Three Greens Senators have indicated they will cross the floor to support a disallowance motion which would stop a new method to increase the supply of carbon credits. It comes after Greens Leader Senator Larissa Waters said her party would vote with the government this afternoon to allow the method.
Thu 10 Sep 2026 14.04 AEST
Greens Senator Nick McKim speaks to media. Photo: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas
ABC’s Political Editor Jacob Greber said on 730 that the Greens’ decision on how to vote on the carbon credit method’s disallowance motion is “reprising memories of another hard-fought battle over climate policy”, the vote on the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 2009. What does a vote 17 years ago have to do with next week’s disallowance motion, and what lessons might the Greens take from the CPRS history?
In an Instagram video, the Executive Director of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation (ACBF), Lyndon Schneiders, discusses the controversial Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) offset method and wider climate policy in Australia. While ACBF’s support for carbon offsets was expected, there are plenty of unexpected bits in the video. Let’s unpack a few...
Three Greens Senators have indicated they will cross the floor to support a disallowance motion which would stop a new method to increase the supply of carbon credits.
It comes after Greens Leader Senator Larissa Waters said her party would vote with the government this afternoon to allow the method.
In a joint statement, Senators Nick McKim, Vanessa Bleyer, and Jordan Steele-John said “we have decided to exercise our right to take a position according to our consciences. We do not support the INFM, and will vote in the Senate to disallow it”.
Australia Institute co-CEO Dr Richard Denniss pointed out the policy is so bad that it split the Greens.
“The task of stopping Australia’s expansion of coal and gas is going to become a little harder today,” Dr Denniss said.
“In voting with Labor, the Greens have shown they now support putting publicly-owned forests into the ‘carbon marketplace’, and have tied the protection of trees and koalas to the expansion of gas and coal.”
Recent research has shown that the proposed new regulations would make a bad system even worse.
“Native forests are one of nature’s best carbon storage units – they truly are the lungs of the planet,” he said.
“The climate science makes clear that we need to protect these forests and stop expanding fossil fuels.
Quality research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts you can trust.
“Allowing fossil fuel pollution to increase because a forest wasn’t logged might take pressure off politicians, but it won’t take pressure off our climate.”
Previous research has also shown that selling carbon credits to polluters, which has been a core pillar of Australia’s climate policy, is plagued with integrity problems and faces questions over its effectiveness.
“There is no way to sugarcoat it, the parliament’s decision today is a setback,” he said.
“The unconditional protection of our native forests is one of the cheapest, easiest and most urgent things we can do to limit the effects of climate change.”
In a statement, Senators McKim and Bleyer said the INFM method was “a neoliberal response to a crisis caused by neoliberalism.”
“It sets an alarming precedent,” Senators McKim and Bleyer said.
“If it passes, we may never again see a National Park or marine protected area created unless carbon or biodiversity can be monetised in some way.”
The vote is set to take place later this afternoon.
