The Turnbull government's seriousness about tackling climate change shouldn't be assessed on the well-coordinated dump of details about its planned policy review in 2017 but rather attempts to bury or distort any inconvenient news.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The government has outlined the general terms of the long-flagged review. It's expected to generate a discussion paper in the first half of next year and prompt any changes to its current suite by year's end.
Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has understandably gone on the front foot in announcing the review. The government's existing policies are working, he asserts, and says his government "is committed to adopting a non-ideological approach to emissions reduction to ensure we secure the lowest cost of abatement".
Of course, a "non-ideological approach" would necessarily consider a carbon price, letting the market decide which technology wins at "the lowest cost".
Does anyone believe, though, that the Coalition will drop its opposition to anything that vaguely echoes a "carbon tax"? Even now, conservative backbenchers are mustering for a fight.
Fossil fuels, such as coal, do have a cost to society – which the US government puts at $US11-$US105 per tonne – by worsening global warming, and any fair dinkum review in Australia would look to test that range here.
Agencies that the government might have gone to for an independent assessment of options include the Climate Change Authority set up by the Gillard government.
That agency is still earmarked for abolition by the government, and with its outspoken former chairman, Bernie Fraser, forced out in September 2015, it is expected to play little if any role in the coming review.
How much the review looks at Australia's support for the monster Galilee coal province, and the prospect of many billions of tonnes of new emissions, will be interesting to watch.
New approvals announced on Monday, and the prospect of the government tipping in $1 billion to subsidise its development, suggest that it hopes people will accept that train has left the station.
On course?
The government, meanwhile, will continue to repeat that Australia is on course to beat the nation's 2020 target of cutting 2000-level greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent.
Omitted from the conversation will be the fact actual emissions are – by its own estimates – likely to be about 6 per cent higher, and only drop below the goal thanks to credits built up during the middle years. (See chart below.)
And that's even before the much-maligned Emissions Reduction Fund, including its reliance on native vegetation, gets a look in.
The government, meanwhile, has drawn out the release of the country's current greenhouse gas emissions data. A month ago, the Environment Department said the March quarter numbers were due out "shortly".
Presumably they will show more of the same – an unhelpful rise of emissions as coal burning in the electricity sector continues to rise after the carbon price was scrapped in mid-2014.
An "up arrow" in emissions means further goals, such as the 2030 target of cutting 2005 levels by 26-28 per cent, will be harder to achieve by whatever policies are prompted by the 2017 review.
Just how much harder, the government could be telling us now.
As reported by Fairfax Media, the government has been under pressure to release its longer-term emissions projections, including how much on course we are to hit those 2030 targets .
These are due out by the end of the year. Just how close to the Christmas news dead zone will be watched closely.
