Australia's New Carbon Price Fails to Attract Big Polluters

The nation's Emissions Reduction Fund was set up as a cheaper way to cut its carbon emissions by 5 percent of 2000 levels by 2020, after the prime minister scrapped a controversial carbon tax in 2014

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Byron Kaye

SYDNEY, April 23 (Reuters) - Australia said on Thursday its new climate policy will pay A$13.95 a tonne for carbon in an effort to cut emissions, a price seen as too low to attract big polluters but enough for the government to call its first funding auction a success.

The A$2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund was set up by Prime Minister Tony Abbott as a cheaper way to cut Australia's carbon emissions by 5 percent of 2000 levels by 2020, after he scrapped a controversial A$8 billion carbon tax in July 2014.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The fund's first "reverse auction" was held last week and the government announced the results on Thursday, saying it would pay A$660 million to 43 contractors who plan to cut emissions by 47 million tonnes.

Australia aims to cut emissions by 236 million tonnes.

"This is a stunning result for Australia, a stunning result for the government and a stunning result for the environment," Environment Minister Greg Hunt told reporters.

But clean energy analysts were disappointed with the first funding auction, saying the A$13.95 a tonne carbon price was too low to currently attract large polluters.

Those analysts had said larger firms would only be interested if the government paid more than A$18 a tonne. They had also questioned whether the scheme could cut the country's carbon emissions by its existing target by 2020.

"The price was too low to create any real incentives for large scale investments, but they've just spent a quarter of the money to only get them 15 percent of the way to their bare minimum target," Climate Institute Deputy CEO Erwin Jackson told Reuters.

Hugh Grossman, executive director of clean energy consultant RepuTex, said the first auction result was a strong start but "that price is unlikely to see high emitting companies rush to participate".

The government agency running the auction, the Clean Energy Regulator, said most of those who received payouts were farmers growing trees or smaller businesses running alternative energy projects like landfill-to-energy conversion.

However the country's biggest emitter of carbon, energy producer and retailer AGL Energy Ltd, won subsidies to cut 948,500 tonnes of emissions via landfill projects.

The government plans to hold funding auctions every quarter. (Editing by Michael Perry)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe