The Claim
“Paid hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon credits to landowners for growing trees which were already there.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is substantially supported by evidence, though the scope and interpretation are contested. Here are the key findings:
Coalition purchases under the Emissions Reduction Fund:
The Coalition government did indeed purchase carbon credits through its $4.5 billion Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) [1]. The scheme paid landowners for projects, including Human-Induced Regeneration (HIR) - the most popular method for creating carbon credits, under which landholders were paid to allow native forests to regenerate [2].
The "existing trees" allegation:
Professor Andrew Macintosh, the former chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, led research that analyzed 119 HIR projects in New South Wales and Queensland. His team found that "despite the government issuing 17.5m carbon credits to these projects – with each credit meant to represent one tonne of carbon dioxide absorbed by growing trees – the total forest area had barely increased" [3]. For 59 of the projects analyzed, the amount of forest was found to have reduced, yet they still received 8.2m carbon credits worth more than $100m [3].
Macintosh claimed that credits were "being issued for growing trees despite in many cases already containing mature trees when the projects started" and that "the rules require areas with mature trees to be excluded" [4]. His analysis suggested over 80% of HIR projects were "performing badly," with tree cover having either "gone nowhere or gone backwards" [5].
Value of carbon credits disputed:
Macintosh claimed approximately $1 billion in public money had been wasted and that the government bought "credits for growing trees that are already there" [6]. This aligns with the claim's assertion of "hundreds of millions" being paid for pre-existing trees, though the quantum is debated.
Total contracted value:
Landholders using the HIR method have signed contracts with the government worth an estimated $1.5 billion, though not all of this represents payments for carbon credits already issued [1].
Missing Context
The contested nature of the analysis:
The Clean Energy Regulator disputed Macintosh's findings, stating that "previous statistical material provided by Prof Macintosh has not been substantiated following investigation" [7]. The regulator commissioned independent analysis by Beare and Chambers, which found that "the report's statement... has been misinterpreted to mean that vegetation cover or sequestration is going backwards" [7]. The Beare and Chambers analysis concluded that "forest cover attainment as a result of HIR projects has been positive in both NSW and Queensland and is exceeding expectations" [7].
The difference between "not growing as expected" and "already there":
A crucial distinction exists between mature trees that were already present and tree growth that is simply progressing more slowly than modeled. The CER notes that "only CEAs (Carbon Estimation Areas) are eligible for crediting abatement in the form of ACCUs" and that "Prof Macintosh does not have access to the CEA areas and the legislation prevents that data from being released" [7]. This transparency gap makes independent verification difficult.
Peer-reviewed support for concerns:
The Australian Academy of Science review commissioned by the Chubb panel found "a risk the human-induced regeneration method is crediting vegetation change brought on by rainfall, rather than project activities" [8]. This suggests complexity beyond simple "already existing" trees—environmental factors may be responsible for vegetation changes not attributable to project management.
Auditing and compliance:
The CER points out that "all ERF HIR projects must undergo at least 3 audits" and that "if trees are not growing according to modelled growth paths, crediting can be suspended until tree growth catches up" [7]. The regulator's investigation found "less than 3 per cent" of projects assessed by Beare and Chambers remain under investigation [7].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian article (March 2022):
The Guardian is a mainstream, respected news organization [9]. The article quotes Macintosh extensively and presents his claims with supporting evidence. However, it is important to note that Macintosh's credentials as "whistleblower" should be contextualized: he served on the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee that reviewed and signed off on the HIR method for over six years before resigning [1]. The article notes he "regretted he had not taken a stronger stance on some issues" and had limited success addressing problems while on the committee [1].
ANU academic papers (March 2022):
These papers are from academic researchers at the Australian National University (ANU), a reputable institution. Macintosh is an environmental law professor at ANU. The papers appear to undergo peer review, though they have been contested by the Clean Energy Regulator and subsequent independent reviews. Academic papers on contested policy issues may reflect genuine scholarly concerns but should not be treated as definitive without peer evaluation and government response.
