. But research I have done with a co-author from Melbourne Law School has found serious issues, from giving unnecessary funds, to counting decade-old projects as new emissions “reductions”. </p>
<p>While the Authority <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/prod.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/files/CFI%202017%20December/ERF%20Review%20Report%20List%20of%20Recommendations.pdf">made 26 recommendations</a> for improvement, each is relatively low-impact. Most of the recommendations go towards increasing the fund’s transparency or removing barriers to participation. While these are laudable aims, there are deeper problems. </p>
<h2>How should the fund work?</h2>
<p>At its most basic, the ERF gives private companies and individuals a cash incentive to avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. These businesses or people compete for funding by putting their projects forward at <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-todays-direct-action-reverse-auction-work-40152">reverse auctions</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-todays-direct-action-reverse-auction-work-40152">Explainer: how does today's Direct Action reverse auction work?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The fund is unique in Australia’s climate policy, in that the legislation that supports it has strong bipartisan support. Even if a change of federal government leads to a new policy for curbing emissions, it’s very likely that the basic ERF structure will be carried forward.</p>
<p>But despite the fund’s importance, there has been surprisingly little detailed academic analysis of it to date. In an effort to redress this, a colleague and I have a <a href="https://www.mq.edu.au/about/about-the-university/faculties-and-departments/faculty-of-arts/departments-and-centres/macquarie-law-school/our-research">paper forthcoming</a> that examines the underlying logic and effect of the fund. The paper focuses specifically on the path into the ERF for landfill operators, although the conclusions stretch further than just those projects. </p>
<p>Our conclusions are simple. With A$2.55 billion, the fund has considerable potential to crop the low-hanging fruit of Australia’s emissions profile. However, there are serious flaws in how some projects are assessed for funding.</p>
<p>Where support is granted to projects that would proceed without it, there is no benefit to the government’s intervention. Rather than lopping the low-hanging fruit, we are instead throwing money at the fruit that is already sitting in a bowl on the kitchen bench.</p>
<h2>How to avoid redundancy</h2>
<p>In the language of offsetting schemes, assessing a project to see if it needs extra funding to be commercially viable is known as an “additionality” test. The legislation that underpins the ERF contains <a href="http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ccfia2011355/s27.html">three such tests</a>, which are actually very strong:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Newness</strong>: is a project new? Has work on it already begun? If it has, the project is ineligible, because it is considered already commercially viable. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Existing regulations</strong>: is a particular project or emissions abatement already required by law? If so, the project is ineligible for ERF funding. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Other government funding</strong>: does a project have access to other sources of government funding? If it does, the proponent should use those funds instead.</p></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-biggest-emitters-opt-to-wait-and-see-over-emissions-reduction-fund-77160">Australia’s biggest emitters opt to 'wait and see' over Emissions Reduction Fund</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If these three tests were mandated for all projects submitted to the ERF, it would be filled with projects that truly deliver new environmental benefit. But they’re not – and it isn’t.</p>
<p>There’s a simple reason why these tests aren’t used in all cases: there are 34 different ways of abating emissions recognised by the ERF (technically referred to as “methodologies”), from the destruction of methane from piggeries using engineered biodigesters, to avoiding deforestation.</p>
<p>Because these activities are so diverse, the legislation that underpins the ERF allows the Department of Environment and Energy to create methodology-specific tests instead, in consultation with industry stakeholders. They are then subject to ministerial approval.</p>
<p>In most cases, the replacements merely finesse the tests to make them more appropriate to the specific circumstances. For example, the existence of a <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/covenants">conservation covenant</a> (basically a promise to protect land) is not an obstacle to participation under the avoided deforestation methodology, despite these covenants being legally binding on present and future users of the land.</p>
<h2>The case of landfill gas</h2>
<p>Other instances are much less innocuous. One such area is landfill, where the gas created by decomposing rubbish can be captured and burned to create energy. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/capturing-the-true-wealth-of-australias-waste-82644">Capturing the true wealth of Australia’s waste</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the most egregious examples of “regulatory slippage” that either myself or my co-author have ever seen, the tests for whether landfill-related schemes should get ERF money have been completely neutered. </p>
<p>One of the largest Australian companies in this area is <a href="http://www.lms.com.au/">LMS Energy</a>. Their Rochedale <a href="https://www.energypower.com.au/case-studies/electric-power-projects/lms-generation.aspx">landfill gas project</a> should, under the tests in the Act, be thrice barred from participation. </p>
<p>First, it predates the ERF by a full decade. Second, the capture and disposal of methane from landfill sites is required by <a href="https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/pr-co-landfill.pdf">Queensland’s air pollution laws</a>. Finally, it receives renewable energy certificates under the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Target, as power is often created by methane burned to drive a steam turbine. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, this project is funded by the ERF. It should be noted clearly that there is no suggestion that the project is engaged in any deception. Its operators are absolutely complying with regulations. The issue is that the regulations themselves have been watered down to a ludicrous degree.</p>
<p>Two of the three tests (no funding from other government programs and not legally required) have been replaced by an unbelievably tautological requirement that landfill gas and combustion projects fulfil the legislative definition of a landfill gas and combustion project. That is, in order to pass the tests, a landfill gas capture and combustion project must merely be a landfill gas capture and combustion project.</p>
<p>The newness requirement permits projects that were previously registered under schemes that predate the ERF, which includes most of the larger sites for the capture and combustion of landfill methane in Australia. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-much-landfill-does-australia-have-78404">Explainer: how much landfill does Australia have?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Because this project already existed, its contributions are captured in measurements of Australia’s baseline emissions. While there’s a good argument for rewarding ecologically responsibly companies, that is not actually the point of the ERF. To state the obvious, we should not be paying to maintain the status quo, and then claim to be reducing emissions. </p>
<p>The Climate Change Authority has unfortunately not taken the opportunity to address these underlying problems, or the potential for similar issues in future legislation. </p>
