‘Unstable’ climate policy could lead to massive spending, missed targets

Published by

Analysis released today by The Climate Institute has warned that the Abbott government’s recent stance on climate change may lead to Australia failing on its projected emissions reduction targets.

The new analysis warned that the federal government’s carbon pollution policy, and its ability to achieve even the “inadequate” minimum 5 per cent 2020 reduction target, was looking even more unstable, and would require massive additional spending in 2019 and 2020 or significant regulatory intervention.

“While the Government maintains it can spend the $2.55 billion it promised over four years through its Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), our analysis finds that the Budget’s forward estimates of just $1.15 billion would produce just a small fraction of the emission reduction needed,” Climate Institute CEO John Connor said today.

“We find that the ERF’s budget over the forward estimates will only reduce emissions by much less than a quarter of the minimum 5 per cent target by 2018, with more than three quarters to be achieved in two years.”

The Climate Institute’s analysis draws on pre-election independent modelling and reveals some key points.

Under the spending outlined in the Budget, by 2018 the ERF will have purchased only about 60 Mt of verified pollution reduction. Another 360 Mt is needed in 2019 and 2020 just to get to the 5 per cent target.

The annual rate of emission reduction reaches about 20 million tonnes per year by 2018, but needs to go up to about 180 tonnes a year the very next year – a nine-fold increase.

Any cut to the RET will require more funds or regulation as the RET is estimated to reduce emissions by about 70 million tonnes by 2020.

Victoria’s abolition of its energy efficiency scheme will also increase emissions by another 10-25 Mt with the proposed abolition of the national Energy Efficiency Opportunity program also making things harder.

“Treasury’s estimate of $1.15 billion on verified pollution reduction is a vote of no confidence in the ability of the tax payer funded ERF to build up the scale or reductions. Meanwhile, the Government is turning its back on over $12.5 billion in revenue from current laws which would also deliver 15 per cent reductions,” said Connor.

“Our analysis underlines the folly of shifting the burden of emissions reduction from the polluters to the taxpayers. It shows why we shouldn’t rest our hopes on the annual arm wrestle of the budget process and why we should stay with current laws which set clear limits and provide billions from business taking some responsibility for their emissions.”

Share
Published by

Recent Posts

AGL targets 1.4 GW of new big batteries to firm renewables and cash in on price volatility

AGL details plans to lock in another 1.4 gigawatts (GW) of grid scale battery storage…

12 February 2025

Tesla opens Shanghai battery “Megafactory” with first Megapacks on their way to Australia

Tesla officially opens Shanghai Megafactory in China, where it will produce its Megapack batteries and…

12 February 2025

“Game changer:” Biggest green hydrogen projects hail passage of tax credit scheme

Backer of massive proposed green hydrogen hubs in W.A. - with nearly 100 GW of…

12 February 2025

Grid Connections 2025: Who’s going where in Australia’s energy transition

People movements at AGL, Fortescue, EVC, PoweringWA, RayGen, Carnegie Clean Energy, Synergy, Chargefox, NHOA Energy,…

12 February 2025

Builder of Australia’s largest single wind project seeks solutions for blade recycling

Spain's Acciona Energia - which is building Australia's biggest single wind project - is seeking…

11 February 2025

“A thin veneer of governance:” Senate inquiry identifies critical failings in energy transition

Weaknesses in governance, planning and economic efficiency in the NEM are historic, but completely inadequate…

11 February 2025