Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

See this speech in context