Why Greg Hunt's Direct Action policy is a sham | RenewEconomy

Why Greg Hunt’s Direct Action policy is a sham

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Coalition cannot hide from the fact that Direct Action is a slogan, not a policy. It’s time that they were called out on it.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This is an except from a speech to be delivered by Greens leader Senator Christine Milne at the Second Australian Summer Study on Energy Efficiency and Decentralised Energy at the Brighton Beach Novotel on Friday.

“Let’s consider Mr Hunt’s Direct Action Plan. It’s a sham.

“This week the Coalition has been all over the shop.  From “we will compensate businesses” from Joe Hockey and “we will not compensate businesses” from Tony Abbott and “we will impose penalties” from Abbott and “we don’t expect to” from Mr Hunt.

The world is on a trajectory of 4 degrees of warming. The fact that Direct Action cannot be scaled up, is only intended to reduce emissions by 5% and cannot effectively achieve more is its overwhelming and fundamental failure. Who in their right mind thinks that such a weak target in any way reflects the science?

At a time when we have IMF boss Christine Lagarde saying, “Unless we take action on climate change future generations will be roasted, toasted fried and grilled” to try to suggest that an Australian target of just -5% by 2020 is acceptable is a lie. As the rest of the world move towards a legally binding global treaty and the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, such a lax target will become untenable and indefensible.

To the detail of the plan, it is in essence a massive ‘competitive grant programme’ which seeks to reduce emissions by companies putting in ‘tenders’ for actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the government then paying those companies which submit the lowest bids (per tonne of abatement).

There are numerous fundamental problems, many of which, while widely understood are rarely discussed. For example:

1)     The Coalition expects more than 60% of the abatement to come from soil carbon – but the science to back this up is not yet solid, so this abatement would not be recognised in international treaties. That’s a showstopper.

2)     Assessing the tenders to ensure that they involve genuine reductions in emissions is fraught with difficulty. As Malcolm Turnbull has said, and I quote “if a scheme operates whereby the government pays the firm to reduce its emissions intensity … there is firstly going to be a substantial and contentious debate about what the correct baseline is, and then whether it will actually be reduced…Arguments of considerable ferocity will arise as to whether a new piece of equipment would have been bought anyway, with the risk that the government ends up funnelling billions of dollars to companies to subsidise their profit without achieving any real additional cuts in emissions.” End quote. That’s another showstopper..

But there are also numerous less well understood but equally profound problems. For example:

3)     tendering for emissions reduction would be most attractive to a company with a marginally profitable facility (eg a steelworks struggling to compete with the $A at a high level) that could be closed. The scheme would then mean that taxpayers’ money is being used to put people out of work;

4)     a multinational firm could successfully tender by committing to reduce production and hence emissions in Australia but then increase them overseas;

5)     there could also be domestic ‘carbon leakage’ if the output of a firm successfully tendering to reduce its production and hence emissions is just replaced by increased output by another domestic firm (or another plant owned by the same firm);

6)     as the scheme potentially rewards a company for reducing production, it increases the breakeven price a company needs to charge. This would likely lead to an increase in prices facing consumers, but without any of the compensation measures in the Government’s scheme;

7)     a company that has been operating inefficiently and polluting a lot has much more scope to put in a tender than a responsible firm that has already taken action to minimise its emissions. The scheme therefore penalises past good behaviour and rewards bad behaviour;

8)     the scheme requires the government to raise more tax revenue and then make payments. It therefore increases the ‘churn’ in the tax system. Those concerned with efficiency costs from taxation should prefer a scheme where a carbon tax replaces some income tax collections, which of course the existing scheme does by increasing the tax free threshold;

9)     the cost of the scheme is borne by taxpayers and the benefits are received by the polluters;

10)  it gives no incentives for consumers, and firms not making successful tenders, to seek out ways of using energy more efficiently and provides little encouragement for the development of renewable energy; and

11)  as it only runs to 2020 it does not provide incentives for longer-term measures.

