The majority members of a Senate Committee composed of Labor and Coalition Senators have said that a Climate Trigger in Australia’s environmental laws – the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act – is not needed. The Climate Trigger was proposed by Greens Senators.

Back in 2005 Labor MP Anthiony Albanese, now Prime Minister, first proposed an amendment to the EPBC Act to insert a Climate Trigger. This was of course rejected by the Coalition government at the time. The amendment was never put forth during the Rudd-Gillard Labor Government years 2007-2013. Albanese said at the time, “the glaring gap in matters of national environmental significance is climate change. This Bill closes that gap. The climate change trigger will enable major new projects to be assessed for their climate change impact as part of any environmental assessment process and will ensure that new developments reflect best practice.“

The Greens Climate Trigger amendment would, for the first time, require the environment minister to consider the climate impact of a major development during the assessment process under Australia’s environmental laws. Currently the Minister can only consider impacts to threatened species or ecosystems. The Climate Trigger would ban developments that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2 a year and a requirement for ministerial approval for any projects that would emit between 25,000 and 100,000 tonnes of C02 annually.

The bill also proposed to set a national carbon budget – set by the Climate Change Authority – that would be ‘the total amount of greenhouse gases Australia can emit until the year 2050’. The carbon budget would be updated annually to show how much of the carbon budget remains each year.

The current proposed updates to the EPBC Act are consistent with the recommendations of the Samuel Review. The Government’s Nature Positive Plan does not propose the adoption of a climate trigger. Project proponents will however be required to publish their expected Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect) emissions and disclose ‘how their project aligns with
Australia’s national and international obligations to reduce emissions’. Scope 3 emissions when fossil fuels are burnt are not considered.

The Safeguard Mechanism places legislated emissions limits (baselines) on facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year, which encourages facilities to manage their emissions. It covers new and existing projects. The Climate Trigger would only apply to new projects.

One of the submissions to the committee was from Professor Penny Sackett, a former Chief Scientist for Australia, who outlined that a climate trigger would:

• provide a direct means of implementing legislation to achieve the objects of the EPBC Act for ‘what is likely the greatest single threat to the Australian environment, namely climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions’;
• complement other Commonwealth legislation, including the Climate Change Act 2022 and the reformed Safeguard Mechanism;
• provide a means to limit or disallow large, new additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions; and
• use the existing Climate Change Authority to provide advice on a national carbon budget, aligning with its role under the Climate Change Act 2022.

The report highlighted that Engineers Australia in their submission, contended that the bill covers a gap ‘by specifying a liable emissions threshold that is not only harmonised with NGERs [National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme]…but would capture an expected significant number of projects that the SGM [Safeguard Mechanism] currently does not’

Committee Decision

2.57 The Safeguard Mechanism reforms, which are now the primary legislative mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia’s industrial sector, including new entrants, in combination with the greater transparency that will be delivered through the EPBC Act reforms, make the climate trigger bill largely unnecessary.

Recommendation 1
2.58 The committee recommends that the bill not be passed.

The Liberal and National members of the committee – Senator Hollie Hughes (Member), Senator Ross Cadell (Member), Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam (Chair) – issued additional 40 comments on why they opposed this bill.

The Australian Greens – Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Deputy Chair) – issued a Dissenting Report with 16 points stressing the complementarity and urgency of a climate trigger for emissions reductions.

Response from Climate Council, Australian Conservation Foundation

The Climate Council and the Australian Conservation Foundation in response are urgently calling for climate change to be a key focus in the reform of Australia’s national environment law. 

Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, said: 

“Australians get it: our national environment law should protect our precious natural places from climate change, as one of the biggest threats they face. In 2024 it makes no sense to argue otherwise when climate impacts are already being felt all around us.

“We need a national environment law that can stop dangerous, polluting projects and say yes to important renewable and clean industry projects that are done right. Putting climate change at the heart of this law is the answer.   

“We are in the crucial decade for climate action, and there’s no time to waste. The Albanese Government can deliver real improvements to the law for climate, and the Parliament needs to come together to get this done. Let’s see some real cooperation for the sake of Australia’s environment as well as our collective futures.”

Australian Conservation Foundation CEO Kelly O’Shanassy said: 

“Australia’s revamped national environment law must be up to the task of responding to the threat climate changes poses to our unique wildlife and places.

“It is critical the new national environment protection law includes a clear requirement to consider whether projects are good or bad for the climate as part of the assessment process. Given the damage climate change does to nature, it would be reckless to do otherwise.

“There is strong community and parliamentary support for the Albanese government to thoroughly embed climate change considerations into the new law. 

“Climate change is global, so no matter where in the world Australia’s coal and gas exports are burnt, they damage nature here at home, which is precisely why our environment law must consider potential climate impacts.

“Australia’s climate laws are largely irrelevant to the damage done by polluting new coal and gas projects, because most of those emissions occur overseas, but nature is damaged no matter where in the world Australia’s coal and gas is burnt.