<p>More immediately, we must take the government’s claim to have abated 189 million tonnes of emissions with a hefty grain of salt. The reality is that the scheme’s effect on Australia’s total emissions is considerably smaller.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88950/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aspects of this research funded by Australian Research Council Discovery Grant DP1200101485 entitled Carbon Offsets: Regulation for Success.</span></em></p>A review of the Emissions Reduction Fund has found it’s performing well – but new research raises serious credibility issues.Tim Baxter, Researcher - Melbourne Law School, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/859782017-10-20T04:59:06Z2017-10-20T04:59:06ZWill the National Energy Guarantee hit pause on renewables?<p>The federal government’s new National Energy Guarantee (NEG) proposal looks likely to put the brakes on renewable energy investment in Australia. And based on the sparse detail so far available, there are serious questions about whether the plan really can deliver on its aims of reliability, emissions reductions and lower prices. </p>
<p>The broad mechanism design could be made to work, but to be effective in driving the transition of the energy sector it would need adequate ambition on carbon emissions and very careful thought about the reliability requirements of the future electricity grid.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/infographic-the-national-energy-guarantee-at-a-glance-85832">Infographic: the National Energy Guarantee at a glance</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The policy may well be used to force investment into the fossil fuel power fleet through regulatory intervention, and perhaps for the power sector to buy emissions offsets. This would risk locking in a carbon-intensive power system.</p>
<h2>The NEG: top or flop?</h2>
<p>Having rejected several options – including an <a href="https://theconversation.com/emissions-trading-for-electricity-is-the-sensible-way-forward-70137">emissions intensity scheme</a>, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-the-clean-energy-target-fizzles-what-might-replace-it-85598">Clean Energy Target</a> put forward by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-finkel-review-at-a-glance-79177">Finkel Review</a>, and any continuation of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/renewable-energy-target-8912">Renewable Energy Target</a> – the government has finally managed to get a <a href="https://theconversation.com/infographic-the-national-energy-guarantee-at-a-glance-85832">policy proposal</a> through the party room, formulated in advice by its newly established <a href="http://www.coagenergycouncil.gov.au/publications/energy-security-board-update">Energy Security Board</a>.</p>
<p>Analysts’ initial reactions have ranged from <a href="http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/energy-security-board-offers-the-government-a-circuitbreaker-for-energy-crisis-20171017-gz2k7t">unbridled enthusiasm</a> to <a href="http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/shambolic-energy-guarantee-policy-snatches-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory-20171018-gz3c18?utm_source=News+Wrap&utm_campaign=bf34a5b73b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_30&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4d9b03d80b-bf34a5b73b-296301185&mc_cid=bf34a5b73b&mc_eid=9412a2e2f6">derisive rejection</a>. It depends on political judgments, expectations about how the scheme might operate in practice, and how high one’s expectations are for efficiency and environmental effectiveness. </p>
<p>The politics of this are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/20/turnbull-predicts-states-will-sign-up-to-national-energy-guarantee">complicated</a>, but there are hopes that the Labor opposition will agree to the scheme in principle. But the decision is ultimately with the Australian states, which would need to pass legislation to implement it.</p>
<h2>Reliability guarantee: supporting fossil fuels?</h2>
<p>The first element of the NEG is the “reliability guarantee”. This would require electricity retailers to buy some share of their electricity from “<a href="https://theconversation.com/baffled-by-baseload-dumbfounded-by-dispatchables-heres-a-glossary-of-the-energy-debate-84212">dispatchable</a>” sources that can be readily switched on. The NEG list includes coal and gas, as well as hydro and energy storage – essentially, anything except wind and solar.</p>
<p>The NEG proposal might be informed by a political imperative to support coal. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-governments-energy-policy-hinges-on-some-tricky-wordplay-about-coals-role-85843">John Quiggin</a> has pointed out, defining coal-fired plants as dispatchable is questionable at best: they have long ramp-up times and are sometimes unavailable. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/">Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)</a> would prescribe the share of the “dispatchable” power sources and perhaps also the mix of technologies in retailers’ portfolios, separately in each state. This would be a remarkably interventionist approach.</p>
<p>Demand from retailers for the power sources they are told to use could trigger investment in new gas generators, refurbishment of existing coal plants, and some investment in energy storage. It is difficult to see how it would force the building of new coal plants, given their very large upfront cost and long-term emissions liabilities.</p>
<p>Would electricity prices be lower, as the Energy Security Board’s advice <a href="http://www.coagenergycouncil.gov.au/sites/prod.energycouncil/files/publications/documents/Energy%20Security%20Board%20ADVICE....pdf">claims</a>? Investment in new power generation will tend to reduce prices, cutting into profit margins. But the resulting investments will come at higher economic cost than market solutions, because they are determined by regulators’ orders made with a view to the short-term energy mix, not long-term cost-effectiveness. And there would be risk premiums on project finance, reflecting uncertainty about future policy settings.</p>
<h2>Emissions guarantee: flexible but weak?</h2>
<p>The NEG’s second pillar is the “emissions guarantee”. This would require retailers to keep their portfolio below some level of emissions intensity (carbon dioxide per unit of electricity).</p>
<p>This increases the demand for electricity from lower-emissions technologies, allowing them to command higher market prices and therefore encouraging investment in them. This price signal would benefit renewables and also favour gas over coal, as well as discriminating against the most polluting coal plants. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.coagenergycouncil.gov.au/sites/prod.energycouncil/files/publications/documents/Energy%20Security%20Board%20ADVICE....pdf">Energy Security Board’s advice</a> suggests that retailers would have flexibility in complying with that obligation, by buying and selling emissions components of their contracts, and potentially also using emissions offsets from outside the scheme to make up for any exceeding of emissions limits.</p>
<p>The reliability and emissions elements of the NEG interact with each other, and the net effect depends on the detailed implementation as well as the relative importance of the two components. </p>
<p>Given the politics within government, the weight could be on support for coal and gas generation. The reliability guarantee could therefore end up putting a tight lid on the amount of new wind and solar that can enter the system. </p>
<h2>Renewables, gas or credits?</h2>
