‘The Safeguard Mechanism’ – now it’s Labor flogging us a greenwash gimmick

The federal government’s “landmark” climate change legislation package – 43 per cent reduced emissions by 2030, underpinned, allegedly, by a “safeguard mechanism” (SG) to keep polluters on track – appears set to become law after Labor and the Greens struck a deal for a “hard cap” on emissions, which would curtail some new or expanded coal and gas projects.

Anxious to sell the deal as a win for the environment, Greens leader Adam Bandt said a hard cap would effectively stop about half Australia’s planned new coal and gas mines, “but Labor still wants to open the rest.” The new projects were seen as a threat to the government’s 2030 target of 43 per cent reduced emissions, but at this early stage it’s hard to tell whether fewer such ventures will let us meet that goal.

The climate change package faced collapse last week after the Greens made their support conditional on stopping all new coal and gas mines. Their stance was bolstered last week by an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which insisted that no more fossil fuel projects can be opened if we’re serious about our Paris Agreement commitment to help avoid a global climate catastrophe.

“The world is already experiencing more emissions-linked climate damage – worsening heatwaves, bushfires, storms and droughts – than expected, (and a) 1.5ºC (rise in global temperatures, the Paris ceiling) would escalate those extreme events,” the Guardian’s climate and environment editor, Adam Morton, wrote.

Bandt successfully stuck to his guns, and on Monday managed to secure agreement with the government for a “hard cap” of 140 megatonnes of CO₂-e that will apply to businesses under the SM. Labor’s original projections a rise between 155-184mtCO_2-e. “All we’re asking for is the bare minimum. We’re not asking for the perfect,” Bandt said.

While acknowledging the powerful political, media and fossil fuel forces he faced last week, Bandt’s own words last week suggest the deal, curbing only half of Australia’s planned new mines, was about half his self-proclaimed “bare minimum”.

Notwithstanding Monday’s deal for a hard emissions cap, the SG still seems like the latest greenwashing gimmick designed to dazzle us with shaky science and convince the average, suburban punter with no time for in-depth scrutiny that “something is being done”.

Under an apparent dodge polluters could hypothetically increase their total emissions by just under half over 12 months, but stay under the baseline by reducing intensity by just a few per cent

Among other apparent dodges, the SG is shifting towards baseline limits that focus on intensity (emissions per unit of output) rather than absolute (total) discharge. Under this regime, polluters could hypothetically increase their total emissions by just under half over 12 months, but stay under the baseline by reducing intensity by just a few per cent.

Polluters who somehow find themselves in breach of the SG have the performative option of buying carbon offsets through groups like Verra, a non-profit organisation whose projects include the Maya Biosphere Reserve, which protects the largest remaining tract of tropical rainforestin Central America.

That all sounds pretty cool until you read that 94 per cent of Verra’s credits “had no benefit to the climate,” according to the results of an investigation published in The Guardian.

An Australian review panel led by scientist, Ian Chubb, concluded the carbon credits scheme was well-designed, but doubts that it was the best mitigation option rose last month after it was revealed that emissions from oil and gas extraction are “incredibly cheap” to cut directly.  

BHP was among dozens of companies that purchased rainforest offsets approved by Verra, one of many organisations offering carbon credits that merely “avoid” emissions by paying others elsewhere not to do harm, rather than the polluter itself actively removing its carbon from the atmosphere. This meant none of the polluter’s emissions in violation of SG baselines (limits) were physically cancelled out.

 “The logic that one harm is undone by paying someone else to decide not to harm is absurd in every single other corner of society, but in the fantastical world of neoliberal carbon markets, it’s accepted as normality,” climate and energy analyst Ketan Joshi wrote.

Although the SG will no longer allow unlimited carbon offsets under the Labor-Greens deal, polluters still have an incentive to at least partially take this performative path rather than focusing solely on reducing their emissions.  This is of particular concern when it comes to fracking, whose methane emissions heat our atmosphere 80 times faster than regular carbon dioxide.

Ordinary punters aren’t the only ones bamboozled by this biospheric bait-and-switch. “You can get thousands of otherwise-critical climate-supporting technocrats, journalists, centrists and politicians on side if you pump just enough complexity, confusion and smoke-and-mirrors into your greenwashing efforts,” Joshi pointed out. It seems we can add climate change and energy minister Chris Bowen to Joshi’s list of “centrists and politicians”. “Labor’s climate policies are streaks ahead of the coalition’s, but we can infer from Bowen’s public and parliamentary statements that Labor isn’t aiming for Paris Agreement alignment,” Evan Stamatiou, Carbon Risk Management managing director, told The Fifth Estate.

Carbon credit chicanery, SG shenanigans and the continued (albeit slowed) spread of new coal and gas mines notwithstanding, the government has somehow continued to insist that, under its climate change legislation, we can still get to 43 per cent reduced emissions by 2030. That’s less than seven years away.

The government projects a 10 per cent decline in emissions by 2030, but [Climate Analytics] figures show a rise of [up to] 116 per cent over the same period

What will it take to burst this rhetorical bubble? Perhaps it’s Climate Analytics’ adding real substance to the severe doubts around the government’s numbers with its bombshell report  last month: Canberra has “substantially underestimated the projected emissions” from existing and announced coal mines and fracking.

“For coal mine emissions, the government projects a 10 per cent decline in emissions by 2030, but [our] figures show a rise of [up to] 116 per cent over the same period,” the report’s summary concluded (emphasis added). Five alarm fire, anyone?

To recap, both the number at the centre of Labor’s pitch – 43 per cent emissions reductions by 2030 – and the means proposed to ensure polluter compliance remain the subject of real reservations. Questions must be asked: why did parliament pass legislation demanding what could be an unattainable 43 per cent goal last year, and why is Canberra charging towards a significantly-flawed enforcement regime?   

The Faustian bargain we don’t need to have – and haven’t got time for

Perhaps the answer to that question lies in the Faustian bargain behind Labor’s legislation. An unholy alignment of political, media and fossil fuel interests browbeat the Greens into accepting half their “bare minimum” on Monday.

The Australian led this charge: “the left-wing [Greens] party will blow up Australia’s 2030 emissions-reduction target.” -Then Bowen joined the pile on: “the Greens need to decide, are they a party of protest or a party of progress?”

Reaping the rewards of this tag team effort was a fossil fuel lobby which added almost a million dollars to Labor’s coffers in the lead-up to last year’s election. That’s almost a million reasons to force through a climate change package which smells a lot like smoke-and-mirrors.  

The Greens saw the problem, but they wound up copping half their “bare minimum” on new coal and gas mines, enabled by some nebulous, impossible-to-assess-at-short-notice “improvements” to the SG. Thus, the “can will be kicked down the road,” at a time the planet can least afford it.

Australia could be writing a self-immolating environmental fantasy into law. It’s hard to know when reality might rear its ugly head – it could be when the emissions numbers don’t add up, or perhaps when the heatwaves, bushfires, storms and droughts kick in – but if indeed it’s a con those responsible (politicians in particular) should hang their heads in shame.  

Related