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

It's quite extraordinary that—what is it now? November 2023?—we're seeing this from the Labor government. If Australians wonder why we are not seeing climate action, here it is. Here it is for people to look at: state capture by the fossil fuel industry. We have a senator, an assistant minister, who genuinely cares. Senator McAllister has a track record on the climate and the environment, and yet here she's having to push this absolute dud bill for the fossil fuel industry. We can't even be told who the environment minister has consulted with in NGOs, in civil society. The only people who want this bill are the fossil fuel industry, and here we're having it put through.

The coalition and Labor are supposedly here to take climate change seriously. We hear about how the grown-ups are in charge. We hear so much talk about being 'pragmatic and sensible'. The pragmatic thing to do in the face of the climate impacts we're seeing right now around the world is to not facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

Labor love to point at crossbenchers, point at the minor parties, point at the Greens and say: 'Well, you're just out of touch. You've got to be a party of government. You've got to be responsible.' Well, don't listen to me. Let's listen to Dr Joelle Gergis, one of Australia's most respected climate scientists, one of the lead authors on the IPCC's Sixth assessment reportthe last warning before this window that we have to act closes. These are her words:

There are corporate interests that are willing to sacrifice our planetary life-support system to keep the fossil fuel industry alive for as long as humanly possible, using unproven technology. Carbon capture and storage, known as CCS, is based on the idea that you can extract carbon dioxide from the smokestacks of coal plants or steel factories, compress it, transport it and then inject it back underground, where, in theory, it will remain forever. And that's assuming you can find the right geologic conditions that are stable enough over millennia so that carbon doesn't leak out and back into the atmosphere.

The problem is not only that the technology is enormously expensive, but that despite over twenty years of research, it is still unproven to work at the scale required to substantially reduce emissions.

According to the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute there are 27 operational CCS facilities globally, predominantly in the United States, jointly able to capture 36.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. For context, the world emitted 39.4 billion, with a 'b', tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2021. That is roughly 1,000 times greater than what's possible to capture with current CCS technology. Put another way, CCS plants can only offset around 0.1 per cent of global carbon emissions each year.

To reach net zero emissions by 2050, scientists calculate that carbon dioxide needs to climb by approximately 1.4 billion tonnes each year. Industry groups estimate that between 655 billion and 1.28 trillion is required to make this a reality. Aside from the trillion-dollar price tag, it's critical to realise that CCS projects take around 10 years to progress through concept, feasibility, design and construction phases before becoming operational—time that we simply don't have.

Dr Gergis goes on to say:

Relying on technology that is not ready to be deployed on the scale needed to immediately and drastically address the emergency we face is at best reckless, and at worst an intergenerational crime. It also delays facing the reality that we must stop burning fossil fuels—we need to take serious action and not rely on unproven technology to save the day. As people in climate justice circles like to say, "delay is the new denial." We need to turn the tap off new carbon emissions and start mopping up the damage.

Minister, don't take it from me. Is the government, by trying to get this legislation through, being at best reckless and at worst committing an intergenerational crime?