For full report, click here.
On 11 August 2015, Australia submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). We rate Australia’s INDC 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26–28% from 2005 levels including land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) by 2030 as “inadequate.” After accounting for LULUCF, this target is equivalent to a range of around 5% below to 5% above 1990 levels of GHG emissions excluding LULUCF in the year 2030.
All other industrial countries, except Canada and New Zealand, have proposed 2025 or 2030 goals significantly below 1990 levels. The “inadequate” rating indicates that Australia’s commitment is not in line with most interpretations of a “fair” approach to reach a 2°C pathway: if most other countries followed the Australian approach, global warming would exceed 3–4°C.
Australia is one of five industrialised countries rated “inadequate” by the Climate Action Tracker (the other four are Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Russia). There is no single metric, such as rate of improvement in emissions per capita or improvement of emissions intensity, that can be used to rank the country unambiguously, given different starting years, base years and history of action (or inaction) on climate policy. Based on a range of metrics, Australia’s INDC is in the bottom half of the range of the industrialised countries.
Australia has a large gap between policies and targets
Australia stands out as having the largest relative gap between current policy projections for 2030 and the INDC target. With currently implemented policy measures, Australia’s emissions are set to increase substantially to more than 27% above 2005 levels by 2030, which is equivalent to an increase of around 61% above 1990 levels. Australia’s Direct Action Plan does not put Australia anywhere close to a track that meets its INDC 2030 target. The additional funding announced in August 2015 by the Government for post-2020, should it be re-elected in 2016, would reduce this projected increase by only 2%, to around 25% above 2005 levels (equivalent to 57% above 1990).
Of the nine industrialised countries assessed, Australia ranks eighth on its projected rate of reduction in per capita emissions, exceeded only by Russia, and eighth on projected improvement in emissions intensity for the period from 2012 to 2030, with Canada ranking worst.
In July 2014, against international trends, the Australian Government abolished its nascent Carbon Pricing system by partly repealing its Clean Energy Future Plan, which marked a negative turning point in Australia’s climate policy. Before the repeal, Australia’s climate policy was projected to bring Australia halfway towards the announced INDC 2030 target (5% above 2005 levels).
The repeal of the Clean Energy Future Package creates a large emissions gap
The CAT has assessed recent policy developments in Australia, including the Emissions Reduction Fund, the scaling back of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and, as well the most recent emissions projections published by the Government. Contrary to government assertions (Australian Government, 2015b), the abatement task has increased considerably over the years, reflecting the negative consequences of the repeal and the Australian government’s amendments of key climate policies in recent years.
The CAT estimates that before the repeal of the Clean Energy Future Package, Australia was on track to meet their 2020 target. With the repeal, policies fall short and a cumulative abatement task of at least 153 MtCO2e between 2013–2020 remains. The scaling back of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) from 41,000 GWh to 33,000 GWh by 2020 translates into an extra 97-141 MtCO2e of cumulative abatement required during the period 2012-2030. After accounting for this and the effects of the ERF, we estimate a remaining cumulative abatement challenge between 2013 and 2030 of between 1.5–1.7 GtCO2e (equivalent to roughly three years of Australia’s current national emissions).
It is clear from our present assessment that currently planned policies are inconsistent with the INDC 2030 target and Australia needs substantially more policies to meet that target. To meet its 2030 emissions targets, Australia needs to decrease its emissions by an average annual rate of 2% until 2030; instead, with current policies, emissions are set to increase by an average rate of 1.5% a year.
For the 2020 period Australia has a target under the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period (2013–2020) to limit average yearly emissions to 99.5% of 1990 base levels (a 0.5% reduction). After taking into account Kyoto protocol accounting rules (notably a modified ‘gross-net’ accounting approach for LULUCF activities), Australia would be allowed to increase its GHG emissions by 23–48% above 1990 levels by 2020 excluding LULUCF.
