A letter to the Natural Resources Minister on Land Clearing

The Honourable Andrew Cripps

Minister for Natural Resource Management

cc: The Premier and the Member for Brisbane Central and VM Enquiries

Dear Minister Cripps,

Twenty-seven academics from universities across Queensland with expertise in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development are urging Premier Campbell Newman to reconsider proposed changes to the Vegetation Management Act.

The scientists are expressing grave concerns about the future impacts of proposed changes to Queensland’s Vegetation Management Act and theWater Act. There are warnings of devastating habitat and species loss if changes to the state’s land clearing laws go ahead.

The concerned scientists believe amendments will include allowing a new category of broad scale native vegetation clearing and remove the protections which previously prevented clearing of mature regrowth of threatened plant communities and of vegetation along many watercourses.

I understand that you are assuring Queenslanders that the package of reforms will maintain key environmental protections such as buffer zones along creeks and rivers in sensitive reef areas.

My concerns about the changes to Vegetation Management include:

·       Land clearing is the greatest current threat to Australia’s biodiversity,

·       Vegetation loss is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions,

·       degradation and reduced water quality in waterways and estuaries,

·       dryland salinity and

·       lost ecosystems.

I realise the changes the Qld Government are proposing to make to vegetation management laws are intended to support growth in agricultural production, provide jobs and boost regional economies. However, restoration of lost ecosystems can cost more than $20,000 per hectare. Avoiding the loss of ecosystems in the first place is far more cost-effective.

The World Wide Fund have produced a report that provides the first estimates of environmental values potentially placed at-risk of renewed clearing due to the proposed changes to land clearing legislation in Queensland.

I would appreciate a response to my concerns and those of the 27 Qld academics.

your's sincerely,

Rowan Barber

Vegetation Clearing and Enviro Offsets

Vegetation Clearing Legislation

Twenty-seven academics from universities across Queensland with expertise in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development are urging Premier Campbell Newman to reconsider proposed changes to the Vegetation Management Act.

The scientists are expressing grave concerns about the future impacts of proposed changes to Queensland’s Vegetation Management Act and the Water Act. There are warnings of devastating habitat and species loss if changes to the state’s land clearing laws go ahead.

The concerned scientists believe amendments will include allowing a new category of broadscale native vegetation clearing and remove the protections which previously prevented clearing of mature regrowth of threatened plant communities and of vegetation along many watercourses.

However, Minister Cripps claims the package of reforms will maintain key environmental protections such as buffer zones along creeks and rivers in sensitive reef areas.

The concerns of the Scientists about the changes to Vegetation Management include:

·       Land clearing is the greatest current threat to Australia’s biodiversity,

·       Vegetation loss is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions,

·       degradation and reduced water quality in waterways and estuaries,

·       dryland salinity and

·       lost ecosystems.

The changes the Qld Government are proposing to make to vegetation management laws are intended to support growth in agricultural production, provide jobs and boost regional economies. However, restoration of lost ecosystems can cost more than $20,000 per hectare. Avoiding the loss of ecosystems in the first place is far more cost-effective.

Green groups are coming under fire from the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines for opposing these changes.

The World Wide Fund have produced a report that provides the first estimates of environmental values potentially placed at-risk of renewed clearing due to the proposed changes to land clearing legislation in Queensland

Successive Qld Governments in the 1990s to 2009 bought in laws which provided strong protection for bushland. Before the Vegetation Management Act came into effect Qld was experiencing some of the highest rates of clearing in the world – similar to Brazil’s clearing of the Amazon. Once the new laws started to take effect clearing rates declined from a massive 750,000ha a year before laws were introduced in 1999 to 77,590ha in 2009-10.

An amendment bill was introduced into parliament in March and referred to the parliamentary committee for State Development, Infrastructure and Industry, which is due to report back on this week.

Environmental Offset Policy Review

Environmental offsets were originally established to replace environmental values lost through development.  At the moment, the Qld Government has five Environmental Offset Policies:

·       Qld Government Environmental Offsets Policy (administered by Department of Environment and Heritage Protection –offsets@ehp.qld.gov.au)

·       Qld Biodiversity Offset Policy (administered by Department of Environment and Heritage Protection –offsets@ehp.qld.gov.au)

·       Offset for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in South East Qld Policy (administered by Department of Environment and Heritage Protection - seqkoala@ehp.qld.gov.au)

·       Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (administered by Department of Natural Resources and Mines –vmenquireis@dnrm.qld.gov.au)

·       Marine Fish Habitat Offset Policy (administered by Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries)

General information about offsets and the policies can still be found on the EHP website, however there is currently a review of the department’s web material, which has resulted in some documents being unavailable at this time.