<p>The Energy Security Board makes <a href="http://www.coagenergycouncil.gov.au/sites/prod.energycouncil/files/publications/documents/Energy%20Security%20Board%20ADVICE....pdf">explicit reference</a> to Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">Paris target</a> of a 26-28% reduction in emissions, relative to 2005 levels, by 2030. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/paris-target-fades-from-view-as-turnbull-government-stumbles-for-an-energy-fix-20171016-gz2a8q.html">said</a> the NEG will be expected to cut electricity emissions by a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-19/national-energy-guarantee-trifecta-missing-detail/9063500">similar percentage</a>, as a “pro rata” contribution to this goal.</p>
<p>But to meet the economy-wide target, the electricity sector would need to make deeper cuts, because emissions reductions are cheaper and easier here than elsewhere. </p>
<p>The Energy Security Board says it expects renewables to reach 28-36% by 2030. This is rather low, considering that the Finkel Review projected 42% under its proposed clean energy target, and 35% under business as usual. Other <a href="https://www.climateworksaustralia.org/project/national-projects/pathways-deep-decarbonisation-2050-how-australia-can-prosper-low-carbon">analyses</a> have shown that much higher levels of renewables are achievable. </p>
<p>So if the NEG is not geared to support renewables, how could significant emissions reductions be achieved?</p>
<p>One way would be to replace coal with gas-fired power, and brown coal with black coal. But the government has flagged that it is opposed to closing old coal plants. And a large-scale shift to gas would raise electricity prices further, unless gas prices were to tumble. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-governments-energy-policy-hinges-on-some-tricky-wordplay-about-coals-role-85843">The government's energy policy hinges on some tricky wordplay about coal's role</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>That leaves another option, mentioned in the Energy Security Board’s report: power retailers could buy emissions offset credits from elsewhere to make up for not meeting the emissions standard, specifically from projects under the government’s <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF)</a>. </p>
<p>This might be attractive for the government, as electricity retailers would then pay for ERF credits, rather than government as has been the case until now. It may also be attractive to the power industry, as it would reduce the cost of complying with the new obligations. Retailers would pass on the costs to their customers, so electricity consumers would end up paying for ERF projects. </p>
<p>Even assuming that all of the ERF’s emissions reductions are real (and some of them <a href="https://theconversation.com/direct-action-not-giving-us-bang-for-our-buck-on-climate-change-59308">may not be</a>), all this does is shift the adjustment burden from electricity to other sectors such as agriculture.</p>
<p>The NEG has the potential to reduce emissions effectively if the parameters are adjusted accordingly. But what seems more likely is that it will put the brakes on investment in renewables, solidify the status quo and delay the energy transition.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85978/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Jotzo manages research grants including from the Commonwealth government. He is a member of the ACT Climate Change Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Salim Mazouz is director of the economic consulting firm EcoPerspectives. There are no current projects that would be affected by the material discussed in this article.</span></em></p>The National Energy Guarantee proposal seems geared towards locking in the status quo rather than driving the much-needed energy transition.Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National UniversitySalim Mazouz, Research Associate, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/808832017-07-12T05:13:25Z2017-07-12T05:13:25ZThe electricity sector needs to cut carbon by 45% by 2030 to keep Australia on track<p>Our <a href="https://climateworks.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/publications/cwa_power_up_report_final_12_jul.pdf">new ClimateWorks Australia report</a>, released today, shows that the electricity sector needs to deliver a much greater cut than the 28% emissions reduction modelled in the Finkel Review if Australia is to meet its overall climate target for 2030.</p>
<p>When Australia’s energy ministers <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fears-finkel-review-reliability-obligations-will-slowdown-renewable-projects-20170609-gwo7se.html">meet this Friday</a> to discuss (among other things) the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/finkel-review-38844">Finkel Review</a> released last month, they will hopefully consider its recommendations for the electricity sector in the broader context of developing a long-term national climate policy.</p>
<p>According to our analysis, the electricity sector should cut emissions by at least 45% by 2030, as part of a move towards net zero emissions by 2050. This is well beyond current government policies, but is crucial if Australia is to meet its climate obligations in an economically responsible way.</p>
<h2>Climate commitments</h2>
<p>The federal government has <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">agreed to cut emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030</a>. As a signatory to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris climate agreement</a>, Australia has also committed to global action to limit global warming to well below 2°C – and as a developed nation, that means reaching net zero emissions across the whole economy by about 2050.</p>
<p>Our analysis suggests that the electricity sector will need do a larger share than other sectors of the economy, because it has more technical potential to do so and can support emissions reductions in other sectors. In practice, reaching net zero emissions means shifting from coal and other fossil fuels to zero- or near-zero-carbon energy sources such as renewable electricity and bioenergy. Coal or gas will only be feasible if fitted with <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/carbon-capture-and-storage-1526">carbon capture and storage</a>. Achieving near zero-emissions electricity is a key step in the transition to a net zero-emissions economy, not least because of the future importance of electrically powered transport.</p>
<p>The good news is that our <a href="https://climateworks.com.au/project/national-projects/pathways-deep-decarbonisation-2050-how-australia-can-prosper-low-carbon">previous research</a> has shown that this is achievable with existing technologies, thanks to Australia’s rich renewable resources. </p>
<p>CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia have also shown that the electricity sector can reach zero emissions by 2050 while still maintaining security and reliability, and that this will actually <a href="http://www.energynetworks.com.au/sites/default/files/entr_final_report_web.pdf">save households an estimated A$414 a year compared with business as usual</a>.</p>
<h2>The 2030 target matters</h2>
<p>Cutting emissions faster now will make it easier and less economically disruptive to reach net zero by 2050. Yet the latest government emissions projections forecast that Australia’s emissions will grow by 9% by the end of the next decade, from <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/c2af8dab-b4cf-40a4-85bc-3a09657d9284/files/nggi-quarterly-update-december-2016.pdf">543 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) in 2016</a> to <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/9437fe27-64f4-4d16-b3f1-4e03c2f7b0d7/files/aust-emissions-projections-2016.pdf">592Mt CO2e in 2030</a>. </p>
<p>If the impact of existing policies (such as the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/energy/national-energy-productivity-plan">National Energy Productivity Plan</a>, the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/legislation/opsggm-review/hfc-%20phase-down-faqs">phase-down of hydroflurocarbon emissions</a>, and state renewable energy targets) are taken into account in the projections, emissions could drop to 531Mt CO2e in 2030. This still leaves an 82-megatonne gap to reach even the minimum emissions reduction target of 26% percent below 2005 levels.</p>
