The claim that the Coalition government did "no modelling whatsoever" for the Emissions Reduction Fund is **factually incorrect**, though it contains elements of truth regarding the extent and adequacy of modelling performed.
In August 2013, research firm RepuTex released modelling commissioned by WWF Australia showing that under Direct Action, "domestic emissions would fall by 204m tonnes" - significantly short of the required abatement to meet the 5% reduction target [1].
The modelling identified a $4 billion funding gap and suggested the Coalition would need to spend an additional $5.9 billion per year from 2015 to 2020 to meet targets [2].
However, at the time the claim was made (February 2015), the government had not released its own comprehensive modelling demonstrating how the Emissions Reduction Fund would achieve the claimed emissions reductions.
The Climate Change Authority (Australia's independent climate advisory body) also noted concerns, stating that "the modelling in its recent report showed that under low and medium carbon price scenarios, a 5% emissions reduction target would not be able to be achieved domestically" [4].
External modelling was available**: While the government had not released its own modelling by February 2015, independent modelling from RepuTex (commissioned by WWF Australia) was publicly available showing the policy's limitations [1].
Methodological differences**: The Direct Action approach used a fundamentally different mechanism (reverse auction subsidy) compared to Labor's carbon pricing scheme.
Subsequent modelling was released**: Later in 2015, the government did release modelling showing how the policy could meet targets, though critics noted it would require significant additional funding or effectively become an emissions trading scheme [6].
**4.
The 2020 target was ultimately met**: Australia did achieve its 2020 emissions reduction target, beating it by an estimated 430 million tonnes according to government figures released in 2021 [7].
Whether this was due to Direct Action or other factors (such as reduced land clearing and renewable energy growth) is debated, but the claimed outcome did occur.
Media Bias/Fact Check rates The Guardian as "Left" biased with "High" factual reporting credibility, noting that while it has a progressive editorial stance, its factual reporting is generally reliable [8].
However, the framing emphasizes criticism of the government approach without providing comparable context about modelling limitations of alternative policies.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor carbon price Treasury modelling Clean Energy Future"
Finding: The Gillard Labor government (2010-2013) did conduct extensive modelling for its Clean Energy Act 2011 (carbon pricing scheme).
* * * *
The Treasury modelling projected emissions reductions and economic impacts of the carbon price mechanism [10].
However, it's worth noting that Labor's modelling faced its own criticisms:
- The carbon price was initially fixed before transitioning to an emissions trading scheme linked to the EU ETS
- The Treasury modelling made assumptions about international carbon markets that were criticized by some economists
- The actual emissions reductions under the carbon price period (July 2012 - June 2014) were partly attributed to factors beyond the carbon price, including declining manufacturing and renewable energy growth
**Comparison**: Labor did publish more extensive modelling upfront for its carbon pricing scheme compared to the Coalition's Direct Action in its early stages.
The claim highlights a legitimate criticism raised by experts in 2015: the Coalition's Direct Action policy initially lacked transparent, comprehensive public modelling demonstrating how it would achieve its emissions targets [3][4].
However, the framing as "no modelling whatsoever" overstates the situation:
1. **Independent modelling existed**: RepuTex modelling was available showing the policy's limitations and funding gaps [1][2]
2. **Different policy mechanism**: Direct Action used a subsidy/reverse auction approach rather than a carbon price, which has different modelling requirements and uncertainties [5]
3. **Subsequent developments**: The government later released modelling, and Australia ultimately met its 2020 target [7]
4. **Common challenge**: Both major parties have faced challenges in accurately modelling climate policy outcomes, as emissions trajectories depend on multiple factors including economic conditions, technology costs, and international markets
The Senate Environment and Communications Committee's 2014 report was highly critical of the Direct Action Plan, stating it was "a significant step backwards for climate policy" [5].
However, the government's approach was based on a different philosophy - using direct government funding rather than market mechanisms.
**Key context**: While the lack of initial public modelling was a valid criticism, the claim that there was "no modelling whatsoever" is inaccurate.
The government relied on different analytical approaches, and the ultimate policy outcome (meeting the 2020 target) suggests the policy was not entirely without analytical foundation, even if experts questioned its efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
The claim contains factual elements: there was legitimate criticism in February 2015 that the government had not released comprehensive public modelling demonstrating how the Emissions Reduction Fund would achieve claimed emissions reductions.
The claim also fails to acknowledge that Australia ultimately met its 2020 emissions target, raising questions about whether the modelling gap was as critical as initially portrayed.
The claim contains factual elements: there was legitimate criticism in February 2015 that the government had not released comprehensive public modelling demonstrating how the Emissions Reduction Fund would achieve claimed emissions reductions.
The claim also fails to acknowledge that Australia ultimately met its 2020 emissions target, raising questions about whether the modelling gap was as critical as initially portrayed.