|
representatives vote 2023-08-03#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-23 12:00:46
|
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 - Limits on permits to capture & store carbon
Description
<p class="speaker">Zali Steggall</p><p>by leave—I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.14.1) introduced by Warringah MP [Zali Steggall](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/warringah/zali_steggall) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What did these amendments do?
- Ms Steggall [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.14.1):
- > *These amendments put in the guardrails. If the government is genuine about saying that this is legislation about fighting climate change, then they cannot consider the passing of this legislation without these amendments. The amendment I propose adds two conditions to the minister's consideration when granting a permit to dump carbon dioxide in the ocean or under the ocean floor. The first condition added states that any greenhouse gases removed must result in fewer greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred, net negative emissions. The second condition states that they must not offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases. It cannot be a carbon capture and storage project to compensate for the expansion of fossil fuels.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 4 (line 2), omit "Export of carbon", substitute "Carbon".*
- >
- > *(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(7B) The Minister may only grant a permit for controlled material that is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation if:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the carbon dioxide capture processes removed greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by human activity, resulting in less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) the removed greenhouse gases have not been, and are not to be, used to offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases by any facility under any legal, regulatory or voluntary agreement or target; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) the Minister is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(d) in the case of a permit for exporting the controlled material to another country—the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force between Australia and the other country that includes the matters covered by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (as appropriate) in the Annex to Resolution LP.3(4) adopted on 30 October 2009 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(e) the Minister is satisfied that the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(f) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant.*
- >>>
- >>> *Note: The facility mentioned in paragraph (b) need not be the facility that removed the greenhouse gases.*
<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 4 (line 2), omit "Export of carbon", substitute "Carbon".</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(7B) The Minister may only grant a permit for controlled material that is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the carbon dioxide capture processes removed greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by human activity, resulting in less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the removed greenhouse gases have not been, and are not to be, used to offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases by any facility under any legal, regulatory or voluntary agreement or target; and</p><p class="italic">(c) the Minister is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and</p><p class="italic">(d) in the case of a permit for exporting the controlled material to another country—the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force between Australia and the other country that includes the matters covered by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (as appropriate) in the Annex to Resolution LP.3(4) adopted on 30 October 2009 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; and</p><p class="italic">(e) the Minister is satisfied that the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and</p><p class="italic">(f) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant.</p><p class="italic">Note: The facility mentioned in paragraph (b) need not be the facility that removed the greenhouse gases.</p><p>The only justification for this legislation is if it is genuinely to combat climate change and protect our oceans, and it needs more than just a creative title to do that. As currently drafted, this bill opens the door for gas companies to expand fracking and extraction with the increased emissions offset by the false promise of carbon capture and storage. It is incredibly disappointing to see, given that so many members of the Labor Party have vowed to be fighters for climate change. I question how much debate has been had in the party room in relation to this bill and in relation to these amendments. I should say to the minister that, whilst I appreciate the discussions to date, if time is the issue in relation to consideration of the amendments, then this bill should be delayed for voting until next week so that these amendments and a sound bill can be considered by the House.</p><p>These amendments put in the guardrails. If the government is genuine about saying that this is legislation about fighting climate change, then they cannot consider the passing of this legislation without these amendments. The amendment I propose adds two conditions to the minister's consideration when granting a permit to dump carbon dioxide in the ocean or under the ocean floor. The first condition added states that any greenhouse gases removed must result in fewer greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred, net negative emissions. The second condition states that they must not offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases. It cannot be a carbon capture and storage project to compensate for the expansion of fossil fuels.</p><p>Unfortunately, we are going to have to draw down carbon from the atmosphere. The truth is that atmospheric carbon dioxide already far exceeds safe levels for human civilisation. The Australian Academy of Science says that the world will need to remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere in order to avoid the worse case scenarios of global warming, but current greenhouse gas removal solutions are insufficient to achieve the scale of removal needed to reach net zero emissions and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, so removal efforts need to be scaled up.</p><p>We know that rainforests have long been the lungs of the earth, but deforestation and climate change are depleting their ability to absorb the carbon. Australia is listed as one of 24 global deforestation fronts, alongside the Amazon, the Congo Basin and Borneo. In the time it takes to read this sentence, 20 Australian native trees have been cut down or damaged. That's two lost every second. Similarly, oceans have been doing a lot of the heavy lifting on climate. They generate 50 per cent of the oxygen we need, absorb 25 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions and capture 90 per cent of the excess heat generated by emissions. Through natural mechanisms in oceans and trees, the world currently removes around two gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, we continue to destroy the lungs of the earth, so we are going to need to look towards technology for new ways to rapidly decarbonise the atmosphere.