Pitt 'ignored climate risks' of NT project
Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt "made no inquiries into climate change risks" when granting money for gas exploration in the Northern Territory's Betalooo Basin, a court has been told.
The Federal Court challenge by The Environment Centre NT seeks to stop the drilling program by Imperial Oil and Gas arguing a $21 million government grant towards the project was unlawful.
Under relevant legislation, the minister can only award funding after making reasonable inquiries that it would be an "efficient, effective, economical and ethical," proper use of money, Perry Herzfeld SC said on Tuesday.
This project would generate "eye-watering" levels of greenhouse gas emissions after it was estimated the Betaloo sub-basin could hold more than 200,000 petajoules of gas, Mr Herzfeld said.
He submitted that gas demand would continue to decline due to its negative impact on global warming and following countries' pledges to reduce emissions under the Paris Agreement.
"The (Betaloo gas development) will become a stranded asset that fails to deliver a return on investment," Mr Herzfeld said.
"The minister made no inquiries into climate change risks at all and there is nothing in the contemporaneous material explaining why."
Australia's commitments under the Paris Agreement include large or rapid reductions in fossil fuel use.
The extent of extraction and consumption of gas in the Betaloo Basin would equate to a 13 per cent increase on Australia's 2020 greenhouse gas emissions, according to an expert report.
This is "well in excess" of Australia's entire carbon budget under its current obligations to limit the earth's warming.
The court was told of the government's strategy to "accelerate gas plans and development" and "unlock jobs and resources" in one of the "most exciting gas resources on the planet at the moment".
The $21 million given to the Empire Energy subsidiary is part of a $50 million federal grants program.
Mr Herzfeld submitted the resources minister and the commonwealth accepted "there will have to be an inquiry into climate change risks at a later point," which he rejected as patently unreasonable given some of the money had already been allocated.
