Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Direct Action, the centrepiece of the Abbott government's efforts to address climate change, remains a largely unknown quantity even in the wake of this week's breakthrough deal between the Coalition and Palmer United.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt hails his signature program as a "practical solution" for Australia to achieve its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020.
Australia will need to avoid emitting the equivalent of 431 million tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2012 and 2020 to meet that goal.
Labor and the Greens' alternative – before the Abbott government scrapped it in July – was to put a price on emissions, with the electricity generation sector its primary target.
There were signs the policy was "bending the curve", with power sector emissions falling at their fastest pace on record in 2013. In the year to March,, such emissions were down 3.9 per cent, leading a national drop of 1.1 per cent.
However, Direct Action with a war chest of $2.55 billion ($1.55 billion so far budgeted) will do better at much less cost to consumers, Mr Hunt insists.
The basic idea is that big emitters (or smaller ones who band together) can choose to develop their own plans to cut pollution and tender a bid for a "reverse auction".
The government will pick the cheapest abatement efforts, paying the winning bidders up to the point it has achieved its reduction goal or it has exhausted its funds.
Efforts to sequester carbon, such as through altered farming methods or tree planting, will also be eligible to bid.
"There won't be a problem of spending the money," Frank Jotzo, a senior lecturer at the Australian National University, said. "The concern is you won't get value for money."
By that, he means that it will be difficult to prove the bidder wouldn't have made the abatement efforts without an inducement. Australia's emissions may start to rise – not fall – as gas gets exported rather than used in local power plants, and more coal mines release so-called fugitive emissions.
Also unclear is the penalty, or safeguards, that will apply to prevent major emitters from exceeding a baseline – and indeed, what that baseline is. Those won't be settled until 2016.
"There's plenty of scope for the government to render the safeguards a waste of time," said Grant Anderson, a partner with law firm Allens (which has posted some useful analysis).
Penalties, you see, might start to look like a price of carbon – something the Abbott government finds toxic.
If that all seems too hard, you can understand why major international bodies such as the IMF, World Bank and the OECD recommend market-based carbon prices as the best way to cut emissions.
