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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

  (a) Australia has signed the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030;

  (b) methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere and is over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period;

  (c) the fossil fuel sector accounts for nearly 40 per cent of Australia's methane emissions; and

  (d) the International Energy Agency highlights that methane emissions from oil and gas are some of the easiest to abate; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

  (a) enact effective national methane regulations to limit venting and flaring of gas;

  (b) implement best practice regulations from the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership; and

  (c) use the Safeguard Mechanism and other legislative pathways to drive methane capture.

Last year, Australia signed the Global Methane Pledge to cut 30 per cent of methane emissions by 2030. Most people think methane comes just from agriculture. We always get an outcry from the Nationals members about meat production, but that's only half the contribution of methane in Australia. Fossil fuel mining creates 40 per cent of our methane emissions. Natural gas is methane, and all too often it is left just to leak out into the air. Gas is at record high prices and it's just leaking out, so we're losing resources, risking energy supply and cooking the planet. It makes no sense.

Methane is over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. The fossil fuel industry in Australia is releasing to the atmosphere large quantities of gas that should be captured and brought to market. The International Energy Agency found that fossil fuel companies in Australia are emitting around twice the methane that the government reports to the UNFCCC. This is now on satellite data. A recent satellite study from SRON, a Dutch space research institute, identified methane plumes across Australian coalmines. They estimated that Glencore's Hail Creek mine in Queensland was emitting 15 per cent more methane than the total methane emissions reported by all open-cut mines in Queensland combined.

In January, the east coast was facing ministerial intervention to keep the lights on, and energy prices were skyrocketing. The coalition and the media were obsessing about us needing new gas fields because there wasn't enough supply. To give you an idea, Mr Speaker, in January, during that perceived period of shortage, AEMO and the ACCC identified that we needed 30 petajoules of gas on top of the current supply. The Environmental Defence Fund has identified that our annual methane emissions from leakage—we're just letting it drift out—is 77 petajoules. So we could have met any shortage without opening up new wells.

If we were in a drought and we had a leaking tap of water drip, drip, dripping away, we would fix it. We would not say: 'She'll be right. Let that tap keep leaking. Let's go and open a new well.' It's time we did the same for methane and gas. The government has to put in some gas leakage restrictions. The amount of gas leaking from Australian oil, gas and coal mines each year is about five per cent of our annual usage. The International Energy Agency's annual methane tracker report, released last Tuesday, shows that methane emissions released through the fossil fuel supply chain are rising, even though technologies are available to cost-effectively capture and sell that gas.

We have an opportunity. The safeguard mechanism reforms are an important opportunity for the government to bring in sensible measures for capturing and using that gas. But the effectiveness of the safeguard mechanism will depend on the accuracy of the data it is based on. The current reporting framework is too lax to ensure accuracy, so I've proposed an amendment to fix this. Currently, most reports on oil and gas activities are based on national averages rather than actuals. This needs to change. They have to be from real data. The safeguard mechanism reform process is an important moment to address energy sector methane emissions.

This is crucial for dealing with global warming. The fossil fuel industry can cut methane cheaply. We need to do this. The Environmental Defence Fund found that, by focusing on the energy sector, Australia could cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, below a cost of $33 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. The European Union will require importers to report methane emissions from supply chains, conduct regular leak detection and repair programs, and cease methane venting and flaring in domestic oil and gas production. Australia's largest gas importer, Japan, has signalled its preference for low-emissions gas, yet currently in Australia there is no national regulation preventing venting and flaring of methane; it is just allowed to leak.

So I call on the Albanese government: get serious about these leaks; enact effective national methane regulations to limit venting and flaring of gas; implement best-practice regulations from the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership; and use the safeguard mechanism and other legislative pathways to drive methane capture and apply global best-practice standards consistently across fossil fuel projects. If we want to deal with global warning, we have to deal with methane.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this motion on the Global Methane Pledge to the parliament, and I agree with her on a couple of key points. First of all, methane is an extremely important aspect of our country's effort to tackle climate change. We cannot ignore methane. It is an extremely potent greenhouse gas emission, and we must do more to track and reduce the amount of methane being released into the atmosphere.

