2025-03-10 06:20:33
2025-03-10 06:06:12
2025-03-10 05:56:21
1464188
![Droppie [infosec] 🐨♀:archlinux: :kde: :firefox_nightly: :thunderbird:🦘:vegan:](photo/contact/80/e06dbe5c262a45b39cab308158b6dd0a09ff2a52?ts=1733720940)
Inhaltswarnung: Ssh! This is why Labor doesn’t talk about the safeguard mechanism. Labor’s safeguard mechanism is clearly ineffective at reducing real carbon emissions. It’s a mandated greenwashing scheme.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/03/10/safeguard-mechanism-carbon-emissions-labor-plibersek/
QUOTE BEGINS
It is deeply weird that one of Labor’s most expansive climate policies is also one of its least mentioned. The “safeguard mechanism” — a policy that purportedly limits the greenhouse gas emitted by Australia’s heavy industry and fossil mining facilities — covers a full third of Australia’s domestic emissions. Yet it barely exists in public discourse. Why?
Safeguard has a grim origin, with Labor having rejigged a Coalition policy instead of designing its own (wedging opponents takes precedence over deploying policy that works). Safeguard’s progenitor, the Coalition’s “emissions reduction fund”, set limits high above actual emissions (amusingly, as emissions rose, these limits often gently floated upwards).
It was an IKEA houseplant: it looked real, but only from a great distance.
Due to the higher climate policy standards faced by Labor, it had to achieve the same goal using different tactics. The carbon offsetting industry came to the rescue.
Like the old scheme, safeguard sets emissions targets for each facility. Unlike the old scheme, these targets fall over time, meaning theoretically the facility should cut its pollution to comply. Naturally, there’s a glaring loophole: a company can meet the targets even when its pollution is above the limit by purchasing an equivalent number of Australian carbon offsets.
Another option is that overperforming facilities which are under their target can “trade” credit units with others over theirs, but this is unlikely in the short term (and would be more expensive for a polluter than just buying normal offsets).
Safeguard is frequently defended (and derided) as a form of “carbon pricing” — being forced to pay for offsets is a financial disincentive against high emissions. Offsets are exceedingly cheap, have the added benefit of fake neutralisation of your climate damage, and fossil fuel companies swimming in record-breaking super profits only use a tiny fraction of those profits for the required number of offsets. Worst of all, the money ends up in the pockets of carbon trading corporations, rather than the government.
A red-hot political debate ensued: the Greens pushed for real emissions cuts, but Labor won the vibes contest. Tuning safeguard to mandate real, deep emissions cuts was decried as excessive perfectionism that would resurface Australia’s mythical “climate wars”.
Once safeguard passed, it was memory-holed. It only gets exhumed when Labor tries to defend its passivity around the expansion of coal and gas. When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was pushed on including a “climate trigger” in mine approvals, he muttered that “climate issues are dealt with through the safeguard mechanism”. When Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek was pressed on the same, she dismissed it, saying, “The safeguard mechanism is the way that we deal with carbon emissions in this country … it’s bringing down carbon emissions.”
Safeguard came into effect July 1, 2023, and we won’t get official data on its first full financial year of operations until April 15. However, we can prod existing data to check if it really is “bringing down carbon emissions”.
Quarterly federal emissions data gives us a rough overview. Looking at the sectors that cover heavy industry in Australia (with the caveat that non-safeguard facilities are covered here too), there has been zero noticeable difference to each sector’s greenhouse gas emissions from mid-2023 through to the end of 2024
A Climate Change Authority (CCA) “progress report” examined the first year of safeguard in detail using preliminary data, and found 153 of the covered 215 facilities had emissions higher than the limit set by the Clean Energy Regulator. Thirty-one of those facilities exceeded their limits by 30%. In aggregate, all of the sites that are meant to be regulated by this scheme emitted 10.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent above the total limit.
In short: no change beyond business as usual, despite the new targets. But the massive, widespread beaching of targets means the guaranteed mass purchase of “Australian carbon credit units”, or ACCUs.
Safeguard is an incredible demand fabrication engine for carbon offsets. The CCA cites modelling that shows between 58% to 68% of compliance with the scheme will be met using offsets instead of real emissions reductions out to 2030. “Safeguard facilities’ reliance on ACCUs to meet obligations is forecast to drive ACCU demand out to 2030. ACCU prices are forecast to increase as a result of the growth in demand for ACCUs”, the report says.
