The bill proposes to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to introduce a 'climate trigger' for assessing emissions-intensive activities. This aims to ensure that such activities are scrutinized for their environmental impact in line with Australia's climate obligations.
The bill affects the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 by establishing a new class of controlled actions related to greenhouse gas emissions. It introduces two thresholds: a 'Significant Impact on Emissions' for projects emitting between 25,000 to 100,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually, which requires detailed assessment by the Minister, and a 'Prohibited Impact on Emissions' for projects exceeding 100,000 tonnes, which are to be automatically rejected. Additionally, the bill mandates the Climate Change Authority to develop and annually assess a national carbon budget to 2050, against which projects must be evaluated. It prohibits the Minister from using alternative approval processes for actions with significant emissions impacts, ensuring they are assessed under specified parts of the EPBC Act.
Normative Bases- Environmentalism
- Utilitarian Ground Truth
The bill is crucial for closing the policy gap in the EPBC Act by recognizing emissions-intensive activities as matters of national environmental significance. By introducing a climate trigger, the bill ensures that Australia's environmental assessment processes align with its international climate commitments, contributing positively to global efforts to combat climate change [Judgment]. The establishment of a national carbon budget also provides a clear framework for assessing projects' impacts on climate goals, promoting sustainable development [Judgment].
Normative Bases- Propertarianism
- Hobbesianism
Critics of the bill may argue that it imposes excessive regulatory burdens on businesses, particularly in emissions-intensive industries, potentially stifling economic growth and innovation. The thresholds for emissions could limit the development of essential infrastructure and resource projects, which are vital for economic stability [Judgment]. Additionally, the prohibition of alternative approval processes could reduce the flexibility needed for nuanced decision-making in complex environmental and economic contexts [Judgment].
Sponsor:
HANSON-YOUNG, Sen Sarah
Categories:
Climate Change / Environment, Energy Policy, National Security
To rate this bill, and see what other users think, please sign up or log in.