|
senate vote 2009-11-26#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-24 12:38:40
|
Title
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Cprs Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Cprs Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2] — In Committee- Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills — In Committee
Description
<p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>I am ready to move Australian Greens amendments (2) and (3) and I seek leave to move them together. But I do note that the Minister for Climate Change and Water had said—possibly prior to you coming to the chair, Mr Temporary Chairman Bishop—that she wished to take a few moments to respond to some matters that were raised last night. We had an informal agreement in the chamber that, before we move to discussion on my next amendments, the minister would respond to some of those matters.</p><p>Leave granted.</p>- <p class="speaker">Julian McGauran</p>
- <p>In full cooperation with the minister, the question is: given the meaningless environmental effect that this scheme will have and the thousands of jobs that we are told will be lost, why does the minister not wait until the rest of the world is on board?</p>
- <p class="speaker">Claire Moore</p>
- <p> The question is that Greens amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 5786 be agreed to.</p>
- <p>Question put.</p>
-
<p>by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 5786:</p><p class="italic">(2)    Clause 3, page 3 (lines 13 to 25), omit paragraphs (4)(a) and (b), substitute:</p><p class="italic">             (a)    to take action directed towards meeting Australia’s target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to at least 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020; and</p><p class="italic">(3)    Clause 3, page 3 (line 26), omit “or (b)”.</p><p>I will now hand back to the minister to inform the Senate of the responses that she wanted to make.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I thank Senator Milne for that indication. We did have a discussion last night about the way in which bushfires—I think I described them as ‘extreme’ or ‘catastrophic’ bushfires—were reported. I can advise the Senate that Australia currently only reports its non-carbon dioxide emissions, such as nitrous oxide, for bushfires. That is regardless of size or source. That is as a result of the non-election we have made under article 3.4 of the Kyoto protocol in relation to land management activities. One of the reasons Australia did not elect to count land management was the problem of wildly fluctuating emissions due to catastrophic bushfire events.</p><p>In relation to the international negotiations, Australia is seeking a solution in the post-2012 international agreement to the issue of massive instantaneous emissions of CO2 from catastrophic bushfires. The same quantity of CO2 is later removed from the atmosphere as the forest regrows over a period of years. The issue is the fluctuation of emissions in a short time frame from such bushfires.</p><p>I have a long note here, and I am just trying to work out which parts of it Senator Milne may need. Australia and many other countries are developing an approach in the negotiations for a post-2012 international climate agreement that, for catastrophic fire events, those emissions would not count against the emissions target but nor would the country have the benefits from carbon removals in the burned areas in following years as the forest regrows. Under this approach, Australia will transparently report locations of burned areas and the emissions associated with the fires, even though the emissions would not count against the target.</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>Lasts night we were talking about the fact that Australia had not elected in the first commitment period to be part of article 3.4 activities, predominantly because of drought, fires et cetera. I was asking whether, in the negotiations on the post 2012 or a second commitment, it was true that Australia was pushing to have the bushfires, catastrophic events, or natural disturbances—which, in the Australian context, would mainly be droughts and fires—excluded so that Australia might be able to sign on to a land use change in forestry set of provisions.</p><p>My concern about what the minister has just said is that Australia’s position seems to be, or is being said to be: ‘Let’s account for what the atmosphere sees’—the emissions that are actually going into the atmosphere. I accept that, if you had an unlimited period of time and a fire that burns this year and puts a huge amount of emissions into the atmosphere, then, over the next hundred years, the forest may well recover and—you could mount an argument—take up, over time, that same volume of carbon dioxide with regrowth. The problem I have with this is the quantum and the time frame.</p><p>In the case of the Victorian fires, my understanding is that in the order of 190 megatons—some extraordinary amount—went into the atmosphere. We do not have a time frame of another hundred years to allow that to be neutralised, so, if it is not counted, it is actually a deceit because you are putting all that carbon into the atmosphere and we do not have a huge length of time to take it out again. Unless it is accounted for, we will actually be pushing the climate over the tipping point by front-loading the atmosphere. What I am trying to understand is: how would the emissions from fires be accounted for in the time frames if the IPCC is right in saying that global emissions have to peak and come down by 2015? I have lately heard people saying, ‘Well, let’s take that out to 2020.’ I do not accept that, but it is the next decade anyway. How would you account for those emissions from fires?</p><p>Secondly, this is about taking out natural disturbance, and my point is—and I will speak in the Tasmanian context because it is the one that I know best—that the majority of fires in Tasmania are deliberately lit, so these are not natural disturbances. These are anthropogenic fires caused by arsonists going out and lighting the bush. In particular, just two years ago we had the Tarkine burn as a result of somebody in a four-wheel-drive leaving the Tarkine Road, lighting the Tarkine in order to draw attention to himself and letting the whole place go up. That is not a natural disturbance. I am interested to know how you intend to handle this issue and how you can justify not reporting in the accounts a catastrophic event, whether it is drought or fire, given that you have a global carbon budget which cannot wait, which is not generous enough to be able to wait for the uptake over the 100 years to neutralise the extreme event.