Damning whistleblower criticisms of the federal government’s $4.5 billion carbon credits scheme must be taken seriously, according to former chief scientist Ian Chubb, who is reviewing controversial rules following claims that taxpayers’ money was being spent on fake climate action.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen committed before the May election to a review of the $4.5 billion Emissions Reduction Fund. In June, he appointed Chubb to lead a six-month inquiry, which is due to report by December 31.

Former chief scientist Ian Chubb is examining the integrity of carbon credits.Credit:Andrew Meares

But the designer of the fund’s carbon credit rules, ANU Professor Andrew Macintosh, estimated the “vast majority” of the 30 million credits for what’s known as human-induced regeneration, which is meant to fund forest regrowth to sequester carbon, had not captured any extra carbon than if the credits hadn’t been issued to the project proponents.

“[Macintosh] is a serious person and we take his comments seriously,” Chubb said.

The scheme awards credits when carbon emitters cut their greenhouse pollution or create projects that sequester carbon – such as energy efficiency measures introduced to cut heavy industry pollution or investing in land use change that prevents trees from being cut down, known as avoided deforestation.

It will be a major source of the carbon offsets bought by companies under the federal government’s reform to the safeguard mechanism.

Under the mechanism, big industrial polluters will be forced to either cut their pollution or buy carbon offsets. It is forecast to deliver around 30 per cent of the savings the Albanese government needs to reach its target to cut emissions by 43 per cent by 2030.

The federal agency responsible for administering the scheme, the Clean Energy Regulator, has backed the current arrangements for assessing human-induced regeneration.

Chubb said his review must also consider their opinions with equal weight, but greater transparency over how carbon credits are verified was imperative.

“There are serious people on the other side of the same argument and we take their comments seriously, too,” he said.

“Commercial in-confidence is an important concept, but so is getting public money to do a public good. The balance has got to be more information than is presently available so people can look in [on the scheme] and have confidence that they know what is going on.”

Critics of carbon offsetting have argued that polluters can avoid switching to cleaner technology by using poorly designed schemes.

Chubb said he had spoken “long and often” on the importance of greater climate action but insisted investment in offset projects that withdraw carbon from the atmosphere, as well as new technology, was needed.

“It’s all very well to argue that we have to stop emitting, because we do, and I say that without qualification. But when we do, we’ll still be left with [carbon] in the atmosphere that will take us way over two degrees [of global warming] unless we pull it out.”

Submissions to the Chubb review were published last week.

The Australia Institute’s submission said advice from fossil fuel companies with a vested interest in the scheme’s rules had been prioritised in consultation for their design, while independent experts were excluded.

A spokesperson for the Department of Energy, Climate Change, Environment and Water said it had identified and managed all potential conflicts of interest.

“A probity plan is in place to guide both the panel and department staff supporting the panel,” they said.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.

Most Viewed in Politics

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article