Cooking the greenhouse books
Share
The Government dismissed the Institute’s report, claiming we don’t understand the Kyoto accounting rules and didn’t make adjustments for differences in methods. These claims are false (and are addressed in a paper available on the Institute’s website). Even if they were correct, the fact remains that NCAS is a black box: its data are not available to members of the public and are not subject to regular, independent scrutiny. To ensure the integrity of Australia’s greenhouse accounts, there needs to be an independent review of NCAS and the entire system must be made more transparent. If this doesn’t occur, doubts will continue to linger over Australia’s claims about its superior greenhouse performance.
Related documents
Between the Lines Newsletter
The biggest stories and the best analysis from the team at the Australia Institute, delivered to your inbox every fortnight.
You might also like
Climate target malpractice. Cooking the books and cooking the planet.
As the Albanese government prepares to announce Australia’s 2035 climate target, pressure is mounting to show greater ambition.
LULUCF explained: Why Australia’s emissions aren’t actually going down
Australia’s emissions reduction claims simply don’t add up.
The Productivity Commission is floating AI copyright exemptions – with worrying implications for Australian authors and publishers
In an interim report released overnight, Harnessing data and digital technology, the Productivity Commission has floated a text and data mining exception for the Australian Copyright Act. This would make it legal to train artificial intelligence large language models, such as ChatGPT, on copyrighted Australian work. AI training would be added to the list of “fair