[Theme music starts]

ANGE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am.

What if solving the climate crisis was as easy as dumping and burying our carbon emissions in the ocean? Capturing carbon and storing it under the seabed is an idea that the Labor government is trying to legislate in Parliament - and they’ll likely have enough support to get it up. If it seems like it’s too good to be true - climate experts say that’s because it is.

Today, contributor to The Saturday Paper Ben Abbatangelo, on why Australia is betting our climate future on something on a plan that’s unlikely to work.

It’s Monday August 14.

[Theme music ends]

ANGE:

Ben, last week Australian doctors travelled to Canberra to warn the Government about climate change. But specifically what were they worried about and why did they feel the need to take their concerns to Parliament House?

BEN:

So there was a coalition of paediatricians and doctors that converged on Canberra from around the country…

Archival Tape – Protestors chanting:

“No new gas! No new gas! No new gas!”

BEN:

…and the paediatrician leading that was from the Northern Territory…

Archival Tape – Louise Woodward:

“My name is Louise Woodward. I'm a paediatrician and a mother, I come here from the Northern Territory.”

BEN:

…to meet with government ministers and hold a protest at the front of Parliament House…

Archival Tape – Louise Woodward:

“…to raise the alarm about the serious health impacts of the gas projects proposed for Darwin and the Beetaloo region.”

BEN:

…to let the Government know that this proposal is diabolic and will increase the risk of pollution, of cancer, of neurological disease and illness and that it needs to be scrapped. Now if we zoom out, the Northern Territory is being positioned as a sacrifice zone. Not only is it being slated for the status quo of gas expansion and development, but also importantly the Northern Territory is where a lot of the critical minerals are held for the transition to electrification. Now the key to unlocking all of this is Middle Arm, which is a petrochemicals plant. And it's within the pristine Darwin harbour close to neighbourhoods. And you know, really importantly as well, it's backed by the Government who has thrown $1.5 billion towards the project.

ANGE:

Right. And this facility, Ben, what will it do exactly? Why has it become such a significant sticking point between environmentalists and the government?

BEN:

So the Middle Arm petrochemical plant, there's two major tenants to that development. The first one is the Tamboran resources company, which is going to be fracking the Beetaloo Basin, and the second major tenant of that big infrastructure development is Santos, who is looking to exploit the Barossa gas field off the coast of Darwin. And really importantly with that gas field as well, it's one of the dirtiest gas fields in the world. It is something that is being fiercely opposed by Tiwi traditional owners because Santos not only wants to pollute their sea country, but also run pipelines, you know, through, you know, their sea country, which holds their songlines, which holds their law, which holds the ceremonies of yesteryear so they’re proposals that are vehemently opposed by traditional owners and medical professionals. What's really important for all of this is that these developments have to prove that they are going to be net zero from day one. So what is enabling Santos to go ahead and also other developments around the world is this thing called carbon capture and storage, which is where gas companies capture the pollution from their reservoirs.So the idea of carbon capture is that companies can, instead of enabling their emissions to spew out into the atmosphere, they can instead catch it and look to store it in what they say is a relatively safe way.

ANGE:

What do experts or climate scientists say about carbon capture and storage? How do they view its efficacy or potential in helping the environment?

BEN:

Carbon capture and storage has been around for decades, and as Ketan Joshi, who is a climate and energy analyst, had said to me that it's a rhetorical tool that's used to justify a fossil fuel expansion. Of all of the projects that carbon capture and storage has been used around the world. None of them have operated at 100%. To quote Polly Hemming from The Australia Institute, Santos is more likely to put carbon dioxide on the moon. I mean, the degree of difficulty for this project is extreme. I mean, they're saying that they want to pump carbon hundreds of kilometres from its Barossa gas field into the Middle Arm precinct, which has yet to be built. And then they're saying that they want to lay 500 kilometres, almost 500 kilometres of pipelines towards Timor-Leste waters and then store the carbon in Timor-Leste sea. So the degree of difficulty is extraordinary. You know, the Timor-Leste waters are, you know, geologically fragile, difficult, wild. And you know, Santos is effectively saying they're going to do something that has never been done and the government is taking that on face value and, you know, treating it with a degree of sincerity that it just doesn't deserve. And I suppose one of the other major things with it as well, right, is that even if carbon capture and storage operated at 100%, it doesn't change the emissions profile whatsoever. So to explain that, really simply to capture 1 million tonnes of carbon, it requires the use of 1 million tonnes of carbon. At its best it creates no difference. But if it fails, it actually increases the overall emissions profile for these developments.

ANGE:

So Ben, what makes this project different and so important to the gas industry across the Northern Territory?

BEN:

The guts of this story is not just about gas expansion, but really importantly, how Tanya Plibersek is introducing a very niche deep sea dumping bill which only impacts one company, and that company is Santos.

Archival Tape – Speaker

“I think I'll call the honourable member for Sydney.”

Archival Tape – Tanya Plibersek:

“And thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker. I want to thank all of the members who have spoken on this bill during this debate. It's been very strong interest in the bill, particularly from the crossbench and I do want to make specific mention of their genuine concern for our environment.”

