Big business lobbies are fighting hard against the mere suggestion of a ‘climate trigger’ in energy project approvals. 

The Business Council of Australia (BCA) has expressed deep concerns that Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek might yield to demands from the Greens to introduce a climate trigger as part of the new Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. 

This trigger would make the environmental approval of projects contingent on their carbon emissions.

Bran Black, CEO of the BCA, voiced concerns ahead of a Senate inquiry into Labor’s environmental law reforms. 

The BCA is urging Plibersek to collaborate with the Coalition to pass the reforms, avoiding any deals with the Greens that could, according to the business lobby, “stymie wind and solar projects”.

Black argues that climate considerations are already addressed by existing mechanisms, such as Labor’s safeguard mechanism introduced last year, which aims to curb emissions from major industries. 

A spokesperson for Minister Plibersek has told reporters that the government’s focus is to establish a national independent Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and that the current legislation does not include a climate trigger.

However, environmental groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Climate Council of Australia, have criticised the legislation for what they describe as a “climate blind spot”. 

These groups argue that the absence of a climate trigger allows projects to gain environmental approval without sufficient consideration of their emissions, which undermines efforts to combat climate change.

“This can be fixed by ensuring that all projects seeking approval under the EPBC Act are assessed for their contribution to climate change,” the Australian Conservation Foundation said in a submission to the Senate inquiry.

Research from the conservative think tank Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has put a dollar figure on the potential economic impact of a climate trigger. 

According to the IPA, such a policy could endanger more than $220 billion in economic investment, with Western Australia being the hardest hit.

The BCA and the Minerals Council of Australia have grown increasingly vocal in recent weeks, outlining the potential risk of economic damage that a climate trigger could cause. 

They argue that the policy would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy, duplicate existing regulations, and delay projects.