There’s an election on, so it’s time to get right into some details about climate and energy policy. Right? In a Facebook post this week, the emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, claimed that Labor “plans to force the nation’s top 200 largest energy users and producers to cut their aggregate emissions by 25% by 2030”.
Taylor was referring to Labor’s plan to modify the Morrison government’s safeguard mechanism – a policy that was supposed to cap emissions from industrial facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent a year by requiring them to purchase carbon credits if they exceeded an emissions baseline.
Emissions covered by the mechanism have actually gone up since it was introduced in 2016.
But is Labor planning to “force” these companies (there are actually 212 of them currently) to cut their emissions by 25% by 2030?
The short answer is no.
In the last financial year, the 212 facilities covered by the mechanism emitted 136.9m tonnes of CO2-equivalent.
What Labor wants to do if elected is adopt an idea from the Business Council of Australia (BCA) to lower the baseline of emissions allowed under the scheme each year.
If a facility emits less than its agreed baseline, it would be rewarded with credits. If it emits more, it would have to purchase them.
Modelling of Labor’s policy presumed it would lower the baseline for emissions across the entire scheme by 5m tonnes a year.
In a statement, Labor’s climate and energy spokesman, Chris Bowen, accused Taylor of “making up policies” just days after the election campaign had started.
He told Temperature Check the changes were geared to “work on a trajectory to net zero by 2050” and this was a target that “more than two-thirds of these companies already have”.
Labor has also said it would take advice from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources and the Clean Energy Regulator on how reductions would be shared between facilities, because some industries have more options to cut emissions than others.
Taylor was posting from an alumina refinery in Western Australia run by South 32 – one of the 212 facilities.
The company, which is a member of the same BCA that first proposed the changes to the safeguard mechanism, has a goal to halve its emissions by 2035.
According to the Clean Energy Regulator, emissions at the refinery were below its cap under the mechanism last year.
A spokesperson for the minister said: “Go read Labor’s modelling of their industry policy and then ask them if they agree.” In a follow-up text they said the 25% figure was “derived from Labor’s own modelling”.
Climate party time at the Australian
There’s a project called Climate 200 that supports independent election candidates who want to see faster and deeper cuts to emissions, and would push for greater integrity and transparency in government.
The organisation – convened by Simon Holmes à Court – is getting plenty of media as independents could hold the balance of power if there is a tight result on 21 May.
Several of the more than 20 independents Climate 200 says it is backing are in seats held by high-profile Liberals, such as Monique Ryan in Josh Frydenberg’s seat of Kooyong and Zoe Daniel running in Goldstein against the assistant energy minister, Tim Wilson.
The group says it gives funding, strategic advice and analytical support.
This week the Australian ran an editorial repeatedly claiming Climate 200 was a political party, saying: “Despite claims by Mr Holmes à Court that Climate 200 is not a political party, it is defined and treated as one by the Australian Electoral Commission.”
Anyone can check this, including the editorial writers at the Australian, but just to be sure, Temperature Check asked the commission if it “defined and treated” Climate 200 as a political party.
A statement said: “Climate 200 is not a registered political party but rather a registered Significant Third Party – as per the registers available on our Transparency Register.”
A significant third party is a group spending more than $250,000 in a financial year on elections. They are required to register with the AEC and comply with certain financial disclosure and donations rules. Among them are unions, specialist interest groups and a campaign called Advance Australia that thinks the country is “under siege by stupid laws and woke ideologies like ‘net zero’”.
hey, if anyone is speaking with chris dore, editor-in-chief of the @australian, please show him this: pic.twitter.com/Kacw5vSJsC
— 💧simon holmes à court (@simonahac) April 12, 2022
Nothing but net increase
Question: when does an extension of a coalmine’s life to 2044, which will send 230m tonnes of CO2-equivalent into the atmosphere, have no impact on the climate crisis?
Answer: when you are one of the world’s biggest mining companies trying to get final approval in New South Wales.
The project in question is Glencore’s Glendell Continued Operations project, currently before the NSW Independent Planning Commission for a final decision.
The former Australian chief scientist Prof Penny Sackett gave evidence to the commission, arguing the emissions over the lifetime of the project would make the climate crisis worse and make it harder to keep global heating to 1.5C.
Glencore has said the mining, transportation and burning of the coal – for both power generation and steel-making – will emit 230m tonnes of CO2-e over its lifetime.
In a response sent to the commission last week Glencore didn’t argue with Sackett’s claims, but said “if the coal is not mined at the Glendell Mine, the demand for this product would be met through coal mined elsewhere”.
Because of this, Glencore said, if the commission approved the mine the net increase in climate related costs would be “zero”.
Prof Jacqueline Peel, a climate litigation expert at the University of Melbourne, says this argument is what has became known in legal cases as the “market substitution” defence.
She said in NSW courts there was sufficient precedent that she considered such an argument would likely now fail.
In 2019, Justice Brian Preston in the NSW land and environment court took on the same argument made by Gloucester Resources over its proposed Rocky Hill coalmine.
“There is also a logical flaw in the market substitution assumption,” Preston said.
“If a development will cause an environmental impact that is found to be unacceptable, the environmental impact does not become acceptable because a hypothetical and uncertain alternative development might also cause the same unacceptable environmental impact. The environmental impact remains unacceptable regardless of where it is caused.”