Clean Energy Regulator response:
The CER is the government agency responsible for administering the scheme and therefore has an institutional interest in defending it. However, their response provides specific technical rebuttals, references to independent audits, and clarifications about methodology. A potential conflict of interest exists, as the CER both designs the rules and implements them [10].
Chubb Review (2023):
Former Chief Scientist Ian Chubb led an independent review commissioned by the Albanese government in 2023. The review concluded the scheme is "essentially sound" but recommended governance improvements [11]. However, Chubb's own panel acknowledged concerns: "We saw enough good HIR projects to say that you wouldn't just wave your arm and cancel them all" [12]—implying some projects had significant problems.
Australian Academy of Science findings:
The Academy's review found genuine flaws in the HIR methodology, including risks related to rainfall attribution and baseline issues with landfill gas methods [8]. These findings suggest the scheme has real integrity problems, though not necessarily that all trees were "already there."
Labor Comparison
Labor's previous carbon policy approach:
Labor's Rudd/Gillard governments (2007-2013) pursued a different climate policy model: the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), which was a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme proposed to commence in 2010 [13]. This was fundamentally different from the Coalition's direct action carbon credit purchasing approach.
Labor also implemented the carbon tax (2012-2014) before the Coalition repealed it [14]. Neither of these Labor-era policies involved paying landowners for regrowing trees as their primary climate mechanism.
Labor's approach under Albanese (2022-):
After returning to government in 2022, the Labor government commissioned the Chubb Review of carbon credits (the scheme they inherited from the Coalition) and accepted its recommendations [11]. Importantly, Labor accepted reforms rather than abolishing the scheme.
No direct Labor equivalent found:
There is no evidence that Labor implemented an equivalent scheme during their 2007-2013 government period that involved paying landowners "hundreds of millions" for pre-existing trees. The Rudd-Gillard approach focused on broad-based emissions trading rather than targeted land management incentives.
Comparative context:
The carbon credit scheme was introduced under the Coalition government (post-2015) as their alternative to Labor's carbon tax. When Labor returned to power in 2022, rather than dismantling the entire scheme, the government reformed it—suggesting both major parties view some form of carbon offsetting as necessary for climate policy.
Balanced Perspective
The case against the scheme:
Macintosh's allegations raise genuine concerns deserving serious attention. His analysis found that 59 of 123 projects analyzed had reduced forest cover yet received $100m+ in credits [3]. His argument—that the regulator prioritizes "building an abundant supply of cheap offsets over ensuring their integrity"—reflects a plausible institutional pressure, particularly given the government's commitment to purchasing $1.5bn worth of credits [1].
The Academy of Science review independently identified credible flaws: HIR credits may reflect rainfall-driven vegetation change rather than project activities; landfill gas credits are sometimes issued for activities that would happen anyway [8]. These are technical integrity problems, not just partisan allegations.
The case for the scheme:
The Clean Energy Regulator's response provides substantive rebuttals. The CER notes that:
- Projects use rigorous GIS and "big data" analysis, not simple satellite imagery [7]
- All projects undergo at least 3 independent audits [7]
- Credits are suspended if actual tree growth doesn't match models [7]
- Only 8 of 123 projects assessed by Beare and Chambers showed potential non-compliance [7]
- The Beare and Chambers peer-reviewed analysis found positive overall forest cover outcomes in NSW and Queensland [7]
Importantly, the CER's defense suggests that Macintosh's "satellites show no trees" analysis may not account for the complexity of carbon accounting rules and the difference between visible forest and eligible carbon estimation areas [7].
The legitimate policy rationale:
The HIR method was designed to incentivize land managers to change practices (reduce grazing, prevent clearing) to allow forest regeneration. This reflects the Coalition government's "direct action" climate philosophy: rather than a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, use targeted incentives for specific behaviors [15]. Whether this works better than Labor's broader carbon pricing approach remains contested among climate economists.
Key context on governance:
The Chubb Review acknowledged real governance problems: it recommended reducing the Clean Energy Regulator's dual role in designing rules and issuing credits [11]. This is not a defense of the scheme but an acknowledgment that conflicts of interest existed. The current Labor government accepted this recommendation, suggesting even supporters recognize the governance structure required reform.