I also absolutely agree with the member for Warringah on the aspect of the importance of the safeguard mechanism. This is something that this House, this place, and the other place need to get right. We need to pass that mechanism. It is the single-biggest lever that any government in this country's history has ever tried to pull on emissions reduction. We have to get it right. I appreciate the comments made by the member for Warringah, and I think there will be a lot of debate—there will be a lot of opportunities for members from all sides of the parliament to come together constructively, move amendments and talk through the details, and I am really hopeful that we, as a parliament, can come together in moving this. We have to take this step forward in tackling climate change. The safeguard mechanism is too big to fail. We will get one chance at this, as a parliament, and we need to get it right.

It comes off the back of the Albanese government, upon coming into government, signing up to the international Global Methane Pledge. Australia joined 150 other countries in committing to reduce methane by 30 per cent by 2030. I mention this because it is actually a bit significant from where we started and from where the previous government was. The previous government had some pretty extraordinary things to say when discussing the Global Methane Pledge. The former Deputy Prime Minister did not believe that we could tackle rising methane emissions through sensible efforts to bring down emissions and through policy levers in this place. He had a different suggestion. Despite the fact that Meat & Livestock Australia have a carbon neutral by 2030 target, the former Deputy Prime Minister and member for New England said:

The only way you can get your 30 per cent by 2030 … would be to go and grab a rifle, go out and start shooting your cattle.

It's an absolutely absurd response from the member for New England. But you would have thought, 'You know what? Sometimes the member for New England comes out with some ideas from left field in this place, so that's to be expected.'

But you would have thought the Leader of the Nationals would have had a little bit more of a measured response to methane—that he would have come in here and said: 'You know what? We have to think through these issues. It is important for Australia's international efforts to join the international community to tackle methane. It's important for our emissions reduction.' But, no, this is what the Leader of the Nationals said, very calmly and measured:

Now the Aussie BBQ is under threat. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wants to take away the backyard BBQ.

For goodness sake—for goodness steak! Exactly! He also said;

We know Australians love their sausages, steaks, rissoles and lamb meals—

That's true—

all of that will become out of reach for many.

It's absolutely ridiculous from those opposite. Instead—

I can hear from the cheap seats out the back that there's a little bit of chirping going on, but the fact of the matter is that those opposite were completely against any form of climate action, full stop. Coming into this place, they voted against the emissions reduction targets that we took to the last election and they've dealt themselves out of the climate reduction conversation. We now have a large crossbench made up of seats from this guy's former colleagues.

Opposition members interjecting—

They can keep chatting away across the chamber, but on this side of the House we're going to tackle climate change, reduce emissions and be part of the global efforts to tackle and reduce methane. (Time expired)

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Warringah for the opportunity to second this important motion, which you will see is actually about fossil fuels and the role of methane in the fossil fuel industry rather than the agricultural industry. The effort Australia makes to address methane emissions in the next few years will have a substantial impact on how effective we are in meeting our decarbonisation goals, which is why it was such good news from COP27 that the Australian government has signed the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. But, since that good news, we've heard almost nothing from the government about how it will actually fulfil this obligation, including no mention of methane emissions in the soon-to-be-debated safeguard mechanism.

Why are methane emissions are such an issue? Methane emissions are 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, and methane is responsible for about 30 per cent of the rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. In Australia, fossil fuel companies emit 40 per cent of the country's methane pollution, and much of that is avoidable. Two weeks ago the head of the International Energy Agency said methane cuts are among the cheapest options to limited near-term global warming. He said there is just no excuse for the continued in action, and there really is no excuse for the government to continue ignoring this problem. The IEA has shown that we could reduce 75 per cent of energy sector methane emissions using commercially competitive existing technology, and that currently wasted methane can be cost-effectively captured and used to generate electricity. Analysis from S&P Global shows that there's huge potential for methane to be captured from existing gas and oil facilities and brought to the market, countering the need for new gas exploration. Its analysis shows that two billion cubic metres of gas can be captured by limiting venting, flaring and leaks of methane at gas and oil sites in Australia. That would provide nearly a five per cent boost to Australia's gas supply annually, with no new fields being opened. This is more than double the ACCC's January forecasted shortfall in the east coast market.

