Stopping pollution leaking overseas<\/p>\n
After sitting on it for a year, the government released the final report of a review into carbon leakage<\/a>. The review considered the potential risks of companies moving industrial activity overseas due to Australia\u2019s climate policies.<\/p>\n If this happened, emissions might be cut in Australia \u2013 but it would do nothing to help the world reach net zero emissions. That would be self-defeating, given the goal is to drive or encourage emissions cuts everywhere.<\/p>\n The review, headed by respected climate economist and Australian National University professor Frank Jotzo, found carbon leakage was not an imminent risk in Australia, but that was likely to change as major industries had to cut pollution or pay for contentious carbon offsets under a policy known as the safeguard mechanism<\/a>.<\/p>\n It found the answer to this was a carbon border adjustment mechanism \u2013 or Cbam (pronunciation: see? bam!) \u2013 that would impose a charge on imports of some products so its users faced the same carbon cost as Australian-made products. A carbon tariff, in other words.<\/p>\n The Jotzo review recommended it initially be introduced for cement and clinker, which is used in making cement, arguing they were highly emissions-intensive products and domestic production would be easily replaced by imports. It recommended it be considered for lime, hydrogen, ammonia, glass, steel and iron.<\/p>\n A Cbam was already in place in the EU, with the UK planning to follow next year. Taiwan, Canada and South Korea were also considering them.<\/p>\n Taylor has been quick to criticise the idea, calling it a \u201ccarbon tax\u201d and claiming it would increase cost-of-living pressures. This argument only holds if you plan to abolish policies to cut climate pollution \u2013 the Coalition\u2019s position at the last election \u2013 and you reject the idea that industry needs to change to remain globally competitive.<\/p>\n Jotzo said a Cbam could be used to help build new industries by effectively introducing a \u201cgreen premium\u201d if local suppliers and importers faced the same carbon cost.<\/p>\n Labor\u2019s response was muted. A spokesperson for the climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, said the government would \u201calways back Australian industry to be competitive at home, and on the world stage\u201d. Jotzo\u2019s work would \u201cinform discussions\u201d during an upcoming review of the safeguard mechanism<\/a>.<\/p>\n Why did the government sit on the review for a year?<\/p>\n The answer might have something to do with Donald Trump, who has threatened retaliatory tariffs in response to the EU Cbam.<\/p>\n Ruling that the Maugean skate is not critically endangered<\/p>\n The environment minister, Murray Watt, rejected calls by conservationists for the Maugean skate \u2013 an ancient ray-like species that is found only in Macquarie Harbour on Tasmania\u2019s west coast<\/a> \u2013 to be listed as critically endangered, which is one step away from extinction.<\/p>\n Instead, he kept its existing listing: endangered. It has had this listing since 2004.<\/p>\n This has been a contentious issue at the heart of debate over whether salmon farming in the harbour \u2013 the main threat to the skate\u2019s survival \u2013 should continue.<\/p>\n Labor says it is committed to ensuring the Maugean skate does not \u2018go extinct on its watch\u2019. Photograph: Jane Ruckert\/AAP<\/p>\n In 2024, Guardian Australia revealed the government\u2019s threatened species scientific committee had advised the number of adult skates remaining in the wild was \u201cextremely low\u201d<\/a>. It recommended salmon farms be either dramatically scaled back or removed, and the skate be \u201cuplisted\u201d to critically endangered.<\/p>\n The government has promised no new extinctions on its watch. It also strongly backs the salmon industry. Last year it changed national environment law<\/a> to ward off a legal challenge that could have forced farming in the harbour to be paused.<\/p>\n