The City of Sydney and City of Melbourne have been relying heavily on cheap Chinese and Turkish carbon offsets to get to net zero. Does it make sense to pay foreign governments for projects which they would operate regardless? Callum Foote investigates.
Source: The Price of Green: City of Sydney pays Chinese, Turks to get net zero – Michael West
America votes No
On his way to Beijing to repair bilateral climate change relations John Kerry announced to the world the US would ‘under no circumstances’ pay climate change ‘reparations’ to the developing world. Why such a statement?
Carbon offset is replacing the pollution of one company with the non-pollution of another. Carbon credits are the trading mechanism for carbon offsets. Or put another way, a company that directly or indirectly emits a lot of carbon dioxide has two choices. It can continue to do so, and be penalised for not helping to reduce its carbon footprint (e.g. by regulators, government or shareholders), or, it can buy carbon credits to offset its own emission from someone who have earned such credits.
Source: Carbon credits and offsets – What’s the scam? – Michael West
The risk of a weak carbon trading market
We can expect industry to continue to lobby for a weak safeguard mechanism and carbon credit rules.But if the Labor government is genuine about wanting to reduce Australia’s emissions, our biggest polluters cannot be allowed to carry on emitting as usual.
And there is no role for a carbon trading policy that excuses big emitters from making clean energy transition plans.
This week, several of the largest companies that profit from Australia’s carbon market called for changes to the system. They said the rules that govern the issuing of carbon credits to some projects were too lax and the market’s integrity should be improved.
Source: ‘Untenable’: even companies profiting from Australia’s carbon market say the system must change
Morrison’s “experts” become later whistleblowers allowing the truth to unfold.Morrison simply said hasn’t the knack for any loyalty. People around him simply don’t bullshit as much.
Prof Andrew Macintosh says the system, which gives credits for projects such as regrowing native forests after clearing, is ‘a fraud’ on the environment, taxpayers and consumers
The failure to address these loopholes will mean the production of fossil fuels in countries like Australia will continue for much longer than it should.
Source: Top 5 Loopholes left by COP26 for Big Carbon that need to be Closed
Peatlands, such as fens, bogs, marshes and swamps, cover just 3% of the Earth’s total land surface, yet store over one-third of the planet’s soil carbon. That’s more than the carbon stored in all other vegetation combined, including the world’s forests.
BHP counts all the carbon emissions from projects it operates but ignores the climate impact of its investments in projects managed by other companies. This is not a credible approach to climate change, writes Peter Milne, from independent energy and climate news site Boiling Cold, as all owners have a say on the big decisions that affect emissions. Ignoring emissions is also great for executive bonuses.
Source: BHP carbon accounting good for executive bonuses, not for climate – Michael West
By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – – I argued that President Obama’s carbon-reduction planwasn’t anything to write home …
In Australia the very phrase is political poison, but in Norway, even oil and gas companies support a carbon tax.
The United Nations top climate change bureaucrat has conceded the Paris climate talks will not keep global warming below two degrees, but agreed a price on carbon is the best way to not quite get there. Thom Mitchell reports.
With the passage of the Emissions Reduction Fund through the Senate last night, the federal government has taken a step towards achieving Australia’s minimum target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.
The Emissions Reduction Fund is the centrepiece of the Coalition’s Direct Action plan, which will replace the Carbon Pricing Mechanism repealed in July this year.
But questions remain over how Australia will achieve the post-2020 transition to a decarbonised economy by mid-century. Avoiding dangerous levels of climate change is the reason for emissions reductions policy.
We now know that we have a limited “carbon budget” that means emissions must be close to zero by 2050. The carbon budget is well described by the Climate Change Authority which fortunately was retained in a deal between the coalition and the Palmer United Party to see the fund through the upper house .
The deal also provides a review into emissions trading schemes (ETS) and Australia’s future target or cap.
It has frustrated many to see a working emissions trading scheme abolished only to commence a new review into an ETS. Still, this shows that the ETS is a topic that won’t die.