With current policies projected to increase emissions to 35 to 40% above 1990 levels by 2020, meeting the second commitment period targets may require very little, if any, action, due to the substantial amount of LULUCF credits or allowances that Australia obtains under this agreement. Put another way, the treatment of LULUCF under Kyoto rules allows Australia to continue increasing its emissions until 2020, yet still meet its 2020 target.
Should Australia fail to ratify the Doha amendments for the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period, then its 2020 Copenhagen pledge will be relevant. The CAT estimates Australia’s unconditional Copenhagen pledge— to reduce emissions by 5% below 2000 emissions by 2020— is equivalent to approximately a 26% increase above 1990 levels of GHG emissions excluding LULUCF— after taking into account Australia’s inclusion of afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (ARD) emissions in year 2000 base level emissions and in the 2020 target year.
In its INDC for 2030, Australia specifies that it will apply a ‘net-net’ accounting approach to its target. What this means is that “net” emissions, i.e. all national emissions including removals from LULUCF, are used to define the emissions levels used in both the base year and the commitment period. Even though there is large uncertainty associated with LULUCF data (e.g. in estimating sinks and high variability due to factors such as wildfires, droughts or other weather extremes), this approach allows for comparing like with like, as opposed to the modified gross-net accounting approach applied under the Kyoto Protocol, and which would apply for the period to 2020, should Australia ratify the second commitment period of the protocol, for its 2020 target.
An important aspect of the Australian INDC is that the 2030 target remains provisional on the “rules and other underpinning arrangements of the agreement” and that Australia reserves the right to adjust its target. This adds an unusually high level of uncertainty to Australia’s contribution to the 2015 global agreement at this point. Should the target be adjusted and/or any of the underlying rules altered, this assessment will have to be updated.
Australia’s 2020 pledge and post-2020 INDC
Post-2020 INDC Target
On 11 August 2015, Australia announced a 26–28% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 below 2005 levels including LULUCF. This translates into a range of 445–458 MtCO2e allowed emissions levels in 2030 incl. LULUCF (equivalent to a reduction of 15–18% below 1990 emissions levels incl. LULUCF). Analysis of the effect of the INDC on likely fossil fuel and industrial[i] GHG emissions is made difficult by the fact that the INDC target includes LULUCF emissions, which are substantial, and fluctuate significantly (Figure 2 under “Data Sources and assumptions” in the Australia report). We have estimated levels of emissions excl. LULUCF resulting from the INDC by subtracting projected emissions for the LULUCF sector in 2030 from the targeted level incl. LULUCF. We estimate that the INDC translates into emissions levels of 395–437 MtCO2e emissions excl. LULUCF (that is, around 5% below to 5% above 1990 emissions levels excl. LULUCF).
Australia’s INDC ranks at the bottom of industrialised countries
A comparison of GHG emissions levels (excl. LULUCF) achieved by INDCs expressed as reductions below 1990 (Table 1Table 1) shows that Australia’s INDC is at the bottom of the ranking of industrialised countries together with Canada and New Zealand. This pattern holds with different choices of base year, although it becomes less prominent for more recent base years. For example, the difference in reductions below 2005 achieved by the INDC in Australia and in the EU is less strong than when compared to 1990—this is due to the fact that while emissions were increasing by roughly 26% between 1990 and 2005 in Australia, they were decreasing by 8% in the EU.
The INDC target results in emissions levels that are far above emissions levels resulting from the Climate Change Authority (CCA) recommendations for Australia’s future emissions reduction target (Australian Climate Change Authority, 2015). In July 2015, the CCA recommended an emissions reduction target of 30% below 2000 levels by 2025 (incl. LULUCF). The Authority did not recommend a target for 2030, but has estimated that Australia should be aiming to reduce emissions by 40–60% below 2000 levels (incl. LULUCF) by 2030. These targets would translate into reductions of 11–19% in 2025 and 25–59% in 2030 below 1990 emissions levels excl. LULUCF and would bring Australia much closer to being in line with 2°C and placing it in the “medium” category in 2030.
An important aspect of the Australian INDC is that the 2030 target remains provisional on the “rules and other underpinning arrangements of the agreement” and that Australia reserves the right to adjust it. This adds high uncertainty to Australia’s contribution of Australia to the 2015 global agreement. The conclusions of the present CAT assessment are subject to the same uncertainty and will need to be revised once any adjustments to the target and proposed LULUCF accounting approaches are made.
Table 1: GHG Emissions levels (excl. LULUCF) in 2030 resulting from the INDC in absolute terms and expressed as reductions below 1990, 2000 and 2005 base years. Note that for the USA, 2030 levels result from the linear interpolation between the 2025 emissions levels implied by the INDC and the long-term target in 2050.
Australia’s Kyoto Protocol target for the first commitment period (CP1) (2008–2012) was to limit the increase in its GHG emissions excl. LULUCF to 8% above to 1990 levels (QELRO of 108% of base year emissions).
Under the Kyoto Protocol accounting rules (notably Kyoto Protocol Article 3.7), Australia is allowed to add deforestation emissions to its base year for calculating its commitment period emissions allowances. This leads to an increase in Australia’s allowances of about 30% per year of the commitment period (further details in Box 2). Other LULUCF accounting rules applicable to Australia in the first commitment period (Article 3.3), certain land-use change and forestry activities (mainly deforestation) provided debits, which were subtracted from the allowed GHG emissions excl. LULUCF during the commitment period.
Overall, Article 3.7 and the other LULUCF provisions of the Kyoto Protocol resulted in emission allowances exceeding actual emissions by about 100 MtCO2e, despite minimal policy action for that period. Australia ended CP1 with a surplus emissions allowance of about 100MtCO2e to be transferred to the second commitment period, principally as a consequence of Article 3.7 (which is often called the Australia clause[ii]).
Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period Target (2013-2020)
Australia has a target under the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period (2013–2020) to limit average yearly emissions to 99.5% of 1990 base levels (a 0.5% reduction). However, after taking into account:
Australia’s allowed GHG emissions (excluding LULUCF) could be increased in 2020 to 23-48% above 1990 levels of GHG emissions excluding LULUCF (further details on this analysis in our Australia report)
Copenhagen 2020 Pledge
Under the Copenhagen Accord Australia has proposed three targets for 2020 with different conditions, -5%, -15%, and -25% relative to 2000. Australia has provided absolute allowed emission levels in 2020 of 524 MtCO2e, 468 MtCO2e, and 413 MtCO2e for the -5%, -15% and -25% targets respectively (these figures assume 5 MtCO2e from ARD in 2020). The -5% goal currently stands as their unconditional pledge.
The Australian government has stated: “in defining its targets for 2020, Australia considered that these targets refer to its net emissions from the sector and source categories included in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol as well as from afforestation, reforestation and deforestation activities, for the base year (2000) and 2020” (UNFCCC, 2014 and DCCEE, 2012)[iv]. The CAT estimates the Australia’s unconditional Copenhagen pledge to reduce emissions by 5% below 2000 emissions by 2020 is equivalent to approximately 7% increase above 2000 levels which is equivalent to a 26% increase above 1990 levels of GHG emissions excluding LULUCF[v] after taking into account Australia’s inclusion of afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (ARD) emissions in year 2000 base level emissions and in the 2020 target year.
Since the Copenhagen pledge is non-legally binding there are no pre-existing rules as to which rule apply to this pledge. Some countries, like New Zealand indicate that they would use the same Kyoto Protocol rules to increase their allowed GHG emissions as illustrated in the previous chapter. If we apply this approach to the Copenhagen pledge, Australia could increase its GHG emissions (excl. LULUCF) by up to 22% above 2000 levels (equivalent to 45% increase above 1990 levels) and still officially meet its 5% reduction target.[vi]
We rate Australia’s INDC target for 2030 “inadequate.” The “inadequate” rating indicates that Australia’s commitment exceeds the acceptable emissions level for Australia in all effort-sharing proposals evaluated by the CAT. This means it is not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C: if most other countries followed the Australiaapproach, global warming would exceed 3–4°C. For Australia, proposals based on capability lead to higher emissions allowances whereas approaches that focus on equal cumulative/equal per capita emission would require more stringent reductions. The 2020 Kyoto targets are also rated “inadequate”.
