Concerns Labor’s proposed changes to the safeguard mechanism will prove fatally ineffectual have been fuelled by government officials’ refusal to confirm whether their own modelling shows the policy will compel the country’s biggest polluters to decarbonise.
On its face, the proposed scheme requires roughly 215 of Australia’s heaviest industrial emitters to cut emissions by 4.9% a year, which companies could conceivably achieve by making cuts onsite or buying carbon offsets.
But the absence of any cap on the number of carbon offsets that may be purchased for any one project, coupled with the stated unwillingness of the government to block new coal and gas ventures, has raised concerns the scheme will do little to incentivise any reduction in emissions.
Under questioning from Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young during a fiery Senate hearing on the proposed changes, Department of Climate Change officials declined to disclose the results of government-commissioned modelling on the likelihood of onsite abatement, citing cabinet confidentiality.
“As you’re aware, the government undertook analysis of the likely suite of onsite abatement vis-à-vis the domestic offset market,” said government safeguard taskforce head Edwina Johnson.
“That analysis is covered by cabinet-in-confidence and that full analysis fed into cabinet deliberations.”
In answer, an exasperated Hanson-Young said the government’s position made it impossible for the Greens and wider Senate crossbench to gauge whether Labor’s revamped safeguard mechanism would in fact, as the government claims, reduce emissions in line with its legislated 43% reduction target by 2030.
“Isn’t the whole point of this whole program to incentivise and drive down actual pollution, not just find a way to offset it?” she said.
“Our job is to assess whether the plans being put forward by the government are legitimate, whether they’re effective and whether they’re efficient. If the government cannot give us [this] information, how on earth are we meant to be expected to vote in support of this?”
Labor is currently locked in furious negotiations with the Greens and other Senate crossbench members over its safeguard mechanism bill, which it claims will convert what was a failed regulatory instrument under the former Coalition government into a carbon trading scheme that drives down emissions.
The policy has won the backing of the fossil fuel industry but attracted little in the way of support from climate scientists and environmentalists, who have likened it to greenwashing.
Despite the Greens’ serious reservations about the efficacy of Labor’s revamped safeguard mechanism, the minor party has indicated a willingness to overlook these concerns and support its passage through the Senate in exchange for a moratorium on new coal and gas projects.
“Labor’s safeguard mechanism says pollution from coal and gas can go up and in fact they even forecast pollution from gas production to go up. It [also] bakes in new coal and gas projects,” said Greens Leader Adam Bandt this week.
“The objective of good climate policy should be to cut pollution. So, I think the more people look at it, the more it’s understood that actually there’s a reason [the fossil fuel industry] backs [the policy].”
Bandt added that there was “capacity for this to be a golden era of reform in this parliament — to pass laws that tackle the climate crisis, protect the environment, that tackle the cost-of-living crisis” but that Labor’s unwillingness to cooperate on any of these fronts was hindering this prospect.
While government officials have disputed Bandt’s claim the revamped safeguard mechanism will increase rather than reduce emissions by 2030, they did not explain whether their own projections were based on existing and recently approved gas, oil and coal projects alone, or whether the data incorporated likely emissions from future coal and gas projects.
Meanwhile, independent Senator David Pocock — whose vote in the Senate will potentially prove crucial — has raised concerns about the ongoing integrity of the safeguard mechanism, given a number of the recommendations made in the Chubb review are yet to be implemented.
In the Senate inquiry, government officials agreed with Pocock that the “integrity of the [scheme] relied on the integrity of the carbon market”, but said it was “very important” that the revamped model commence July 1, regardless of whether those recommendations were implemented.
It appears to be a sentiment shared by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen who, rather than compromise with the Senate crossbench on the policy, is now reportedly seeking to override their concerns by issuing the changes via ministerial regulation.
Those rules could in turn be overturned if the crossbench and the Coalition combine forces and raise a disallowance motion.
Many climate and environmental scientists, for their part, still hold serious reservations about the wider integrity of the scheme, with one recent analysis estimating there could exist up to 60 million carbon credits of low integrity.
Is the government doing enough to tackle climate change, or is it just more hot air? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Senator Hanson-Young hits the nail on the head. No MPs should ever vote for a bill until it is adequately explained and understood; that should be a fundamental principle for all MPs. Ministers should never be able to pass legislation by simply asking parliament to trust the government to do the right thing. If ministers could be trusted to do the right thing there would be no point in having a parliament. We could just let ministers create legislation as they please and get on with running the country without all the fuss and bother of dealing with parliament. I’m sure ministers would be very happy with that, they certainly try hard enough to avoid parliamentary scrutiny as much as they can under the present constitution.
They are expected to vote in support of it because the alternative is to do nothing.
