The Claim
“Spent $450 million on carbon capture and storage projects (CCS), resulting in every attempted project being cancelled or late, with no carbon actually being captured, mostly because the projects were found to be technically infeasible, financially infeasible, or there just isn't anywhere to store the carbon. The government did not attempt to monitor whether the program successfully captured carbon. Their only success criteria was number of projects funded, regardless of whether the projects work. Even by this measure it was a failure because the committed money ($2 billion) ended up mostly unspent due to project cancellations. The spending program had no conflict of interest safeguards. Coincidentally one of the main Liberal ministers pushing for this cash handout to the fossil fuel industry left parliament for a job as a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The $450 million spending figure is verified by the ANAO audit. According to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Performance Audit report on "Low Emissions Technologies for Fossil Fuels" published in 2017-18, "more than $450 million has been invested by the government over the past decade" in CCS programs [1].
The $2 billion commitment figure is also accurate. The CCS Flagships program was initially promised $2 billion, but this was "gradually wound back" and eventually only $217 million was spent plus $42 million committed, leaving most of the promised funding unused [1]. The National Low Emissions Coal Initiative (NLECI) was assigned $500 million but spent only $233 million [1].
Combined spending verification:
- CCS Flagships: $217 million spent (of $2 billion promised) [1]
- NLECI: $233 million spent (of $500 million allocated) [1]
- Total: approximately $450 million spent across both programs [1]
The ANAO report confirms the core claim about technical feasibility: "None of the projects have met the original timeframe of the program. Reasons for this include: technical feasibility; absence of suitable storage options; and financial feasibility" [1]. Projects in NSW were closed early specifically because there were no viable storage options [1].
Zero carbon captured: The ANAO findings confirm that "not a single tonne of CO2 has been saved, no technology is ready for deployment" and the government "slams the government for having no strategic direction, no oversight over the projects, and little accounting for the spending" [1].
Performance metrics failure: The claim about inadequate success criteria is substantiated. The ANAO report documents that "the only performance measure monitored by the department of science and industry was the number of programs, not what the programs were actually doing or, as it turns out, not doing" [1]. The report notes that performance measures provided "limited insight into the extent to which the programs are achieving the strategic objective of accelerating the deployment of technologies" [1].
The ANAO explicitly criticizes how weak these metrics were: "The department is congratulated for having 'exceeded' this, the one and only key performance indicators, because it supported more projects than it planned. Little matter that they were all complete duds" [1].
Lack of conflict of interest safeguards: The ANAO report confirms "Specific conflict of interest arrangements were not in place at the commencement of the program" [1].
Missing Context
However, the claim has several important contextual gaps:
1. Labor government origins: The CCS programs were not solely Coalition initiatives. Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd launched the initial CCS programs in 2007 and 2009 as part of his climate package, with the goal of having 20 plants operating by 2020 [1][2]. The original vision came from Labor, though the Coalition inherited and continued the programs [2][3].
2. Bipartisan support for CCS technology: Both Labor energy minister Martin Ferguson and Coalition minister Ian Macfarlane championed CCS technology. Ferguson warned that "lights would go out" without it. Both Ferguson and Macfarlane now work for major fossil fuel lobby groups [1]. This was not a purely Coalition "cash handout" but a bipartisan belief in the technology during the 2007-2015 period.
3. Legitimate policy rationale at the time: When these programs were established (2007-2009), CCS was promoted as a viable climate solution by major energy experts and was seen as a way to allow continued coal use with lower emissions. The skepticism about CCS technology became more widespread later, but the programs reflected the energy policy consensus of their era [2].
4. Global failure of CCS, not just Australian: The ANAO report and other sources note this is not unique to Australia. Mississippi's Southern Company abandoned its CCS power plant project after costs spiraled from US$2.3 billion to US$7.5 billion [4]. Saskatchewan's Boundary Dam CCS facility has failed to meet cost or performance targets [4]. This indicates systemic technical and economic challenges with CCS technology globally, not specifically Coalition mismanagement.
5. Governance issues but not intentional deception: While the ANAO documents poor oversight and weak performance metrics, there is no evidence presented that the government deliberately concealed or misrepresented project status. The audit describes bureaucratic incompetence and inadequate monitoring, not deliberate deception.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source provided is RenewEconomy (through the article by Giles Parkinson, December 2017). RenewEconomy is a climate-focused advocacy/journalism outlet [1]. Parkinson's article is reputable and cites the actual ANAO report directly, making specific quotes from the official audit document available [1].
However, RenewEconomy's framing is decidedly pro-renewable energy and skeptical of fossil fuel industries. The article describes CCS as nothing but "a fantasy—and a lacquered prop for the fossil fuel industry and its proponents" [1]. While the facts cited are accurate, the editorial framing is clearly aligned with renewable energy advocates rather than politically neutral [5].