</p><p>But, at the moment, only 0.002 gigatonnes of CO2 per year of carbon removal results from novel methods. Scientists and entrepreneurs are continuing to work on solutions to directly capture carbon from the atmosphere, including direct air capture, electrochemical approaches and enhanced biological approaches. The storage of carbon drawdown of existing emissions—and I say 'existing'—needs to be considered. I believe that is where the treaty and this legislation, if amended, has a role to play.</p><p>We need to look beyond net zero and consider climate-positive outcomes. Minister, you speak much of nature-positive Australia. We also need to look towards climate-positive Australia. Net negative emissions occur when more greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere than emitted. New technologies may be necessary and part of that return to a sustainable planet. To support this bill, we must ensure it contributes to climate-positive outcomes.</p><p>The world needs to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to limit global warming. We need to protect our oceans, but this bill should only be leveraged to draw down pre-existing excess carbon from the atmosphere. It should not give fossil fuel companies another carbon dumping ground that enables new or expanded fossil fuel projects to go ahead. There is no place for greenwashing. We must take actions that will actually reduce emissions, not just give the fossil fuel industry a new way to dump their pollution.</p><p>I urge the minister to delay the third reading of this bill, to consider these amendments properly and bring the bill back for consideration next week.</p> <p class="speaker">Kylea Tink</p><p>I rise to speak in support of these amendments. I do so because I think at the heart of them lie what are some of the largest concerns for myself and others on the crossbench—and that is: the actual purpose of this bill. I take it on good faith that the minister gives us her personal assurances that this is about enacting positive climate reform.</p><p>But as the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is currently presented in the House, the one thing it clearly does is enable new fossil fuel projects to take advantage of the opportunity to sequester carbon emissions under the seabed. There is no protection in this bill, currently, to make it so that it is about a nature-positive outcome.</p><p>I want to double-down on that point. I and the people of North Sydney do not stand against the engagement of new tech, but any new tech being undertaken in our communities and our societies should be about delivering a net negative climate positive outcome. Drawing down pre-existing carbon dioxide makes sense, in this case, but leaving it open to enable people like Santos to walk straight through that door, open up a new gas project and say that that gas project meets everything we've now brought into place under the safety net—because they can pump their carbon dioxide offshore into a carbon capture and storage facility—is completely contrary to what I believe we are trying to work towards as a parliament.</p> <p class="speaker">Tanya Plibersek</p><p>I don't want to talk about every amendment as it comes up, because I know that we've got a lot of business before us in the House. I know that there's a lot of complexity because this legislation is about enacting the London protocol—so members have to have a good understanding of what's in the London protocol—and it adds to existing protections that we already have.</p><p>I want to reiterate my offer to the crossbench that we are very happy to keep working on the detail of this with you, to give you more detailed briefings about the purpose of the bill and what it gives effect to. This bill is simply about giving effect to the commitments, the obligations, that we have under the London protocol that we signed up to in 2009 and under the amendments to the London protocol that we signed up to in 2013.</p><p>The member for Warringah was talking about how important action on climate change is and how important it is for us to be nature positive. We agree. That's not what this bill about though. We have our commitment to 30 per cent of our lands and 30 per cent of our waters being protected by 2030. Just last week I announced the 10 new Indigenous protected areas that will make up part of that—tens of millions of additional hectares of land that will be protected and preserved because of that. We've doubled our funding to national parks. You mentioned blue carbon. That's why we're investing in blue carbon. We know that blue carbon is one of the most effective ways that we can suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. We're doing all of these things, but that's not what this bill is about. That's not what this policy is about.</p><p>A number of the member for Mackellar's suggestions are not covered in this legislation because they're covered in other legislation and other bills. The current sea dumping act already requires consideration of treaties or conventions that Australia is party to for all permit types. So you don't have to have specific listing of particular agreements, like the Paris Agreement. It's already covered. The granting of the sea dumping permit doesn't relieve the permit holder of any obligation to comply with any other law of the Commonwealth, state or territory that's applicable to that activity. So, the Climate Change Act 2022 and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 are standalone pieces of legislation with individual regulatory requirements that have to be met whether or not this permit is granted. It doesn't relieve you of the obligations under other pieces of legislation.</p><p>Regarding no public money being spent on CCS—well, we've just cancelled a $250 million spend that those opposite previously had in the budget on this, for the very reason that we don't think public funding should be spent on it. It would be interesting I think for members to be aware of the fact, if they're not already, that Minister Madeleine King has committed $12 million to review the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage to make sure it is working as intended to decarbonise the economy, and of course I'll be working very closely with Minister King on that review.</p><p>Finally, while I have the opportunity: there are substantial penalties within the existing act that are replicated in this bill to apply to the new permit categories. Specifically, there are criminal penalties, including potential imprisonment, that apply. I know people are very keen to see proper accountability for people who don't do the right thing. We agree: there isn't a conflict here with our existing laws, and certainly those existing responsibilities continue, and we'll continue to make sure that we enforce them.</p> <p class="speaker">Sophie Scamps</p><p>I'd like to say thank you to the minister for that response. It has been a difficult process, because it seems like the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 has been rushed through without adequate consultation, and it's been difficult to find time to speak to the advisers and ministers about our concerns. I would say as well that it's one thing to say you'd prefer not to give public money for remediation, for monitoring, for carbon capture and storage, but it's another thing to have that set in law. I just wanted to make that point.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|