Let’s be honest: Australia’s claim to have cut climate pollution isn’t as good as it seems

Australia has a problem with greenhouse gas emissions – a bigger problem than the political debate concedes.
Late last week, as Australians endured record August warmth and global heating-fuelled extreme rain, the federal government released data that suggest heat-trapping gases across most of the economy are currently headed in the wrong direction or yet to budge much from historic highs.
As always, statistics can be cut a number of ways. The government emphasised that in the year to March, national CO2 emissions were down a smidge (0.6%), and that since 2005 – the year against which Australia’s climate targets are measured – they have dropped 28.2%. Which doesn’t sound too bad.
But a closer look reveals complications.
Easily the greatest success story in cutting Australia’s industrial emissions has been in electricity generation. This is a familiar tale: renewable energy has expanded rapidly, now providing about 40% of power in the grid that runs the five eastern states.
The biggest driver of this has been the national renewable energy target, which set a deadline of 2020 for green sources to provide a little more than 20% of generation. A rush of investment to meet the target late last decade pushed solar and wind generation well beyond what was legally required. State schemes have also had an impact.
So far, so good. But Labor came to power with advice that renewable energy was so economically attractive that it would just keep getting built as long as the government ensured there were enough transmission connections. In reality, financial investment in renewables fell off a cliff shortly after the target was reached and the industry grappled with social licence, planning and supply chain challenges.
We’re now seeing the results of that. Climate pollution from the national grid had been cut about 30% since 2005 but, remarkably, the quarterly data show it has started increasing again. It was up 2.1% in the March quarter and is likely to be up another 1.3% in the three months to June.
The March increase was due to a jump in electricity use as people ran air conditioners more often (you may be aware it’s getting hotter) and power-hungry data centres supplied more cloud computing and artificial intelligence. The rise in the June quarter was linked to a “wind drought” and below-average rainfall limiting the amount of hydro power.
These changes meant Australia has been more reliant on fossil fuels than in recent years. Dylan McConnell, an energy systems researcher at the University of New South Wales, says coal generation is about 3.5% up from 2023.
This reversal may be – should be – temporary. The past few weeks have brought plenty of wind and rain, and the government has substantially expanded a renewable energy underwriting program that should get construction moving.
But it has underscored how much the country is relying on changes in electricity to meet climate targets. Take that away and there isn’t much else expected to reduce fossil fuel use this side of 2030.
Stationary energy – a label that covers onsite burning of fossil fuels in manufacturing, mining, and commercial and residential buildings – has skyrocketed by 22% since 2005, mainly due to pollution from a massively expanded (and still expanding) liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry.
In transport, pollution is up 20% since 2005. It fell during Covid-19 shutdowns as people drove and flew less, but has rebounded spectacularly and shows no sign of slowing. Emissions from domestic air travel leapt sharply – by nearly 9% – over the year to March. But the biggest change has been in diesel-powered SUVs and road freight. Australians are driving nearly twice as many big diesel vehicles as a decade ago.
Labor rightly points out that the big increases in these areas mostly happened under the Coalition government, which rejected policies to deal with them. And that the Albanese government has introduced some policies – a strengthened safeguard mechanism meant to limit industrial pollution and a vehicle efficiency standard to encourage a shift to cleaner cars.
But official climate projections make clear that these policies will take time to have an impact. Emissions from stationary energy and transport are forecast to be only slightly below current levels in 2030. More will be needed.
Pollution from other parts of the economy are also an issue, partly because of how little we may actually know about them. Fugitive emissions – losses and leaks at mines and industrial sites – are thought to have jumped about 10% since 2005. But there is credible evidence the data substantially underestimates what is escaping from coalmines and gas fields. The government has begun to investigate a more accurate measurement system.
There are also uncertainties about the emissions from agriculture and landfill sites. But the biggest issue in what we don’t know for accounting purposes is the inclusion of emissions from the land and forests.
This sector takes in land clearing, logging, tree planting, natural vegetation growth and carbon stored in soil on farming land. These sources used to release a lot of heating-trapping gas – about 91m tonnes in 2005, according to the government estimate.
These days, officials believe they absorb more CO2 than they emit. The pollution inventory says they sucked 88m tonnes from the atmosphere last year as vegetation grew and soils got healthier.
Put together, this change is expressed as an extraordinary 179 tonne cut in emissions over the past 19 years – more than three times the reduction from moving to solar and wind energy.
This is problematic for a bunch of reasons. Changes in emissions from the land and forests are important but are based on broad estimates and are repeatedly being revised. As the writer Ketan Joshi has pointed out, each revision in recent years has made it easier for the government of the day to meet its emissions target.
While there is no evidence these revisions are not made in good faith, they underline a point that is often ignored: there are huge uncertainties in the land emissions data – far greater than those from electricity, industry or vehicles.
The claimed change in Australian land emissions also cannot be assumed to be permanent due to the risk of them being wiped out in a drought, fire or flood. And they have had little-to-nothing to do with climate change policy and therefore are not evidence of a transition to a clean economy.
Most importantly, experts have repeatedly warned that they mask what is really happening with fossil fuel use, the main driver of the climate crisis.
If the land is excluded from Australia’s greenhouse accounts, the emissions cut since 2005 is paltry – just 1.3%. Which is a long way from the Albanese government’s legislated 43% target.
This is not a new revelation. Famously, Australia’s reliance on land emissions data dates back to a special deal secured by the Howard government at UN climate talks in the 1990s. It’s unlikely to change any time soon, given there is little incentive for governments to concede the country has not done as much to cut emissions as is claimed.
This doesn’t mean rapid action isn’t possible. There is evidence that deep, short-term emissions cuts are possible if there is the political will. But it’s the reality, and we should begin by being honest about it.