There is a meme going around the internet where someone announces that the government has passed a “Free Soda Act”. Someone asks “Awesome. When do I get my free soda”. To which the original person says “Free soda? The Bill makes it illegal to own a dog.”
It is a common feeling in politics. What governments say is often the opposite of what they do. Take the Queensland Government’s “Clean Energy Jobs Bill 2024”, which passed into law last week.
One might be tempted to ask “Awesome – when do we get our Clean Economy Jobs?” Confirming the truth of the meme, the Bill does not mention “jobs” at all, but for in the title. The Bill is actually about setting carbon emissions targets for Queensland.
The Government has decided to set a target to reduce Queensland’s carbon emissions by 75 per cent by 2035, and by 100 per cent by 2050, so called net zero emissions. They claim this is achievable because Queensland has reduced its emissions by 29 per cent since 2005.
The discussion of carbon emissions targets is shrouded by deceit and sleights of hand. When the Queensland Government proudly states that our emissions have declined by 29 per cent they leave you with the impression that our electricity system, our transport system and our industry is getting more efficient.
That would be incorrect. In 2005, Queensland’s carbon emissions from generating electricity were 48 million tonnes. In 2021 (the last year data was available), it was 47 million tonnes. Queenslanders generated 17 million tonnes through driving and flying in 2005, in 2021 we emitted more, at 22 million tonnes.
So how have our emissions fallen when almost all types of emissions have stayed the same or increased? One type of emissions has fallen considerably and that is described by the vague title of “Land use, land change and forestry” emissions. In 2005, this category accounted for 70 million tonnes of our emissions. In 2021, it contributed negative 4 million tonnes.
These emissions are what is calculated to be generated (or absorbed) from our land area. The idea is that if we convert our land from grassland to trees, it will suck more carbon out of the atmosphere. If we convert more land to trees than we use for farming, then we can get “negative” emissions.
These emissions have fallen by so much because over the past couple of decades the Queensland Government has introduced severe restrictions on the land clearing that farmers can perform on their own properties. Farmers were given no compensation for these changes even though they put huge restrictions on what they could do with their property and hence led to significant reductions in the value of that land.
But these changes have also let the government claim a “carbon credit” for stealing people’s property rights.
The problem now is that we cannot keep doing this forever without compromising our ability to grow food and support farming communities. Given we have made no progress on reducing our emissions in other sectors, there is a serious question on how we are going to get to “net zero”.
It seems that the only people that are asked to cut emissions are farmers in the bush, even though it is the activists in the inner city that call loudest for emissions reductions. Why aren’t people in the city cutting their emissions, and why don’t we set a target for city people to cut their emissions not just those of us in the bush.
Last week, the government put into law its targets but it presented no plan on how to get there. On climate policy, governments are performing a modern version of St Augustine’s plea to God, “that please make me chaste, but just not yet.”
