A fifth of Australias major coal, gas and oil facilities emit significantly more greenhouse gas than originally estimated when they submitted their plans to governments for approval, an investigation has found.
In the worst cases, some fossil fuel developments now emit more than 20 times what was expected before they were given the green light, according to a report by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).
Campaigners believe that the 18-month-long ACF research project and Australian National University students documented the emissions explosion. This shows that there is a lack of regulation at the state or federal level of carbon pollution.
Although emissions estimates are included in many applications for development, there is no requirement that companies maintain the estimated level of carbon pollution.
Annica Schoo, ACF’s lead environmental investigator, stated that it was evidence that policies meant to limit industrial emissions, such the federal governments safeguard mechanism and other measures, are not working in their current form.
Despite the efforts of the New South Wales independent plan commission, she said that neither federal nor state authorities were adequately dealing with the issue.
These emissions blowouts are important, because the extra pollution is accelerating our climate problem, she stated. While I don’t believe we can expect companies knowing exactly what their emission levels will be in advance, I believe it is reasonable to assume that they know at least what the approved limit. One in five polluting significantly higher than what was estimated is not within the acceptable range.
If a company promises to knock down three trees, but it actually knocks down four, it is a problem regulators have to deal with. Why is carbon emitted into our atmosphere not treated in the same manner?
The report found that few emissions estimates made by fossil fuel proponents in their environmental impact statements during the approval process were accurate. Some sites produced less than expected, while one third of the sites emitted significantly more. Some of the breaches were small, and due to changes over time in the way the impact of methane a particularly powerful greenhouse gas was calculated. One in five sites exceeded the initial estimate.
Coal mines and gas development sites across the country were among those that had emissions estimates well above actual. Chevrons Gorgon gas production in northern Western Australia is the most notable example of the gap between estimated and actual emissions. According to the ACF report, it released 16m tonnes more carbon dioxide over four years than was predicted in the company’s environmental impact statement submitted for state government.
The emissions at Gorgon have even exceeded what the company said would be the worst case scenario if a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project at the site under which emissions from a gas well are pumped back underground, not released into the atmosphere had not worked.
Although a Chevron spokesperson didn’t directly answer questions about the difference in Gorgon’s estimated emissions at approval and in practice, he said that some assumptions in the report were incorrect. According to the spokesperson, the company now has 5.5m tons of emissions at the site after a delayed start.
Jackson Balme, an ANU student involved in the investigation, stated that they had read environmental impact statements for hundreds and compared them with actual carbon pollution. However, only 48 of these statements contained complete data. They reached out to 11 owners of facilities that had underestimated their carbon pollution, but only one responded. It was determined that the owner did not have sufficient information to explain the discrepancy. ACF claimed that their findings were confirmed by its investigation team, which included former federal staff members.
Guardian Australia asked the Morrison government, federal departments and agencies several questions about the ACF report. A spokesperson for Clean Energy Regulator indicated that they had examined the report. It contains errors of fact as well as analytical flaws. We will respond to them in due course.
Anglo Americans Grosvenor, a metallurgical coalmine located in central Queensland, is one example of an emissions discrepancy cited in this report. It started mining again this week 21 months after a gas blast severely injured five workers.
The coalmine previously produced more than twice the emissions that were calculated when it was approved. Schoo stated that it was a clear example the failure of the safeguard mechanism. The Coalition claimed that it would prevent industrial emissions from rising. This would effectively wipe out cuts from the taxpayer-funded offset scheme, which is worth $4.5 billion.
In practice, many companies have been allowed to increase their carbon pollution without penalty. RepuTex’s analysis found that carbon pollution covered by the safeguard has increased by 7% in the past year. Both climate activists and representatives from the industry have called it a waste.
Sign up to receive the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning
The ACF report said an Anglo American emissions reduction project next to the Grosvenor mine that captures methane and burns it to make electricity had received about $5m from the government to avoid about 460,000 tonnes of emissions.
The mine also produced 2.5m tonnes more emissions than expected. Its emissions limit under the safeguard mechanism known as a baseline had been set above the initial estimate. This was possible because the limit was established independently from the pre-development estimate.
Schoo stated that it was a great example of the safeguard mechanism failing.
We spent a lot of taxpayers’ money on the emissions reduction fund, and on offsets. But, we aren’t focusing on the low-hanging fruits when it comes to preventing carbon polluting the atmosphere.