The claim is substantially supported by evidence, though the scope and interpretation are contested.
以下 yǐ xià 是 shì 主要 zhǔ yào 发现 fā xiàn : :
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].
澳大利亚 ào dà lì yà 国立大学 guó lì dà xué 教授 jiào shòu 安德鲁 ān dé lǔ · · 麦金 mài jīn 托什 tuō shén ( ( Andrew Andrew Macintosh Macintosh ) ) , , 前 qián 减排 jiǎn pái 保障 bǎo zhàng 委员会 wěi yuán huì 主席 zhǔ xí , , 领导 lǐng dǎo 的 de 研究 yán jiū 分析 fēn xī 了 le 新南威尔士州 xīn nán wēi ěr shì zhōu 和 hé 昆士兰州 kūn shì lán zhōu 的 de 119 119 个 gè HIR HIR 项目 xiàng mù 。 。
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].
**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.
Beare Beare 和 hé Chambers Chambers 的 de 分析 fēn xī 得出结论 dé chū jié lùn , , " " 由于 yóu yú HIR HIR 项目 xiàng mù , , 新南威尔士州 xīn nán wēi ěr shì zhōu 和 hé 昆士兰州 kūn shì lán zhōu 的 de 森林 sēn lín 覆盖 fù gài 取得 qǔ dé 积极 jī jí 成果 chéng guǒ , , 超出 chāo chū 预期 yù qī " " [ [ 7 7 ] ] 。 。
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].
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.
The papers appear to undergo peer review, though they have been contested by the Clean Energy Regulator and subsequent independent reviews.
这些 zhè xiē 论文 lùn wén 来自 lái zì 澳大利亚 ào dà lì yà 国立大学 guó lì dà xué ( ( ANU ANU ) ) 的 de 学术研究 xué shù yán jiū 人员 rén yuán , , ANU ANU 是 shì 一所 yī suǒ 声誉 shēng yù 良好 liáng hǎo 的 de 机构 jī gòu 。 。
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.
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.
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].
**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].
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.
**The case against the scheme:**
Macintosh's allegations raise genuine concerns deserving serious attention.
麦金 mài jīn 托什 tuō shén 的 de 指控 zhǐ kòng 提出 tí chū 了 le 值得 zhí de 认真对待 rèn zhēn duì dài 的 de 真正 zhēn zhèng 关切 guān qiè 。 。
His analysis found that 59 of 123 projects analyzed had reduced forest cover yet received $100m+ in credits [3].
他 tā 的 de 分析 fēn xī 发现 fā xiàn , , 在 zài 分析 fēn xī 的 de 123 123 个 gè 项目 xiàng mù 中 zhōng , , 有 yǒu 59 59 个 gè 森林 sēn lín 覆盖率 fù gài lǜ 减少 jiǎn shǎo , , 却 què 获得 huò dé 了 le 超过 chāo guò 1 1 亿澳元 yì ào yuán 的 de 信用 xìn yòng 额度 é dù [ [ 3 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].
清洁 qīng jié 能源 néng yuán 监管 jiān guǎn 机构 jī gòu 的 de 回应 huí yìng 提供 tí gōng 了 le 实质性 shí zhì xìng 的 de 反驳 fǎn bó 。 。
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].
CER CER 指出 zhǐ chū : :
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:
1.
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.
with significant caveats about interpretation and scope.
联盟党 lián méng dǎng 政府 zhèng fǔ 确实 què shí 支付 zhī fù 了 le 数 shù 亿澳元 yì ào yuán 的 de 碳 tàn 信用 xìn yòng 额度 é dù ( ( 通过 tōng guò 总价值 zǒng jià zhí 15 15 亿澳元 yì ào yuán 的 de 合同 hé tóng ) ) 用于 yòng yú HIR HIR 项目 xiàng mù , , 包括 bāo kuò 涉及 shè jí 已 yǐ 含有 hán yǒu 树木 shù mù 的 de 财产 cái chǎn 的 de 项目 xiàng mù [ [ 1 1 ] ] [ [ 3 3 ] ] [ [ 6 6 ] ] 。 。
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].
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.
with significant caveats about interpretation and scope.
联盟党 lián méng dǎng 政府 zhèng fǔ 确实 què shí 支付 zhī fù 了 le 数 shù 亿澳元 yì ào yuán 的 de 碳 tàn 信用 xìn yòng 额度 é dù ( ( 通过 tōng guò 总价值 zǒng jià zhí 15 15 亿澳元 yì ào yuán 的 de 合同 hé tóng ) ) 用于 yòng yú HIR HIR 项目 xiàng mù , , 包括 bāo kuò 涉及 shè jí 已 yǐ 含有 hán yǒu 树木 shù mù 的 de 财产 cái chǎn 的 de 项目 xiàng mù [ [ 1 1 ] ] [ [ 3 3 ] ] [ [ 6 6 ] ] 。 。
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].
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.