Key facts
- A NSW Greens MP is urging federal colleagues not to vote with the Coalition and One Nation to block a plan for the NSW government to earn carbon credits for creating a koala national park.
- The dispute concerns a federal regulation allowing state governments to earn carbon credits from protecting native forests on public land.
- The Nationals intend to block this regulation through a disallowance motion, with a Senate vote scheduled.
- The Australia Institute and groups like the Bob Brown Foundation and Wilderness Society oppose the regulation, arguing it doesn't represent real emissions reductions and sets a bad precedent.
- Groups including WWF, Greenpeace, and the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation support the regulation, arguing the park's creation is not guaranteed without it and that protecting forests is crucial.
- NSW MP Sue Higginson, initially opposed, now supports the regulation after it was strengthened to reduce logging significantly.
A New South Wales Greens MP, Sue Higginson, has implored her federal colleagues not to align with the Coalition and One Nation to block a proposed deal that would enable the NSW government to secure millions of dollars in carbon credits for establishing a koala national park. The core of the dispute lies in a federal regulation, known as a carbon credit method, which permits state governments to generate credits from protecting native forests on public land.
The Nationals are advocating for the elimination of this regulation on behalf of the forestry industry through a disallowance motion, with a Senate vote imminent. The federal Greens are set to deliberate on whether to support the pro-logging Nationals' motion, arguing that while a koala park is desirable, the current method is problematic. This decision carries political weight, as the Greens could face accusations of hindering nature protection efforts.
Conservationists, including the Australia Institute, the Bob Brown Foundation, and the Wilderness Society, are lobbying for the regulation's demise. They contend that the NSW Labor government's proposal for a koala park near Coffs Harbour, dependent on carbon credit revenue, is flawed, and the generated offsets may not represent genuine emissions reductions. They also express concern that this method could establish a precedent for state governments to withhold environmental protections unless compensated with carbon credits.
Conversely, a coalition of NSW conservation and Indigenous groups, national organizations like WWF and Greenpeace, and several senior ecologists support the regulation. They argue that disallowing the method jeopardizes the park's creation and underestimate the significance of protecting 176,000 hectares of forest, home to over 100 threatened species, which have suffered from extensive logging. They highlight the decades of campaigning by local activists for this potential win.
Higginson, a former lawyer and forest campaigner, stated that she initially found the concept of carbon credits from protecting public forests 'offensive.' However, her stance evolved as the method was strengthened to mandate a substantial reduction in logging across NSW forests, exceeding the NSW premier's initial commitment. She emphasized that the critical factors are the hectares of forest saved, the size of the national park estate, the involvement of First Nations people, carbon sequestration, fire protection, the preservation of species like koalas, and making climate polluters pay.
Higginson also noted that the forestry industry has proposed an alternative, less environmentally sound carbon credit method, which she believes would 'lock in native forest logging for many more years' and generate credits of 'far less integrity.' She framed the current situation as a fight 'to win the forests,' suggesting that blocking the Nationals' disallowance motion is crucial for this objective.
While Higginson's position aligns with some independent senators like David Pocock and former Green Lidia Thorpe, it places her at odds with her mentor, Bob Brown. Brown, who encouraged her to enter politics, expressed disappointment in the policy divergence but affirmed their continued collaboration. Brown criticized the NSW government's reliance on carbon credit revenue, calling it a broken election promise and an 'anti-environmental gimmick' that allows polluters to 'off the hook.' He believes that if the disallowance motion passes, the NSW government would revert to its original plan for the park without carbon credit dependency.