Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In November 2021, the member for Warringah described Australia—quite rightly at the time—as 'the global laggard in climate change policy'. The former coalition government failed then in Glasgow at the COP26 to sign up to the Global Methane Pledge. It was one of many ways in which the former government failed at that international meeting and in the area of climate change generally. We all remember the embarrassing pictures of former Prime Minister Morrison speaking to an empty room there.

I said before in this place that it's clear that these failures didn't just have the effect of degrading the Australian image in the world as a wealthy nation unwilling to do its part to address global challenges. There were also immediate and practical consequences such as the European Union being much less willing to close a trade deal with a country that was so far apart from them on climate issues. The Albanese government has been hard at work addressing this. One of the steps was joining the Global Methane Pledge in October last year.

Participants joining the pledge agree to take voluntary actions to contribute to a collective effort to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030. The member for New England will not have to shoot his cows, but he might consider feeding them with the useful supplements being developed to reduce methane emissions from them. I know that the member for Lyons is proud that seaweed additives for livestock are currently being developed in his electorate, and there are also products coming to market from Queensland and WA. The evidence from the Senate Environment and Communications Committee earlier this year, however, was that the low-hanging fruit from methane abatement is in the resources sector and particularly coal and gas.

I want to address two issues that arise from the motion by the member for Warringah. The first is the urgency that accompanies this area of policy, including methane emissions reduction, and the second is the issue of good data upon which good policy responses must find their foundation. Climate change is upon us. It is an urgent issue. We aim for a 30 per cent reduction in just a decade, and we have only just managed to change our government and now sign the pledge. The other aspect of urgency here is that methane itself is a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas. It acts for about 12 years in the atmosphere, but its action is many times greater than CO2. With measured changes already taking place in our atmosphere, it is important to avoid as much short-term warming as we can so as to avoid run-on effects. There are a number of initiatives already taken by this government that will support action to support methane emissions. These include, of course, the setting in legislation of our emission targets for 2030 and 2050 and the safeguard mechanism, which underpins much of the emissions reduction we are aiming for, and even the National Reconstruction Fund, which has significant funds earmarked for emissions reductions, including for methane.

Our decision-making and that of all participants, including NGOs and industry, in the effort to reach our shared climate goals must be based on good data. Part of the Global Methane Pledge is, indeed, a commitment to using the best international standards to quantify methane emissions and to report on the same. This may mean that companies need to commit to more on-the-ground measurement and less estimation. It will also involve greater use of satellite derived data. It might seem counterintuitive to talk about putting more satellites up to reduce carbon, but good data is gold in this space. Companies like Shell and the Nordic firm Equinor are using drones to fly over methane-emitting sites to take measurements at source. The International Energy Agency provides useful road maps to guide methane abatement in the coal, oil and gas industries.

The safeguard mechanism is a good example of a market mechanism that relies on good data to underpin its effectiveness. Once incentivised, companies are more likely to take action to reduce emissions. In the methane space, Shell has demonstrated in Europe and North America that that this can include strengthening detection and speedier repair, replacing old equipment, better training and restricting the use of flaring. All of these efforts will make a difference. The methane emissions performance in energy-producing countries like Australia may soon start to be taken into account by our trading partners in the formation of new contracts. We need to get ahead of the curve wherever possible. We need to finalise the safeguard mechanism now so that it can commence this year. There have been 10 years of delay in climate policy and we can simply delay no longer.

The US is already taking action to address methane regulations. We are seeing this in countries around the world. There are fantastic examples to point to. R&D is ahead of the curve. CSIRO is doing terrific work in this space. I thank the member for Warringah for raising this important issue and I seek everyone's support to back in the safeguard mechanisms so we can take action today.

See this speech in context