Glimpses of an ETS exist in the deal. The promise of a safeguard which acts as a cap on large emitters as part of the Emissions Reduction Fund deal could over time be strengthened to match the decarbonising trajectory needed. Shortfalls could possibly be met by buying abatement units achieved by others.
Both of Australia’s major parties have agreed to a minimum national target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020. The Emissions Reduction Fund is the Federal Government’s signature policy to achieve this minimum target.
The fund involves direct payments made by the government to businesses who agree to take actions to emit fewer greenhouse gases than expected. It will achieve this through an auctioning process whereby business can “bid” with their emissions reduction projects, and the projects that can reduce emissions at the lowest cost are paid to do so.
ClimateWorks’ previous research suggests that, if well designed, the fund could effectively fund some emissions reduction opportunities in Australia.
In particular, it could be suitable to fund projects that deliver large reductions in emissions at reasonable cost through technologically proven methods, including projects to:
According to the government’s Emissions Reduction Fund White Paper, the fund will have a budget of A$2.55 billion, with further funding to be considered in future budgets. The adequacy of the budget for the task remains a question.
The Emissions Reduction Fund is currently only designed to incentivise emissions reductions between now and 2020, with a view to meeting the 5% target.
However, even if this target is met, the far bigger question is how Australia will achieve the fundamental transition to a low carbon economy, which we now know will be required globally and in Australia by the middle of this century.
In particular, a major transition is needed in energy systems, and these investments need longer timeframes than the next five years. The Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation project report, which was presented to world leaders at the recent UN Climate Summit in New York, shows that near-zero carbon energy systems are feasible for all major emitting countries, while sustaining economic growth.
Australia’s pathways are detailed in an additional national report which shows that Australia has abundant renewable energy options and can achieve near-zero carbon electricity through renewables alone.
Alternatively, a mix of renewables, carbon capture and storage and/or nuclear could be used. This low carbon electricity could then replace petrol and diesel in cars and passenger transport and replace gas used for cooking, heating and cooling buildings. Gas would be used in trucks replacing diesel, and gas would be the main fossil fuel used in industry. Some of this can be shifted to bioenergy or sequestered with carbon capture and storage, and the rest sequestered with carbon forestry.
Australia’s report sees a 71% reduction in CO2 emissions from energy, while the economy grows by almost 150% by 2050 and retains mining and manufacturing, in a world that is also decarbonising.
To reduce the remaining emissions to stay within Australia’s share of keeping warming below the “safe” threshold of 2C, a large increase in land-based carbon sequestration is needed to complement the energy use transition.
The Deep Decarbonisation Pathways reports show that it is possible to transition to a decarbonised economy by 2050, but that this would require a rapid acceleration in activity in all sectors of the economy to reduce emissions and set the economy on an achievable trajectory for deep decarbonisation.
Further, the project highlighted the need to start making decisions today across the economy based on the required long-term emissions reductions.
In particular, it will be necessary to:
In theory, the Emissions Reduction Fund could continue to operate beyond 2020, with the proposed “safeguard mechanism” operating like a cap on total national emissions. The could be reduced each year in line with the necessary trajectory to achieve complete decarbonisation by 2050.
However, this would require budget allocations to be made every year for a task that will only get larger, or an evolution toward trading between emitters rather than purchasing by government.
In its current design, the Emissions Reduction Fund is most suited to incentivising a certain set of emissions reduction activities.
The Deep Decarbonisation report shows that the transition will be required across all sectors of the economy, and some areas will be better incentivised through other mechanisms.
These mechanisms include minimum efficiency standards for long-lived assets such as vehicles, buildings and industrial developments to avoid “locking in” inefficient technologies, and long-term incentives for the transition to zero carbon electricity, such as an increased Renewable Energy Target or similar measure and ongoing support for new technology development.
Whether or not the Emissions Reduction Fund has a role to play post-2020, a suite of additional measures will be required to drive this transition. We don’t have long to switch to the technologies that can power our economy without creating emissions.
olddogthoughts 
You must be logged in to post a comment.