There is no evidence that self-regulation and/or voluntary environmental certification schemes result in better outcomes for the environment or consumers. In fact, the opposite is often true, with these initiatives facilitating misleading claims by the private sector.

The Australia Institute made a submission to the senate inquiry into greenwashing. 

The Australian Government has proposed that Australia host the 2026 UN Climate Conference, in “partnership” with Pacific nations.

The Australia Institute made a submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications’ inquiry into the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. The Australian Government has provided no economic or environmental justification for the proposed Nature Repair Market (NRM). Instead, it has repeatedly referred to, and quoted figures from, a report by consultants PwC

The draft Nature Repair Market Bill presents a fundamentally confused blueprint for a voluntary market in biodiversity conservation services. The Bill does not address the causes of biodiversity loss in Australia, and it remains unclear how many important details of the proposed market will operate. Further, the experience of the Clean Energy Regulator in administering

The Australia Institute made a submission to the review of the Environmental Claims Code to encourage the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) to drive integrity and best-practice in Australian advertising.

Climate policy can incentivise genuine emissions reduction, or it can delay decarbonisation by expanding the use of offsets.

The scientific consensus is on the urgent need for rapid decarbonisation. However, the government’s key climate body the Climate Change Authority (CCA) is instead focussed on storing fossil fuels and developing the carbon offset industry.

The Australia Institute made a submission on draft legislation that would establish a new kind of carbon credit in Australia. The proposed Safeguard Mechanism legislation fails to clarify how new entrants will be managed and does not address integrity and additionality concerns around offsetting units.

It is no accident that there are no credible policies or regulatory measures to address rising emissions by industry in Australia. Nor is it an accident that there are no robust mechanisms to address misleading climate claims.

The Australia Institute welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Independent Review of Australia’s Carbon Credits (the Review) and we would be pleased to engage directly with the Review in the coming weeks. We understand that other stakeholders have been sought out for direct consultation already.

The Safeguard Mechanism has to date safeguarded polluters. Extensive reforms are required to ban new gas and coal entrants, limit the use of carbon credits and develop an alternative fixed price payment to be directed by the Commonwealth to build climate solutions.

Australia’s proposed federal biodiversity market should not proceed. Both economic theory and lived examples show that it is likely to fail Australia’s threatened species and fragile environments.

The Australia Institute welcomes the opportunity to appeal Report 1727 North West Shelf Project Extension Proposal. The role of the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is to prevent, control and abate pollution and environmental harm. In recommending the approval of a 50-year extension of Australia’s most polluting fossil fuel project, the North West Shelf

Emissions have increased under Australia’s only climate policy, the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF).

The Australian Government has identified carbon trading as a means to “work together to bring down emissions” across the Indo-Pacific region and to “help countries meet and report against their NDCs” through the use of carbon markets. It is unclear how Australia’s plans for fossil fuel expansion and pursuit of cheap abatement overseas will bring down emissions or help countries meet their climate targets.

Freedom of Information documents show that when designing the ERF CCS method, the Clean Energy Regulator consulted almost exclusively with fossil fuel companies and big emitters, while actively excluding independent researchers.

Government efforts to increase the supply of carbon credits in Australia suggest that proposed administrative changes to the Carbon Farming Initiative Regulations may be used as an opportunity to allow excluded projects to participate in the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF).

Allowing carbon credit projects on land that has been recently or illegally cleared would both incentivise land clearing and undermine the purpose of the ERF in reducing emissions.

The proposed REDD+ project in Oro Province of PNG covers an area twice the size of London and is expected to generate a huge 800 million carbon credits over its lifetime.

However, the available evidence fails to provide any assurance that this project has integrity, raising broader concerns about the types of carbon credits that Australia, other countries, and the private sector may use to meet their emission reduction commitments.

Santos is trying to access Australia’s small amount of climate funding to subsidise increased fossil fuel extraction through a highly polluting activity known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) – a process Santos has been using continuously since the mid-1980s. Numerous company documents show that Santos’ Moomba CCS project includes EOR and Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR).

The draft offsets policy undermines the NT Government policy of adopting Fracking Inquiry Recommendation 9.8 – that all life-cycle emissions from onshore gas projects be offset. The draft policy also proposes ‘indirect emissions offsets’ that are not utilised in any other jurisdiction and would be entirely without integrity. Indirect offsets would undermine other offset markets

The Avoided Deforestation Method is responsible for more than 20 per cent of total Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) that have been issued under the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund. However, the method has significant integrity issues, and the ACCUs generated by avoided deforestation projects appear to represent non-additional abatement. This has implications for those

The Australian Government claims that Australia has reduced its emissions by 19 per cent on 2005 levels and is on track to ‘meet and beat’ its Paris commitments. This claim relies on creative accounting and historical drops in emissions that are unrelated to government policy and do not underpin a net zero trajectory.