$12b of government carbon initiatives failed: report
By Sabra Lane

A new report has found more than $12 billion worth of state and federal government climate programs have failed to adequately cut carbon emissions.

Melbourne-based think tank the Grattan Institute has examined more than 300 carbon programs spanning different governments over the past 15 years and found the schemes have not lived up to their promises.

The programs studied included the Federal Government's axed home insulation scheme, as well as its clean coal and solar flagships program.

The institute found grants, rebates, clean coal and solar programs cut only 4 million tonnes of carbon emissions last year.

The report found direct action schemes such as tree planting had little effect, but it praised the tightening of energy efficiency standards for cutting 12 million tonnes of emissions.

Professor John Daley says the most inefficient were government grant tendering programs.

He says governments often bring in politically popular schemes that are inefficient in terms of carbon reduction.

He says of grant schemes started more than 10 years ago, only 20 per cent of the money has been spent. He says 5 per cent has been spent in programs started within the past 10 years.

Professor Daley says the issue is that governments announce big grant programs, but the reality is that often not very much happens.

"What happens when governments set up grant programs is people put in their tenders - often they're trying to do something which is right at the limits of their technical competence or right at the limits of current technology. Often, therefore, those projects fall over... and the carbon emissions don't go and get cut."


Failed programs

Professor Daley says the study looked at a series of rebate schemes.

He says often the problem is that the Governments are paying for things people would have done anyway.

"We found those programs worked in the sense that the money did get spent, but they turned out to be very expensive in terms of the emission reductions.

"Often governments are paying for something which might be politically popular but turns out to be very inefficient in terms of the reductions in carbon emissions."

He says using a rebate scheme instead would cost taxpayers about $300 billion over the next 10 years.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says programs have been wound back and capped under his and Penny Wong's ministries.

"What it is is a clear and unequivocal statement that a market mechanism to introduce a carbon price is the best public policy response if we wish to reduce our pollution and tackle climate change. That's the simple message," Mr Combet said.

It has been reported this morning that the Government has ruled out linking big personal tax cuts to its carbon tax.

But Mr Combet says they are still under consideration.

Professor Daley told Lateline that market-based programs such as a carbon tax or an emission trading scheme had the best outcomes.

"Once you give private enterprise a real incentive to innovate, by and large it does so even better than we forecast," he said.

"That is without doubt the big message here, that if we want to get enough reductions to hit our targets and do so at a reasonable price, then the only way that we suspect we're going to get within cooee of that is to use these market-based measures."

you know reading that why do I get the impression nothing will change because there is nothing to change..

that probably makes as much sense as this does..

what he has said is the only way to get industries to clean up NOW is to give them incentives..

prior to that they were doing it anyway..

same with us... once we are told what a danger something is we take a bit more care.

do you know I am not walking through as many cigarette butts as I once did this is in Canberra mind you where we have had a long time no smoking zones. but it is noticable I find so people are getting the message.

the reason we will save power is because we cant afford it..simple as that and then I might write to Human Rights and ask them where does our govt duty of care begin and finish??..

I would suggest to gillard if she wants to help poor people their bills immediatly get cut in half.bring back the bonus.. as cash goes on other things..its the bills that kill us.. and of course could be the death of some of us.

The truth is buzz, you turn off when you see something you don't like or agree with!