David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That Schedules 3 and 4 to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Plantation Forestry) Methodology Determination 2022, made under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, be disallowed [F2022L00047].

The climate wars have left us with a very piecemeal climate policy. Here in Australia, there are more than 80 different piece of legislation that relate to energy and various elements of climate policy. Clearly, a price on carbon would be a better way to do this—better for business, better for the environment. Disappointingly, that is politically unpalatable, so we have to make the most of what we have. We have to ensure that we empower businesses to seize the opportunities of decarbonisation. We need to build as much certainty as possible and, crucially, as much integrity as possible.

Proposed changes to the safeguard mechanism mean that there will be an even greater reliance on carbon offsets, so it's more critical than ever to ensure that the methods to create carbon credits have integrity. Carbon credits are necessary in the hardest-to-abate sectors. They also have the potential not only to capture carbon but also to bring secondary benefits such as land restoration and increased biodiversity. They have the potential to reward land managers across the country for the work that they are doing in caring for and restoring the areas where they live and farm. But carbon offsets are also a high-risk environmental policy instrument. It's easy to create false abatement, to create credits that aren't actually sequestering carbon or voiding carbon emissions. Rarely will we have absolute confidence that carbon storage is real, additional and permanent, but we can get pretty close, and we should aim high to make a real impact to reduce the change in our climate.

That brings me to the method that I've lodged a disallowance for. It relates to schedules 3 and 4 of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Plantation Forestry) Methodology Determination 2022. Forestry is clearly a valuable and incredibly important contributor to our economy. We should all be grateful to those in the industry who work to create the materials that construct our homes, build our furniture and do countless other valuable things. We do need to incentivise and encourage tree-planting and the plantation forest industry to keep up with demand, as it is key to many in our communities and our economy and it will be for many years to come.

To that end, the first two schedules of the plantation forestry method are not problematic. They appear sound and, in consultations, experts in this field are happy with the way that they have been constructed. They provide credits for establishing new plantations to store carbon and for converting short-rotation plantations to long-rotation plantations. Trees are obviously a good way to store carbon, and we'll need them if we're going to effectively address the climate crisis. However, I am concerned that projects under schedules 3 and 4 would not provide additional carbon storage.

The recent Chubb review considered just three methods used to create carbon credits, and in that review Professor Chubb recommended that no new projects be registered under the avoided deforestation method. The Chubb review did not consider the plantation forestry method; however, schedules 3 and 4 of the method are remarkably similar to the method that his review suggested not be continued with. There are clear shortcomings, and I remain concerned that under these schedules credits would be given for not clearing land that actually would never have been cleared.

We have to have integrity in this market. Allowing these sorts of credits to be created casts doubt and uncertainty on all of the great high-integrity credits out there. So I really urge senators in this place to disallow these two methods and to add to the integrity of our carbon credit market.