Not Zero: Seven Absurd Things About Australia's 'Net Zero' Plan

Just in time for COP26, our government released it's new-but-not-new climate policy, Australia’s Long-Term Emissions Reduction Plan: A whole-of-economy plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.  As The Juice Media so aptly put it (with language warning!), it's not so much a plan as a planphlet.  A few weeks later, in the dead zone of a Friday evening, they released a thing which they said was the modelling behind it.

It's kind of like Schroedinger's cat, simultaneously promising to cut emissions to 'net zero' and to do no such thing.  People who know what they are talking about have analysed it - like here, here and here.  I'm not sure they've quite captured how absurd it is.  So in the interests of progressing the theatre of the absurd, here are seven of the many absurd things about it. 

1. 'Net Zero' = 'Not Zero'.

Our Minister for Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, has said several times that 'it's net zero, not absolute zero'.  In other words, 'not zero'.  Our government proposes to go on emitting (perhaps a bit less because some non-emitting technologies are now cheaper than emitting ones) and then find ways of burying the emissions in the ground via plants or complex industrial pumping systems.  

Even with this, the actual plan and the modelling behind it promises 85% net reduction, as shown in the picture below.

Every sector of the economy except electricity generation will be emitting large amounts of carbon in 2050 according to this plan.  So, not even 'nearly zero'.

2. Technology, more technology and other technology.

The following graph explains this neatly.

We have the technologies in the Technology Investment Roadmap, technologies emerging from 'global technology trends' (don't know, something's bound to turn up) and the final unmodelled 15% will come from 'further technology breakthroughs' (no idea).  As if to reinforce the message, the words 'technology'  and 'technologies' appear 633 times in the long version of the plan and 34 times in the 20-page planphlet.  By contrast the word 'temperature' (you know, the thing this plan is supposed to be about) appears only 12 times in the long version and just once in the short version.  

3. Half the technologies don't work.

Leaving aside the mystery technologies, half the ones we know about don't work.  To be fair, some are OK.  They are proposing to support low cost solar (that is, even lower than the cost now, which is already cheaper than fossil fuel energy) and energy storage (that is to say, batteries and pumped hydro), which we already have and are working fine.  They also talk about soil carbon (like, in trees or plants) which is OK as long as you have time to wait for them to grow, which we don't, and they don't burn in some bushfire or other.  So hopefully, someone will be holding the hose.

Then there's the others.  The government has been making a lot of noise about carbon capture and storage, even featuring a massive 3D model of Santos' proposed Moomba CCS project at its stand at COP26.  

There's a good reason the stand featured a proposed CCS project as opposed to an actual one - despite $4b of government subsidies over 20 years, there is only one functioning CCS project in Australia, and that one is storing a tiny fraction of what it was supposed to.

Then there are weasel words - 'clean' hydrogen and 'clean' aluminium and steel.  You can make all these three products without any emissions, although steel and aluminium are still a way off being commercially competitive.  These products are generally labelled 'green'.  This, however, is not what the government is proposing.  They are proposing to make them using gas or coal, with the resulting emissions magicked away through the wonders of CCS (see above).

4. You want it, we sell it!

In the Plan, the government promises that it will not be shutting down Australia's coal and gas industries.  The modelling projects that in 2050 we will be producing about half the amount of coal we do now, and 13% more gas.  Yes.  More Gas!

Given that Australia exports about three times our domestic emissions, this plan is death-riding the Paris Agreement and banking on the catastrophic failure of global climate action.  This being the case it's handy that....

5. Climate change is free!

The appendix to the modelling report, 'Contributions and limitations of the modelling and analysis', makes this stunning admission:

This modelling does not assess the benefits of avoiding climate change, such as reduced climate risks and decreased impacts of global warming. The modelling partially takes into account the economic and environmental benefits achieved when reducing emissions through advanced technology scenarios, however the model does not seek to quantify outcomes from avoiding climate change and the findings should not be considered in isolation.

In other words, it's not worth the bytes in which it is written.

6. The magical disappearing carbon price.

Economists have long insisted that the best way to reduce emissions is to put a price on them, which is probably why our government refuses to impose one.  Lo and behold, the modelling considers various levels of a carbon price, ranging from the current average global price of around $5 per tonne to over $400.  You have to read a lot of weasel words to understand why this is not a carbon tax.  Here's some.

The marginal cost of abatement does not represent a carbon tax, and no revenue is collected or paid to government within the model when it is implemented. For this reason the modelling does not assume that abatement incentives are imposed by government, and abatement incentives should not be interpreted as a government levy or financial impost upon any sector of the economy.

The 'Plan Scenario' builds a cap of $25 per tonne into the model, with the costs accepted voluntarily by those who are reducing their emissions.  In case you're wondering whether this is realistic in the light of actual experience, the report continues with some more weasel words.

The level of abatement incentive in all other scenarios with a 2050 target are determined by the model (rather than being capped by assumption), and range from $80/t to $400/t in 2050. This level of incentive is interpreted as being higher than could be achieved through voluntary action alone, and thus would require some form of government impost (such as a tax) or regulation.

To translate this into normal words, the Plan Scenario won't actually work because the real cost of cutting emissions is way higher than it assumes, even if our newly enlightened entrepreneurs did agree to pay it voluntarily, which they haven't so far and are not likely to if no-one forces them to.  

Which brings me to Number 7.

7. Just kidding, LOL!

The only reason a government could release an emissions reduction plan that won't reduce emissions is if they have no interest in reducing emissions.  And, lo and behold, the ink was barely dry on Australia's signature to the declaration from COP26 when our Prime Minister and 'Emissions Reduction Minister' stepped up their coal and gas spruiking, while our Deputy Prime Minister stood in front of a coal train to declare his party had not signed the COP declaration.  You can't make this shit up.

***

In case you were wondering, this is what state capture looks like.  About 70% of Australian voters think our government should be taking stronger action on climate change, including over 50% in the Deputy Prime Minister's rural and coal country seat of New England.  But our government doesn't care about that because they have been thoroughly co-opted by the fossil fuel industry.  This means that in order to keep both voters and sponsors on side they have to resort to this kind of double speak, where net zero is not zero, toxic gases can be held captive indefinitely and greenhouse gases emitted in other countries don't count.

We have an election coming up soon.  How would the other lot do?  Will they be 'net better' or 'not better'?  Surely they couldn't be worse!