The Safeguard Mechanism is not a good climate policy. It is not designed to drive emissions reductions. If implemented the Safeguard risks locking in INCREASED emissions. Not implementing it will actually have negligible impact.
🧵 #auspol#insiders
The overwhelming impression seems to be that the Safeguard is designed to drive decarbonisation. It's not. It's an industry policy designed to give regulatory cover to fossil fuels and to channel private funding to carbon offset developers. 1/
The government NEEDS the carbon offset industry to be successful and has said it WILL be successful. Carbon offsets are a way to say that farmers, Indigenous rangers and conservation groups are being funded without the govt having to fund them itself. 2/ minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/speeches…
Commentators say that the Safeguard will drive decarbonisation b/c the price of offsets will become prohibitive & decarbonisation will become the cheaper alternative. I don't believe they have been watching the policy changes that will keep the price of carbon offsets low. 3/
Under the coalition the supply of carbon offsets was turbocharged. It was made easier to generate offsets, register offset projects & changes to contracting arrangements mean that there will be a ready supply of offsets on the market for industry. 4/
The govt review of offsets showed that there were no problems with them. This means that those millions of offsets are still on the market, their projects will keep generating them and NEW projects will be able to generate new offsets. 5/ law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/file…
Leaving aside the issues of integrity of these offsets the sheer quantity that will be immediately available and that are in the pipeline are going to be enough to keep the price of offsets suppressed and a cheaper/more appealing alternative to decarbonisation. 6/
Yes there will be some decarbonisation that happens under the safeguard but its not fundamentally designed to do that. Yes there will be another type of below baseline credit available, but the supply of these will be limited. This is what commentators seem to be missing. 7/
I don't think there is a full appreciation for how the Safeguard Mechanism actively *incentivises* offsetting (as opposed to just allowing it). Govt has two industries it is trying to support - fossil fuels AND carbon farming. Safeguard is the way to do that. #auspol#insiders
If you look at who is trying to rush this policy through its: fossil fuel industry; recipients of fossil fuel donations; industry groups representing fossil fuel companies and carbon offset developers; and recipients (gov & non-gov) of carbon offset industry donations.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whether you believe offsetting is a legitimate premise, it is clear that the entire concept of is not being used as temporary measure by industry while it decarbonises. It is being used as a way to lock in fossil fuel production.
🧵#auspol#climate
Fracking Beetaloo will result in anywhere from 39 -117 Mt of Co2-e every year (according to federal FOIs). This development has been allowed to proceed is because the NT govt committed to 'offsetting' all emissions from production & onshore combustion of Beetaloo gas. 1/
Even if you accept the premise that this is possible according to physics, to date there have only been 124 million carbon offsets generated in Australia in TOTAL since 2012. 2/
The Australian Government has certified and promoted a significant number of Australian business as 'carbon neutral' on the basis that they've used Verra forest carbon credits. They include @Qantas, @AmpolAustralia and @originenergy along with a lot of others... #climate#auspol
.@AmpolAustralia and @originenergy have already tried to claim they're selling carbon neutral petrol and gas with junk Australian HIR and avoided deforestation carbon credits...
The Aust govt endorses certain types of carbon offsets that can be used to underpin a carbon neutral claim. But to be clear NO ONE from Climate Active ever actually checks out these projects. They rely on the self regulation & claims of frameworks like Verra to say they're ok.
The Climate Change Authority is an independent statutory authority tasked with giving advice to the Australian Government on climate policy. It is hard to see how this advice will be independent when there appear to be conflicts of interest in the governance of the CCA. 🧵#auspol
Disclaimer: I am making no allegations of impropriety by any individual. However, there is clear potential for perceived conflicts by the appointment of industry interests to a government body shaping Australian climate policy. 1/
Section 28 of the the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 clearly states board members must not engage in any paid employment that conflicts or may conflict with the proper performance of his or her duties. #auspol 2/
Advice to the Australian govt on international offsets should probably acknowledge the failure of carbon trading to decarbonise economies for the last 30 yrs. Or at least suggest how the use of offsets now will bring about a different outcome. #auspol 🧵
Proponents always talk about offsets increasing/unlocking climate 'ambition'. Actually, the climate outcomes of carbon markets are dependent on the ambition of the countries buying & selling the offsets. To date, this ambition has been low and emissions have increased. 2/
In practice it is hard to establish a relationship between the existence of carbon offsets and a willingness to commit to more climate action at a project/system level. Offsetting often gives the appearance of doing something about climate change, while increasing emissions. 3/
This is a bit disingenuous of Telstra. They're a telco that chose to become a fossil gas and electricity retailer and are now making a 'good news' story out of offsetting the subsequent emissions. #climate google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.…
In fairness I think they were on the right path with reducing their organisational emissions. But I'm not sure selling 'carbon neutral' fossil fuels aligns with the urgency or higher moral purpose they have been alluding to.
Also @Telstra is only suggesting growing trees on a 240ha block of land. That's really not going to store very much Co2.
The government’s solution to all policy issues – no matter how disparate - is gas expansion: COVID, climate change, national security...Looking forward to gas pitched as the answer to the aged care crisis or improving public education outcomes. #auspolafr.com/companies/ener…
Support for the gas industry won't address an imaginary gas shortage in Australia b/c most of the gas extracted here is not even for domestic use. War has provided another cover story for what govt was going to do all along: protect the revenue stream of the fossil fuel industry.
Exploiting people’s anxiety & suffering during a war to promote gas expansion is so unbelievably low. But it's the MO of this government. Fear was leveraged to secure gas as key to 'economic' prosperity during COVID and a 'reliable', 'low emissions' fuel to address climate change