The Coalition has disputed claims that greenhouse gas emissions would be higher if it won the election than under a returned Labor government. It points to its record between 2013 and 2022 compared with what has happened under Labor over the past three years.
Speaking to the ABC’s RN Breakfast on Monday, the Coalition climate change and energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, said “under the former Coalition government you saw emissions fall” – from 12% to 29% less than 2005 levels. And that in Labor’s three years in office emissions “have flatlined”, showing the ALP has “failed”.
There is a bit going on here so let’s break it down.
Emissions from land and forests
In purely numerical terms, O’Brien is correct in saying that emissions fell when the Coalition was in power. But a look at the data shows the reduction was not a result of its policies. In reality, it often took steps to prevent deeper cuts to pollution.
According to the climate department greenhouse gas inventory, annual emissions were about 113.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide lower when the Coalition left office than when it was elected. Sounds good at first blush.
But nearly all of this fall – 100.4m tonnes – was due to claimed changes in emissions from the land and forests.
When the Coalition was elected, officials believe the landscape across the country released 12m tonnes in net terms. By the time it was voted out of office, they estimate the land and vegetation was absorbing much more CO2 – 88.4 tonnes – from the atmosphere than it emitted.
There are a couple of points to make about this. Firstly, historic emissions data for the land sector is repeatedly being revised and there is uncertainty in its accuracy – much more so than in emissions data from electricity, industry or cars.
Secondly, the Coalition did nothing, or next-to-nothing, to drive this change.
It is not evidence of climate policy that cuts emissions and drives a shift to a cleaner economy. As we have written, there is a strong case that land-sector emissions – while important – should not be counted in the national accounts as they can be used to mask continuing or increasing fossil fuel use. This is a problem when claimed changes in the land sector is easily the biggest contributor to changes in the greenhouse accounts.
Emissions fell in one other area Coalition was in power – from the power grid. Pollution from electricity was down 27.2m tonnes.
This was overwhelmingly due to a national renewable energy target set under Labor. Famously, Tony Abbott considered abolishing it but didn’t have the votes. Instead, he legislated to reduce the target, with Labor support.
The target ultimately still drove rapid construction of solar and windfarms to replace coal power in the second half of the last decade. This cut emissions. But it can hardly be claimed as Coalition policy.
Emissions from other parts of the economy – notably transport and major industry – continued to increase as the Coalition chose either to not introduce or not enforce steps that limit them.
The Coalition then got a bit of extra emissions reduction at the end of its time in power when the pandemic shut down parts of the economy. Scott Morrison resisted global calls for that time to be used for a “green recovery” – to use the economic stimulus required to accelerate climate action – and instead aimed for a “gas-fired recovery” to boost fossil fuel use.
Since Labor’s election, emissions have more or less flatlined, as O’Brien says.
We have data for only the first two years and a bit. Officials estimate national pollution fell 1.4% over that time – nothing like the pace of reduction required. It is partly explained by pollution bouncing back as the economy reopened after Covid-19 limitations.
Policy promises
In terms of what happens from here, experts say the difference between the two parties is clear.
Labor has policies designed to either reduce or limit emissions in electricity, major industry and transport. Analysts, scientists and crossbench MPs say it could and should be doing more, and point out it has released only one climate-related policy during the campaign – a subsidy for household batteries. Labor has delayed significant decisions and announcements – on a 2035 emissions reduction target and policies to meet it – until after the election.
But the Coalition plans to unwind or scrap nearly all Labor’s policies, and has released none of its own to cut emissions in the next decade at least.
Notably, it plans to slow the rollout of large-scale renewable energy and instead burn more coal and gas for electricity until it says it can build taxpayer-funded nuclear generators, mostly after 2040.
The Climate Change Authority estimates this could lead to an extra 2bn tonnes of emissions compared with Labor’s policy. To put this into context, Australia’s total annual emissions are about 440m tonnes.
On Sunday, the ABC’s David Speers asked the Nationals’ frontbencher Bridget McKenzie what the Coalition would do to cut emissions in the next decade. She laughed, and did not directly answer the question.