Our trade competitors and partners are already acting on methane. Japan is working with PETRONAS to incorporate methane performance into its purchase of LNG from Malaysia. Italian company Eni is doing the same with Algerian supplier Sonatrach. The US, EU and other partners are working on standards to incorporate methane performance into gas supply agreements, and the same pressure will likely come to bear in Australia. We can be proactive or we can wait to be forced.

The Oil and Gas Methane Partnership framework has become the go-to standard for countries, buyers and investors who want assurance that the gas they're buying and the companies they're investing in and partnering with are serious about methane. To date, no major Australian company has joined, which is positioning the industry as out of step and unwilling to recognise that, as we transition away from fossil fuels, those left standing will be operators who can compete not only on cost but also on climate action.

Australia can seize the opportunity to cut methane by taking action in the safeguard mechanism reforms. Firstly, we need to accurately measure methane. We should update our methane reporting standards to require direct emissions measurement and statistically valid modelling at both the source and site levels. This should be consistent with international best practices such as that prescribed in the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership 2.0. This is essential, given that it's likely that Australian fossil fuel companies are drastically underreporting their current methane emissions. At the same time, the safeguard mechanism's baseline should reflect best practice methane emission intensities, which have been established globally by industry through dies such as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative.

By not setting a best practice baseline on methane, we will be setting Australian industry up for future failure. We must ensure that methane that's currently wasted from fossil fuel sites is captured and brought to market. We need genuine abatement of this potential greenhouse gas using proven, existing, cost-effective technology rather than the unlimited use of offsets.

As drafted, the safeguard mechanism proposal could completely miss the opportunity for actual methane abatement. The safeguard mechanism reforms are a pivotal opportunity to get us on track to fulfill our global obligations under the methane pledge by requiring companies to measure and report their methane emissions while taking belated but critical action to cut methane pollution. (Time expired)

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In May last year this government was elected with a mandate to take strong environmental action. The Australian people understand the implications of what our environment and climate face if we do not commit to implementing long-lasting and considered plans now. We must recognise that climate change is having an extraordinary impact on our country. We are seeing an increase in extreme weather events and just last year we saw flooding across the eastern seaboard. We know that these communities continue to face the consequences of these events. Thousands of people in communities in Lismore, the Central Coast and the Sunshine Coast are still displaced from their homes and facing uncertainty about the future. These extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more intense. Nature has made it very clear to us through these deadly floods, storms and raging fires that we have to stop filling our atmosphere with greenhouse gases and we have to stop doing it fast.

After nine years of climate change denial and inaction by the previous government, we stand at a critical juncture now to make that change. The chance to make incremental change has passed due to the inefficiency and inadequacy of the previous government. Unless we take action now we face an accelerating climate disaster. That is why this government has taken its commitment to action seriously. We have passed the Climate Change Act through both houses; we will implement the changes to the safeguard mechanism; and we have joined over 150 countries to commit to reduce global methane emissions across energy and resources, agriculture and waste sectors.

Methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases and is the most harmful to our environment. Over a 20-year period, methane causes 82 times as much heating of the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Since industrialisation, methane concentrations has risen more than 150 per cent. Due to an increase in coal mining, gas drilling and industrialised agriculture, methane levels have continued to rise. In the last two years alone, we have seen record rises of methane in the atmosphere. The United Nations states that methane has caused 0.5 degrees of global heating. That is second only to carbon dioxide.

As signatories to the Global Methane Pledge, Australia now joins 150 countries across the globe in committing to work collectively to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 per cent by 2030. Through working in partnership with key sectors, we will focus on research and development, investment and collaboration to work together to bring our methane emissions down. This government is making key investments and working closely with industry to support emissions reductions across high-greenhouse-gas sectors.

Through the National Reconstruction Fund, which we know those opposite are opposing, we will invest $3 billion to support investment in low emissions technologies, component manufacturing and agricultural methane reduction. We have committed to investing $8 million to support commercialisation of low-emissions livestock feed through the Powering Australia Plan. We will provide $5 million in funding to develop technologies to develop low-emissions feed supplements. Through changes to the safeguard mechanism by this government we will support emissions reductions throughout the sector. It will cover methane emissions from large industrial facilities and fugitive emissions from coalmines. Under these proposed reforms, each facility will see a baseline fall of 4.9 per cent every year to 2030.