The CCA offers a confident forecast of future carbon offset profits, and a nervous shrug about whether real emissions will be cut. That is before it details that there will be 31 million tonnes of new emissions to be added to the scheme’s coverage up to 2030, 21 million of which relate to coal, oil and gas “carbon bomb” projects.
While it’s almost certain the first year of the scheme did nothing for real emissions, it has already created a massive surge in demand for Australia’s highly criticised carbon offsetting scheme. The Clean Energy Regulator’s new quarterly report reveals the growing stockpiles of carbon offsets specifically for meeting the safeguard mechanism’s ratcheting targets
The highest emitters in safeguard can pay a pittance to indefinitely comply with the scheme. But they still consider it an irritation and have restarted calls for compliance to be opened up to allow cheap international carbon offsets — even more controversial than Australia’s heavily criticised scheme.
Profits for carbon markets thrive in two conditions: “ambitious” net-zero targets paired with zero will to actually reduce emissions. Voluntary targets are already starting to shudder and shift thanks to the unashamed fossil-fascist permission space of TrumpWorld 2025. If Peter Dutton were to become prime minister, he could wreck this regulatory capture paradise for Australia’s fossil fuel and offsetting industries. Equally, Dutton might recognise the value of mandated greenwashing schemes. The offsets lobby is already pleading with him to keep it in place.
You aren’t meant to look too closely at the safeguard mechanism. The formulas, acronyms and faux-complexity are there to obscure the simple dual stories of protectionism and cronyism from two massive, interlocking fossil/offsetting industries.
It’s a plastic houseplant: you leave it on the windowsill and let it look vaguely like something real and respiring.
QUOTE ENDS
#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump
QUOTE BEGINS
It is deeply weird that one of Labor’s most expansive climate policies is also one of its least mentioned. The “safeguard mechanism” — a policy that purportedly limits the greenhouse gas emitted by Australia’s heavy industry and fossil mining facilities — covers a full third of Australia’s domestic emissions. Yet it barely exists in public discourse. Why?
Safeguard has a grim origin, with Labor having rejigged a Coalition policy instead of designing its own (wedging opponents takes precedence over deploying policy that works). Safeguard’s progenitor, the Coalition’s “emissions reduction fund”, set limits high above actual emissions (amusingly, as emissions rose, these limits often gently floated upwards).
It was an IKEA houseplant: it looked real, but only from a great distance.
Due to the higher climate policy standards faced by Labor, it had to achieve the same goal using different tactics. The carbon offsetting industry came to the rescue.
Like the old scheme, safeguard sets emissions targets for each facility. Unlike the old scheme, these targets fall over time, meaning theoretically the facility should cut its pollution to comply. Naturally, there’s a glaring loophole: a company can meet the targets even when its pollution is above the limit by purchasing an equivalent number of Australian carbon offsets.
Another option is that overperforming facilities which are under their target can “trade” credit units with others over theirs, but this is unlikely in the short term (and would be more expensive for a polluter than just buying normal offsets).
Safeguard is frequently defended (and derided) as a form of “carbon pricing” — being forced to pay for offsets is a financial disincentive against high emissions. Offsets are exceedingly cheap, have the added benefit of fake neutralisation of your climate damage, and fossil fuel companies swimming in record-breaking super profits only use a tiny fraction of those profits for the required number of offsets. Worst of all, the money ends up in the pockets of carbon trading corporations, rather than the government.
A red-hot political debate ensued: the Greens pushed for real emissions cuts, but Labor won the vibes contest. Tuning safeguard to mandate real, deep emissions cuts was decried as excessive perfectionism that would resurface Australia’s mythical “climate wars”.
Once safeguard passed, it was memory-holed. It only gets exhumed when Labor tries to defend its passivity around the expansion of coal and gas. When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was pushed on including a “climate trigger” in mine approvals, he muttered that “climate issues are dealt with through the safeguard mechanism”. When Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek was pressed on the same, she dismissed it, saying, “The safeguard mechanism is the way that we deal with carbon emissions in this country … it’s bringing down carbon emissions.”
Safeguard came into effect July 1, 2023, and we won’t get official data on its first full financial year of operations until April 15. However, we can prod existing data to check if it really is “bringing down carbon emissions”.
Quarterly federal emissions data gives us a rough overview. Looking at the sectors that cover heavy industry in Australia (with the caveat that non-safeguard facilities are covered here too), there has been zero noticeable difference to each sector’s greenhouse gas emissions from mid-2023 through to the end of 2024
A Climate Change Authority (CCA) “progress report” examined the first year of safeguard in detail using preliminary data, and found 153 of the covered 215 facilities had emissions higher than the limit set by the Clean Energy Regulator. Thirty-one of those facilities exceeded their limits by 30%. In aggregate, all of the sites that are meant to be regulated by this scheme emitted 10.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent above the total limit.
In short: no change beyond business as usual, despite the new targets. But the massive, widespread beaching of targets means the guaranteed mass purchase of “Australian carbon credit units”, or ACCUs.
Safeguard is an incredible demand fabrication engine for carbon offsets. The CCA cites modelling that shows between 58% to 68% of compliance with the scheme will be met using offsets instead of real emissions reductions out to 2030. “Safeguard facilities’ reliance on ACCUs to meet obligations is forecast to drive ACCU demand out to 2030. ACCU prices are forecast to increase as a result of the growth in demand for ACCUs”, the report says.
The CCA offers a confident forecast of future carbon offset profits, and a nervous shrug about whether real emissions will be cut. That is before it details that there will be 31 million tonnes of new emissions to be added to the scheme’s coverage up to 2030, 21 million of which relate to coal, oil and gas “carbon bomb” projects.
While it’s almost certain the first year of the scheme did nothing for real emissions, it has already created a massive surge in demand for Australia’s highly criticised carbon offsetting scheme. The Clean Energy Regulator’s new quarterly report reveals the growing stockpiles of carbon offsets specifically for meeting the safeguard mechanism’s ratcheting targets
The highest emitters in safeguard can pay a pittance to indefinitely comply with the scheme. But they still consider it an irritation and have restarted calls for compliance to be opened up to allow cheap international carbon offsets — even more controversial than Australia’s heavily criticised scheme.
Profits for carbon markets thrive in two conditions: “ambitious” net-zero targets paired with zero will to actually reduce emissions. Voluntary targets are already starting to shudder and shift thanks to the unashamed fossil-fascist permission space of TrumpWorld 2025. If Peter Dutton were to become prime minister, he could wreck this regulatory capture paradise for Australia’s fossil fuel and offsetting industries. Equally, Dutton might recognise the value of mandated greenwashing schemes. The offsets lobby is already pleading with him to keep it in place.
You aren’t meant to look too closely at the safeguard mechanism. The formulas, acronyms and faux-complexity are there to obscure the simple dual stories of protectionism and cronyism from two massive, interlocking fossil/offsetting industries.
It’s a plastic houseplant: you leave it on the windowsill and let it look vaguely like something real and respiring.
QUOTE ENDS
#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump
Ssh! This is why Labor doesn’t talk about the safeguard mechanism
Labor's safeguard mechanism is clearly ineffective at reducing real carbon emissions. It's a mandated greenwashing scheme.Ketan Joshi (Crikey)
Hugs4friends ♾🇺🇦 🇵🇸😷 •
Inhaltswarnung: Ssh! This is why Labor doesn’t talk about the safeguard mechanism. Labor’s safeguard mechanism is clearly ineffective at reducing real carbon emissions. It’s a mandated greenwashing scheme.
Droppie [infosec] 🐨♀:archlinux: :kde: :firefox_nightly: :thunderbird:🦘:vegan: •
Inhaltswarnung: Ssh! This is why Labor doesn’t talk about the safeguard mechanism. Labor’s safeguard mechanism is clearly ineffective at reducing real carbon emissions. It’s a mandated greenwashing scheme.
Hugs4friends ♾🇺🇦 🇵🇸😷 •
Inhaltswarnung: Ssh! This is why Labor doesn’t talk about the safeguard mechanism. Labor’s safeguard mechanism is clearly ineffective at reducing real carbon emissions. It’s a mandated greenwashing scheme.