Improvements in emissions per-capita and emissions intensity
A close look at intensity indicators, such as emissions intensity of GDP and emissions per capita, and their rate of improvement under the INDC and current policy projections scenarios, may reveal important trends that emissions alone cannot. Beyond the CAT effort-sharing ranges, comparing these intensity indicators trends among countries provides further insight into fairness and progress towards decarbonisation of national economies.
The Australian INDC target implies significant improvements in emissions per capita and emissions intensity (emissions per unit of GDP). The CAT assesses that to meet its 2030 target, emissions per capita would reach roughly 15 MtCO2e, which would imply an annual reduction rate in emissions per capita of 2.4–2.9% between 2012 and 2030 (and an overall reduction of 40–46%[vii] below 2005 levels, Table 2). This is similar to efforts made by other developed countries, as for example the USA, over the same period, which are expected to reach emissions per capita of 13 tCO2e per capita in 2030 according to their INDCs,[viii] with an annual reduction rate of around 2.5–3% in emissions per capita (and an overall 48% compared to 2005 levels).
Table 2: Emissions per capita in 1990, 2005 and 2030 and annual rate of improvement in per capita emissions (%) between 2012–2030 for industrialised countries under INDC and Current Policy scenarios. Note that for the USA, 2030 levels result from the linear interpolation between the 2025 emissions levels implied by the INDC and the long-term target in 2050.
However, the picture is very different if current policy projections are considered instead of the INDC target. While current policies in the USA bring them to an emissions per capita level of 16 tCO2e, current policy projections in Australia do not imply any improvement in emissions per capita from today’s level (Table 2). It is important to note that since 1990, Australia’s emissions per capita have been decreasing at a very slow pace (decrease of only 2% between 1990 and 2012). Whether Australia will be able to achieve these reductions remains doubtful given the country’s recent emissions trend and climate policy developments.
Table 3: Emissions intensity in 2030 and annual rate of improvement in emissions intensity (%) between 2012-2030 for industrialised countries under INDC and Current Policy scenarios. Note that for the USA, 2030 levels result from the linear interpolation between the 2025 emissions levels implied by the INDC and the long-term target in 2050.
In terms of emissions intensity per GDP, currently implemented policies in Australia would lead to levels of 426 tCO2e/million USD2012 in 2030 (Table 3), which represents a reduction of around 35% compared to 2005 levels. Intended levels with the INDC are of 252–279 tCO2e/million USD2012, which represents an overall 58–62% reduction below 2005 levels[ix], and far below what currently implemented policies can achieve.
Australia’s current policies fall far short of the emissions reductions required to meet the 2030 target put forward in the INDC. Under current policies in place in Australia, total national GHG emissions excl. LULUCF are projected to rise to about 575 MtCO2e by 2020 and 670 MtCO2e by 2030, equivalent to an increase in emissions from 2005 levels (excl. LULUCF) of 19% and 27% by 2020 and 2030 respectively (when compared to 1990 levels (excl. LULUCF) this results in an increase of 39% and 61% respectively). To meet its 2030 emissions targets, Australian emissions should decrease by an average rate of 2% per cent until 2030; instead, with current policies, they are set to increase by an average rate of 1.5% per year.
The Australian Government’s published INDC’s Fact Sheet states that Australia’s target is achievable with its Direct Action Plan. It presents several indicative emissions reductions sources and its abatement potential: the Emissions Reduction Fund and its Safeguard Mechanism are said to generate around 360MtCO2e abatement, the National Energy Productivity Plan in total 248MtCO2e (155MtCO2e through energy efficiency and 93 through vehicle efficiency), Ozone and HFC measures are expected to generate 82MtCO2e and lastly technology improvements and other sources of abatement are said to contribute another 207 MtCO2e of abatement potential (Australian Government, 2015a).[x]
While the Government plans to use Direct Action approaches to reduce Australia’s emissions to meet its 2020 and 2030 targets, many of the listed policies in its fact sheet are not yet maturely developed, and it remains highly uncertain whether they will deliver the necessary emissions abatement to meet the targets. Is it clear that all of these listed policies do not come close to the emissions reductions that would have been achieved under the core instruments of the national climate policy and legislation in the previous Government’s Clean Energy Future package, such as the Carbon Pricing Mechanism and the Large Scale Renewable Energy Target (Parliament of Australia, n.d.), all of which the current Government has repealed or amended. According to the CAT the Clean Energy Future Package would have brought Australia roughly halfway closer to its target when compared to currently implemented policies.
Current policy projections (with all implemented, not planned policies) are expected to lead to an emissions level of 578MtCO2e excluding LULUCF by 2020, that is, 39% above 1990 levels of GHG emissions (excl. LULUCF) by 2020. This is in line with the effective emissions allowances estimated by the CAT for 2020 (further details in Box 2), which are increased through the usage of various accounting rules and thus ultimately allow Australia’s emissions to be 23–48% above 1990 levels. In other words, Australia may not need to do anything in terms of policies between now and 2020 to meet its Kyoto obligations, a situation that also prevailed for the first commitment period (2008 to 2012). Note again, this is merely due to a mechanical uplifting of allowed GHG emissions and not due to effective climate policies that actually decrease GHG emissions.
Our current policy projections are based on Australia’s Emissions Projections 2014–15 published by the Department of Environment on March 2015, which include existing policies and measures with the exception of the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Additionally, the CAT incorporates the Renewable Energy Amendment Act 2015, passed by the Australian Government on June 25, which reduces Australia’s large-scale renewable energy target from 41,000 GWh to 33,000 GWh in 2020, as well as the potential abatement from the ERF until 2020, based on the results of the first auction, which took place in April 2015.
As the Energy Productivity Plan, presented in the Energy White Paper in April 2015 (Australian Government, 2015d), is still under development and not backed by any legal framework or policies, we do not include it in our assessment. Similarly, we abstained from any quantification of “technology improvements” at this point, as they would be highly speculative.
Contrary to what the government finds in their assessment (Australian Government, 2015b), the CAT finds the cumulative abatement task between has actually increased considerably over the years, reflecting the negative consequences of the repeal and amendments of key climate policies in recent years (Figure 1). Before the repeal, we assessed that Australia was on track to meet their target. This is no longer the case after the repeal: the CAT estimates that a cumulative abatement challenge of 153 MtCO2e between 2013 and 2020 remains. With the first commitment period surplus, and the credits from forestry in the second commitment period, we estimate Australia will hold over 157 MtCO2e of emission allowances for the period 2013-2020. This exceeds the abatement task, and indicates that under the Kyoto protocol, little, if any, further by action is needed to meet the 2020 target. The lack of action in the period to 2020 however creates a larger abatement task in the decade following.
For the whole period of 2013 and 2030, the CAT estimates an overall remaining cumulative task of 1514–1750 MtCO2e (excluding LULUCF) under currently implemented policies. Before the repeal the abatement task was of 415–651 MtCO2e (excluding LULUCF), that is, policies brought Australia two thirds of the way closer to its INDC target.
Figure 1: Comparison of the cumulative abatement task for Australia pre and post-repeal up to 2030 (excluding LULUCF sector).
It is clear from our present assessment that Australia is currently unlikely to meet its target without substantially more policies. Currently planned policies are inconsistent with the INDC target. The continued path of Australian climate policy development cements in a clear shift away from the previous government’s targeted national climate policy that was designed to meet concrete goals in line with international climate policy targets, and the required emission reductions identified by the climate science community.
Emission Reduction Fund
At the heart of Australia’s Direct Action Plan is the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), which functions as a reverse auction mechanism with an objective to “reduce emissions at lowest cost over the period to 2020” (Australian Government, 2014, p. 68). The ERF - the so-called “centrepiece” of the Australian Government’s policy suite to reduce emissions - does not set Australia on a path that would meet its targets.