BEN:

You know, everyone that I've spoken to is expecting it to pass through the Senate.

Archival Tape – Zoe Daniels:

“Look at what the government is doing, not what it's saying. Or if you do look at what the government is saying, consider the doublespeak that's going on. And unfortunately, this sea dumping legislation with its gimmicky and misleading subtitle 'Using new technologies to fight climate change' is a case in point.”

Archival Tape – Helen Haines:

“The short title of the bill is “Using new technologies to fight climate change”, but I have genuine concerns that these new technologies proposed will do more harm than good for our climate and our environment.”

Archival Tape – Monique Ryan:

“Put simply, this bill is a key enabler of the gas industry's plans to significantly expand Australia's engagement with carbon capture and storage in Australia and its import and export of CO2 across international borders.”

BEN:

Now what it enables companies to do and the only company that's proposing to do this is Santos, but it enables them to not only capture their carbon, but importantly export it across international borders into foreign countries’ waters. So what Santos and the federal government are looking to do is to shift the responsibility of our emissions profile onto Timor-Leste. And what that means and how they want to do that, I suppose, is fill the Bayu-Undan gas field, which is a depleted gas field in the seas of Timor-Leste. But they want to fill that site with carbon over the course of the next decade and essentially shift the responsibility away from Australia's jurisdiction and onto the Timorese.

ANGE:

After the break - How Australia is planning to make our emissions, someone else’s problem.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

ANGE:

Ben, you mentioned this idea of captured carbon to end up in the Timor Sea. Does Australia even have the right to dump our carbon problem into that area? And what is the opposition from Timor-Leste about that?

BEN:

Well, the thing with Timor-Leste is that it has experienced gross exploitation over the years and we're all really familiar with, you know, those failed maritime negotiations back in the early 2000 when the Australian government instituted what was a clandestine operation in bugging Timorese officials to gain the upper hand in those negotiations.

Archival Tape – Reporter 1:

“East Timor has alleged that in 2004, Australia's Secret Intelligence service bugged the Timorese cabinet room in Dili. East Timor's lawyer says that was illegal.”

Archival Tape – Reporter 2:

“Advocates for Timor-Leste say the bugging swung the final deal in Australia's favour.”

BEN:

Off the back of that, Australia was able to exploit upwards of 5 billion USD into Australian coffers and into the pockets of shareholders of Australian gas companies, and that money should have landed in Timor-Leste's budgets. So to paint some context on that, the Timor-Leste general state budget of last year was only $1.95 billion. So because of this duress that Timor-Leste is in, the Australian government and companies like Santos are saying, well, if you proceed with carbon capture storage, you're set to reap economic benefits from that. So we know that when there is extreme power imbalances, that bad deals are brokered. And I suppose, you know, in my research and in the conversations that I've had, this arrangement with Timor-Leste that Santos and the Commonwealth Government are looking to broker is a continuation of that exploitation of yesteryears.

ANGE:

And so if this bill passes, if Santos gets its way and does start storing carbon in the Timor sea. What does that mean for Australia’s emissions future, what are we going to see if this is successful?

BEN:

Santos is absolutely the direct beneficiary of this deep sea dumping bill, but also really importantly as well, if Santos begins production, if they are enabled to complete the pipelines that need to be laid, there are other companies that are set to reap the rewards. So waiting in the wings alongside Santos, is the Italian multinational energy company, ENI, which controls the Evans Shoal gas field. Now the Evans Shale gas field is being labelled a carbon bomb with the 27% carbon dioxide profile. That makes Santos Barossa project, which has an 18% carbon dioxide profile, look clean. So without Santos infrastructure going ahead, the viability of ENI producing gas is thrown into extreme jeopardy. So it speaks to and, you know, and further emphasises just how important this deep sea dumping bill is to unlocking this new kingdom of gas exploration. I mean, I spoke to Polly Hemming and she was adamant that, you know, there's no meaningful consequence that ensures, you know, that that forces or regulates companies to do the right thing. And, you know, it's a really bleak picture for the Northern Territory. It's a really bleak picture for those that are longing for a restored planet. The planet is burning. You know, we are in the midst of extreme ecological collapse and these developments lock Australia in and these gas companies in for decades of potential gas exploitation and exploration.

ANGE:

Ben, thanks so much for your time today.

BEN:

Thank you.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

[Theme music starts]

ANGE:

Also in the news today…

National party leader David Littleproud has become the first leader of a political party in Australia to oppose a public holiday in the event the Matildas win the world cup. Littleproud said on ABC’s Insiders program that he didn’t want to be, quote “captain killjoy” unquote, but that he was against it.

And…

At least 80 people have died in wildfires that swept across the Hawaiian island of Maui, with at least 1,000 still missing. The fire is the deadliest in the US since the 2018 Californian fires and damage is already estimated at 5.2 billion dollars.

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack, we’ll be back tomorrow.

[Theme music ends]