Caltex is committed to addressing the serious issue of climate
change by working with the government to develop effective policies
to reduce emissions.
Caltex accepts the science behind global warming. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body set up by the UN
in 1988, says it is very likely the increase in temperatures since
the mid twentieth century is a result of increased greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere from human activity.
Climate change presents a significant risk to economies, societies
and the environment and Caltex is helping to tackle this problem.
There are costs for Caltex in reducing emissions but also
opportunities, and a responsibility to the community to act.
Caltex supports setting a national goal for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. This goal should be determined and adjusted from time to
time on the basis of the best available science.
03.05.2010
- Caltex PM Task Group Energy Efficiency Issues Paper
31.07.2009 -
Caltex Australia Limited submission to the Senate Select Committee
Inquiry into Fuel and Energy
04.06.2009 -
Caltex Australia Limited submission to the Senate Economics
Committee Inquiry into the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill
2009 and related bills
29.05.2009 -
Caltex Australia Limited submission to the Senate Select Committee
on Climate Policy (Update of submission dated 23 April 2009 to take
account of CPRS changes announced on 4 May 2009)
25.02.2009
- Opening statement by Caltex Australia to hearing of Senate Select
Committee on Fuel and Energy
23.04.2009 -
Caltex Australia Limited submission to the Senate Select Committee
on Climate Policy
21.04.2009 -
Caltex Australia Limited opening statement to Senate Select
Committee on Climate Policy inquiry into Climate Policy
11.09.2008
- Caltex Australia Limited submission to Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme
30.04.2008
- Caltex submission to Garnaut Climate Change Review Emission
Trading Scheme Discussion Paper
Caltex's position on the Government's Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme
We believe the treatment of Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed
(EITE) industries under the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme (CPRS) needs to be reviewed, while its treatment of
motorists is flawed and could actually increase petrol emissions.
Instead, we believe an emphasis needs to be placed on complementary
measures for motorists.
- Do we support an emissions trading scheme at
Caltex?
Yes, at Caltex we see an emissions trading scheme of some kind as
an important tool for reducing point source greenhouse gas
emissions. However, the proposed CPRS is flawed and needs major
changes before being implemented.
- How long do we think the scheme should be
delayed?
The scheme should be delayed until the design is right
and until economic conditions return to normal. There should also
be time for a trial period so businesses can test the operation of
the scheme and their business systems.
- What is wrong with the scheme's treatment of EITE
industries?
At Caltex, we would need to purchase $25 to $40 million
of permits for carbon emissions from our two refineries each year,
and that's assuming we receive 60 percent of our permits for free.
Yet our direct overseas competitors, such as refineries in
Singapore, would have no carbon costs, so we could not pass on our
carbon costs. This would mean a loss of international
competitiveness and effectively impose a new tax on business.
- What are our current refinery emissions?
Our two oil refineries directly and indirectly emit about
2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2e) each
year, which is about 0.4% of Australia's total emissions.
- What do we propose for EITE industries like oil
refining?
At Caltex, we propose that activities such as refining
receive a 100 percent allocation of free permits until such time as
our international competitors face equivalent carbon costs.
- What are the emissions from the use of petroleum
products, such as transport?
In 2006, a total of 115 Mt or 20% of Australia's total
emissions were from the use of petroleum products, including
petrol, diesel and jet fuel. Transport use accounted for 14% of
total emissions.
- Why do we believe motorists should be removed from the
CPRS?
We at Caltex will have to buy permits for customers'
carbon emissions, then charge them back to the customer. However,
the government has proposed a reduction in the fuel excise related
to carbon cost which effectively removes private motorists and some
small businesses from the scheme. In fact, emissions from petrol
would actually increase less, leading up to 2025, without the
CPRS.
- How much would we have to spend to buy customers'
carbon permits?
Based on the CPRS design, our company would have to
purchase between $0.9 and $1.6 billion in permits for our
customers' emissions each year.
- How would the CPRS actually increase petrol
emissions?
For the first three years and several years beyond that, the
excise reduction for petrol will actually be greater than the
carbon price being imposed. That means petrol prices will actually
go down and emissions will go up. By 2025, petrol suppliers will
have churned $20 billion in permits for no environmental gain.
- What about larger diesel vehicles?
We don't propose changing the CPRS carbon cost proposals for
on-road vehicles over 4.5 tonnes or off-road vehicles in various
industries.
- What should be done instead of including motorists in
the CPRS?
At Caltex, we propose voluntary targets for carbon
emissions from vehicles, government incentives for consumers to
purchase low-emissions vehicles through a "cashback" (feebate)
scheme, funding for cleaner vehicle technology together with
greater reliance on alternative fuels, and investing further in
public transport and better land use planning.