‘Methodologically flawed’—A series on the Emissions Reduction Fund

This series discusses, in plain language, Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund in order to get to the bottom of the principal issues with the scheme. It outlines for a general audience what experts mean when they say that the ERF is not good policy.

That said, there is a lot in the series that is new and not yet published elsewhere. The series will likely be published in peer review in time, but I don’t currently have that time, so it is here instead.

‘Methodologically flawed’ (Part 1)—An Introduction to the Emissions Reduction Fund
A general overview of the Emissions Reduction Fund and can almost certainly be skipped by someone who has familiarity with the scheme.

‘Methodologically flawed’ (Part 2)—How the Emissions Reduction Fund handles climate risk
The Emissions Reduction Fund fails to manage climate change impacts and how this might affect the abatement generated.

‘Methodologically flawed’ (Part 3)—Avoided deforestation method does not prevent deforestation
Despite participant landholders being paid not to clear their land under the second largest ERF method, they can clear without punishment, and even continue to be paid for not clearing the land.

‘Methodologically flawed’ (Part 4)—The ‘Safeguard’ Mechanism: Unsafe and Guarding Nothing
The safeguard mechanism has baselines that are incredible, in the sense of simply not credible. In the first year of operation, Australia (temporarily) had the highest ever recorded emissions. How did this happen, and how much worse could it get?

More will follow as I find the time.