[ad_1]
When estimating the amount of greenhouse gases a project – such as a new mine or power station – would release, it’s important to be as accurate as possible. This is not only because of the impact an approved project will have on the climate, but because the data are used to determine Australia’s national emission targets.
Yet, a Report released this week by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) showed one in five fossil fuel projects emit far more greenhouse gases annually than what was originally estimated – as much as 20 times more in some years.
This is a huge concern, as Australia’s industrial emissions Increased by 60%Between 2005 and 2020. What’s more, if estimates are grossly inaccurate, Australia’s emission-reduction targets will not be grounded in a credible assessment of greenhouse gas outputs.
So which projects were most affected by discrepancies in their results? What are the reasons for such large errors?
Enormous discrepancies
An environmental impact statement must be submitted to any government department when fossil fuel companies apply for approval for a new project. This statement is required for any project that could have a significant impact on the environment. It is crucial to estimate the annual emissions from a project.
ACF examined 48 fossil fuel projects together with undergraduate students from the Australian National University. They discovered that 11 of the 48 projects had significantly exceeded their estimates of annual emissions.
AP Photo/Mark Baker
The projects involved fit into three broad categories: gas projects, coal mines in Queensland’s Bowen Basin, and coal mines in New South Wales.
The worst discrepancy, in terms of overall aggregate emissions, came from Chevron’s West Australian Gorgon liquefied natural gas project. The ACF report found the project emitted 16 million tonnes of CO₂ more than it anticipated. Its annual CO2 emissions in its environmental impact report ranged between 157% and 226%.
The project was initially approved on the basis it would sequester at least 80% of emissions from its offshore gas drilling plan over the project’s first five years via carbon capture and storage.
Chevron According to the ABCIt denied the research. A spokesperson said:
The assumptions that underpin the calculations for the ACF Report appear to be incorrect.
While it acknowledged delays in its carbon capture and storage system, Chevron said it is committed “to make good on this shortfall”.
This includes the surrender and acquisition of 5.23 million greenhouse gases offsets and a $40m investment in lower carbon projects in Western Australia. Chevron Australia understands and takes seriously the concerns of our community and governments regarding lowering emissions and addressing climate change.
There were also significant discrepancies in other major projects managed by major fossil fuel companies. One gas project was estimated to have exceeded its projected emissions by 1,800-2,00%.
How are emissions calculated?
The type of project determines the method used. Underground coal mines that are in operation must vent natural gas to ensure safety. To measure emissionsWhile reasonable accuracy is already available, fugitive (leaking ) emissions will still need be calculated.
Other projects, such as onshore oil drilling, must take into account all possible emissions when calculating their estimates. This could include the likely use of diesel or the potential global warming impact of any methane from deeper coal seams.
According to ACF, one of most important factors that could contribute to inaccurate emission estimates is changing understandings of global warming potential for methane.
Continue reading:
Global warming could be slowed by reducing methane emissions from oil fields and pipelines.
The most recent Scientific assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that methane has about 28 times greater global warming potential than CO₂. This is a higher than Previous assessments. This factor, according to the ACF report, may be responsible for some degree of inaccuracy if environmental impact statements are grounded from previous assessments.
However, this factor and other reasonable margins for error cannot fully explain the degree of inaccuracy we’re seeing. Although inaccuracies can vary from one case to the next, the ACF report suggests that the errors could be due to a failure to install technology, accurately evaluate diesel emissions, or consider methane intensity of coal in Bowen basin.
Whatever the case may be, the gap in reported and estimated emissions is a sign of a fundamental regulatory failure.
Shutterstock
The ‘Protective mechanism’ isn’t working
The safeguard mechanism is a federal government policy that’s supposed to cap industrial emissions. It requires large fossil fuel companies to report emissions where they exceed 100,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year.
Operators must purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions or pay a penalty if this happens. Two main reasons make this problematic:
First, it’s grounded in absolute tonnes of CO₂ equivalent rather than “emission intensity”. Emission intensity Refers to the volume of emissions per gross domestic product, and is a preferable measure because it corresponds with production – it’ll rise if expected production increases.
Second, the mechanism is far too complex. While many operators exceed their estimates, they are not exceeding the baseline of 100,000 tonnes. Incorrect estimates can have no consequences.
Continue reading:
Be concerned when fossil fuel lobbyists support current environment laws
What should be changed?
Without strong regulation, large emitters could continue to emit significantly more than was estimated without incurring additional cost, until their emissions exceed the safeguard baseline. This must change.
The safeguard mechanism should establish the baseline for the EstimateEmissions are the basis for project approval. If the project exceeds these estimates, with a reasonable margin of error in mind, the mechanism should trigger.
This would mean that approved projects that emit far more than the estimate should be mitigated or compensated.
The ACF report found if baselines were set on the estimates when projects were approved, the companies responsible for excess emissions would’ve been required to surrender more than 24 million Australian carbon credit units. They would have to pay more than A$290million at the current average price of A$12.06 for each unit.
A law like this would allow the federal government confidence that the estimated emission impacts of proposed projects are reliable.
Continue reading:
How Australia’s geology gave us an abundance of coal – and a wealth of greentech minerals to switch to
