Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak briefly to this report as well. As Senator Wortley has mentioned, it deals with four different treaties or agreements, none of which are related to each other. I wish to speak specifically to the amendment to annex 1 to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.

I emphasise that I agree with the committee’s recommendation in this section. The committee supports the amendment. It is worth while noting this particular amendment nonetheless because it deals with the contentious and important issue of geosequestration. The purpose for the amendment to the London protocol was to ensure that Australia and other countries would not be in contravention of the protocol if we engaged in geosequestration of carbon dioxide beneath the ocean floor. Carbon geosequestration was not contemplated when the protocol was being developed, so carbon dioxide was not listed as being a material that was permitted to be disposed of under the seabed.

Because Australia is now exploring geosequestration as one of a range of potential climate change measures, an amendment to the protocol was required. Of course, amending the annex to the protocol to enable geosequestration of CO does not automatically mean that it has been given the full go-ahead. But it is worth noting some of the detail in the relevant chapter of the report about the nature of geosequestration, and the reality that CO has been injected into declining oilfields in Texas since the early 1970s as a way of enhancing oil recovery.

The issue with regard to injecting CO directly into an underground sedimentary basin is ensuring that the basin is the appropriate location for it and that it will not escape, that it will remain down there for prolonged periods of time. This will require a lot of future research and exploration to determine its feasibility, both geologically and from a cost and logistical point of view. There is a need for an appropriate geological barrier to prevent the upward movement of CO, but it is certainly the case that there are appropriate geological barriers in some places.

I believe it is worth noting this particular aspect of the report, purely because it contains some details and points to an area that is already being debated in the public arena and will be debated further. I am one of those who are not particularly comfortable with the terminology ‘clean coal’. I think it is a bit of a misnomer. Having said that, if carbon capture and storage actually can be made technologically and commercially viable, it is obviously a measure that could be beneficial in reducing the overall amount of carbon emissions in the atmosphere. My personal view is that, rather than seeking to pick winners at the start, we should be exploring options that have any feasibility of technological and financial success in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that do not have any other flow-on consequential negative environmental impacts. Geosequestration may be one of those.

It should be emphasised that sub-seabed geosequestration of carbon dioxide, which is what is being contemplated, is not the same as ocean sequestration, where CO is pumped directly into water at depths greater than a thousand metres. At depths greater than 3,000 metres, CO is denser than sea water, and there is a theory that it could be dispersed into the deep ocean or deposited to form lakes, so-called, of liquid CO on the ocean floor. It is worth noting, though, that that technology is a lot more controversial and that ocean sequestration is not currently under consideration by Australia or the consultative meeting and is not permitted by this amendment to annex 1 to the London protocol. I would also say that the amendment, as is detailed in this report, seeks to ensure that the CO gas stream sequestered—if that does end up happening—is overwhelmingly CO and does not contain industrial wastes and other prohibited materials.

Whilst there is controversy around aspects of carbon capture and storage, and geosequestration is the storage part of the equation, I think the committee has considered adequately some of the potential tangential concerns that people have when such technology is talked about, such as it being a cloak for other substances being disposed of or approaches like ocean sequestration. Allowing this amendment to the annex to occur does not give an open slather go-ahead to geosequestration. As the report notes, such projects would still require assessment and approval in accordance with the articles of the protocol plus the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. So there are still a range of mechanisms in place that would require the assessment of any geosequestration to occur.

The committee comes to the following conclusion in the final paragraph of the chapter, paragraph 5.22:

The Committee supports the sub-seabed geo-sequestration of CO streams as one of a suite of measures to mitigate climate change and ocean acidification and recognises that the amendment to Annex 1 of the London Protocol will allow Australia and other countries to pursue this option.

As a member of the Treaties Committee and one who is happy to sign off on this report, including that chapter and that conclusion, my support for sub-seabed geosequestration of CO is of course contingent on it being demonstrated to be technologically feasible as well as economically viable. It would not be being done if it were not economically viable. There is still a way to go with regard to that, but speaking personally I do not see any problem with pursuing research into that area.

It needs to be stated nonetheless that, whilst it is valid to pursue research in that area, there is a tendency amongst at least some on the government side to see the whole carbon capture and storage issue as the big solution alongside the laughable option of nuclear power. Whilst geosequestration may be one option, it will only ever be a part of the solution. We need to be putting a lot more energy, effort and resources into renewable energies, much more so than has occurred. It should not, however, be an either-or situation in my view. We need to pursue all options that do not have wider environmental impacts, which nuclear obviously does. I think we can do a lot more yet before we can determine what the best paths forward are and whether or not geosequestration—carbon capture and storage—would be one of them. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.