Not saying I agree with that rationale, but it is clearly what underpins this.
“Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, it must be done.”
Actually, the alternative is do something that actually helps. This safeguard mechanism is not ‘something’. It’s greenwashing of the highest order: Labor using the rhetoric but doing nothing except take a wreaking ball to the environment while fossil fuel companies reap the rewards. Albanese’s Labor is a disgrace.
Exactly. Until the government can demonstrate that its bill (any bill for any purpose) is going to do some good it is the job of MPs not to vote for it. It’s much the same as being asked to sign a contract you’ve not read, or hand over a blank cheque. Only fools do such things. Sadly, being a fool has never been an obstacle to getting into parliament.
Not for Labor !
One thing is certain: if the safeguard mechanism was judged to be wildly successful we would’ve heard about it.
Week by week the Albanese government is becoming tarnished.
And deflating. Like one of those blow-up, wavey sky-dancers – that’s sprung one too many leaks.
Any Labor government that takes a core Liberal policy, designed to further entrench fossil fuel profits, to the people as THE answer to mitigating climate change, might as well BE the Liberal party. Still, I suppose those sweet, sweet donations have to come from somewhere.
The ALP is known as the Shit-lite party for a reason…
Labor are currently under the management of the fossil fuel lobby. Their job is to increase fossil fuel profits, as was the LNP’s job not so long ago. Therefore any legislation they pass has to have that goal. Any modelling of such legislation will show what the goal actually is. So, if you are trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, you have to keep the modelling secret. Hence where we are today.
We elected Labor to work for us. They have chosen a different master without actually telling us such in so many words. But the signs are there.
Yep. Check out who agrees with this Labor policy.
No one has successfully explained to us why “buying carbon offsets.” reduces emissions.
The offset supposedly mops up the CO2/methane, however a 10cm high seedling tree will not remove much carbon in a useful timeframe. All the offsets ever invented are only any good at taking CO2 etc out of the future atmosphere. In other words, if mankind puts no further CO2 into the atmosphere from now on, ever, then offsets will begin to do some good, but it will take many of our lifetimes to have a noticeable effect. The offsets are tiny compared to the amount of CO2 etc we churn out in the billions of tons.
Instead of offsets (or in addition to) the ONLY way to reduce emissions is to make people pay for them. Only governments can do that. So their refusal to do so is terrible in view of what the future holds for us all.
In the absence of government ability to do the job, the next thing to prevent emissions will be social action on a large scale, compelled by a major event such as sudden drowning of coastal land (your house), or death by heat of everyone in Alice Springs, or of everyone in central India. Or some other thing which so far has been unimagined. I hope the event will not come before we have alternate elec. generation to get us through. The biggest industry in the world is the generation of electricity, so that was always going to be a big ask. BUT after we have done it we will wonder why we ever burnt fossil fuels. Life will be so much better world-wide. Think of it like a golden sunrise. The banning of CFCs has been held up as an example of what we can do when challenged, but that was completely different because the shrinking ozone was not causing great problems to anyone. River valley towns were not flooding, forests were not burning. (Ever, on the present scale.) The fact that we will burn more coal this year than in any previous year (IEA) demonstrates that the event that turns society around on this will be very major indeed – we will rue the day. We are not yet at 1.5° of heating but look at actual disasters so far. Our present blanket of CO2 will continue to warm us for many years to come, and we are throwing on more blankets even as we kid ourselves that we are taking action to cool down. 3° is inevitable, and the sky is the limit after that. 12,000 years ago we jumped 6° to where we were 200 years ago. That saw off the last ice age; another 6° takes us to an unforeseeable future. It’s not a movie.
Yes, but already a third of Pakistan was under water last year and smoke from our summer of hell in 2019/20 was choking NZ. Yet here we are not-debating boofhead Taylor’s rubbish scheme..
Exactly. Being naive, I assumed buying offsets meant at least planting new trees. According to the recent Four Corners episode, it means (even when it’s ‘working’) paying villagers in PNG to not log their forests. So at best, it’s not adding one tree to the planet; it’s just slowing down the rate of deforestation. Hallelujah!
Exactly. Being naïve, I assumed buying offsets meant at least planting new trees. According to the recent Four Corners episode, it means (even when it’s ‘working’) paying villagers in PNG to not log their forests. So at best, it’s not adding one tree to the planet; it’s just slowing down the rate of deforestation. Great!
For heaven’s sake, Crikey. Fix your ridiculous Madbot so I can agree with John.
Yes, what is a nonce?
Goodness knows. The Madbot has its own thought processes and speaks its own language.
I’ve found you can sometimes kill it by refreshing the page – it seems to raise the nonce(nse) if you try to comment on a page that’s been open for a while.