On June 8, 1891, a Mr T. Mackay wrote in a letter to the National Observer that “it has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a ‘fib,’ the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics”.
Mr Mackay was probably not familiar with carbon dioxide accounting but he could well have been referring to it.
Last week, the Queensland government made a big deal of committing to yet another fantastical reduction in our carbon emissions.
The claim now is that we can reduce our carbon emissions by 75 per cent by 2035.
No matter that Australia is not on track to hit its target of a 43 per cent reduction by 2030.
Nor that the world’s carbon emissions hit new record levels last year despite the world committing to “net zero” just two years before at the Glasgow climate conference.
Politicians making ever more absurd promises to cut carbon in the far distant future – long after they will have left power – have become like St Augustine’s plea to God: “Lord, make me chaste, but just not yet.”
The advocates of Queensland’s 75 per cent target claim that because we have already cut our carbon emissions by 29 per cent, reaching 75 per cent should be a breeze.
But this is where that quip around statistics kicks in.
The impression given by our politicians is that we have been lowering our emissions in the way we produce electricity, drive our cars and make things in our factories.
But that is not what has been happening.
Despite all of those solar panels and wind turbines destroying our farm land, Australia’s carbon emissions from producing energy have fallen by just 2 per cent.
Our emissions from industrial production have increased by 12 per cent.
And, while agriculture and waste have achieved reductions of 9 per cent and 13 per cent respectively, it is far from the cuts needed to achieve net zero.
So how have our emissions fallen when almost all types of emissions have stayed the same or increased?
This is all thanks to reductions in emissions from what are vaguely described as “Land use, land change and forestry” emissions.
In 2005, this category accounted for 85 million tonnes of our emissions (much more than any other type).
In 2021, it contributed negative 88 million tonnes.
These emissions are what is generated (or absorbed) from changes to what we do on our land.
In simple terms, growing trees to make a forest reduces carbon dioxide.
Clearing trees to build a new suburb increases our emissions under the carbon accounting rules, hence the ability to produce a “negative” amount of emissions.
Since the 1990s, Australian state and territory governments have put massive restrictions on farmers clearing their own land.
Farmers were provided no compensation for what was theft of their property rights.
It is this trick that has allowed Australia to claim that carbon emissions have fallen.
Without reducing the property rights of farmers, Australia’s carbon emissions would have increased.
The emissions produced by those who live in the cities (ironically where most of the Greens voters live) have gone up.
The new trick is that the people from the cities pay farmers to kick off the livestock and lock up their land.
It is a modern form of medieval indulgences, under which you could pay the Catholic Church to absolve you from your sins.
Only this time once the farmers stop production, the truck drivers, fencing contractors and jackaroos are left without a job.
We cannot keep doing this forever without compromising our ability to grow food and support farming communities.
Net Zero Australia estimates that we need to blanket 17 million hectares of land (or more than twice the size of Tasmania) with solar panels, wind turbines, power lines and trees to get to net zero.
This is absurd and would be horrific for our natural environment as well.
The truth is that there is a zero chance that we will get to net zero emissions in just a generation.
It is about time the politicians tell us the truth and stop relying on lies, damned lies and statistics.
