Extract from The Guardian
Analysis indicates Australia’s ability to show it has met the
requirements for its 2020 emissions target will make the challenges more
difficult in the years ahead
The rise in coal-fired electricity generation that has occurred since
the abolition of the carbon tax is expected to increase the rate of
Australia’s emissions.
Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty
Australia will use “accounting rules” to tell the Paris climate
summit it has met its greenhouse gas reduction targets even though its
carbon pollution is increasing, an analysis has confirmed.
The environment minister, Greg Hunt, announced via the Australian newspaper last week that Australia would reveal at the UN meeting in Paris that it had already met its target to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020, compared with 2000 levels.
“The huge expectation is that it will be below zero. We’ll be able to say that we’ve already met our target,” Hunt said.
According to the latest analysis by research firm RepuTex, Australia’s actual emissions will rise 4% by 2020, compared with 2000 levels, and 6% compared with today.
But it will be able to count “carry over”, under the accounting rules governing international emissions calculations, because it “overshot” or did better than the special deal it received at the Kyoto meeting for its first climate change pledge to 2012. (Unlike most developed countries Australia was allowed to increase its emissions by 8%.)
Given the dramatic downward revisions in forecast emissions in recent years, because of lower electricity demand and the decline in heavy manufacturing, this “carry over” allows Australia to claim it has met the small decrease required by its second 2020 target, when its actual emissions are increasing.
The target of 5% by 2020 was also originally the minimum reduction agreed in a “range” of targets up to a 25% cut that both main political parties had agreed to consider, and the higher targets were to kick in when other countries made similar promises.
Despite numerous analyses concluding that the conditions have been met for Australia to adopt a tougher 2020 target, including by its own advisory body, the Climate Change Authority, the government said it will meet only the minimum 5%.
RepuTex warned that Australia’s ability to coast to its 2020 goal by using accounting rules just deferred the real reductions that would be needed to meet the next target the government has signed up for – a cut of between 26% and 28% by 2030.
It said the upsurge in coal-fired electricity generation that had occurred since the abolition of the carbon tax, along with new LNG projects and coalmines that emit greenhouse gases during the mining process, will result in Australia’s emissions rising much faster than the rate at which the government can cut them by using its emissions reduction fund to buy abatement.
RepuTex’s forecast for emissions growth of 6% over the next five years is more favourable to the government than its own official figures. The Department of Environment forecasts emissions will increase by 20% over the same period.
The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who was forced to promise to keep Direct Action in order to regain the Liberal leadership, has deflected questions about the policy’s inability to meet his 2030 target on its current settings by pointing to a review the government had scheduled for 2017.
“We are going to review our measures in 2017 and, of course, if for whatever reason they’re not tracking in the right direction, then we can adjust them. We always have the option of buying international credits, so there are many ways we can meet those emission reduction targets,” he said this week.
But RepuTex argued that waiting a few years makes the job harder.
“While Australia will be able to increase its emissions and still meet its 2020 obligations, allowing real emissions to continue to increase over the next five years will place significant pressure on Australia’s 2030 abatement task,” RepuTex chief executive Hugh Grossman said.
“From today, Australia requires nearly 6m tonnes (Mt) of abatement to be derived from ‘new’ (not pre-existing) projects each year to meet its 2030 target. Should emissions grow over the next five years, Australia would instead require 13 Mt of new abatement projects to commence each year over 2020-2030, more than double the current rate.
“If emissions increase from today, that growth will need to be made up for later, which will place pressure on policy, and invariably industry, to find more cuts each year. It is more efficient to generate cuts from today’s levels, rather than let any gains be unwound, and then pay to start over again later. By that point the market will have less time to reduce more emissions.”
The government has indicated that a range of policies can be used to meet the 2030 target on top of the emissions reduction fund, but has not provided details.
Hunt has said, for example, that 200m tonnes of abatement will come from the “safeguards mechanism” pushing heavy industry to reduce its emissions, but the mechanism is now set at levels that do not deliver any emission reductions. Resetting the policy would turn it into a kind of emissions trading scheme, where companies trade carbon permits with one another.