Alongside the reverse auction, the ERF consists of a safeguard mechanism, which will begin operations in July 2016, and its stated intention is to limit significant emissions increases from large industrial sources. While the policy details are currently being designed and are not yet finalised, the Consultation Paper published in March this year gives an indication about the effectiveness of this mechanism. According to this paper, “Emissions baselines will be set using the highest level of reported emissions for a facility over the historical period 2009-10 to 2013-14, with a minimum baseline of 100,000 tonnes CO2e for all facilities,” (Australian Government, 2015g) which effectively means that the safeguard mechanisms will not curb many emissions. In addition, according to Reputex (“UPDATE: ERF Safeguards – Toothless Tiger or Hidden Dragon? | RepuTex,” n.d.) the scheme currently only covers 30 companies (it includes none of the top 20 emitting facilities), which further highlights its ineffectiveness. Because of its estimated insignificant impact, the CAT has not included this in our quantification of the ERF.
Based on the first auction that took place in April of this year, the CAT developed two scenarios to analyse the impact of the fund: one scenario assuming a constant price of AUD$13.95 per tonnes of abatement, which was the average price of the first auction; the second scenario assumes an increasing price per tonnes of abatement, increasing by AUD$1 per auction. We assume one more auction in 2015, followed by quarterly auctions in 2016. In the CAT current policy projections, the total budget of AUD$2.5 bn are thus distributed among six auctions and the fund is expected to run out of money after that. Based on these scenarios the CAT estimates the total abatement of the fund to be between 159–199 Mt CO2e out of which 106–121 MtCO2e would be realised before 2020 (further detail on these calculations under “Data Sources and assumptions” in the Australia report ).
In August 2015, the Coalition announced that if Tony Abbott wins next year’s federal elections, the ERF would continue to get about AUD$200m a year between 2020 and 2030. Given the political uncertainty around that additional funding, the CAT evaluated how much that would bring in emissions abatement, but did not include this abatement in the our current policy projections which considers currently implemented policies only and not announced policies. With the additional funding, we estimate a further cumulative abatement of 82-107MtCO2e, to be realised in the decade 2020-2030, which is equivalent to approximately 5-7% of the present abatement task of 1514–1750 MtCO2e[xi]. The additional funding would reduce our current policy projections by only 2%, to around 25% above 2005 levels (equivalent to 57% above 1990) compared to our current estimate of 27% above 2005.We conclude that the additional funds would still not set Australia on a path that would meet its 2030 target.
Renewable Energy Target
The Renewable Energy Target is a policy designed in 2010 aimed at creating additional generation of electricity from renewable sources. Producers create renewable energy certificates for every megawatt hour of electricity they generate and wholesale purchasers of electricity buy these certificates to meet their renewable energy obligations. They then surrender these certificates to the Clean Energy Regulator, which regulates both the supply and demand of certificates to ensure scheme integrity, and provides an online registry to enable the market to operate.
The Clean Energy Regulator administers the Renewable Energy Target's two schemes: the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET), which aims to achieve a target (originally 41,000 gigawatt-hour) of additional renewable electricity generation by 2020, and the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, which supports small-scale installations like household solar panels and solar hot water systems.
On June 25 2015, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 (RET) was approved by both houses of the Australian Parliament, thus reducing the national large-scale renewable energy target from 41,000 GWh to 33,000 GWh in 2020. Other Amendments included the removal of the requirement for the Climate Change Authority to undertake biennial reviews on the operation of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and subordinate regulations and to reinstate native forest wood waste as an eligible source of renewable energy.
Our current assessment of the amendment to the LRET shows that even if the impact on emissions for 2015–2020 is very small, in the long term, this new target represents approximately between 97-140 MtCO2e of additional emissions for the period 2020–2030. This amendment thus further increases the current emissions pathway, which was already significantly affected by the abolition of the Carbon Pricing Mechanism (further detail on these calculations under “Data Sources and assumptions” in the Australia report).