“The government needs to stop listening to the fossil fuel industry, start listening to the Australian community and commit to work with the Parliament to close the climate gap in our national environment law.”

Albanese supported a Climate Trigger in 2005

Back on September 5, 2005, Anthony Albanese introduced a bill into parliament to address the failures in the EPBC Act: The Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Climate Change Trigger) Bill 2005 . The Howard Government failed to support this bill. Labor failed to legislate it when in power from 2007-2013. And in the last 18 months of power they have delayed changes to the EPBC act while approving 10 new or extended fossil fuel projects.

“The glaring gap in matters of national environmental significance is climate change. This bill closes that gap. The climate change trigger will enable major new projects to be assessed for their climate change impact as part of any environmental assessment process and will ensure that new developments represent best practice. The climate change trigger will apply to the establishment of any industrial plant or other facility which emits, or is likely to emit, more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent per year; or any other action, series of actions, or policies which will lead—or are likely to lead—to the emission of more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Any such action will require ministerial approval, unless the Minister for the Environment and Heritage decides that the action is not controlled under the act. If the action is approved, the minister can, under the act, attach conditions to the approval, such as the need to mitigate its greenhouse emissions.

The Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Climate Change Trigger) Bill 2005 provides that the minister must consider whether the direct or indirect emissions of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent that are likely to result from the action will be minimised by the use of best practice environmental management and low emissions technology. 

It is time to act. It is time for procrastination to end. The tragic events in New Orleans and in other southern states in the United States of America highlight exactly what can be expected from the impact of climate change. We cannot any longer afford to be complacent on this issue. We need action and one of the actions that we need, which has been acknowledged by the government for many years, is this amendment to the EPBC Act.Anthony Albanese MP, in House of Representatives 5 Sep 2005 (Hansard)

Polling: majority support for climate trigger

Polling commissioned by 350.org and Move Beyond Coal was conducted by Ucomms on the nights of Wednesday September 13 and Thursday September 14 2023 show strong support for the government to stop approving new coal and gas and for national environmental laws to take climate change into account.

The national poll was of 1641 Australian eligible voters and a poll of 801 eligible voters in the Federal electoral division of Sydney.

On national environmental laws taking climate change into account:

• More than two thirds (70%) of voters agree that Australia’s national environmental law should take climate change impacts into account, with a majority of voters (51%) strongly agreeing. Only 1 in four voters (25%) disagreed.
• Support for national environmental laws to take climate change impacts into account was highest from Labor voters (91%), slightly higher than Greens voters (90%).
• A majority (51.7%) of Liberal voters support national environmental laws taking climate change impacts into account.
• Two thirds of undecided voters (65.8%) support national environmental laws taking climate change impacts into account.
• Only 5% of Labor voters disagreed with national environmental laws taking climate change impacts into account.

On approval of new coal and gas projects:

• A majority (55%) of all voters think that Australia should stop approving new coal and gas mines.
• More than three quarters of Labor voters think that Australia should stop approving new coal and gas mines.
• Nearly a third (30%) of Liberal voters think that Australia should stop approving new coal and gas mines.
• A majority (51%) of undecided voters think that Australia should stop approving new coal and gas mines.

On consideration of how greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas projects could damage Australia’s environment:

• Nearly two thirds (64.5%) agree that greenhouse gas emissions from new coal and gas projects should have their impact on the Australia’s environment considered when the projects are assessed by the Environment Minister.
• More than two thirds of undecided voters (67.5%) agree.
• More than eight out of ten (82.8%) of Labor voters agree only slightly lower than Greens voters (84.2%).

On whether the Albanese government should be doing more to protect the environment and prevent climate change getting worse:

• A majority (61%) of all voters agreed that the Albanese government should be doing more.
• Nearly eight out of ten (78%) of Labor voters agreed that the Albanese government should be doing more.
• Nearly two thirds of undecided voters agreed that the Albanese government should be doing more.

References:

Australian Parliament, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2]. REPORT – February 2024 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/ClimateTriggerBill2022/Report

Lisa Cox, Guardian Australia, 7 February 2024, Senators reject Greens bill to insert climate trigger into environmental laws, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/07/senators-reject-greens-bill-to-insert-climate-trigger-into-environmental-laws

Australian Parliament, A Albanese 2005 bill See APH archive: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2416

Eden Gillespie, Guardian Australia, 7 February 2024, Federal government approval the final hurdle for mega Queensland coalmine https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/07/winchester-south-mine-queensland-federal-government-approval-emissions-whitehaven

ACF, 8 February 2024, Protecting nature from climate change must be Parliament’s top priority for 2024 https://www.acf.org.au/protecting-nature-from-climate-change-must-be-parliaments-top-priority-for-2024

Ucomms Commissioned national polling, 21 Sep 2023, https://www.movebeyondcoal.com/polling_summary

Lead image by Leo Bild, CC BY-NC 2.0 DEED. https://www.flickr.com/photos/13960818@N07/52326149459/