NEG gets a no star climate policy rating

28/08/2019 Posted by admin

In2017, the makers of Milo were forced to wipe its claimed 4.5 star health rating from its distinctive green tinafter receiving the Shonky Awardfrom consumer group Choice.
Nanjing Night Net

A closer look at the ingredients revealed that the chocolate powder actually contained 46 per centsugar.

It was a far cry from the perceived healthy sales pitch.

If the Shonky Awardsextended to government policy, the federal government’s proposed National Energy Guarantee (NEG) would make for a strong nomination in 2018, due to its dubious claims and ineffectual design.

From the inside out, the National Energy Guarantee is a climate and energy policy so underwhelming, that it could be worse than doing nothing when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas pollution and supporting the rollout of renewables.

Yes, the National Energy Guaranteedoes makea collection of big claims with its “emissions guarantee”and “reliability guarantee”.

Yet the National Energy Guarantee’s “guarantees” are as cynical as the nutrition claims on a bag of lollies.

You know the ones: “all natural”, “gluten free”, “low fat”.

But the fine print actually reveals that in 2030, the National Energy Guaranteewill contain more fossil fuels and fewerrenewables.

As this week’s Renewable Energy Index released by analysts Green Energy Markets confirms, the National Energy Guarantee would actually be a worse outcome for tackling climate change and transitioning to clean, reliable renewable powered future than if the federal government simply did nothing.

The Renewable Energy Index found there is already more than enough renewable energy locked in, contracted or under construction to reach the National Energy Guarantee’s paltry 2030 emissions reduction target.

The 26 per centemissions reduction target for 2030 proposed by the National Energy Guarantee is so inadequate that we’re already on track to reach it.

The National Energy Guarantee sets a new low bar for policy development in this country, as a proposal that at its best achieves nothing (and would more likely to result in a worse outcome for tackling climate change).

What next, a health policy that makes people sicker?

At tomorrow’s meeting of the Councilof Australian Governmentsenergy council, states and territories will be asked to give the go-ahead to detailed design on the proposed National Energy Guarantee.

This would be a go-ahead for adding red tape and complexity to the national electricity market.

All while achieving nothing (or worse) when it comes tocutting emissions from the electricity sector.

Milo has already done the right thing and removed the misleading star rating from its green tin.

Perhaps it’s time for the federal government to do the same, and acknowledge the only thing that the proposed National Energy Guarantee– with its 26 per centemissions reduction target – will guarantee is failure on climate change.

Remember Australia, always remember to check the ingredients.

Petra Stock is a climate and energy solutions analyst with theClimate Council.The Climate Council is a non-profit independent organisation which aims to provide clear, independent information on climate change to the community.

Comments are closed.