All assumptions regarding base year emissions, emissions data sources, LULUCF accounting rules supporting this analysis are explained in detail in our Australia report.
[i] With „industrial GHG emissions” we mean here GHG emissions from the energy, industrial processes, solvent and other product use, agriculture and waste sectors, excluding land sector and forestry.
[iii] The review of the initial report of Australia for it second commitment period under Kyoto would permit more accurate quantification in the event of any adjustments to its reported deforestation or other emissions in the base year, as occurred in the case of the IRR for the first Kyoto commitment period (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/irr/aus.pdf)
[iv] In comparison with the Kyoto Protocol target, the Copenhagen pledge not only puts forward a different target and base year (2000 vs 1990) but also a different way to calculate base year emissions, as it includes emissions from afforestation, deforestation and reforestation instead of only deforestation as it is done under the Kyoto Protocol.
[v] CRF 2014 data.
[vi] For this calculation, we did not use Party-provided ARD projections, instead obtaining the 2020 ARD value by linear trend over the period 1990-2010 for afforestation and reforestation and a linear trend over the period 1990-2012 for deforestation (see Data Sources and assumptions).
[vii] Emissions per capita improvement numbers provided in the INDC document are of 50-52% improvement in emissions per capita below 2005 levels, so slightly lower than our estimates.
[viii] For the USA, the levels in 2030 result from a linear interpolation between emissions levels implied by the INDC in 2025 and long-term target.
[ix] Intensity improvement numbers provided in the INDC document are of 64-65% and roughly in line with our estimates.
[x] Numbers read from Figure 5 in Environmental Ministry Summary of Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target.
[xi] For the post-2030 we estimate a remaining abatement resulting from the additional funds in the 2020-2030 decade of 34-50 MtCO2e until 2037.
ACIL ALLEN Consullting. (2013). Modelling of the Australian Electricity Generation Sector (Vol. 1).
Australian Climate Change Authority. (2015). Final report on Australia’s future emissions reduction targets.
Australian Government. (2013). Australian National Greenhouse Accounts - Australian Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Projections to 2030.
Australian Government. (2015a). Australia ’ s 2030 climate change target, 1–2.
Australian Government. (2015b). Australia ’ s emissions projections 2014-15.
Australian Government. (2015c). Australia’s 2030 Emission Reduction Target - strong, credible, responsible.
Australian Government. (2015d). Energy White Paper 2015.
Australian Government. (2015e). National Inventory Report 2013, 1(May).
Australian Government. (2015f). Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: September 2014.
Australian Government, M. of the E. (2015g). Emissions Reduction Fund?: Safeguard mechanism Consultation paper.
Clean Energy Regulator. (2015). Second Emissions Reductions Fund auction announced. Retrieved August 17, 2015, from http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Pages/News and updates/News-Item.aspx?ListId=19b4efbb-6f5d-4637-94c4-121c1f96fcfe&ItemId=155
Department of the Environment. (2015). National Inventory Report 2013, 1(May).
Government of Australia. (2011). Submission to the AWG-KP. Forest Management Reference Level.
MARKET OUTLOOK: Industry to capitalise on “likely” ERF delay | RepuTex. (n.d.). Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://www.reputex.com/publications/market-forecasts/market-outlook-industry-to-capitalise-on-likely-erf-delay/
Parliament of Australia. (n.d.). Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015.
RepuTex. (2015a). Framing Australia’s Post-2020 Emissions Task - The “Hard Road”, or the “Low Road” to our new emissions target?
RepuTex. (2015b). The Big Squeeze - Industry may displace CFI for Emissions Reduction Fund contracts.
UNFCCC. (2011). Synthesis report of the technical assessments of the forest management reference level submissions.
UPDATE: ERF Safeguards – Toothless Tiger or Hidden Dragon? | RepuTex. (n.d.). Retrieved August 17, 2015, from http://www.reputex.com/publications/market-update/update-reviewing-the-safeguard-market-toothless-tigeror-hidden-dragon/
World Bank Group. (2015). Decarbonizing Development, Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future.