The "already there" allegation specifics:
While Macintosh alleged credits for "growing trees that are already there," the technical dispute centers on:
- Whether projects with some mature trees present can legitimately earn credits for incremental regeneration
- Whether satellite analysis can distinguish between mature forest and regenerating vegetation
- Whether rainfall-driven vegetation change should count as project-attributable abatement
These are real questions about additionality and methodology—not simple fraud—though they do undermine claimed carbon outcomes.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.5
out of 10
with significant caveats about interpretation and scope.
The Coalition government did pay hundreds of millions in carbon credits (through contracts worth $1.5bn total) for HIR projects, including some that involved property already containing trees [1][3][6]. This much is established. However, the claim oversimplifies the controversy:
Macintosh's allegation that credits went for "trees already there" is better described as credits for forests with existing mature trees where additional regeneration was claimed [3][4]. The distinction matters for evaluating whether this represents actual fraud or methodology disputes [7].
The Clean Energy Regulator contests Macintosh's interpretation and points to independent auditing, though governance flaws remain [7][11].
The Chubb Review found the scheme "essentially sound" but recommended reforms, implying problems were real but remediable, not systemic fraud [11].
The Australian Academy of Science independently identified genuine integrity issues, validating some concerns without endorsing Macintosh's stronger "fraud" characterization [8].
The claim is substantially true in that carbon payments went to projects with existing trees on property, but it conflates this with intentional fraud when the evidence points to methodology disputes about how to measure additionality and attribution.
Final Score
6.5
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
with significant caveats about interpretation and scope.
The Coalition government did pay hundreds of millions in carbon credits (through contracts worth $1.5bn total) for HIR projects, including some that involved property already containing trees [1][3][6]. This much is established. However, the claim oversimplifies the controversy:
Macintosh's allegation that credits went for "trees already there" is better described as credits for forests with existing mature trees where additional regeneration was claimed [3][4]. The distinction matters for evaluating whether this represents actual fraud or methodology disputes [7].
The Clean Energy Regulator contests Macintosh's interpretation and points to independent auditing, though governance flaws remain [7][11].
The Chubb Review found the scheme "essentially sound" but recommended reforms, implying problems were real but remediable, not systemic fraud [11].
The Australian Academy of Science independently identified genuine integrity issues, validating some concerns without endorsing Macintosh's stronger "fraud" characterization [8].
The claim is substantially true in that carbon payments went to projects with existing trees on property, but it conflates this with intentional fraud when the evidence points to methodology disputes about how to measure additionality and attribution.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (12)
-
1
Australia's carbon credit scheme 'largely a sham', says whistleblower who tried to rein it in
Prof Andrew Macintosh says the system, which gives credits for projects such as regrowing native forests after clearing, is ‘a fraud’ on taxpayers and consumers
the Guardian -
2
Australia's most popular carbon credit scheme, Human Induced Regeneration, questioned by experts
Experts are warning Australia's most popular carbon credit scheme, which pays landholders to allow forests to regenerate, is not performing to standard.
Abc Net -
3PDF
Measurement Error in HIR Method
Law Anu Edu • PDF DocumentOriginal link unavailable — view archived version -
4PDF
What the Beare and Chambers Report Really Found and a Critique of its Method
Law Anu Edu • PDF DocumentOriginal link unavailable — view archived version -
5
CER response to claims by Professor Andrew MacIntosh
The Clean Energy Regulator (CER) is aware that claims are being made by Prof Andrew Macintosh concerning several ERF methods.The CER is proud to administer the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), which assists individuals and organisations undertaking projects to reduce emissions.The ERF has:
Cer Gov -
6
Chubb review of Australia's carbon credit scheme falls short – and problems will continue to fester
More must be done to ensure the Albanese government truly delivers the emissions reductions it has promised.
The Conversation -
7
Trust in Media: The Guardian's Reputation and Credibility
Reuters
-
8
Chubb Review findings on governance conflicts of interest
Dcceew Gov
-
9
Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units - Final Report
Dcceew Gov
-
10
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Wikipedia -
11
Labor's carbon tax policy history
Aph Gov -
12
Coalition's 'Direct Action' climate policy framework
Dcceew Gov
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.