<h2>Time to do more</h2>
<p>Our report, <a href="https://climateworks.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/publications/cwa_power_up_report_final_12_jul.pdf">Power Up: Australia’s electricity sector can and should do more to deliver on our climate commitments</a> shows that Australia’s electricity sector can cut emissions by up to 60% below 2005 levels by 2030. This is nearly six times more carbon reduction than is expected to be delivered by current policies, and could by itself fill the whole emissions reduction gap.</p>
<p>However, should the electricity sector only make a 28% reduction in its emissions, in line with the Finkel analysis, then it would only reduce emissions by 6Mt CO2e beyond current policies, leaving most of the effort of reducing emissions to other sectors such as buildings, transport, industry, waste and land management, where cutting carbon is likely to be significantly more expensive. </p>
<p>To reach this level of emissions reductions in the land sector, for instance, we would need to increase forest planting by more than three times the amount estimated to be delivered by the federal government’s <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emission Reduction Fund</a> in 2018, its peak year.</p>
<p>In its defence, the Finkel Review focused exclusively on the electricity sector and its analysis did not look at the impact that limited change in this sector would have on the required effort from other parts of the economy.</p>
<p>We therefore modelled various other scenarios, including one in which the share of renewables increases from 40% to 50% by 2030. This could enable the electricity sector to achieve double the carbon reductions delivered by efforts in line with the Finkel review. </p>
<p>Our third and fourth scenarios are aimed at meeting the <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/targets-and-progress-review-3">more ambitious emissions target range recommended by the Climate Change Authority</a>, corresponding to a more progressive and therefore economically responsible trajectory towards net zero emissions. This requires Australia achieving a 45-60% reduction in emissions from the electricity sector by 2030.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177813/original/file-20170712-15626-bsmx79.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177813/original/file-20170712-15626-bsmx79.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177813/original/file-20170712-15626-bsmx79.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177813/original/file-20170712-15626-bsmx79.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177813/original/file-20170712-15626-bsmx79.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177813/original/file-20170712-15626-bsmx79.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177813/original/file-20170712-15626-bsmx79.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177813/original/file-20170712-15626-bsmx79.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Expected emissions reductions by 2030 (in megatonnes CO₂ equivalent) in four different policy areas under four different electricity scenarios.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ClimateWorks Australia</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The long view</h2>
<p>Like the Finkel Review, our report recommends that the federal government defines a specific emissions-reduction policy for the electricity sector, which in Finkel’s case was the Clean Energy Target. This will help to ensure a smooth shift to reliable, affordable, low-carbon energy.</p>
<p>Our report outlines the key principles that Australian governments need to consider in order to make effective decisions on climate change policy, with a view to achieving net zero emissions by mid-century.</p>
<p>These include providing clear long-term direction to support the industry’s investment decisions, and ensuring that decision-making to 2030 is compatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050.</p>
<p>Climate policy should also be flexible so that it can be scaled up to meet future targets and allow a range of solutions, including the uptake of emerging technologies to make the transition faster and cheaper.</p>
<p>Given that net zero emissions is the ultimate goal, we need to move faster and achieve greater emissions reductions by 2030 to help deliver a fully decarbonised electricity system, on time and on budget.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80883/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amandine Denis-Ryan receives funding from federal and state government, as well as businesses, for specific analysis conducted for them. ClimateWorks Australia is an independent organisation, funded in majority through philanthropy.</span></em></p>A new analysis by ClimateWorks Australia says that the electricity sector needs to do far more to cut its carbon emissions than will be delivered by current policies.Amandine Denis-Ryan, Head of Research, ClimateWorks Australia, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/771602017-05-14T20:10:25Z2017-05-14T20:10:25ZAustralia’s biggest emitters opt to ‘wait and see’ over Emissions Reduction Fund<p>Many of Australia’s most carbon-intensive companies are either not participating in the federal government’s flagship <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a> (ERF), or are adopting a wait-and-see approach, according to our survey of senior executives.</p>
<p>The ERF, introduced in 2014 after the <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-axed-how-it-affects-you-australia-and-our-emissions-28895">repeal of the carbon tax</a>, is the central component in the government’s policy to reduce greenhouse emissions. Companies can bid for money from an overall fund of A$2.55 billion, to invest in low-carbon technologies and initiatives. Participation is voluntary.</p>
<p>Five ERF auctions have been held, awarding A$2.23 billion so far. However, participation by high-emitting companies <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/no-topup-for-the-emissions-reduction-fund-in-may-budget-20170417-gvm4c3">has been persistently low</a>. </p>
<p>Some of the funded projects are likely to deliver useful emissions cuts in areas such as forestry, landfill and waste management. But the scheme is <a href="https://theconversation.com/direct-action-not-giving-us-bang-for-our-buck-on-climate-change-59308">yet to reduce emissions reductions in key sectors of the economy</a> such as industry and electricity generation. Our survey underlines concerns that the scheme is not attracting the biggest emitters.</p>
<h2>Asking the questions</h2>
<p>Our research, titled the Australian Emission Reduction Fund Survey and produced in collaboration with the <a href="https://carbonmarketinstitute.org/">Carbon Market Institute</a>, was conducted in two rounds. </p>
<p>First, in 2015, we surveyed executives from high-emitting companies in sectors including mining, manufacturing, energy and transport. Then, in 2016, we surveyed executives from firms that had successfully registered carbon-reduction projects under the ERF. Survey respondents represented a broad range of positions, including managing directors, general managers, senior carbon advisers, heads of environmental markets and strategy, and chief executives. </p>
<p>The first-round survey, which was conducted before the first ERF auction and featured 68 participants, showed that 58% of companies planned to “wait and see” before engaging with the ERF. Another 34% said they did not intend to participate in the scheme at all.</p>
<p>One of the main reasons given for non-participation was the fact that the scheme is run as a reverse auction with no guarantee that bids will be successful. This makes it difficult to invest with certainty in the staffing and administration costs of running carbon-reduction projects. One participant told us:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…administrative costs do not make the ERF cost-effective for the scale of abatement opportunities available.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Respondents also told us that there was a lack of guidance on how to understand and participate in the ERF, and uncertainty over the rules of the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund/about/safeguard-mechanism">safeguard mechanism</a> that is meant to help drive demand for carbon credits. </p>
