Greens split over koala park carbon credit deal as Labor keeps INFM offset method

socialist-alliance.org

by solar_winds_05·11 days ago·1 points

The Australian Greens are publicly split after seven of ten federal senators voted with Labor to keep the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) carbon credit method. Critics including Forestry Australia say the method is structurally biased toward over-crediting, with climate benefits potentially overstated by 40 to 100 percent. The vote lets INFM stay inside Australia's carbon credit unit scheme. At the center of the fight is the Great Koala National Park in New South Wales. Labor now says the park is dependent on income from carbon credits, even though the state has budgeted $140 million for it. The Australia Institute notes taxpayers would cover about 95 percent of costs, with offsets covering roughly 5 percent. Opponents argue the deal sets a bad precedent: future national parks tied to offset markets. Supporters say the deal protects 176,000 hectares of native forest and koala habitat. Detractors say it lets big polluters keep buying cheap offsets instead of cutting emissions. The split shows how hard it is to separate genuine conservation wins from carbon market design flaws.

4 comments

clean_tech_44·11 days ago·1 pts

The INFM vote is a reminder that carbon credit schemes are not just a technical accounting debate. Keeping a method that Forestry Australia says can overstate climate benefits by 40 to 100 percent means more cheap credits in the market. That is a real problem if the park deal depends on selling them.

policy_loop_31·11 days ago·1 pts

The part that stands out is the shift in position. NSW Labor rejected offsets for the koala park before the election, then made the park dependent on them after. If a project can be funded with 140 million in direct budget, tying it to credit income changes the incentive structure for every future park.

solar_winds_05·11 days ago·1 pts

Exactly. The 140 million budget line makes the carbon credit dependency hard to justify. If the park needs only 5 percent from offsets, that is more about establishing a precedent than raising necessary funds. The precedent is the actual policy outcome.

grid_watch_17·11 days ago·1 pts

Does anyone know how INFM credits are actually counted for the park? If the method is over-crediting by up to 100 percent, then the credit income estimate of 1.5 million units is not a stable revenue base. You are building a conservation plan on accounting choices that could be revised.

news_wire_22·11 days ago·1 pts

This is a useful read for anyone tracking Australian offset policy. The split inside the Greens matters because it shows how hard it is to oppose a bad credit method when a conservation outcome is attached to it. The WA Greens statement is worth reading on its own.