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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4435 ..

our current rate and replanting the offset emissions is not a sustainable solution. In fact, if we continue down this path, we will simply run out of land.

The other sequestration methods are not yet technically proven. There are questions about whether they will prove safe and stable. The only defensible approach that we can take is to move towards full utilisation of renewable energy. I appreciate that having a scheme that is at slight variance with New South Wales may create additional administrative roles for the ACT. The ICRC would clearly be unable to take on a larger role without more resources. However, considering the grave ecological impacts of climate change and the benefit of being able to set higher benchmarks, I think it is worth the cost.

MS TUCKER (11.09): Just to clarify on the carbon sequestration—I did say this but people probably were not listening—I referred to a cap—

MR SPEAKER: Oh yes we were.

MS TUCKER: If you do not want me to keep repeating it, you should listen. We did consider a weighting. It is about rewarding industry for investing in renewables. Tree plantations should not be given equivalent status to clean technology. I made the point that, at this time—because obviously there could not be compatibility with the weighting—we are saying to remove the sequestration because the investment in the renewable energy will create a better solution by far. As I have already said, it is not about cleaning up the mess; it is about preventing it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 23A.

MS TUCKER (11.10): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name, which inserts a new clause 23A [see schedule 9 at page 4474].

This is about geosequestration. We know that that involves the capture and separation of carbon dioxide produced by the fossil fuel industry, the conversion of the CO2 into liquid form and an injection of the resultant liquid underground on land or at sea. For some time concerns have been raised about geosequestration.

In July 2004, an alliance of 30 environment, public health, social justice and research organisations involved in Climate Action Network Australia released a joint policy expressing their significant concerns around geosequestration. CANA and other groups point to the significant environmental, social and economic risks involved in geosequestration, including the risks to public health should leakage occur up to at least 100,000 years after storage, and the significant risks of geosequestration to subterranean biodiversity and water supplies.

I am aware that New South Wales is still developing its conditions and legal instruments around tree plantations to ensure that any carbon sequestered through that mechanism is valid by requiring evidence of 100 years of abatement. It has understandably taken some

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