<p>Another issue that most participants highlighted is the inability to make a business case internally and to secure a relatively high price for emissions reductions. One manager emphasised:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Clearly a high price would assist in driving participation, but at the moment the package is not commercially attractive. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, some respondents expressed concern over the perceived lack of a wide range of approved methods for cutting carbon. And almost all participants were concerned by policy uncertainty, with one saying: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…there is currently a lack of business certainty regarding carbon policy in the mid to long term.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>ERF participants</h2>
<p>The results of our second-round survey in 2016, featuring 33 participants from companies that have registered ERF projects, suggested that the financial risk for investors in ERF projects has reduced, having been awarded secure government contracts for delivering carbon reductions. Nevertheless, respondents highlighted a range of concerns about the scheme’s effectiveness.</p>
<p>All respondents highlighted the uncertainty of further funding after the initial A$2.55 billion allocation is exhausted. One participant suggested that the government’s forthcoming <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/review-climate-change-policies">climate policy review</a>, to be released this year, should specify exactly how much money the ERF will make available in the future. </p>
<p>Moreover, many respondents expressed doubts that contracts awarded in the ERF’s first four auctions will be completed. This has arisen partly because of a perceived lack of adequate measures to resolve potential disputes between project proponents and land holders. As one respondent told us: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The extent to which landholders understand the legal risks associated with projects is unclear. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Participants also presume that the policy’s safeguard mechanism lacks tight enough “baselines” – the emissions limits beyond which high emitters are required to buy carbon credits. Tough baselines would generate the necessary certainty of a future market, as one respondent explained: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The extent of uncertainty will also be affected by whether the safeguard mechanism is strengthened by reducing baselines, and therefore increasing the need to purchase offsets.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/paris-2015">Paris climate summit</a> in 2015, Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">pledged</a> to cut carbon emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030. But if the government’s flagship emissions-reductions policy is failing to involve the highest-emitting companies, that target begins to look very onerous indeed. </p>
<p>With the government’s major climate change policy review now underway, it is time for the government, other political parties and high-emitting companies to work together to design a climate policy that is economically efficient and environmentally effective. There is no time to “wait and see” when it comes to combating carbon emissions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nava Subramaniam receives funding from Australian Research Council, linkage grant supported by the institute of internal Auditors Australia and the Association of Certified Chartered Accountants (ACCA). We received this funding to study risk management strategies in Australian Carbon Intensive Firms in 2011-16.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jayanthi Kumarasiri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A survey of executives in high-emitting industries such as mining and electricity generation suggests they are not engaging with the government’s flagship policy to cut greenhouse emissions.Jayanthi Kumarasiri, Lecturer in Accounting, Swinburne University of TechnologyNava Subramaniam, Professor of Accounting, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/681402016-11-03T19:07:46Z2016-11-03T19:07:46ZThe Paris climate deal has come into force – what next for Australia?<p>The <a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf">Paris climate agreement</a> comes into legal force today, just 11 months after it was concluded and 30 days after it <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-climate-agreement-comes-into-force-now-time-for-australia-to-step-up-66559">met its ratification threshold</a> of 55 parties accounting for at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>By contrast, the <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php">Kyoto Protocol</a>, which this treaty now replaces, took more than 8 years to come into force, slowed by the United States’ persistent and erosive opposition.</p>
<p>At the time of writing, the Agreement has been <a href="http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php">ratified</a> by 94 parties, including the world’s four largest emitters: China, the United States, the European Union and India. As <a href="http://climateanalytics.org/hot-topics/ratification-%20tracker.html">Climate Analytics reports</a>, these nations account for 66% of greenhouse emissions. Even if the United States were to withdraw its support under a Trump presidency, the Paris Agreement will remain in force.</p>
<p>The unprecedented speed with which this has been achieved reflects the acute realisation in the international community – following the debacle of the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009 – that a failure to land this treaty quickly would probably have led to the collapse of the United Nations climate regime.</p>
<p>It also reflects the flexibility of the Agreement itself. Its curious mixture of binding and voluntary elements was designed to be attractive and accommodating, to include both developed and developing states and, specifically, to enable President Barack Obama to sidestep an obstructive US Congress in providing his support.</p>
<p>The result is a legal hybrid that obliges parties to abide by processes, mechanisms and timetables for setting and reviewing their national climate targets, and providing climate finance to developing countries.</p>
<p>But the treaty doesn’t compel those national efforts collectively to meet its <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">core aims</a>: to keep global warming well below 2°C and as close as possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels; to peak global emissions as soon as possible; and to reach zero net global emissions in the second half of this century. Worse still, the currently pledged targets would <a href="https://theconversation.com/most-countries-need-to-at-least-double-their-efforts-on-climate-study-49731">deliver some 3°C of overall warming</a> by the end of this century.</p>
<p>Because the treaty relies on “intended” national climate targets rather than binding ones, much hinges on the success of the requirement for nations to review and toughen them every five years. The theory is that these global stocktakes of collective progress (beginning with a facilitative dialogue among parties in 2018) will generate enough pressure for individual nations to be encouraged to ratchet up their efforts as they go.</p>
<p>For these reasons – because of its emphasis on process and its lack of compliance mechanisms – the Agreement has been described as a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2016.1191818?journalCode=fenp20">promissory note</a>, or prematurely <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-emissions-cuts-arent-enough-well-have-to-put-carbon-back-in-the-ground-52175">criticised as inadequate</a>.</p>
