An analysis of Australia’s carbon pollution reduction scheme

Meeting National Emissions Reduction Obligations: A Case Study of Australia

Akin to a public good, emissions reduction suffers from the ‘free rider’ syndrome. Although many countries claim that they are meeting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction commitments, the average global temperature and GHG emissions continue to rise. This has led to growing speculation that some countries may be taking advantage of the system by effectively exploiting a range of loopholes in global agreements. Using a case study approach, we critically review the evidence from Australia, exploring how Australia has participated in global climate change negotiations and the way in which this emissions intensive country’s national emissions reduction obligations have been met. The findings suggest that: (1) successful negotiation to include Article 3.7 (‘Adjusting the 1990 Baseline’ or ‘the Australia Clause’) in the Kyoto Protocol significantly favored Australia’s ability to meet its First Kyoto Commitment (2008–2012); and (2) successful bargaining for the accounting rule that allowed carbon credits from the first commitment period to be carried over to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol benefitted Australia by 128 MtCO2e. At the national level, a lack of bipartisan political support for an effective mechanism to drive emissions reduction has also been problematic. While the introduction of the Carbon Pricing Mechanism (CPM) in 2012 reduced emissions from electricity production from about 199.1 MtCO2e to 180.8 MtCO2e in 2014, a change of government led to the abolition of the CPM in 2014 and emissions from electricity production subsequently rose to 187 MtCO2e in 2015 and 189 MtCO2e in 2016 with adverse impacts in many sectors as well as Australia’s overall emissions. The current Australian government continues to undermine its commitment to mitigation and the integrity and credibility of its own emissions reductions policy, introducing a softer ‘calculated baseline’ for its own Safeguard Mechanism, which allows companies to upwardly adjust their calculated baselines on the basis of their highest expected emissions, permitting emissions in excess of their historical emissions. While disappointing in the context of the global emissions reduction project, Australia’s actions are sadly not unique and we also provide examples of loopholes exploited by countries participating in a range of other negotiations and emissions reduction projects. Such strategies undoubtedly serve the short-term political and economic interests of these countries; however, it is increasingly apparent that the cumulative impact of such tactics will ultimately impact the entire global community.

Performance analysis of different rice-based cropping systems in tropical region of Nepal

Energy inputs, environmental impacts and economic outputs are the main concerns in today's agricultural production systems. The current study investigated the energy, environmental and financial performances of different rice-based cropping systems (CSs). The CSs studied were: Rice-Wheat-Fallow (R-W-F), Rice-Wheat-Maize (R-W-M), Rice-Wheat-Mungbean (R-W-Mu), Rice-Lentil-Maize (R-L-M), Rice-Lentil-Mungbean (R-L-Mu), Rice-Garlic (R-G) and Rice-Onion (R-O). Primary data were collected from 210 randomly selected farms by using structured questionnaire. In this study, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was used to analyze the technical efficiencies of the farms in order to estimate their energy inputs saving potential, under different CSs. Among the studied systems, R-W-M, R-L-M and R-W-Mu were found energy efficient, R-L-Mu, R-W-F and R-W-Mu were efficient considering their greenhouse gas emissions, and R-G, R-O and R-L-M were more profitable systems. Based on the combined energy, environmental and economic criteria, we conclude that R-L-M, R-L-Mu and R-W-M are the most energy, environmentally and economically efficient CSs as compared to other systems in the study. The mean technical efficiency scores of farms indicated a considerable potential of reducing energy inputs (18-34%), without compromising the economic return of the majority farms under different CSs. The results of this study support eco-efficient CSs with modern production technologies.

Integrated analysis for a carbon- and water-constrained future: an assessment of drip irrigation in a lettuce production system in eastern Australia

The Australian Government is meeting the challenge of water scarcity and climate change through significant on-farm infrastructure investment to increase water use efficiency and productivity, and secure longer term water supplies. However, it is likely that on-farm infrastructure investment will alter energy consumption and therefore generate considerable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, suggesting potential conflicts in terms of mitigation and adaptation policies. In particular, the introduction of a price on carbon may influence the extent to which new irrigation technologies are adopted. This study evaluated trade-offs between water savings, GHG emissions and economic gain associated with the conversion of a sprinkler (hand shift) irrigation system to a drip (trickle) irrigation system for a lettuce production system in the Lockyer Valley, one of the major vegetable producing regions in Australia. Surprisingly, instead of trade-offs, this study found positive synergies - a win-win situation. The conversion of the old hand-shift sprinkler irrigation system to a drip irrigation system resulted in significant water savings of almost 2 ML/ha, as well as an overall reduction in GHG emissions. Economic modelling, at a carbon price of $ 30/t CO(2)e, indicated that there was a net benefit of adoption of the drip irrigation system of about $ 4620/ML/year. We suggest priority should be given, in the implementation of on-farm infrastructure investment policy, to replacing older inefficient and energy-intensive sprinkler irrigation systems such as hand shift and roll-line. The findings of the study support the use of an integrated approach to avoid possible conflicts in designing national climate change mitigation and adaptation policies, both of which are being developed in Australia.