Assessment: RenewEconomy is a credible source for factual information but has clear ideological positioning favoring renewables and critical of fossil fuels. The facts about the ANAO audit are accurate, but the interpretation emphasizes failure and waste rather than exploring policy rationale or broader context.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Yes, extensively. Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd established the CCS program and Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute in 2007-2009. The ABC reported that "one of the world's leading clean coal experts wrote to then-prime minister Kevin Rudd warning that his multi-million dollar Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute was a mistake" [2].
Labor Minister Martin Ferguson championed CCS and was also involved in fossil fuel industry advocacy afterward. Both major parties supported CCS technology during 2007-2015, not just the Coalition [1][3].
Finding: Labor government actually initiated the CCS programs being criticized. Both Labor (Rudd, Ferguson) and Coalition (Macfarlane, Howard-era advisers) championed CCS. This was not a Coalition invention but a bipartisan policy failure that Labor initiated and the Coalition continued. Framing this as a Coalition "cash handout to the fossil fuel industry" omits that Labor invented the program and both parties believed in it.
Balanced Perspective
The failures documented are real: The ANAO audit clearly shows that the CCS programs failed to achieve stated objectives, no carbon was captured, projects were cancelled or delayed, and performance monitoring was inadequate [1]. The programs were a substantial waste of public money by objective measures [1][4].
However, important context:
Bipartisan policy failure: Labor initiated CCS programs under Rudd and Gillard, and the Coalition continued them under Howard and Abbott. This was not a Coalition-unique policy failure but a shared belief across both major parties that turned out to be wrong [1][2][3].
Honest technical failure, not corruption: The CCS technology proved technically infeasible and economically unviable globally, not just in Australia. Experts warned Rudd it was a mistake, but both parties maintained the programs [2]. This reflects poor policy decisions based on flawed technology predictions, not intentional corruption or hidden agendas.
Limited conflict of interest evidence: While the ANAO found no conflict-of-interest safeguards were in place initially, the report doesn't document actual conflicts of interest or improper dealings. Poor governance procedures ≠ proven corruption [1].
Normal ministerial transitions: That Ferguson and Macfarlane moved to fossil fuel industry positions after politics is commonplace across major party figures. This practice exists across both parties and is not unique to Coalition climate policy—it's a standard revolving-door phenomenon in Australian politics.
Weak evaluation, not deception: The government's reliance on project count rather than actual carbon reduction was poor metric design, but there's no evidence this was intentionally deceptive rather than bureaucratic incompetence [1].
Key context: This is a genuine policy failure where successive Australian governments (Labor and Coalition) backed the wrong technology, but it reflects shared ideological commitment to "clean coal" rather than Coalition-specific corruption or bad faith.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core factual claims about spending ($450M spent, $2B committed), project failures, technical infeasibility, lack of carbon capture, and weak performance metrics are all accurate and verified by the ANAO audit [1]. However, the claim's framing as a Coalition problem omits that Labor initiated these programs and both major parties supported them. The characterization as a "cash handout to the fossil fuel industry" implies intentional corruption that isn't supported by evidence—the programs represent a genuine but shared policy failure based on flawed technology predictions. The claim about a minister becoming a lobbyist is partially accurate (Macfarlane) but imprecisely detailed and presented as uniquely Coalition when the phenomenon was bipartisan.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core factual claims about spending ($450M spent, $2B committed), project failures, technical infeasibility, lack of carbon capture, and weak performance metrics are all accurate and verified by the ANAO audit [1]. However, the claim's framing as a Coalition problem omits that Labor initiated these programs and both major parties supported them. The characterization as a "cash handout to the fossil fuel industry" implies intentional corruption that isn't supported by evidence—the programs represent a genuine but shared policy failure based on flawed technology predictions. The claim about a minister becoming a lobbyist is partially accurate (Macfarlane) but imprecisely detailed and presented as uniquely Coalition when the phenomenon was bipartisan.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
reneweconomy.com.au
Reneweconomy Com
-
2
abc.net.au
Is Kevin Rudd's $300 million project to speed up carbon capture technology providing value for money? Some experts in the field say no.
Abc Net -
3
anao.gov.au
Anao Gov
-
4
theenergymix.com
Australia’s National Audit Office (ANAO) has rubbished the country’s stubborn, decade-long pursuit of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as a way to scrub climate-disrupting consequences from the exhaust emissions of its coal-fired power plants.
The Energy Mix -
5
governmentnews.com.au
The Federal Government’s current energy policy says it is ‘technology agnostic’, and that carbon fuels will have a continued role as energy sources well into the future. It talks often...
Government News -
6
au.finance.yahoo.com
Au Finance Yahoo
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.