<h2>A work in progress</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-paris-what-was-really-achieved-at-the-cop21-climate-summit-and-what-next-52320">Euphoria greeted the successful conclusion</a> of the Paris summit last year, and 175 countries rushed to sign the Agreement when it <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-agreement-signing-ceremony-at-a-glance-58221">opened for signatures in April this year</a> (in all, 192 states have now done so). Nevertheless, given the Kyoto experience, few anticipated that this enthusiasm would carry the treaty across the ratification threshold so soon.</p>
<p>So while there will be more celebrations at <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/marrakech_nov_2016/meeting/9567.php">this year’s UN climate summit</a>, which begins in Marrakech on Monday, negotiators and UN bureaucrats have been caught out. In some senses, the Paris Agreement is a framework agreement within a Framework Agreement (the <a href="http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf">UN Framework Convention on Climate Change</a>, of which this is a subsidiary part). It’s a work in progress with lots of details yet to be filled in.</p>
<p>The newly formed <a href="http://unfccc.int/bodies/apa/body/9399.php">Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement</a> will be scrambling to define key elements governing the new treaty’s implementation. Many of these elements are critical to the treaty’s long-term effectiveness. They include measures to ensure transparent and effective accounting of countries’ emissions reductions; to work out exactly how the ambition of “zero net emissions” will be met; and to transfer crucial economic measures used under the Kyoto Protocol over to the new framework.</p>
<p>The Agreement requests that this be done by the first session of the Conference of the Parties to the new treaty. As this now will occur in Marrakech, time is too short and such labour is likely to continue through 2017 and perhaps beyond.</p>
<h2>From Paris to Australia</h2>
<p>Australia is expected to ratify the Agreement <a href="http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2016/jb_mr_160831c.aspx">later this year</a>. When it does so, it will be committing itself to regularly increasing its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, improve climate adaptation, and provide climate finance.</p>
<p>Like other nations, Australia will have to review and toughen its climate targets every five years, starting no later than 2020, and report back regularly on its efforts.</p>
<p>While Australia’s 2020 and 2030 emissions targets are <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">seen as weak</a> by international standards, doubts have still been expressed about the federal government’s ability to reach them. </p>
<p><a href="http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia.html">Modelling</a> suggests Australia’s emissions are projected to rise to 21% above 2005 levels by 2030 – rather than fall by the 26-28% proclaimed in its <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Australia/1/Australias%20Intended%20Nationally%20Determined%20Contribution%20to%20a%20new%20Climate%20Change%20Agreement%20-%20August%202015.pdf">official target</a>.</p>
<p>Australia’s <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a> has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/on-these-numbers-australias-emissions-auction-wont-get-the-job-done-40761">criticised</a> as being underfunded and focused on the wrong projects. <a href="https://www.greeninstitute.org.au/sites/default/files/Mulga_Bill_Web_BM%2B_0.pdf">Recent analysis</a> of the contracts awarded through the scheme’s “reverse auctions” confirms that little real additional abatement has been achieved.</p>
<p>Moreover, likely future changes in land use and forestry (mainly reductions in land clearing) will be insufficient to achieve these goals in isolation or to contribute significantly to future ones. The current policy mix means that tougher – and perhaps even existing - national targets could only be met by buying international carbon credits.</p>
<p>In addition, Australia’s reports to the UN will have to reflect “environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency in accordance to rules to be adopted by parties to the Agreement”. The transparency and accountability of Australia’s emissions reporting was recently <a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/trr/aus.pdf">questioned by the United Nations</a> and by other parties to the Climate Convention. This too will have to improve.</p>
<p>Like other parties, by 2020 Australia will also be invited to provide the UN Climate Secretariat with a long-term low-carbon strategy to run until 2050. Designing an effective transition strategy will require extensive consultation with state and territory governments, industries, and other stakeholders. Such attention to detail, although essential for building wide and deep support for a future low-carbon economy, has so far been well beyond the ability of politicians stuck in Canberra’s toxic climate policy culture.</p>
<p>In all, the Paris Agreement, although voluntary, can be thought of as a global climate safety net held by all nations. This inclusiveness means that Australia will no longer be able to point to the absence of other states as an excuse for its recalcitrance. It will increasingly be held to account by other nations, and the need for meaningful action will become ever more irresistible, as the net gradually tightens.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68140/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Christoff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Just 11 months after the Paris climate talks, the resulting treaty has come into force. The rapid ratification looks set to heap even more pressure on Australia to come up with a credible climate policy.Peter Christoff, Associate Professor, School of Geography, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/654752016-09-28T20:12:39Z2016-09-28T20:12:39ZPutting carbon back in the land is just a smokescreen for real climate action: Climate Council report<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138205/original/image-20160919-28337-afksd3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Plants absorb carbon and store it in the land. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Blue mountains image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Just as people pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the land also absorbs some of those emissions. Plants, as they grow, use carbon dioxide and store it within their bodies. </p>
<p>However, as the Climate Council’s <a href="http://climatecouncil.org.au/land-carbon-report">latest report</a> shows, Australia’s fossil fuels (including those burned overseas) are pumping 6.5 times as much carbon into the atmosphere as the land can absorb. This means that, while storing carbon on land is useful for combating climate change, it is no replacement for reducing fossil fuel emissions. </p>
<p>Land carbon is the biggest source of emission reductions in Australia’s climate policy centrepiece – the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results/april-2016">Emissions Reduction Fund</a>. This is smoke and mirrors: a distraction from the real challenge of cutting fossil fuel emissions. </p>
<h2>Land carbon</h2>
<p>Land carbon is part of the active carbon cycle at the Earth’s surface. Carbon is continually exchanging between the land, ocean and atmosphere, primarily as carbon dioxide. </p>
<p>In contrast, carbon in fossil fuels has been locked away from the active carbon cycle for millions of years. </p>
<p>Carbon stored on land is vulnerable to being returned to the atmosphere. Natural disturbances such as bushfires, droughts, insect attacks and heatwaves, many of which are being made worse by climate change, can trigger the release of significant amounts of land carbon back to the atmosphere. </p>
