On Tuesday, Greens leader Adam Bandt challenged the government to ban new fossil fuel projects and Anthony Albanese gave a speech affirming the future role of gas in Australia’s economy.
That could be an insight into how negotiations between Labor and the Greens on critical climate legislation have been faring this week before a possible showdown in the upper house.
The Coalition has made it necessary they get along for the bill to pass; it will vote against the legislation that would, essentially, enforce a policy for cutting emissions it designed while in government.
The Greens have said a deal to ban new coal and gas mines is the only way they would pass a policy they say is weak and contains loopholes unless it is amended.
“A message to the Greens and others that for all of the rhetoric, if it doesn’t stack up, if it has a negative impact, then you’re not actually helping,” Mr Albanese told the AFR’s business summit in Sydney.
“[Businesses] want to move towards renewables and to power them, but they need the firming capacity of gas.”
Irreconcilable difference?
So, does Australia need to allow new gas exploration just as it is committing to a 43 per cent reduction in fossil fuel emissions by 2030?
That depends, says Tony Wood, the director of energy policy at the Grattan Institute, a non-partisan think tank.
In theory, the nation could keep functioning without new projects but it would require the government to tear up contracts worth tens of billions of dollars (as Indonesia did briefly last year).
“[Anthony] Albanese is not going to have that conversation with the Japanese Prime Minister,” Mr Wood said.
“The reality is that whilst we have to get off gas, it’s one of those St Augustine things, I suppose – ‘not quite yet’.”
In between are potential areas for compromise, without which the Greens and key independent Senator David Pocock say they cannot support the bill.
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young criticised the government for not releasing the calculations underpinning the “safeguard” policy which aims to make big polluters reduce their emissions by 5 per cent a year or face financial penalties.
“If the government is asking for us to pass the [bill…] they are going to have to provide this information,” she said, on Tuesday afternoon.
Soon after the Senate agreed to force the government to disclose that modelling, after it declined to provide it to a parliamentary inquiry.
Senator Pocock has also expressed concern about the policy’s reliance on “carbon offsets”, which could allow for some pollution to be written off on the condition that a company pays for a corresponding measure to reduce emissions elsewhere.
Some experts have alleged that many offsets have been a sham, but the system was recently reviewed by former chief scientist Ian Chubb, who made recommendations for reforms.
‘Crazy’ secrecy
Modelling by the Climate Council has suggested that emissions from 16 new coal and gas developments would account for about 25 per cent of all the pollution the ‘safeguard mechanism’ hopes to reduce.
They warn that new fossil fuel projects could blow the chances of the government achieving the target or require existing companies to reduce their emissions much faster.
“Ultimately, the government has to justify why it wants to keep opening new coal and gas,” Mr Bandt said.
Gas projects for the export market would not be counted as Australia’s emissions, but the government’s claim that it can still hit its pollution reduction target while approving them is not based on numbers that can be tested.
“The answer was, ‘Yes, we’ve done the numbers’,” Mr Wood said. “But they’re cabinet in confidence. That’s crazy.”
He says the test the government uses when deciding on new projects should be made more rigorous – and transparent.
The government should also demonstrate its commitment to renewables by ensuring that a government fund to help companies reduce emissions goes to those with a place in a future renewable economy – and not miners.
“But otherwise, the safeguard mechanism is right now the only game in town really – and it’s important,” Mr Wood said.
“There should be some compromise, but … in our view, overall, it should be able to be passed because it’s important.”
The bill will be debated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday.