Only this government will ensure that industry will carry its proportionate share of reaching our 2030 target and only this government will ensure we stay on a path to net zero. We know the opposition will take any opportunity to say no. I mean, it is quite extraordinary to see what was being played out over the last week on superannuation. Those opposite will take every opportunity to say no. We know they have said no to emissions reduction. We know they are saying no to the National Reconstruction Fund. They told us electric cars will take away the weekend. They are saying that by signing the pledge it is going to kill the weekend barbecue. They will say no to everything. But let's listen to industry. Those agrarian socialists at the National Farmers' Federation, we know how much they usually support this side of politics, which is pretty rarely, but they have come out and said that farmers are already leading the charge on climate change. Australia now has a seat at the table, and if we look at these key trading relationships that we need to grow with the EU, they need National Farmers' to take action on methane and emissions reduction. We are leading the way in the world. Our safeguard mechanism and signing the international pledge will help us get there. Your barbecue is safe. Your vehicles are safe. We will reduce emissions.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The safeguard mechanism reform process offers a unique opportunity to address energy sector methane emissions. Methane is the main ingredient of natural gas. It's also a powerful climate pollutant. Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere. It traps 80 times more heat in our atmosphere than does carbon dioxide. Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in our atmosphere have more than doubled. According to the UN Environment Programme, methane has accounted for more than 30 per cent of climate change since preindustrial times.

Quickly and effectively reducing methane pollution is an essential step in preventing the worst impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Huge amounts of methane escape into our atmosphere through the process of gas extraction, through leaks but also from deliberate releases for venting and flaring. Coalmines, for example, vent methane to prevent explosions. That leaked methane is lost energy that could be captured and used to generate electricity and to heat homes. Globally the fossil fuel industry emits enough escaped and unburnt methane every year to meet the gas demands of Europe.

But leaked methane doesn't just pollute our air and represent a wasted energy source; it also affects our health. As methane is leaked, so too are other volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, n-hexane and carbonyl sulphide. These travel from their source into the air that all of us breathe. Volatile organic compounds cause cancer, premature birth and respiratory, neurological and cardiovascular diseases, and they cause sudden death. The climate warming associated with release of these compounds into the air that we all breathe contributes to extreme weather events, to bushfires, to longer allergy seasons and to the spread of infectious diseases.

To see the effect of these changes in Australia we just need to look from this place to the rural communities and the cities affected by fire and by flood: to Cobargo, to Mallacoota, to Kangaroo Island, to Lismore and to Woodburn; to the Kimberley and most recently to the Victoria Daly region of the Northern Territory. The Black Summer of 2019-20 caused us more than $2 billion in smoke related health costs. The extreme mental health impact of the recent New South Wales and Queensland floods has been well documented: emotional instability, stress, anxiety, depression and trauma. We are all paying the cost of unregulated fossil fuel industries.

Australia has already joined the Global Methane Pledge, a commitment to reduce human caused methane emissions by at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030. But our problem is regulation, or lack thereof. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme allows our fossil fuel operators to choose the level of accuracy they apply to measuring their own emissions. For most gas and oil activities, companies can opt to use generic estimations based on national averages, rather than direct measurement of their actual emissions. The Environmental Defence Fund and other scientific bodies have suggested the industry has understated its oil and gas methane emissions by as much as 70 per cent.

The ineffective regulation of the NGER and safeguard schemes has benefited fossil fuel companies at the expense of other Australian businesses, of households and of our climate—at all of our expense. The technology already exists to measure methane emissions far more accurately, using onsite methane detectors, aerial surveys and satellites with unprecedented ability to measure emission sources and quantities. The International Energy Agency has said that we could use these current technologies to cut our methane emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 and that two-thirds of those costs are achievable at no additional net cost.

Put simply, we have to regulate this sector. We can't leave it to fossil fuel companies to regulate themselves. The safeguard mechanism reform should provide a clear incentive for these companies to take mitigation action. The Albanese government has to mandate gold-standard methane emissions monitoring, reporting and verification, and intensity targets in line with international best practice.

Properly regulating our methane emissions will make no more captured methane available to industries and to households. We will cut Australia's emissions of a potent greenhouse gas. We can do this now or not, but, if we don't, we should all be held to account.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.