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Senator, this is obviously quite a technical area and I am happy to provide an answer now and also happy, if you are interested, to arrange a briefing for you on this issue. I can give you my understanding based on the advice I have been given. The difficulty is the very high spike in a short time period—days or months, for example, but within one accounting year. How do you deal with the very high spike that a catastrophic bushfire would impose, given that it may be a very high percentage of your inventory if you were to include it? As I understand it from the officials, what is being suggested—and one of the things under discussion is the threshold—is to recognise a threshold above which you would not account for the emissions, but, because you want to preserve the integrity of the accounting of the effect on the atmosphere, you also would not be able to include in the accounting the subsequent sequestration as the forest regrows for a period of time.</p><p>So the intent is not an accounting trick. The intent is to deal with a particular accounting issue which has, I think, operated as a disincentive for a number of countries to include land management activities within their inventory, but to do so in a way that reflects the net effect on the atmosphere. That is how I have understood it. I asked the official just now what the threshold would be and I understand that is a matter under discussion.</p> <p class="speaker">Guy Barnett</p><p>I wanted to seek some clarification on these bushfire issues. I know we touched on it last night—Senator Joyce, Senator Milne and others. It seems, Minister, that you have advised the Senate that you will be seeking a solution post-2012, so that means that we do not know exactly what the position will be post-2012. You have advised that natural catastrophic events—for example, drought and fire in Australia’s case—will not be counted. Looking at the history of, say, the last decade, can you, based on this new approach, indicate the net benefit or adverse effect on the environment from catastrophic events and associated regeneration et cetera? You obviously have to distinguish between man-made bushfires—Senator Joyce, I think, was talking about dropping a cigarette and causing a fire—and a lightning strike. How you actually differentiate between the two is an accounting dilemma under this new system and, for the life of me, I cannot see exactly how it is going to work.</p><p>I am advised that the Victorian bushfires last year generated in the order of 15 to 20 per cent of Australia’s annual emissions. That is a huge proportion of Australia’s annual emissions, from just the one devastating bushfire in Victoria. As a Tasmanian, I know about bushfires and all of us here are concerned about, and aware of, bushfires in our own states and territories. Using the Victorian bushfires as an example, to what extent was that man-made and to what extent was it due to natural causes and a catastrophic event? Could you perhaps use that as an example and advise the Senate of the portion that would be considered man-made and the portion that would be natural? That would give us an indication of how this scheme would work in the future, because, frankly, we are up in the air. We are in a ‘don’t know’ zone post-2012.</p><p>Unless these things can be clarified, those questions will remain. I leave that for the minister and hope she can assist. She did not have the expert with her last night, but presumably the expert is here now and can assist in answering those questions.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>From what I understand from your answer, bushfires do not count because of regeneration—therefore you are saying that, even though it would take about 100 years to replace the carbon, it is not an issue. But if the Victorian bushfires were about 20 per cent of our nation’s carbon emissions—and that is equivalent to four years of what our target is if we want a five per cent reduction—you are saying that four years of the pain that the nation is going to go through is equivalent to one bushfire, yet that bushfire does not matter.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Of course the bushfires matter, Senator Joyce. Any bushfire matters. This is about accounting mechanisms for the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol or whatever arrangement is put in place by the international community. Of course we all want to ensure that there are policies in place to minimise the likelihood of bushfires. This is simply a technical issue about the accounting framework which currently applies and which, for example, organisations such as the National Farmers’ Federation—and I know that your position and their position differs, Senator Joyce—</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>I’m elected; they’re not.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>No, but they represent a lot of farmers and they have a view that farmers do want to be part of the solution on climate change. Some of these accounting issues are issues which affect the capacity of landholders to be part of that solution. I do not know whether there is anything further I have to add on this issue.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>Just so we get it clear: after this scheme goes ahead—we had a bushfire at our place the other day at Danglemah—and if I was of evil intent and I threw a match and burnt out half of northern New South Wales, at this point in time that would not be taken into account as far as the carbon accounting system goes.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>One of the things we have been lobbied about by the National Farmers’ Federation, for example—</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>I just want to know if that is fact or not.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I do not know if he is intending to ask questions by interjection for the whole evening.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Bishop</p><p> Minister, Senator Joyce has asked a question and you are part way through responding. Please ignore his interjections.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I will try and ignore the interjections. One of the things we have been lobbied about is the inclusion, for example, the capacity for farmers to gain credits through soil carbon or biochar or other such mechanisms. To get that benefit these are some of the accounting issues we need to resolve. So the government is trying to work to ensure that we have the ability to enable Australian farmers, in the years to come, to be part of the solution on climate change—which is as I and others in this government have been lobbied on.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>What I garner from your answer is that at this point in time we do not have a position on bushfires, regardless of how they start. But you did mention something about biochar in there. Is there some relationship between biochar and bushfires? Is there some connection there? Maybe not. The answer I got from that is that we do not have a position, therefore all I can gain from that, and all the Australian people can gain from that, is that if you throw a match and burn out half the countryside, a major bushfire could emit up to four times the annual return of what you wish to reduce carbon by. That is not of some consequence in our mechanism of reaching a global target, which I find amazing. So I just want to go back to what our global target is while you have the carbon accounting people there. By how much will Australia’s carbon pollution reduction scheme reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|