John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The challenge of climate change is the largest single issue confronting Australia and the nations of the world yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that climate change has been driven by greenhouse gas pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, this government remains unrepentant in its determination to sabotage efforts to reduce emissions. As is now well known, this government, not just content with spreading disinformation about the consequences of global warming, deliberately set out from the start to wreck any attempt by the international community to establish a treaty to reduce the volume of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

On 28 August 2006 the Prime Minister, despite all of the evidence for global warming induced climate change, stated on Four Corners that he remained unconvinced about the evidence and declared that he was ‘a climate change sceptic’. The Prime Minister was being disingenuous when he referred to himself as a sceptic, which implies some acceptance of the evidence, since his actions prove that he is completely opposed to any actions that could reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Now the member for Wentworth, the new Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, as ever the Prime Minister’s creature, announces that he too is a climate change sceptic, conveniently ignoring the mass of evidence that would, if he bothered to study the issue, inform him of the reality of the situation. In continuing an internationally condemned campaign of deceit and disruption directed against the Kyoto protocol, the Howard government has adopted policies that are not supported by scientific evidence but, rather, are clearly designed to advance vested interests and the Prime Minister’s self-evident dogmatic position.

The details of these policies were spelled out by Professors Ian Lowe and Tim Flannery on the ABC Radio The National Interest program on 27 August last year. Of course, you will never see the government issuing this sort of description of its policies, but the statements and actions of the ministers make it clear that what follows is an accurate account of their intentions. Firstly, there is complete opposition to any form of carbon tax or the imposition of trade restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. The rest of the developed world, with the temporary exception of the United States, agrees that emission caps and financial incentives are required to shift the world’s economy away from fossil fuels and towards non-polluting energy sources. Secondly, there are larger subsidies for the coal industry, the largest greenhouse gas polluter, for research into vaguely described carbon capture schemes that have neither specific targets for emission reductions nor any starting date. This is despite the fact that this still-undeveloped technology would not be used on existing coal-fired power stations and could not be used for mobile sources such as vehicles.

Thirdly, there is opposition to adopting any limits on carbon dioxide emissions until developing Third World economies with much lower per capita incomes and emission levels do so first. This is of course in complete opposition to the principal position of the Kyoto protocol that states that those who can afford to act should do so now. Fourthly, there is the promotion of the establishment of a nuclear industry in this country. This is despite the very evident risks associated with nuclear reactors and the fact that building the 25 or so proposed nuclear power stations around the country would divert resources away from more effective and less hazardous emission reduction schemes. I would add to this list the Howard government’s evident hostility to any expansion of the renewable energy industry and a continuing threat to abolish the existing minimal two per cent mandatory renewable energy target.

There is also a determination by the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to promote the clean coal lie. Let me be clear: there is no such thing as clean coal. Burning coal unavoidably produces carbon dioxide, although there have been some pilot schemes to pump carbon dioxide down depleted oil wells; the practicalities of compressing and cooling the millions of tonnes of hot gas produced annually by a large power station remain unresolved to say the least. Note that coal is a solid, but carbon dioxide is a gas. For every tonne of coal burned, approximately three tonnes of gaseous carbon dioxide is produced. No wonder there is a problem with this scheme.

The only conclusion to be drawn from the actions of the Prime Minister and his ministers is that their real purpose remains the sabotaging of any international emissions reduction scheme that could reduce the profits of the Australian export coal industry. The Australian Labor Party supports the signing of the Kyoto protocol as a valuable instrument for addressing the critical issue of global warming and equally as an instrument to express Australia’s support for the principle of equity, wherein wealthy nations such as Australia, that can afford to take immediate steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, should do so. The welfare of the Australian coal industry should not be the primary influence in deciding our stance on the Kyoto protocol.

For the benefit of the sceptical members of the government, I will explain the basis of the present understanding of the phenomena of global warming. The measurable changes that are now occurring in the atmosphere and in the oceans are a direct result of the current annual worldwide emission of more than 24,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. By the way, of this quantity, Australia’s contribution, including emissions from our coal exports, is nearly 1,000 million tonnes—around five per cent of the total; a small proportion but in absolute terms a not insignificant amount.

When radiant energy from the sun reaches the earth’s surface, some may be absorbed and some may be reflected. The sunlight that is absorbed heats the surface which then, in the process that was explained by Max Planck in 1900, radiates energy back into space as heat in the infra-red part of the spectrum. The gases that form the bulk of the atmosphere—nitrogen, oxygen and argon—do not absorb visible or infra-red radiation and so allow light and heat to pass through unabated. It is the minor constituents of the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide that are opaque to wavelengths of infra-red radiation that actually absorb and trap the heat radiated by the surface of the earth.

The heat-trapping effect of the atmospheric carbon dioxide can be accurately calculated from the properties that have been carefully measured in laboratories. The results of these repeatable measurements are beyond dispute. I want to emphasise this point because members of the government regularly claim that the science of global warming is uncertain and have constructed a carefully calculated campaign of disinformation to mislead the public into thinking that the evidence of the effects of carbon dioxide pollution remains in dispute.

