Cooking the greenhouse books

Not only were we unable to explain the differences between the Federal and Queensland land clearing estimates, but when we looked at the NCAS outputs since 2002 we found large fluctuations in its own data. For example, the estimated rate of clearing in 1990 that was published in 2005 was 46 per cent higher than the estimate published in 2002. Of course, the upward adjustment of the 1990 clearing estimate has made it easier for Australia to meet its Kyoto target.

The Government dismissed the Institute’s report, claiming we don’t understand the Kyoto accounting rules and didn’t make adjustments for differences in methods.

These claims are false (and are addressed in a paper available on the Institute’s website). Even if they were correct, the fact remains that NCAS is a black box: its data are not available to members of the public and are not subject to regular, independent scrutiny.

To ensure the integrity of Australia’s greenhouse accounts, there needs to be an independent review of NCAS and the entire system must be made more transparent. If this doesn’t occur, doubts will continue to linger over Australia’s claims about its superior greenhouse performance.