Categories: Commentary

Citigroup dismisses Direct Action as expensive and inadequate

Published by

Citigroup, the global investment banking giant, has written a savage criticism of Australia’s Direct Action climate policy stand, essentially describing it as useless and expensive, and suggesting it could cost $15 billion a year to meet the sort of emissions reduction targets being mooted for the Paris climate talks.

An analysis written by senior analyst Elaine Prior also dismisses the Abbott government’s emissions reductions targets paper, released in late March, suggesting that it appears to be setting the stage for an unambitious post-2020 target, designed to protect fossil fuel producers and the electricity sector, and discourage a move to a lower carbon world.

“We suspect the Government will be inclined to commit to the least stringent target it can justify, but presumably will commit to further reductions beyond the current target for 2020 of 5% below year 2000 levels,” Prior writes in the report.

“While a low level of “ambition” may protect Australia’s fossil fuel producers, electricity sector, and related industries, it may discourage industry from adapting to a lower carbon world. Long-term investors who see climate change posing a risk to the economy and thus to their investments, may consider a low level of ambition to be contrary to their interests.”

Prior is also particularly savage on the Direct Action policy, and its centrepiece, the emissions reduction fund and the s0-called safeguard mechanism, which essentially allows for major polluters to increase their emissions without penalty, and seek taxpayer funds for any reductions.

“Direct Action looks an expensive long-term approach for the taxpayer,” Prior writes.

“It appears to us that the mechanism, as described in the consultation paper, is unlikely to impose any significant costs or constraints on companies. However, it also appears unlikely to make any significant positive contribution to Australia’s emissions reduction efforts, or to encourage transition to a carbon constrained world.”

The Abbott government has indicated it will continue to use Direct Action in the medium to longer term, refusing to countenance a return to a “carbon price.” But most independent analysts believe this to be ridiculous, and Citigroup appears to agree.

“We do not believe this can be a sustainable long-term approach, given the expected increasing size of the “abatement task”, Prior writes.

“For example, on the figures above and assuming a no doubt unrealistically low abatement cost of $10 per tonne in today’s dollars, the annual cost in 2030 would be $1.9 billion to $3.9 billion in today’s dollars.”

“If the abatement cost could be contained at $20/t, the task would cost $3.9 billion to $7.8 billion, with double the cost at $40/t. Abatement costs will probably rise significantly over time, as low-cost options are used first, and marginal abatement costs increase, depending on technology progress.

“In reality, by 2030 the world will likely have made substantial emissions reduction efforts. To us, taxpayer-funded Direct Action does not appear to be a sustainable approach to the issue.”

But Prior also says that the government is being subject to intense lobbying, but notes that investors are now querying the funding of that lobbying power, and its intentions. And she drew particular attention to the activities of the Minerals Council of Australia.

“Investors may observe that companies are members of industry associations, or fund think tanks, which appear to be obstructing progress with regulation to constrain carbon emissions, despite those same companies making public statements in support of the need for action to address climate change.

“In Australia, while the issue has already been raised, BHP and Rio Tinto might be queried more extensively over the stance of the Minerals Council of Australia, and some of the programs it funds.”

Giles Parkinson

Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and of its sister sites One Step Off The Grid and the EV-focused The Driven. He is the co-host of the weekly Energy Insiders Podcast. Giles has been a journalist for more than 40 years and is a former deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review. You can find him on LinkedIn and on Twitter.

Share
Published by

Recent Posts

Dutch renewable investors lose money on sale of Australian solar and hybrid assets

The Dutch-based renewable energy investor Photon Energy says it has made a loss on the…

23 February 2025

Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #4: Assume climate change has no cost

What is omitted from the Coalition's nuclear policy costings is far more informative about the…

23 February 2025

Akaysha inks revenue swap deal for Queensland big battery with commodities trader

Akaysha Energy signs "sophisticated" revenue swap deal for its new Queensland big battery with a…

21 February 2025

Mount Isa turns to wind, solar and gravity storage to save city as big mines close

Mount Isa is looking to green energy and gravity storage in its disused mine shafts…

21 February 2025

Energy Insiders Podcast: Why is the green energy transition made to sound so hard?

Climate 200's Simon Holmes a Court on the upcoming election, the role of independents, lessons…

21 February 2025

Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #3: Hide the costs of keeping coal

The Coalition’s nuclear plan takes a gamble with our electricity system that old coal will…

21 February 2025