<p>Changes in land management, as we’ve seen in Queensland, for example, with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/land-clearing-in-queensland-triples-after-policy-ping-pong-38279">relaxation of land-clearing laws</a> by the previous state government, can also affect the capability of land systems to store carbon.</p>
<p>Burning fossil fuels and releasing CO₂ to the atmosphere thus introduces new and additional carbon into the land-atmosphere-ocean cycle. It does not simply redistribute existing carbon in the cycle. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/7/349/2015/essd-7-349-2015.html">The ocean and the land absorb some</a> of this extra carbon. In fact, just over half of this additional carbon is removed from the atmosphere, and split roughly equally between the land and the ocean. However, this leaves almost half of the CO₂ emitted from fossil fuel combustion in the atmosphere. It’s this remaining CO₂ that is driving global warming.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138141/original/image-20160918-17036-405re9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138141/original/image-20160918-17036-405re9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138141/original/image-20160918-17036-405re9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138141/original/image-20160918-17036-405re9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138141/original/image-20160918-17036-405re9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138141/original/image-20160918-17036-405re9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138141/original/image-20160918-17036-405re9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 2. Changes in the global carbon cycle from 1850 to 2014. Positive changes (above the horizontal zero line) show carbon added to the atmosphere and negative changes (below the line) show how this carbon is then distributed among the ocean, land and atmosphere.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Adapted from Le Quéré et al. 2015, data from CDIAC/NOAA-ESRL/GCP/Joos et al. 2013/Khatiwala et al. 2013.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although Australia’s land sector has absorbed more carbon than it has emitted over the past decade or two, this has been overshadowed by our domestic fossil fuel emissions and those from our exported fossil fuels. These are roughly <a href="http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8mh1t3q2#page-1">6.5 times greater</a> than the uptake of carbon by Australian landscapes. </p>
<p>Under international carbon accounting protocols, emissions are assigned to the country that burns the fossil fuels. However, many Australians are becoming increasing concerned about the ethics associated with exploiting our fossil fuels, no matter where they are burned. </p>
<p>In short, we’ve got a big problem that requires a global response, which includes a strong commitment from Australia.</p>
<h2>Falling short of our commitment</h2>
<p>Last December, Australia joined the rest of the world in pledging to do everything possible to limit global warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and furthermore to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C. Yet Australia lacks a robust, credible long-term plan to cut Australia’s CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion. </p>
<p>Current climate change policies and practices in Australia allow for the use of land carbon “offsets” – that is, carbon taken up by land systems can be used to offset or subtract from fossil fuel emissions. For example, the government’s <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a> (ERF) provides financial incentives for organisations or individuals to adopt new practices or technologies that reduce or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>Currently, <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results/april-2016">vegetation (land system) projects</a> represent the majority of ERF-accepted projects (185 out of 348). And yet, while storing carbon on land can be useful, it must be additional to, and not instead of, reducing fossil fuel emissions. Moreover, numerous critiques have <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-climate-targets-still-out-of-reach-after-second-emissions-auction-50519">questioned the effectiveness of the ERF</a>. </p>
<h2>Problems of scale</h2>
<p>We also have a problem of scale. <a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141119/ncomms6282/full/ncomms6282.html">Reducing emissions through land carbon methods</a> could save up to 38 billion tonnes of carbon globally by 2050 if combined with sustainable land management practices. By comparison, global carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion are currently around <a href="http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/6/235/2014/essd-6-235-2014.pdf">10 billion tonnes per year</a>. </p>
<p>If this rate is continued, total fossil fuel emissions from 2015 to 2050 will be about 360 billion tonnes – nearly 10 times larger than the maximum estimated biological carbon sequestration of 38 billion tonnes over the same period.</p>
<p>It is now virtually certain that the carbon budget (the amount of carbon that can be produced while keeping warming below a certain level) will be exceeded. To meet the Paris 1.5°C aspirational target (and probably to meet the 2°C target) will require the use of <a href="https://theconversation.com/removing-co2-from-the-atmosphere-wont-save-us-we-have-to-cut-emissions-now-51684">negative emission technologies</a> throughout the second half of the century. </p>
<p>However, no proposed negative emission technology has yet been proven to be feasible technologically at large scale and at reasonable cost, so this approach remains an in-principle option only. For effective climate action, the emphasis must remain on reducing emissions from fossil fuel combustion. </p>
<p>Using land carbon to “offset” our fossil fuel emissions is ultimately a smokescreen for real climate action. </p>
<p><em>Our thanks to Jacqui Fenwick for co-authoring this article and the report.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65475/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia is pumping 6.5 times more carbon into the atmosphere than the land can absorb.Martin Rice, Head of Research, The Climate Council of Australia and Honorary Associate, Department of Environmental Sciences, Macquarie UniversityWill Steffen, Adjunct Professor, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620442016-07-13T07:20:12Z2016-07-13T07:20:12ZCan Malcolm Turnbull do climate and energy policy now?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130306/original/image-20160712-17972-1lgnam6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Turnbull might be hamstrung by his barely-there majority.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Paul Miller</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The re-elected Coalition government has the opportunity to revamp its policies on climate change. Transition of the energy sector is key if the 2030 emissions target is to be met. But with a razor-thin majority in Parliament, will Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull have the appetite and internal authority to tackle the challenge?</p>
<p>In contrast to the past three federal elections, climate change policy was not one of the big issues in this campaign. Faced with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/policycheck-labors-phased-emissions-trading-scheme-58496">fairly comprehensive climate policy blueprint</a> from the Labor Party, the Coalition opted not to say much on the subject. A carbon tax and emissions trading scheme have been ruled out, but the door for climate and energy policy reform has not been slammed shut. </p>