In relation to the future of Qld’s offset policies, the Qld Government committed, through the Six Month Action Plan July to December 2012, to review the overarching framework for the Biodiversity Offsets Policy. The review will create a single policy that incorporates requirements of all five existing Qld Government offset policies.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection is leading this review.

The single policy will address all Qld Government offset requirements and could be adopted as the foundation for local government offset policies if desired by councils.

The review seeks to reduce costs for government and industry; promote strategic biodiversity outcomes; and provide for shelf ready products that enable rapid approvals for projects.

This review is not linked to the review of assessment requirements or triggers under legislation. These are being undertaken separately to development of this policy.

However, where there is a State assessment requirement to avoid, mitigate and offset impacts – the single State Government Environmental Offset Policy will provide how this offset is to be achieved.

Until this review is completed, all current offset policies remain in effect.

Public consultation opens for Arrow Energy EIS

Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
The Honourable Jeff Seeney

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Public consultation opens for Arrow Energy EIS

The public is invited to have its say on the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed multi-billion dollar Arrow liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Gladstone.

Arrow CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd is proposing to build a 300-hectare LNG facility on Curtis Island, in the Port of Gladstone.

Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning Jeff Seeney said the release of the EIS was a major milestone for the project, and if approved, would provide a jobs bonanza for Gladstone.

“The Arrow Energy plant would provide huge economic benefits to the state, and employ up to 3715 people during construction and 450 people during operation,” Mr Seeney said.

“And it would stimulate further investment in the expanding coal seam gas industry, which is steadily increasing its share of the Australian energy market.

“The project’s assessment will be managed by the Coordinator-General who will look at all issues and associated impacts on behalf of the state government.

“If approved, operation of the plant could begin as early as 2017.”

Coordinator-General Barry Broe said it was a large, complex project involving local, state and federal government approval processes and one which would potentially impact on a number of environmental values.

“Consequently, in June 2009 the Coordinator-General declared it a ‘significant project’ for which an EIS is required,” Mr Broe said.

The Curtis Island facility is expected to have a capacity of up to 18 million tonnes of LNG per annum, through a staged development.

A nine kilometre-long feed gas pipeline would be needed from the Gladstone City Gate, traversing Port Curtis via a tunnel under the seabed.

Dredging of the sea bed of Port Curtis and the riverbed at the mouth of the Calliope River is also required to provide access to marine facilities on Curtis Island, and the mainland.

Coordinator-General Barry Broe said he encouraged members of the community to have their say on the EIS.

“The EIS will be available for public comment for six weeks from Monday 16 April 2012.

“For a copy of the EIS, people can download the document from www.arrowenergy.com .

“Alternatively, people can obtain a free copy on DVD or purchase a printed copy by calling 1800 038856 or emailing: arrowlng@arrowenergy.com.au .”

The EIS will also be on public display (subject to local opening hours) between 16 April and 28 May 2012, at:

• Agnes Water Library: 3 Captain Cook Drive, Agnes Water
• Boyne Island Library: Cnr Wyndham and Hampton Drives, Boyne Island
• Calliope Library : Don Cameron Drive, Calliope
• Gladstone Regional Council, 101 Goondoon Street, Gladstone
• Gladstone Regional Library: 39 Goondoon Street, Gladstone
• Miriam Vale Library: 34 Roe Street, Miriam Vale
• National Library: Parkes Place, Canberra
• State Library of Queensland, Cultural Centre, Stanley Place, South Bank, Brisbane

All public submissions must be in writing and received by the Coordinator-General via by 5pm on Monday 28 May, 2012.

Post: The Coordinator-General
c/o EIS Project Manager – Arrow LNG plant
Significant Projects Coordination
Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
PO Box 15009
City East Qld 4002

-ENDS-

Media contact: John Wiseman – 0409 791 281

Daft Draft Energy White Paper

Could somebody please explain to our Federal & State politicians that gas is a fossil fuel?

