Senator MILNE (Tasmania-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:45): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Can the minister inform the Senate whether coal seam gas extracted in Australia is less greenhouse gas intensive than black coal on a life cycle analysis basis and, if so, by what percentage?
Senator WONG (South Australia-Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:46): It is the case, through you Mr President, that gas is generally lower in emissions than coal. It has been some time since I looked at the figures so I do not want to make a guess here in the chamber. In terms of a question about whole-of-life cycle and so forth I am not in a position to provide any information on that at this point, but I will see if I can provide some further information on that. I will say that in a number of countries where there have been carbon price or equivalent carbon price policies gas has been a transition field. The senator would know that because, in general, gas is less emissions intensive than coal fired power. From recollection, for example, in the United Kingdom gas is the transitional baseload power fuel.
Obviously we are a government that is investing very substantially in renewable energy. The first aspect of that has been the government's Renewable Energy Target scheme which has previously been through this chamber, I think, on two occasions, increasing the amount of renewable energy in the market to 20 per cent. The senator would also know the range of investments in renewable energy that the government has proposed as part of the Clean Energy Future package in which she and other members of parliament were involved.
Senator MILNE (Tasmania-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:47): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank for the minister for her answer and acknowledge that she indicated her remarks were probably on the basis of the megawatts at the point at which the burning takes place and not a life cycle analysis. I ask her further: has the Department of Climate Change conducted or commissioned any independent analysis of the greenhouse gas intensity of coal seam gas produced in Australia or is the government relying on industry studies from here and from overseas to form its view?
Senator WONG (South Australia-Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:48): I do not know what studies have been undertaken in relation to that issue by the Department of Climate Change so I will take that part of the question on notice and see if I can provide further information. I would say this, Mr President:-and I know some of the senator's views on these issues, which are on the public record-this government does see LNG as a critical industry for Australia. The government does see LNG as a cleaner burning fuel and an essential part of the global solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This government does see the importance of this industry providing jobs and opportunities in regional Australia. So on this issue I suspect, from the tenor of the questions, Mr President, that Senator Milne and the government do have a different view about the importance of this industry and our support for the industry. Having said that we recognise this is an issue that the senator has some concerns about and I will certainly seek information. (Time expired)
Senator MILNE (Tasmania-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:49): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the minister has undertaken to get some more information, would she please get information on whether the government is relying on studies from industry alone, here and overseas, and whether those studies have taken into account not only the fugitive emissions from leaking wells and pipes but the energy input from reverse osmosis of the billions of litres of produced water and also the energy embodied in liquefication and transport here and overseas?
Senator WONG (South Australia-Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:50): I will take the detail of that question on notice, Mr President, and come back to the senator on those issues.
--------------------------
Senator MILNE (Tasmania-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:52): I rise to respond to an answer the minister gave in relation to coal seam gas. I find what is going on in Australia about coal seam gas quite fascinating because there is an assumption, which keeps getting trotted out all over the place, that coal seam gas is cleaner than coal as an energy source and, therefore, we should embrace massive expansion of coal seam gas.
When I asked the minister today whether she could tell the Senate whether coal seam gas extracted in Australia is less greenhouse gas intensive than black coal on a life cycle analysis, she could not answer the question. That is because the work has not been done here in Australia on the greenhouse gas intensity of coal seam gas on life cycle analysis. It is about time that it was. I am one of those people who have said strongly that gas internationally has to be seen at the maximum as a bridging fuel. But in Australia, we need to move straight to renewables and people looking at gas need to see it as an interim measure and not as a long term investment. Tragically in Australia, because certain companies see the profits that they think they can get from coal seam gas, they have completely overrun rural communities who are outraged at what has been going on, not to mention the medical fraternity who are out there very strongly warning of the health impacts of coal seam gas.
The Greens will move to bring in legislation which will give farmers the right to say: 'No, you cannot come on to the property to extract coal seam gas.' I will be very interested to see what the coalition does. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has got into quite a bit of a pickle on this because at one minute he says that he thinks farmers should say no and then he has spent the last 24 hours back-peddling and trying to dig himself some place to hide from that issue. We need to have Australian studies on the greenhouse gas intensity of coal seam gas from whoa to go, including fugitive emissions from the areas where these gas wells are being drilled and fugitive emissions from not only those leaking wells but also the pipes. We need to have the energy input analysed from the reverse osmosis of the billions of litres of produced water. We also need to look at the energy embodied in the transport of the gas to the liquefication facilities, the liquefication itself and the transport overseas with exports.
Once you start looking at the greenhouse gas emissions and intensity of all that, you will find that all these people who claim that coal seam gas is cleaner than coal are in fact wildly exaggerating any benefits. When you take away the disbenefit of loss of agricultural production you will show that coal seam gas is not the great investment that so many people claim that it is.
It is time we took food security and water seriously. I have argued in here until I am blue in the face that you cannot deal with these issues separately. You need to look at the water crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis and the climate crisis all at once and not take actions that lead to perverse outcomes if you deal with only one of those and not the rest at the same time. Farming communities across Australia are quite rightly saying they are under enormous pressure. They are under pressure from the dollar; they are losing land to the expansion of urban areas. They are losing because they cannot make a decent farm gate price anymore because of the impact of the supermarkets in Australia and competition from imported food, which is coming into this country having been grown under different environmental conditions and lower wages elsewhere. They are under pressure all over the place. Now they find that the gas industry is marching onto their properties with no consideration, no consultation in many cases and completely disrupting life on their land-not to mention the impacts on the Great Artesian Basin. We still cannot get an answer from the government or anybody else on the impacts of this massive expansion of coal seam gas on water availability in Australia and the Great Artesian Basin.
I am glad the minister is going to come back because we want to know on what basis these claims are being made. Are the claims being made just on the basis of industry or have there been any independent reports? Are these reports based in Australia or overseas? I would not mind betting that most of them will come from companies that have done some sort of studies elsewhere. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
