Australia’s coalmine emissions are increasing. Is this how a major policy to cut climate pollution is meant to work? | Greenhouse gas emissions

Is this how a national plan to reduce climate pollution should work?

Australian government data published this week It shows emissions from Australian coal mines increased last financial year. About 80% of coal mines pumped more into the atmosphere than the government-imposed limit.

The overall increase is relatively small; about 0.5%. But this comes as the Albanian government has pledged significant pollution reductions to help combat the climate crisis and meet legal climate targets. This is remarkable and worth your time.

Coal mines are covered by a policy with a mind-boggling name: safeguard mechanism. Its role is extremely important. It aims to promote cleaner practices and emissions cuts in the country’s nearly 200 major industrial regions.

It has been three years since the Albanian government overhauled the Coalition government’s failed plan to make significant annual cuts. Each year, mines, gas processing plants, steel mills, smelters, chemical manufacturers and most other facilities are intended to reduce their emissions intensity (how much they emit relative to production) by 4.9%.

But the truth is more complex.

Coal mines are the clearest example of this. It is estimated that total emissions from coal mines increased from 31.63 million tons to 31.78 million tons last year. The increase would have been greater if the Grosvenor mine had not been closed due to fire.

Almost two-thirds of mines were released more than the previous year. This happened at a time when emission limits on mines were coming down. But even though 80 percent of the mines were emitting more than the government-set targets, they did not actually miss their targets. They fulfilled their obligations by purchasing carbon offsets that were said to represent emissions cuts made elsewhere.

The advice from scientists and experts is that this is not some kind of climate solution if it is allowed to continue. Tackling the climate crisis requires rapidly reducing direct emissions wherever possible. This essentially means taking rapid steps to reduce fossil fuel use.

The extent to which offsets are justified depends on situations where no viable alternatives yet exist. For example, cement making and some production processes that require extreme heat.

The most common form of offset is carbon credits, which are created by storing carbon dioxide (CO).₂) in forests and other nature – will ultimately be required for “negative emissions” that will reduce the heat-trapping gas currently in the atmosphere. This cannot happen when offsets are used as an excuse to increase fossil fuel use.

.

There are also questions about whether the carbon offset system will deliver the scale of emissions reductions claimed. Peer-reviewed studies have raised significant doubts about the main methods used to establish credit in Australia.

Georgina Woods, of campaign group Lock the Gate, says the reliance on offsets is a “major structural flaw” in the protection mechanism. “The Albanian government must correct this lax policy that allows fossil fuel companies to focus heavily on land sector offsets rather than investing in reducing pollution at the source. This is a recipe for failure,” he says.

“If offsets continue to be used to hide industrial greenhouse pollution, Australians will bear the cost of climate-related disasters and rising cost of living.”

This view is supported by many organizations. Kate Dooley, a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne’s school of geography, earth and atmospheric sciences, says relying on land-based offsets to offset industrial emissions is not compatible with what scientific studies have found is necessary and that the use of offsets “delays true decarbonisation”.

“Australia’s climate targets will only be achieved by reducing emissions at source and scaling up renewable energy, not through temporary storage of carbon on land,” he says.

Climate change minister Chris Bowen says total on-site emissions under the scheme have fallen even without offsetting. This year it was 3.2 million tonnes – or 2.3% – lower, according to official data.

But there is a wrinkle. There were 11 fewer industrial facilities under the program last year compared to 2023-24.

From where? Only places that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of CO₂ is located within one year. Mines and factories that fall below this threshold reduce pollution, but unless they drop to zero, they still pump out emissions not counted here.

This means a direct comparison is not quickly possible, but the comparable direct cut was probably less than 2%.

The disruption is greater when offsets are included; approximately 5.5% or 7 million tonnes. Mining company Rio Tinto and gas producer Woodside purchased more than 1 million carbon credits last year to offset climate pollution, at a cost of about $40 million each.

The upside is that companies have to pay a carbon price for some of their harmful pollution. As this amount grows, it can be a deterrent and, for some, an incentive to make direct emissions cuts. This is a better situation than under the Coalition, when large emitting businesses mostly faced no penalties. But for now, it’s a relatively small cost for multinational companies.

Climate consultancy RepuTex found that major decarbonisation initiatives have not yet been widely adopted by protected companies due to the long lead time and high cost of clean solutions in some sectors. He says he expects this to change this financial year, especially as off-grid mines invest in renewable energy and electric machinery.

This would clearly be positive, but would not address fundamental questions about the design of the scheme. Some large coal mines, such as Adani’s Carmichael mine and Glencore’s Hail Creek mine, received carbon credits equivalent to millions of dollars last year, mainly because they emit less than known government limits.

At the Carmichael mine, this happened despite pollution increasing compared to the previous year. Its emissions were still much less than the baseline level, calculated using a formula that takes into account both the mine’s history and the average emissions in the sector. .

If the Albanian government sees a problem with this, it has not said so yet. Going back to the question posed above: this like that how the system is designed to work.

Bowen says the data shows the safeguard is “a good policy, working well” as it provides the industry with investment certainty “to ensure their operations are continually viable” while also reducing overall emissions.

Not all government agencies agree. The Net Zero Commission, which advises the New South Wales government, warned in December that the plan was unlikely to lead to on-site cuts to coal mines with the urgency needed to meet statutory climate targets, partly because there are no restrictions on how much carbon credits a company can buy.

A review of the plan will begin in July but may be delayed due to the fuel crisis. There is an expectation among some working in the area that this will be a relatively light touch. The evidence suggests this needs much deeper scrutiny.