<p>In fact, there has been a clear sense that the government accepts that there needs to be a more comprehensive policy framework than just the subsidy-based <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reductions Fund</a>, with its <a href="https://theconversation.com/direct-action-not-giving-us-bang-for-our-buck-on-climate-change-59308">inherent problems</a>. In 2015, Environment Minister Greg Hunt <a href="http://www.greghunt.com.au/Home/LatestNews/tabid/133/ID/3417/Australias-2030-Emissions-Reduction-Target.aspx">announced</a> that there will be a climate change policy review during 2017. </p>
<p>But the internal politics of the Liberal Party could yet stand in the way. Turnbull has traditionally supported measures to cut emissions, and this fits with his emphasis on innovation. But many on the right of the party oppose action on climate change. </p>
<p>The fact that the Coalition only just scraped into government might be seen as an argument in favour of more moderate policies. But it could also strengthen the hand of Turnbull’s detractors, including opponents of climate change action. </p>
<h1>Is that a price on your carbon?</h1>
<p>One tricky issue for the Coalition in the election was the plan for the Emissions Reductions Fund “with safeguards”. In the expert community it is generally thought that the Coalition’s plan has been to <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-new-cap-on-emissions-is-a-trading-scheme-in-all-but-name-47035">transform the current mechanism</a> into a so-called “baseline and credit” scheme or a variant thereof. </p>
<p>Baseline and credit would put a price signal on carbon emissions in electricity and possibly industry. It has drawbacks compared with normal emissions trading, among them that there would be no revenue for the government from selling carbon permits; that it would not fully reflect carbon costs to electricity users; that some or many businesses may not be covered; and that it may perpetuate carbon-related investment uncertainty. Its main attraction is political – it would limit effects on electricity prices, and it has been depicted as something that is not a “carbon price”. </p>
<h1>Energy transition</h1>
<p>The energy challenge is of an altogether different magnitude. Climate policy needs to be integrated with energy policy, and it must get the transformation of Australia’s power sector under way. As the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-can-get-to-zero-carbon-emissions-and-grow-the-economy-32015">Deep Decarbonisation</a> project showed, a near-zero-emissions electricity supply by 2050 is at the heart of a low-emissions strategy. </p>
<p>This is possible and affordable, but waiting for it to happen all by itself would take too long. </p>
<p>Unless there is a significant and durable price on carbon, other approaches are needed to get the most emissions-intensive power plants off the system – for example, through a <a href="https://theconversation.com/farewell-to-brown-coal-without-tears-how-to-shut-high-emitting-power-stations-50904">market mechanism for brown coal exit</a> and/or regulated closure of old plants.</p>
<p>Support for new zero-emissions energy is a big open question. Will the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/renewable-energy-target">Renewable Energy Target</a> be extended, perhaps as a low-emissions energy target? Will there be fixed-price auctions for large-scale renewable energy, such as those in the <a href="http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/cleaner-energy/large-scale-solar">ACT</a>? Should funding for clean energy research and development be ramped up, and how? </p>
<p>Then there are questions about energy market reform and structural adjustment. How to provide adequate revenue for a future power system that largely relies on renewables, when the existing electricity market was designed for fossil-fuel-powered generators? How to manage the social and economic adjustment in the coal regions? </p>
<p>The government will need to tackle energy transition, and it has the opportunity to make this one of its contributions to help modernise the economy. There might even be some common ground for it in parliament. </p>
<h1>Ambition needed</h1>
<p>Marginal policy change is not going to do the trick. Australia’s <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Australia/1/Australias%20Intended%20Nationally%20Determined%20Contribution%20to%20a%20new%20Climate%20Change%20Agreement%20-%20August%202015.pdf">pledge under the Paris Agreement</a> is a 26-28% reduction in emissions by 2030, relative to 2005. This is at the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">lower end of the range</a>, according to many indicators, and it is likely that the target will need to be strengthened for the next round of international pledges. </p>
<p>Labor’s proposed target is a 45% reduction. This is on the way to much deeper required reductions down the track. </p>
<p>Achieving even a 28% target through domestic reductions would be a big step for Australia. Net national emissions have been roughly flatlining for more than two decades, thanks to falling emissions from land-use change. </p>
<h1>Brexit, Trump and the future</h1>
<p>Amid the current global destabilisation, there are concerns that climate policy will take a back seat despite the momentum created by the Paris Agreement. In Europe, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/brexit">Brexit</a>, terrorism and refugees are top of the agenda. But unless they herald a global shift towards inward-looking governments or wider economic malaise, Europe’s troubles should have little bearing on the transition to cleaner energy in Asia and Australia. </p>
<p>A Donald Trump presidency, on the other hand, could throw a spanner in the works by providing a rallying point for opponents of climate action. Hillary Clinton as president, however, would push for meaningful climate policy both globally and at home. </p>
<p>Those determined to push ahead will do so regardless of the to and fro in Europe and the United States. China, for example, seems unlikely to waver in its push to modernise its economy and thereby <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-the-new-climate-deal-let-china-do-nothing-for-16-years-34239">dampen carbon emissions</a>. </p>
<p>Turnbull has a chance to help position Australia for a future in which the carbon-intensive way of doing things is on the way out. We will see whether he chooses to do so – and whether his party room will let him.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62044/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Jotzo has received research funding from a range of organisations. He has been a member of various review panels and advisory bodies, most recently as a member of the ACT Climate Change Council and the SA government's low carbon economy expert panel. </span></em></p>Malcolm Turnbull returns to the helm with a wafer-thin majority and a significant element in his government who still oppose climate action - can he defy the odds and serve up some credible policy?Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/618662016-07-10T06:03:38Z2016-07-10T06:03:38ZRemind me again, what did the Coalition promise during the election campaign?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129058/original/image-20160702-18294-9xtlnr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1522%2C995&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After days of waiting, Malcolm Turnbull will form a government.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>After a protracted wait Bill Shorten has conceded the election to Malcolm Turnbull, meaning the Coalition will form government. The Conversation’s editors have assembled a guide to what the Coalition says it will do in 11 key policy areas.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-197" class="tc-infographic" height="800" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/197/b2b0c056c7d030d3c6f04633950ea4f6c9d0b75a/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61866/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
What did the Coalition promise during the campaign in 11 key policy areas, from health to infrastructure to jobs?Michael Courts, Deputy Section Editor: Politics + SocietyEmil Jeyaratnam, Data + Interactives Editor, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.