What does CHAT-GPT say about the impact of the EPBC act on climate reporting?

Shortly after the EPBC act passed by the Senate, we asked Chat-GPT to outline the implications for climate reporting and transparency.

The response was noteworthy. Here it is.

A.     WHAT THE NEW EPBC CHANGES IMPROVE FOR CLIMATE REPORTING & TRANSPARENCY

1.       Mandatory emissions disclosure for many projects

• Under the reforms, proponents of major projects (especially those likely covered by the Safeguard Mechanism) will be required to estimate and report their greenhouse gas emissions (at least Scope 1 and 2). DCCEEW+2DCCEEW+2

• They must also supply plans for how they intend to manage and reduce those emissions over time. DCCEEW+2ABC+2

• Because this information will flow through to the relevant climate-change authorities and be recorded, this should increase transparency about the emissions footprint of major new projects. DCCEEW+1

2.      A new independent regulator and stronger enforcement framework

• The reforms plan to create a national independent regulator — a National Environmental Protection Agency (National EPA) — to oversee compliance, issue permits/licences, and enforce environmental standards. DCCEEW+1

• With stronger enforcement and higher penalties for serious breaches, there may be greater incentive for accurate reporting and better adherence to climate-related commitments attached to project approvals. DCCEEW+2DCCEEW+2

• The establishment of binding national environmental standards (once drafted and adopted) could improve consistency and clarity — both for project proponents and regulators — regarding what is expected in terms of emissions disclosure, mitigation and offsets. DCCEEW+1

3.      Integration with other climate-legislation/reporting frameworks

• For facilities already subject to the Safeguard Mechanism (which covers large industrial emitters), the new EPBC reforms may help ensure overlap between environmental assessment and emissions regulation, creating more comprehensive oversight. DCCEEW+2DCCEEW+2

• For Commonwealth entities, there is an expectation that climate-disclosure requirements (e.g. under updates to EPBC Section 516A) will become mandatory, ensuring government-owned or controlled bodies also publish climate statements. Department of Finance+1

In short: for certain projects and entities, the reforms make it harder to ignore emissions — they increase transparency and reporting requirements, and potentially hold companies and developers more accountable.

B. WHAT THE REFORMS STILL LEAVE OUT — AND WHERE CLIMATE RISK REMAINS UNDER-ADDRESSED

1. No “climate trigger” — emissions won’t automatically block a project

• The reform package explicitly ruled out a “climate trigger,” i.e. a legal test that would stop coal and gas (or other high-emission) projects on the basis of their climate impact alone. ABC+1

• That means even if a project has Very high emissions, the decision-makers under the EPBC Act are not legally required to reject it — as long as it meets biodiversity, land-use or other environmental standards. Environmental Justice Australia+2DCCEEW+2

• In other words: reporting is required — but that doesn’t guarantee that climate impact will influence approval outcomes. The reforms focus on disclosure and mitigation plans, not blocking emissions on climate-impact grounds. ABC+2Environmental Justice Australia+2

2. Scope 3 emissions largely ignored

• While Scope 1 and 2 emissions (direct and from energy use) are to be reported, the reforms do not require reporting of Scope 3 emissions — i.e. emissions from the downstream use/combustion of fossil fuels produced by a project (e.g. exported coal or gas burnt overseas). Climate Council+1

• That omission leaves out potentially the largest portion of climate harm from resource projects. Critics argue this means the reporting gives an incomplete and possibly misleading picture of a project’s true climate impact. Climate Council+1

3.      Ministerial discretion remains — climate outcomes not guaranteed

• Decision-making under the reforms remains heavily discretionary: key determinations (e.g. whether environmental impacts are “unacceptable” or whether a project delivers a “net environmental gain”) still hinge on whether the Minister or delegated authority is “satisfied.” The Guardian+2DCCEEW+2

• Because climate emissions and mitigation plans are only one part of the assessment, there is no guarantee that a project with a high emissions profile but otherwise acceptable biodiversity/land-use impacts will be refused — even if it undermines Australia’s climate commitments. Environmental Justice Australia+2Climate Council+2

4.       Some major loopholes remain — e.g. in land clearing, legacy approvals, offshore fossil fuel projects

• Exemptions remain for certain activities (such as logging under regional forest agreements, or some legacy land-clearing under “continuation of use” clauses), meaning emissions and habitat loss from those activities might still escape comprehensive review under the reformed Act. Environmental Justice Australia+2Environment Victoria+2

• For offshore petroleum/gas projects under certain regulators, emissions disclosure or stringent environmental scrutiny under EPBC may remain limited or uneven. Environmental Justice Australia+1

C. WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE — FOR INVESTORS, COMMUNITIES, REGULATORS, AND CLIMATE GOALS

1.      For investors and developers: the reforms raise the bar for transparency and due diligence. Projects will need to account for emissions (Scope 1 & 2), and prepare mitigation plans. But major emissions — especially Scope 3 — may not derail projects, so climate-risk modelling and investor pressure will matter a lot.

2. For regulators and environmental authorities: the formation of the National EPA and stronger enforcement powers may improve compliance and public trust. But the success will depend heavily on how national standards are drafted, how strictly they're enforced, and whether Scope 3 emissions and downstream climate harm eventually get addressed.

3. For communities, First Nations, and civil society: there is better transparency — more chances to scrutinise claims about emissions and mitigation. However, if decision-making remains discretionary and climate considerations don’t carry legal weight, community pressure and public campaigning may remain crucial to hold projects to account.

4. For Australia’s climate and biodiversity goals: the reforms are a step forward — but arguably an incomplete one. Without a climate trigger or full life-cycle emissions accounting, there’s a real risk that Australia could continue to approve high-emission projects under the guise of biodiversity or land-use compliance — undermining broader climate targets.

5. 
   

D. WHAT TO WATCH OUT FOR — AND WHAT NEXT STEPS COULD IMPROVE CLIMATE ACCOUNTABILITY

1.      Keep an eye on how the draft National Environmental Standards are developed. If they eventually embed stricter emissions criteria (including downstream/climate-impact assessments), that could strengthen the link between EPBC approvals and climate outcomes.

2. Watch whether Scope 3 emissions — especially from fossil-fuel exports — become part of future reporting or regulatory scrutiny. Inclusion of these would greatly strengthen the climate integrity of the system.

3. Monitor how agencies (especially the National EPA) use their enforcement powers. Transparency, public reporting, and independent audits will matter for assessing real-world climate and environmental impacts.

4. Public and investor pressure: because some climate obligations remain voluntary or discretionary (especially mitigation plans and Scope 3 emissions), external scrutiny (from civil society, media, investors) may play a pivotal role in shaping behaviour.