The tattered credibility of the Clean Energy Regulator has taken another hit after a senior executive apologised to the Wentworth Group for calling to attack its submission to the independent review of Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs).
The group’s submission to the Chubb review of ACCUs questions the transparency and additionality of credits generated under the discredited Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) established by the Coalition, especially after amendments by the Abbott government in 2014.
Among a number of critical comments about the scheme, overseen by the Angus Taylor-appointed Clean Energy Regulator (CER), the submission concludes about transparency:
It is currently not possible to know whether projects satisfy the offset integrity standards because the evidence is not made publicly available. There is insufficient project-level data available nor the ability to interrogate the data from Carbon Estimation Areas (CEAs). Until such information is available, the public cannot be assured that the integrity standards are met, and thus it will be impossible to restore the credibility of the carbon market.
The submission, by Australia’s foremost expert land and water conservation group, appears to have enraged senior CER official Shayleen Thompson, who called a member of the group to complain about what she alleged were factual errors. In evidence to a Senate estimates hearing last night, Thompson admitted she had initiated contact with the submission authors to criticise it.
“I thought it was important for the Wentworth Group who are a very esteemed bunch of scientists with a very significant reputation in this policy landscape that they should be aware that there were aspects of their submission in my view were incorrect,” Thompson said under questioning from independent ACT Senator David Pocock.
“I have a very longstanding involvement and expertise in their matters.”
But CER chair David Parker had a slightly different view, saying he had a conversation with Thompson after she told him what had happened.
“I heard about this matter,” he said. “I was away … I understand that part of the conversation Shayleen had with the Wentworth Group person was a robust conversation. I subsequently had a conversation with Dr Ian Pollard who is the chair of the Wentworth Group about the matter and in the context that an apology was made about the robustness of that conversation, he and I agreed that all parties were satisfied.”
The Clean Energy Regulator says Thompson “took an unprompted decision to apologise to the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists”.
The group’s submission remains online and unchanged despite Thompson’s claims there are factual errors in it. Indeed, it actually focuses on principles for better management of the integrity of the carbon market, rather than providing detailed analysis of projects or offering modelling of the operation of the current ACCU market.
The Chubb review has already drawn criticism for the fact that the CER, which is implicated in the failed Emissions Reduction Fund scheme, is providing its secretariat. The CER appears not to understand its own scheme and attempted to dismiss the revelations of environmental law professor at the ANU Andrew Macintosh about the lack of integrity of up to 80% of ACCUs generated under the ERF.
A bureaucrat apologising for contacting a major stakeholder and criticising its submission to a independent review of a scheme administered by that bureaucrat is highly unusual and again raises serious questions about an organisation which has failed to provide any assurance that carbon credits are worth the paper they’re written on, at a time when the government looks to be relying more heavily on them than ever to meet its emissions abatement targets.
Another puppet authority manipulated by the fossil fuel cheersquad within the coalition. If Taylor had anything to do with it then it needs to be disbanded and everyone sent for deindocrination.
One of Taylor’s department store dummies caught out playing up?
The issue between the CER and the Wentworth Group was regarded as having been settled by the official’s apology. Now she undoes the apology by defending her actions in front of the Senate committee. She sjould have just repeated her apology.
Makes you wonder whether it was an apology she offered voluntarily or under guidance from those up the chain…
Where’s the carbon tax when you need it? Hello? CARBON TAX, where are you?
Too right! Carbon credit trading is a scam. Targets are just aspirations. Bring back the carbon tax!
Carbon credits = magical thinking