Let me state the position explicitly. Global warming by the trapping of heat by atmospheric carbon dioxide is a well-understood phenomenon, as are the changes taking place in the earth’s climate that are being driven by a measurable increase in average surface temperatures. Measurements from the Antarctic ice core stretching back over 800,000 years demonstrate that the earth’s average surface temperature is strongly correlated with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the present-day carbon dioxide concentration has risen to 383 parts per million by volume, a measure that appears to be higher than any naturally occurring levels over the past 20 million years. There are other influences that drive the glacial episodes, such as the Milankovitch cycles, but the evidence for disruption of these natural cycles by the massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is now overwhelming.

The World Meteorological Organisation warned in 2003 that the incidence and intensity of extreme weather conditions such as droughts in Australia, floods and storms and heatwaves in Europe and tornadoes and hurricanes in the United States were on the rise and that the emerging pattern of these changes is clearly linked to global warming caused by greenhouse gas pollution.

While climate change is rightfully driving our attention, the effect of carbon dioxide pollution upon the oceans has received less attention. Once again, the warnings issued by scientists have been ignored by this government in the hope that the issue will either disappear or be lost in the welter of other concerns. It appears that, to date, about one-half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity has been dissolved into the upper layers of the oceans. The quantity of carbon dioxide absorbed in the oceans has been measured and because carbon dioxide that has been produced from fossil fuels does not contain the short-lived isotope carbon 14, which occurs in naturally occurring atmospheric carbon dioxide, there is no doubt as to the origins of this dissolved gas.

While the oceans have been a convenient dumping ground for our waste, the effect of all of this carbon dioxide upon the ocean waters is beginning to have serious consequences because carbon dioxide, when dissolved in water, forms a weak acid. The Great Barrier Reef, for instance, which is an enormous accumulation of constructions of coral and coralline algae, is not only under threat from increasing water temperatures that cause coral bleaching but now appears to be additionally besieged by rising ocean acidity. Other sea creatures that are likely to be adversely affected by increasing ocean acidity include the small marine snails that constitute a major food source for fish and marine mammals, including some species of whales. Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institute’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, has warned that acidification of the oceans through carbon dioxide emissions could, if unabated, cause a massive extinction of marine life similar to one that occurred 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs appeared.

As I have stated repeatedly, one of the greatest failings of this government is the complete refusal to adopt any measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Fortunately, the rest of the world is awake to the consequences of inaction. Many nations, including the United States, China and the European community, have introduced regulations to curb emissions from the transport, industrial, domestic and agricultural sectors. Quite extraordinarily, and virtually alone amongst the industrialised countries, Australia has not introduced any legislative requirements for emission reductions for motor vehicles.

The following is a list of regulations for emissions in grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre in the most important countries. In China, the Chinese government has regulated for a maximum level of emissions by 2008 from vehicles in various weight classes ranging from 131 grams per kilometre for the lightest vehicles to 481 grams per kilometre for vehicles weighing over 2,500 kilograms. In the United States, under the less stringent corporate average fuel efficiency requirements, this year’s cars have to achieve average emission levels of 210 grams per kilometre while light trucks must achieve an average emission of 260 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre. In the European Union, the European Union’s environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, is promoting a new EU law requiring new European, Japanese and Korean car makers to meet emissions from new passenger cars to an average of 120 grams per kilometre from 2012.

In Australia there are currently no fuel efficiency regulations for cars or trucks, although in 2002 the Australian Greenhouse Office estimated that the average urban car emitted 192 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre, equivalent to 12.8 kilometres per litre. In my view, Australia should immediately adopt the European standard and regulate to ensure that the average emission of all new cars sold from 2012 must be 120 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre, the equivalent of 20 kilometres per litre. By 2020 the level must be reduced to 80 grams per kilometre, equal to 30 kilometres per litre if we are to have any chance of averting the worst consequences of global warming. The fact that the Howard government has done nothing to require Australian manufacturers and importers to improve fuel consumption means that for years into the future Australian drivers will be driving low fuel efficiency, high emission vehicles while paying ever-increasing prices for fuel.

Recent developments in vehicle technology suggest that, in the short term, the most effective means of reducing fuel consumption will be the introduction of hybrid electric cars and trucks with a capacity to recharge their batteries both from the mains overnight and from roof-mounted solar panels during the day. I believe that the Australian government should immediately introduce regulations requiring the makers of hybrid vehicles to include a plug-in battery charger in their cars and to investigate the potential of vehicle roof-mounted solar panels to further reduce fuel consumption. The present generous tax benefits available for the buyers of four wheel drives should be immediately abolished and the resulting tax concessions transferred to the buyers of hybrid or electric cars.

