The former Australian chief scientist tasked with investigating the country’s carbon-splitting credit system says academics who have described it as a fraud and a hoax are “serious people”.
In an interview with Guardian Australia, Professor Ian Chubb said there were also credible voices defending the scheme and that evidence should be carefully weighed.
Chubb, a neuroscientist who was an inaugural board member of the Climate Change Authority and vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, has had six months to resolve a growing controversy over the integrity of the scheme, which is critical to in government and business plans. reduce emissions and reach zero net by 2050.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen will announce three panelists on Monday who will work with Chubb on the review. They are Ariadne Gorring, executive co-director of the Pollination Foundation’s climate advisory and investment firm, retired federal court judge Annabelle Bennett and economist Dr. Steve Hatfield-Dodds.
Governments and businesses are buying carbon credits as an alternative to reducing emissions. Each carbon credit is said to represent a ton of carbon dioxide that has been prevented from entering the atmosphere or aspirated.
Concern about the validity of the scheme has increased since March, when Professor Andrew Macintosh of the National University of Australia, who, as chairman of the Emissions Reduction Guarantee Committee, used to be responsible for the integrity of the scheme, published several academic articles with colleagues discussing. that most credits do not actually represent cuts in real or new issues.
Macintosh, a specialist in environmental laws and policies, said the government-run system and the clean energy regulator were “largely a scam” and a scam to taxpayers and the environment.
The Clean Energy Regulator and the Emission Reduction Guarantee Committee have rejected it, saying they had asked independent experts to test the Macintosh claims and found no evidence to support them. They have received support from the industry body, the Carbon Market Institute and some companies that carry out carbon credit projects.
On Friday, Macintosh and colleagues released two new papers arguing for the “vast majority” of carbon credits granted for what are known as “man-induced regeneration” projects, which involve forest regeneration. natives avoiding grazing livestock and wildlife (and not planting trees) – had not extracted more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than would have happened anyway.
Man-induced regeneration is the most popular method for creating carbon credits. Scholars said the method had “numerous flaws”, including that owners were granted carbon credits to grow trees in a country of arid and semi-arid pastures, even though the vegetation was already there before the summer began. work.
Q&A
What are carbon credits?
Show
Carbon credits are used by the government and polluting companies as an alternative to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Instead of reducing their own pollution, they can choose to buy carbon credits that are meant to represent a reduction in emissions elsewhere.
Each carbon credit represents a ton of carbon dioxide that has been prevented from entering the atmosphere or aspirated.
Approved methods for generating carbon credits in Australia include regenerating native forests that have been cleared, protecting a forest that would otherwise have been cleared (known as “avoided deforestation”), and capturing and l use of leaking emissions from landfills to generate electricity.
The credits are bought by the government through the $ 4.5 billion emission reduction plan funded by taxpayers or polluters in the private market.
Thanks for your comments.
In a statement last month, the Clean Energy Regulator and the Emission Reduction Guarantee Committee said Macintosh and colleagues had not submitted solid evidence of the system’s lack of integrity, and already that the precise areas of the land where the carbon credit projects were carried out might not be published due to legal restrictions: they had based their analysis on an incomplete data set. Officials said it meant the Macintosh had relied only on “indicative areas of the project.”
Macintosh and colleagues said graphs released by the regulator and the committee to present this case showed that forest cover in the areas of the carbon credit project began to increase around 2010, roughly when the “millennium drought” erupted, and before work on carbon projects began. Scholars said it proved that rainfall was the main driver of forest growth, and therefore carbon storage would have occurred anyway – it was not “additional” as it should be – and should not have been. rewarded with public money from the Coalition’s $ 4.5 billion emission reduction fund. .
Chubb said having a carbon credit system in place was important, as reducing emissions in some parts of the economy would be difficult and would have to be offset. He said he had been a “passive observer” of the debate over the integrity of the system and described himself as a “well-informed fan”.
“My view is that the comment, the comment from both sides, really, I think they are all serious people. Our role will be to come from outside and look at the weight of the evidence,” he said.
“I’m not surprised that the language is robust for people [such as Macintosh] who are fully committed. Some of the languages on the other side are also pretty firm. “
Chubb said the review will look at the integrity of the methods used to generate carbon credits, whether the governance structure that oversaw it was appropriate for the purpose and whether the social, economic and environmental impacts were properly managed.
He said it was valid to consider the extent to which governments and companies would have to depend on carbon credits to meet emissions targets. “What a proportion [is right] I’m not sure, but we could understand it better when we look at the circumstances, ”he said.
Sign up for the latest Guardian Australia news every morning
The new panelists have varying degrees of experience in the carbon markets.
Gorring has worked on nature-based climate solutions, including with the Kimberley Land Council and on the development of the savannah carbon industry in northern Australia.
Hatfield-Dodds was the Executive Director of the Australian Office of Economics and Agricultural Science and Resources, worked at CSIRO and recently joined consultants EY Port Jackson Partners.
Bennett, a former federal court judge, is rector of Bond University, chairman of the Australian Organization for Nuclear Science and Technology and worked on the royal commission on national disasters that followed the black summer forest fires.
The review should be reported by the end of the year.