Draft Energy White Paper Released

Martin Ferguson posted Tuesday, 13 December 2011

The Australian Government today released the draft Energy White Paper for public consultation, alongside the release of the 2011 National Energy Security Assessment and the Strategic Framework for Alternative Transport Fuels.

The draft Energy White Paper sets out a series of proposed Commonwealth Government priorities to address challenges confronting Australia’s energy sector.

The draft Energy White Paper identifies four priority areas for further action:

• Strengthening the resilience of Australia’s energy-policy framework;
• Re-invigorating the energy market reform agenda;
• Developing Australia’s critical energy resources – particularly gas; and
• Accelerating clean energy outcomes.

Launching the document in Melbourne, Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson AM MP outlined the emerging challenges facing Australia’s energy sector, and reiterated the role of the Energy White paper in laying out the Commonwealth Government's policy framework to address these challenges for the benefit of the community as a whole.

“Over the next two decades, Australia will require massive investment in the gas and electricity sectors – around $240 billion in generation, transmission and distribution,” Minister Ferguson said.

“We need sound regulatory frameworks and confidence from investors to ensure that the necessary investment is delivered, and the White Paper seeks to deliver this stable framework.

“The 2011 National Energy Security Assessment shows that overall Australia has a positive energy security assessment but we must remain vigilant, and the White Paper seeks to establish a more robust policy framework to increase our responsiveness to emerging challenges.

“In a period of significant change, improving the resilience of energy policy is critical. The Government therefore proposes that a strategic review of national energy policy be undertaken every four years, supported by a review every two years of national energy security. This will allow us to assess, and respond as required to emerging strategic market or policy developments in a timely and predictable way.

“The White Paper also focuses on the next round of energy market reform, including further privatisation of energy assets and the removal of retail price regulation to increase efficiencies and remove distortions in markets that deter private sector investment and are harmful to consumers’ interests.

“Further work should also be undertaken to extend energy market governance arrangements and principles to all Australian energy markets.

“In terms of consumers, the Government recognises that the community has experienced a period of rising energy prices. The White Paper recognises the need for greater consumer engagement to improve community understanding of investment and price drivers, which can lead to greater empowerment in terms of making informed decisions around managing energy use and associated costs.

“In a period of significant change, improving the resilience of energy policy is critical. The Government therefore proposes that a strategic review of national energy policy be undertaken every four years, supported by a review every two years of national energy security. This will allow us to assess, and respond as required to emerging strategic market or policy developments in a timely and predictable way.”

Alongside the release of the draft Energy White Paper, and following the passage of legislation giving effect to the carbon price, the Government is also today announcing it will no longer proceed with the introduction of emissions standards or Carbon Capture and Storage Ready requirements for new coal fired power stations.

“With the legislation of a carbon price, the Government has a position that it is best to let the market determine the most efficient investment outcomes within the energy market, carbon price and Renewable Energy Target framework,” Minister Ferguson said.

The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism will now begin a period of consultation on the draft Energy White Paper, including information sessions to be held in every state and territory capital city.

Written submissions are invited to be received no later than 16 March 2012.

The Government intends to release the final Energy White Paper around mid 2012.

The draft Energy White Paper and associated material is available atwww.energywhitepaper.ret.gov.au

Speech to Gas Symposium

Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser spoke to an international audience about development of Queensland’s gas resources.

He put the case that in a relatively short period of time, the consensus on our government’s shepherding in of this industry will be regarded as the seminal economic event for our state of the first half of this century.

You can read the entire speech by clicking here.

I hope he is right but I fear that we are developing Coal Seam Gas reserves for Liquefied Natural Gas, at a rate that exceeds our ability to understand the impacts.

We really do not know the impacts of depressurising the aquifers, bringing shit loads of saline water to the surface and/or emitting shit loads of greenhouse gases.

The water may be used in agriculture, industry and/or domestic water supplies for remote communities but the quantity and quality of the product water is highly variable. Water from Coal Seams is not a guaranteed supply.

The water has to be treated. It contains salts and short chain (highly soluble) hydrocarbons. The treatment processes (microfiltration/desalination) are energy intensive. The waste streams (brine) are problematic.

We are still uncertain whether coal seam gas is any better than coal in terms of green house gas generation.

