All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
representatives vote 2023-08-03#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-23 11:51:38
|
Title
Description
-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.12.2) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What was the purpose of these amendments?
Senator Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.12.2) she introduced the amendments because, without them:- Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.12.2) she introduced the amendments because, without them:
- > *... this bill would create a pathway, whether intended or not, for new Australian gas mines to continue to open and old ones to be extended and expanded. This green light is based upon unproven and faulty technology: carbon, capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage has failed to meet expectations time and time again, including in Australia's enormous Gorgon gas field CCS project. The bill in its current form would enable fossil fuel facilities, like the colossal and highly polluting Barossa gas project, to proceed.*
- >
- > *In an attempt to improve and strengthen this bill ... I'm proposing three categories of amendments. The first category is an attempt to prohibit the import to or export from Australia of any carbon that was captured from a fossil fuel facility. This includes existing new or expanded facilities. ... I'm also proposing a prohibition on the use of public money for any carbon capture and storage project that is in any way connected to fossil fuels. Public money must not be used to prolong the life of fossil fuel projects.*
- >
- > *The second category of amendments I am proposing should be easy for the government to agree to. The government says that this bill is necessary to implement its international obligations under the 2009 amendment to the London protocol. However, the bill omits two very important aspects of the protocol: the risk assessment and management framework for carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures and the specific guidelines on the assessment of CO2 streams for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations. These risk assessment and management measures do not form part of the permanent requirements in this bill in its current form. ...*
- >
- > *The final set of amendments I have proposed cover what should happen if—or, should I say, when—things go terribly wrong. I believe it must be the companies who want to dump the carbon under the seabed and not the Australian taxpayers who are made liable for monitoring, maintenance and remediation of carbon capture and storage facilities. These companies should also be required to put up a bond to cover those liabilities as a condition of any permit. If they go ahead and import or export CO2 without a permit, they should also suffer serious penalties, as outlined in my amendments.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2023-08-03#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-23 11:44:21
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Carbon dioxide streams
Description
<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.12.2) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What was the purpose of these amendments?
- Senator Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.12.2) she introduced the amendments because, without them:
- > *... this bill would create a pathway, whether intended or not, for new Australian gas mines to continue to open and old ones to be extended and expanded. This green light is based upon unproven and faulty technology: carbon, capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage has failed to meet expectations time and time again, including in Australia's enormous Gorgon gas field CCS project. The bill in its current form would enable fossil fuel facilities, like the colossal and highly polluting Barossa gas project, to proceed.*
- >
- > *In an attempt to improve and strengthen this bill ... I'm proposing three categories of amendments. The first category is an attempt to prohibit the import to or export from Australia of any carbon that was captured from a fossil fuel facility. This includes existing new or expanded facilities. ... I'm also proposing a prohibition on the use of public money for any carbon capture and storage project that is in any way connected to fossil fuels. Public money must not be used to prolong the life of fossil fuel projects.*
- >
- > *The second category of amendments I am proposing should be easy for the government to agree to. The government says that this bill is necessary to implement its international obligations under the 2009 amendment to the London protocol. However, the bill omits two very important aspects of the protocol: the risk assessment and management framework for carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures and the specific guidelines on the assessment of CO2 streams for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations. These risk assessment and management measures do not form part of the permanent requirements in this bill in its current form. ...*
- >
- > *The final set of amendments I have proposed cover what should happen if—or, should I say, when—things go terribly wrong. I believe it must be the companies who want to dump the carbon under the seabed and not the Australian taxpayers who are made liable for monitoring, maintenance and remediation of carbon capture and storage facilities. These companies should also be required to put up a bond to cover those liabilities as a condition of any permit. If they go ahead and import or export CO2 without a permit, they should also suffer serious penalties, as outlined in my amendments.*
-
-
|