We regularly hear about schemes to produce petrol from coal or from oil shale, or from natural gas. While petrol has been produced from coal on a large scale in the past, particularly in Germany in World War II, the process normally used is inherently inefficient and results in emissions of carbon dioxide that are as much as four times as great for the equivalent volume of petrol produced directly from oil. For this reason alone, no proposals to produce oil from coal should ever be entertained by Australian governments. Similar arguments apply against schemes to manufacture petrol from natural gas or oil shale. The inefficiency of the processes and resultant carbon dioxide emissions are simply unacceptable.

George Bush in his recent State of the Union address gave his support to a massive expansion of ethanol production as a replacement for imported oil. While there are problems with George Bush’s scheme, any attempt to substitute a significant proportion of Australia’s petrol consumption with ethanol would be limited by the low agricultural productivity of Australia. Figures provided to me by the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources in answer to my question on notice No. 2110 in 2003 indicated that just to replace 10 per cent of the petrol consumed in that year it would have required approximately 40 per cent of the wheat crop.

I am a supporter of ethanol and I acknowledge the substantial improvements needed in the fuel economy of Australian vehicles. I also acknowledge that ethanol on its own will not be a total replacement for petrol in Australia. However, the government should do more to support the ethanol industry in Australia and it could learn from Brazil. For example, I asked why we could not grow more sugarcane near the Ord River in Western Australia. Increased ethanol production, though not a panacea for the global warming crisis, is one important component of a serious climate change solution.

Freight is the other part of the transport problem. Since 1996 we have seen an uncontrolled growth in emissions from an out-of-control road freight industry that has been mismanaged by a succession of incompetent Howard government ministers for transport. The member for Gwydir and the Prime Minister in introducing their Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill in 1999 boasted that transport operators would save money on fuel and be able to provide cheaper transport. At the time I asked various questions of the then minister for transport about some of the undisclosed costs, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions, road safety and the lack of equivalent support for railways. In his wisdom, the minister refused to reply, stating that either the answers were to be found on his department’s website or the questions were ridiculous.

We now know that emissions from road transport have risen by over 20 per cent since this government came into office. In this government’s view, truck drivers are—considering the frequency of fatal crashes—regarded as expendable and the alternative, the railways, are better off if the tracks are torn up and their equipment scrapped. Railways are the most energy efficient and least polluting form of transport, with energy costs and emissions between one-quarter and one-eighth that of road transport. I know the member for Hinkler, who is listening to this, supports that.

Back in the 1970s, investigations in the United States showed that railway electrification had considerable advantages over diesel traction and these advantages include higher operating speeds, reduced maintenance and, not least, lower overall operating costs and reduced pollution. In the present context, the great advantage of electrification is the potential for building up a transport system that, when operated from renewable power, produces virtually zero emissions. The present interstate railway system has not greatly improved since the 1950s, when duplication of the interstate tracks was abandoned. The main line between Junee and Melbourne remains a single track operation that is interrupted occasionally by passing loops and its trains are hauled by the obsolete diesel locomotives. No wonder it only carries 18 per cent of the freight between Sydney and Melbourne. I am sure that, if the Hume Highway or the Pacific Highway were to be restricted to single lanes with passing loops, there would be a national outcry. How is it then that our most important interstate rail link remains in this condition? The vital railway connections between Sydney and Melbourne and between Sydney and Brisbane have to be electrified and duplicated by 2020 at the latest. Improving the railways will reduce emissions. Improving the roads and neglecting the railways, which is the present government’s policy, will increase emissions. It is as simple as that.

The last matter that I wish to raise in this debate today is the coal-fired power stations that produce 95 per cent of our electrical power and more than 40 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions. As we know, the government does not intend to take any action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from existing power stations. It is content to allow the newer ones to continue spewing out massive quantities of carbon dioxide for the next 30 years or so. I have seen for myself the advanced solar power collector that has been installed at the Liddell Power Station in the Hunter Valley by Dr David Mills. This relatively simple and inexpensive piece of equipment, designed by Australian scientists, will produce the heating equivalent of approximately 1,500 tonnes of coal per week and will result in the power station generating 20 megawatts of electrical energy directly from the sun. We have heard that the Prime Minister’s nuclear task force has proposed that nuclear reactors be built alongside existing power stations so that the heat from these reactors can be used to replace the coal presently burned in the boilers. I have been informed by the designer of the Liddell solar power collector, Dr David Mills, that a solar collector no more than six square kilometres in area could replace all of the coal-fired heat used in that power station and similar sized power stations around the country. Why do we need to go down the nuclear path when locally developed technology could replace all of the coal presently being burned in Australian power stations without the dangers of nuclear terrorism or nuclear waste?

In order to encourage the owners of power stations to increase the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources, the mandatory renewable energy target—presently languishing at two per cent—has to be increased by a minimum of five per cent per annum starting immediately. Working at that rate, we would see virtually all of our power generated from renewable sources by around 2025 and at the same time a potential drop in locally produced emissions of 40 per cent. Those are the facts. In concluding, the United States government Energy Information Administration said in a report in 2002:

... Australia’s environmental progress is still sometimes slowed by a lack of clear federal leadership.

I wonder what they will say when George Bush is no longer the President of the United States of America.

See this speech in context