While I am not opposed to CSG, I would like to see the Qld Government force the CSG industry to take the time to do some pilot studies, gather some data & use #csg as a true transition fuel

Sustainable Business Weekly QLD Edition [Waste Levy, Gas]

The Waste Levy

On 3 August 2011, the Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill 2011 including a land fill levy was passed by the Qld State Parliament.

The Legislation included:

· Establishment of a scheme to support the Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative via carbon sequestration projects in Qld;

· Amendments to the Water Act 2000 to compliment the National Water Initiative;

· Amendments to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 to allow, the disposal of treated coal seam gas water to a natural water way without approval under the Act.

· The Qld Government appear to be bending over backward to provide increased flexibility in the management of seepage water discharge from coal seam gas development.

The bill includes a land fill levy that will kick in from 1 December 2011. The objective of the bill was to overhaul waste management requirements. The aim is to halve the amount of rubbish directed to landfill within a decade. Unfortunately, not all the measures have been thought through to their logical conclusions.

A new levy will be paid via all operators of waste disposal sites, if the site is within the levy zone or if the site is outside the zone but the waste was generated within the levy zone. The proposed levy zone encompasses most of urban & coastal Qld.

The proposed levy zone covers around 99 per cent of the Qld population and includes 34 local government areas.

All local government & private sector waste disposal facilities in SEQ & major regional local government areas, such as Fraser Coast, Bundaberg, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Mackay, Cairns, Tablelands, Central Highlands & South Burnett regional councils & Mt Isa & Townsville city councils, will be required to collect the levy.

To reduce the potential for waste being transported for disposal outside the levy collection zone, it is proposed that the levy be attached to the point of generation rather than disposal. This means that if waste is generated anywhere within the designated levy zone, the levy applies regardless of whether the waste was disposed of at a facility located in the levy zone or outside it. In addition, waste operators will be required to pay a levy for all stockpiled waste when the waste is disposed of to landfill, regardless of whether the stockpile was made before or after the commencement of the amendments.

There are two exceptions: stockpiled waste that is disaster management waste & waste that was already levied on delivery are excluded. For example, municipal solid waste will attract no levy on delivery and so will attract a levy on disposal of the stockpile to landfill.

The amount of the levy will vary depending on the type of waste. For example:

· commercial and industrial (C&I) waste: estimated levy of $35 per tonne;

· construction and demolition (C&D) waste: estimated levy of $35 per tonne;

· regulated wastes: estimated levy of $50 per tonne for lower hazard and $150 per tonne for higher hazard waste.

Operators will be able to claim some deduction against the levy for waste that is subsequently recycled. In addition, waste that is handled through designated 'resource recovery' (ie, recycling) areas within waste disposal sites will not be subject to the levy.

This regulation will impact on ASBG members, especially the hazardous waste classifications. This will greatly impact on recycling as while it will receive a 50% discount on levy amounts, many streams will most likely be classed as high hazardous wastes & attract $75/t.

This will make many recycling activities far more difficult & even uneconomic.

Coupled with the levy will be stronger enforcement and penalties for non-compliance with waste laws, including enhanced powers of inspection and enforcement.

The Qld Government has indicated that the forecast $159 million raised from the levy will go towards:

· a new 'Waste Avoidance and Resource Efficiency Fund' for waste-related programs & projects, including to assist local government formulate and implement 'waste reduction and recycling plans';

· a new Sustainable Future Fund to assist local government environment programs;

· sustainability programs, including the creation of new national parks.

There is a brief levy FAQ on the DERM website.

Gas

Last week, the Environmental lobby group: Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE), went public with allegations that Worley Parsons (an Engineering Consultancy) had suppressed a report comparing the relative whole of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of Coal Seam Gas with coal & renewable energy.

BZE are questioning the oft repeated claims of the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) that electricity produced from gas produces 50-70 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions than current coal-fired power generation. Worley Parsons says it has mutual agreement with BZE to publish the research in a peer-reviewed journal, Energies.

ASBG are still unsure how BZE know the outcomes of a report that they claim they have not received. A fortnight ago APPEA released its own report by Worley Parsons, containing less flattering gas-versus-coal scenarios.

On Friday, Independent MP Tony Windsor renewed his calls for an arms-length study into the effects of CSG mining on the environment.