Hunt has said the government will agree in Paris to regular international reviews of the adequacy of its climate change policies.
The environment minister, Greg Hunt, announced via the Australian newspaper last week that Australia would reveal at the UN meeting in Paris that it had already met its target to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020, compared with 2000 levels.
“The huge expectation is that it will be below zero. We’ll be able to say that we’ve already met our target,” Hunt said.
According to the latest analysis by research firm RepuTex, Australia’s actual emissions will rise 4% by 2020, compared with 2000 levels, and 6% compared with today.
But it will be able to count “carry over”, under the accounting rules governing international emissions calculations, because it “overshot” or did better than the special deal it received at the Kyoto meeting for its first climate change pledge to 2012. (Unlike most developed countries Australia was allowed to increase its emissions by 8%.)
Given the dramatic downward revisions in forecast emissions in recent years, because of lower electricity demand and the decline in heavy manufacturing, this “carry over” allows Australia to claim it has met the small decrease required by its second 2020 target, when its actual emissions are increasing.
The target of 5% by 2020 was also originally the minimum reduction agreed in a “range” of targets up to a 25% cut that both main political parties had agreed to consider, and the higher targets were to kick in when other countries made similar promises.
Despite numerous analyses concluding that the conditions have been met for Australia to adopt a tougher 2020 target, including by its own advisory body, the Climate Change Authority, the government said it will meet only the minimum 5%.
RepuTex warned that Australia’s ability to coast to its 2020 goal by using accounting rules just deferred the real reductions that would be needed to meet the next target the government has signed up for – a cut of between 26% and 28% by 2030.
It said the upsurge in coal-fired electricity generation that had occurred since the abolition of the carbon tax, along with new LNG projects and coalmines that emit greenhouse gases during the mining process, will result in Australia’s emissions rising much faster than the rate at which the government can cut them by using its emissions reduction fund to buy abatement.
RepuTex’s forecast for emissions growth of 6% over the next five years is more favourable to the government than its own official figures. The Department of Environment forecasts emissions will increase by 20% over the same period.
The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who was forced to promise to keep Direct Action in order to regain the Liberal leadership, has deflected questions about the policy’s inability to meet his 2030 target on its current settings by pointing to a review the government had scheduled for 2017.
“We are going to review our measures in 2017 and, of course, if for whatever reason they’re not tracking in the right direction, then we can adjust them. We always have the option of buying international credits, so there are many ways we can meet those emission reduction targets,” he said this week.
But RepuTex argued that waiting a few years makes the job harder.
“While Australia will be able to increase its emissions and still meet its 2020 obligations, allowing real emissions to continue to increase over the next five years will place significant pressure on Australia’s 2030 abatement task,” RepuTex chief executive Hugh Grossman said.
“From today, Australia requires nearly 6m tonnes (Mt) of abatement to be derived from ‘new’ (not pre-existing) projects each year to meet its 2030 target. Should emissions grow over the next five years, Australia would instead require 13 Mt of new abatement projects to commence each year over 2020-2030, more than double the current rate.
“If emissions increase from today, that growth will need to be made up for later, which will place pressure on policy, and invariably industry, to find more cuts each year. It is more efficient to generate cuts from today’s levels, rather than let any gains be unwound, and then pay to start over again later. By that point the market will have less time to reduce more emissions.”
The government has indicated that a range of policies can be used to meet the 2030 target on top of the emissions reduction fund, but has not provided details.
Hunt has said, for example, that 200m tonnes of abatement will come from the “safeguards mechanism” pushing heavy industry to reduce its emissions, but the mechanism is now set at levels that do not deliver any emission reductions. Resetting the policy would turn it into a kind of emissions trading scheme, where companies trade carbon permits with one another.
Hunt has said the government will agree in Paris to regular international reviews of the adequacy of its climate change policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment