New modelling commissioned by the Climate Council and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) demonstrates how the Australian Government handles coal and gas in the Safeguard Mechanism will decide whether its reforms succeed or fail.
According to the Climate Council, the RepuTex modelling shows that emissions from only 16 proposed new coal and gas projects, including Woodside‘s ultra-polluting Scarborough gas project, are equivalent to one-quarter of the overall emissions reductions the Safeguard Mechanism presently seeks to achieve this decade.
Climate Council Head of Advocacy Dr Jennifer Rayner stated that if Australia fails to get the settings right, new coal and gas will use a sizable and growing portion of the Safeguard Mechanism’s emissions budget in the coming years.
“Worse, if the production of coal and gas is even a little higher than the government has predicted, this risks blowing the carbon budget entirely. That’s before taking into account the more than 100 further fossil fuel projects still in the development pipeline,” Dr Rayner said.
Dr Rayner added that either Australia will miss its 2030 emissions reduction target or existing facilities will have to cut emissions significantly more to make up the difference – there are only two possible outcomes. Dr Rayner stated that the Safeguard Mechanism settings should prioritise Australia’s key industries to avoid this.
According to the modelling, baseline drop rates of up to 8.9% per year for existing polluters covered by the Safeguard Mechanism may be required by 2030 to stay within the emission budget if fossil fuel production grows.
The Climate Council and the ACF are urging the Federal Government to improve the Safeguard Mechanism reforms to avoid a blowout of fossil fuel emissions, including by:
- Make the scheme’s proposed 1,233 MtCO2e emissions budget a hard limit in legislation.
- Guaranteeing that the plan prioritises true emissions reductions over offsets used to mask pollution, as is customary.
- Ensure that new and expanded fossil fuel projects are treated as new entrants, with full liability for their emissions.
- Ensuring that all new entrants to the Safeguard Mechanism are subjected to a thorough environmental evaluation under a revised Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
“A huge flaw in the proposed Safeguard Mechanism is that it doesn’t distinguish between essential industries that Australia needs to decarbonise – like steel, cement and aluminium – and big polluting industries that should be rapidly phased out, like coal and gas,” ACF Climate Change and Clean Energy Program Manager Gavan McFadzean said.
McFadzean added, “Industries like cement and steel shouldn’t have to do more to compensate for Australia’s biggest fossil fuel polluters.“The government should prioritise the decarbonisation of future-focused industries, helping Australian businesses, communities and workers to thrive in a world headed to net zero, while rapidly phasing coal and gas out of the economy.”