12)  the Australia Institute conservatively estimated the number of abatement projects that the Department of Climate Change (which the Coalition wants to abolish) that would need to be assessed as around 150,000. That is a massive undertaking,  especially as it’s not like a bond tender where there is only one parameter. The Coalition plan says that projects will be evaluated on their impacts on employment, prices for consumers, other environmental outcomes, and other public policy benefits. Assessing projects on multiple criteria will require considerable judgement and trade-offs and give room for favouritism. Furthermore, there are varying degrees of uncertainty about the emissions reductions from different proposals. Should a bid of $16 a tonne using an existing proven technology be preferred over a bid of $14 a tonne for a project using a new untested technology? And because it is an auction, nothing can happen until every tender has been assessed.  And once the successful tenderers are eventually chosen, and any appeals resolved, who will be checking that all these firms actually make the emissions reductions they have promised?

Now to the cost:  the Direct Action plan is supposed to cost $10.5 billion but the Department of Climate Change analysed the Plan and it would cost more than double that. In addition Treasury has said that: “Direct Action measures alone cannot do the job without imposing significant economic and budget costs…Moreover, many of the direct action measures cannot be scaled up to achieve significant levels of abatement, and for those that can be scaled up, the cost per tonne of abatement would rise rapidly.

The Coalition cannot hide from the fact that Direct Action is a slogan, not a policy. It’s time that they were called out on it.”

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Comments
  1. Kevin O'Dea 7 years ago

    The Coalition’s Direct Action policy is simply a clayton’s package designed to reassure the voters
    of Australia that they are serious about taking on the challenge of the climate change issue, when Tony Abbott has made very clear his opinion that climate change science is “crap”. It is an add-on option that the Coalition has no intention of keeping once they have achieved government.

  2. Alastair Leith 7 years ago

    Great speech, Christine Milne. Don’t expect the MSM to call out Abbott on anything — he doesn’t do serious interviews or policy, remember. Last time Tony Abbott did an interview a very middle of the road journalist took out a Walkley for just asking persistent questions and not getting any answers.

    The coal-ilition will take it’s cues from the US, in particular the corporate power brokers who run the USA with an emphasis on the Fossil Fuel elite. Any CleanTech investments will be ignored until it’s the dominant player in global Energy markets. Maybe another ten years for that to happen minimum would be my guess.

    If coal-ition can throw farmers some cash for improving their soils with carbon sequestration (or not) all the better, kickbacks for the base are always worthwhile. Of course any farmers already doing the right thing stand to gain nothing unless they destroy all their trees and OM and start again.

    Has any scientist even proposed a verification mechanism for carbon sequestration in soils that can guaranty it will be kept sequestered for 1000+ years in-spite of any agricultural practice that a land owner might engage in at a later time? Has this scientist convinced other scientists and economists of the merit of such an accounting mechanism? Seems like Greg Hunt is way out on a limb of fictional dimensions to me. I’m all for bio-char but it brings it’s own rewards to landowners it’s silly to think we can keep on adding to the problem ad infinitum when CO2e is already at emergency responce levels.

    Or if were are talking about trees as a sequestration method, that they don’t get burnt in the increasingly ubiquitous grass and bush fires that hit Victoria in particular? What happens then does the landowner return the money paid out 30 years ago with interest and is that carbon entering the atmosphere as CO2 and black carbon accounted for and mitigated immediately elsewhere in the economy? I think not…

  3. Jonathan Prendergast 7 years ago

    I see a few issues with the Coalition’s proposed plans (Happy to be corrected):

    1 – This is a worldwide ongoing problem. The coalition have funded it for 4 years. Compare this to a carbon price which is ongoing without the need for government funding every election cycle.

    2 – The scheme is voluntary, and places no cap on Australia’s emissions. While a few companies could join the tender process, there is nothing stopping others increasing their emissions as much as they like. The carbon price is preferable for this issue.

    3 – The coalition have committed to reducing government employees in Canberra, and starting a 15,000 strong green army. In other words, replacing experts on climate change and GHG emissions reduction, who have spent their lives researching and working on these issues, with young, enthusiastic but inexperienced workers taking directions from Greg Hunt (as competent as he may be). This is using tax payer funds in a much less efficient manner.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.