Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4432 ..

Suspension of standing order 76

Motion (by Mr Hargreaves) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:

That standing order 76 be suspended for the remainder of the sitting.

Question put:

That Ms Tucker’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 to 22, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 23.

MS TUCKER (10.58): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name, which inserts a new clause 23A [see schedule 9 at page 4474]

Mr Speaker, you will be very interested to know that there is ample evidence to demonstrate that carbon sequestration, through tree planting activities, and geosequestration—or burying greenhouse pollution underwater or underground—are much less secure abatement activities than the alternatives proposed in this bill. They are less secure and they carry with them a range of significant environmental, social and economic risks. They also raise the principle of intergenerational equity by passing on the responsibility of managing our greenhouse emissions to future generations—in the case of tree planting for 100 years, and in the case of geosequestration for up to 100,000 years.

Concerns around carbon sequestration by means of tree planting have been raised by a range of organisations, including the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Concerns include uncertainty around the protection of the plantations from changed ownership or land use, or destruction by bushfire, pest or disease, and concerns around

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .