Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Let me deal now with this debate on three levels: firstly, the reality here, to deal with this notion of denial and scepticism; secondly, to deal with the international situation; and, thirdly, to deal with a couple of the points that my learned leader has asked me to make in relation to the domestic situation. In relation to the reality, I have a very simple proposition, which is to find what we have done as a government. Climate change is real. It is important. It is significant. That is the position. That is why we have invested $2 billion. That is why we have taken concrete, practical steps.

What does that mean, though? Where does Australia fit? We represent 1.4 per cent of global emissions. We represent about 560 million tonnes of 40 billion tonnes of global emissions. Where were we in 1990? We were at 550 million tonnes. So we have seen an increase of about two per cent over the last 16 years. We have seen an increase in our energy efficiency intensity of about 45 per cent. There are a series of causes for that—I do not deny it. I am pleased that the changes in practice in land clearing have been an important part of that. I would also note that the specific policies that this government has put in place have, on the estimates of the Australian Greenhouse Office, saved about 87 million tonnes per annum of abatement than would otherwise have been the case.

So, by comparison with the rest of the world, what does that mean? We are one of the only four developed world countries that happen to be on track to meeting our targets. There are a lot of countries which made the promise, but there are very few that have delivered. So here is the question about morality: do you give the moral tick to the person who makes the promise but never delivers or to the person who never makes a false promise but does deliver? We have a real and powerful story to tell that Australia, almost alone amongst the countries of the developed world, is on track to meet its targets. We will get there because there is more action that we are going to take—there is more action that the minister himself has already embarked upon.

Where does this 40 billion tonnes sit in terms of the international situation? What does that mean? Internationally we have four planks to what we are doing, and we take this very seriously. The first is the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. This has been derided by the opposition. Yet we see from the work of ABARE that we are likely to save the world about 90 billion tonnes of CO emissions, over and above what would already have been the case, through the Asia-Pacific partnership process between now and 2050. That is about two years of global emissions. That is because we have brought in China, India and the United States—none of which have committed to targets under the Kyoto process. So they are willing to take real action under something that the Prime Minister, the foreign minister and the Australian environment department and its successive ministers have brought together. This is something that is real, tangible and cogent.

But we have moved beyond the Asia-Pacific partnership in the help we are giving in the form of clean coal technologies, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency technologies to China and India. That is probably the single most important thing we can do globally. Why? Because China’s coal emissions alone account for 10 times Australia’s total emissions. That is real. If you want to find out where global emissions are coming from, you should look to the increase in China’s coal emissions. If we can have a 10 per cent decrease in China’s emissions in any one year, it is the equivalent of Australia saving every single kilogram of our own emissions.

The second thing that we are doing is that the Prime Minister has set out personally to pursue a new model for Kyoto, a new international agreement which is comprehensive and real. We make no apologies for that. What is wrong with the old system? The old system has three flaws. Firstly, it is inadequate. For all of the talk, it has had a one per cent impact over the last 16 years on our emissions. We would have had 141 per cent of a 1990 emissions by 2012—now we are going to have 140 per cent. Secondly, it has perverse outcomes. This is what I call the ‘Bhopal effect’. Essentially it is driving emissions offshore from developed world countries to developing world countries. It is not doing what it should do. Thirdly, there are numerous countries that have failed to meet their targets.

We are not only unashamedly driving up the take-up of clean energy through clean coal but also through the sale of uranium—which the Leader of the Opposition supports but the member for Kingsford Smith opposes. Why do we do that? Because it is real and it is tangible. I think I have covered the domestic points, but the last thing I want to say about the international front is that we also support reforestation. Even today I had discussions with a leading scientist about the role of reforestation in the developing world and the things that we can do there to act as global carbon sinks. We are talking about real savings of carbon having a real impact on natural systems. At the end of the day, this is not a debate about action versus inaction—no country has taken more action than Australia—it is a debate about the right way versus the wrong way. (Time expired)

See this speech in context