![handle is hein.journals/ajel4 and id is 1 raw text is:
AJEL 2017
1
VERIFICATION AND AUSTRALIA'S EMISSIONS REDUCTION FUND: INTEGRITY UNDERMINED
THROUGH THE LANDFILL GAS METHOD?
TIM BAXTER AND GEORGE GILLIGAN*
Since the repeal ofAustralia's carbon pricing mechanism in 2014, the Emissions Reduction Fund
('ERF') has formed the 'centrepiece' of Commonwealth action on climate change. Criticised in
some quarters, the ERF nonetheless has the potential to be a powerful weapon to remove the low
hanging fruit of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. However, its structure has become an
example of slippage between a strong enabling Act and far weaker delegated legislation
undermining the intent of the original legislation. This article uncovers structural deficiencies in
the methodology for landfill gas capture and destruction such as stretching the term 'additional'
to include its opposite, and raises other, more general issues with the ERF including the
insufficiently accountable independent audit and review process. These deficiencies have obvious
impacts upon the transparency and legitimacy offunding these projects under the ERF. Important
questions are raised about whether substantial public revenue should be spent in this area. Given
these methods are included in Australia's emissions reduction calculations, a spectre of doubt is
cast over whether Australia is actually achieving its domestic and international emissions
reduction goals.
I INTRODUCTION
The present Australian government was the first, and to date the only, national government in
the world to oversee the repeal of a carbon price.' In the lead-up to the repeal, senior
ministers described the original legislation as a 'great big new tax on Australian families'2
that 'attempt[ed] to cut emissions by cutting economic growth' . When the Coalition
government led by Prime Minister Tony Abbott came to power following the September
2013 federal election, these earlier statements had effectively slammed the door on a
conventional Emissions Trading Scheme ('ETS') and also a carbon tax, the most common
broad-scale greenhouse gas ('GHG') control strategies. As a replacement, the
* Tim Baxter LLM(JD) (Monash), MPhil candidate, Melbourne Law School; Associate Australian-German
Climate and Energy College; George Gilligan MA (LaTrobe), MPhil, PhD (Cambridge); Senior Research
Fellow, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne; Visiting Fellow, Faculty of Law, University of
New South Wales. The authors would like to acknowledge Elizabeth Sheargold and Anita Talberg for many
helpful discussions, as well as Damien Lockie, who assisted with a technical point of much consternation. We
would also like to thank our anonymous reviewers whose suggestions were gladly received and acted upon. For
the purpose of this article, the law is that which is in force as at 1 July 2017. All calculations are correct as at 15
Sept 2017. The research performed for this article was part of a project funded by Australian Research Council
Discovery Grant DP1200101485 entitled Carbon Offsets: Regulation for Success.
1 Rob Taylor and Rhiannon Hoyle, 'Australia Becomes First Developed Nation to Repeal Carbon Tax' Wall
Street Journal (online), 17 July 2014 <http://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-repeals-carbon-tax-1405560964>.
2 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 2 February 2010, 4 (Tony Abbott)
<http://www.aph.gov.au/ParliamentaryBusiness/Hansard/>.
3 Greg Hunt, '$2.55 Billion Confirmed for Emissions Reduction Fund' (Media release, Department of
Environment, 13 May 2014)<https://www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2014/mr20140513.html>.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/ajel4&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most