A report released today and prepared by energy and carbon emission analysts RepuTex shows the conservative Liberal-National opposition’s Direct Action plan for climate change could result in a $35 billion budget blowout.
The RepuTex report was prepared for the environmental lobby group WWF-Australia.
WWF says the new independent modelling shows the coalition’s current Direct Action climate policy is unlikely to deliver deep cuts to Australia’s carbon emissions.
The RepuTex analysis found that, under the coalition’s current plan, Australia’s emissions will continue to rise sharply, putting the minimum five per cent emissions target in danger and making stronger targets untenable.
The RepuTex modelling found that an extra $35 billion in funding (out to 2020) would be required for the coalition’s current policy to achieve Australia’s minimum target of a five per cent cut in carbon pollution.
The RepuTex modelling found that the current emissions trading scheme can be scaled up to achieve the 25 per cent target at minimal extra cost to the Australian economy.
The RepuTex modelling also found that Direct Action is not an economically efficient way to cut emissions.
Under the Labor government’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) it is expected that companies will face a carbon price of about $38 a tonne by 2020.
However, under Direct Action the government would need to spend approximately $58 a tonne by 2020 to ensure the minimum five per cent target is met.
“Putting aside the question of economic efficiency, ultimately what matters most to the environment is that Australia has a scheme in place that can realistically deliver deep cuts in carbon pollution this decade and beyond,” WWF’s national climate change manager, Kellie Caught said.
“Australia must do its fair share of the global effort required to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
“That means cutting emissions by at least 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020,” Ms Caught said.
“Australia has committed internationally to strengthening its 2020 emissions target from the current five per cent to up to 25 per cent if other nations take similar action.
“This commitment has bipartisan support.
“Professor Ross Garnaut recently stated he believed international action warranted Australia being willing to at the very least match the United States target of a 17 per cent cut off 2005 levels (equivalent to 21 per cent off 2000 levels).”
“It is not enough for our political leaders to pay lip-service to stronger targets.
“Our international credibility depends on being able to deliver on these targets. That means having viable policies in place that can be scaled up,” Ms Caught said.
“Achieving the 25 per cent target under Direct Action would see the government paying more than $100 per tonne of carbon saved, meaning that tens of billions of dollars more funding would be needed in the budget, above and beyond what is required under the five per cent target,” Ms Caught said.
“This is more than ten times higher than indicated in the Coalition’s current plan, suggesting the 25 per cent target simply could not be met,” she said.