Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

We are entering a new era of action on climate change. There is a growing national consensus on climate change. There is a consensus on the science of climate change. There is a consensus on the need for a national emissions trading scheme and long-term targets. There is a consensus on the need for a comprehensive, portfolio approach to climate change. This is a consensus that involves business, trade unions, environment groups and the broader community. There is just one group missing from the national consensus, and that is the Howard government. Howard government ministers do not accept the science of climate change.

The Minister for Finance and Administration says ‘there remains an ongoing debate about the extent of climate change’, and he recently wrote to former Australian of the Year Ian Kiernan attacking Mr Kiernan for daring to criticise climate change sceptics. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources proudly triumphed his scepticism on the Sunday program on 20 August 2006:

Well I am a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change.

That was just seven months ago. A government full of climate change sceptics cannot deliver climate change solutions, and this is a government full of climate change sceptics. There is a consensus on the science, but the government just does not get it.

There is a consensus on emissions trading and long-term targets, but the government just does not get that either. The Business Council of Australia, in their submission to the emissions trading task group, stated:

The BCA in considering how best to achieve a workable global emissions trading scheme has identified the following as essential.

• Set both immediate and long term global emission reduction targets;

Countries will need to agree to a binding emission reduction target with both immediate and long term targets and target pathways in between if an environmental impact is to be achieved ... The long term targets need to link to commercial investment horizons, so that investment decisions are sensibly informed.

Westpac’s submission makes the point that the government’s failure to act has an impact on investor confidence, saying:

Business is ... calling for greater clarity on how companies are strategically and tactically managing their response to the implications of, and exposure to, climate change.

BHP Billiton calls for not only an ‘efficient, effective and equitable domestic Australian emissions trading scheme’ but also one that:

... facilitates the trading of emissions entitlements and reductions and the crediting of off-sets developed or purchased in other countries (such as CDM or other project-based credits).

So there is a very real consensus emerging in the business community. Again, the Howard government is out of step.

Today the health minister joined the sceptics’ ranks when he said in a debate on climate change that there is nothing speculative about it. In question time today, the Prime Minister was asked a very simple question: how will he set a price on carbon? The Prime Minister’s response was extraordinary: ‘No, the market will.’ The market has operated for a very long time, but there is still no national emissions trading scheme. The Prime Minister just does not get it.

The other major area of consensus that is emerging is that we need a comprehensive portfolio approach to climate change. That is Labor’s approach. That is why a Rudd Labor government will ratify the Kyoto protocol, cut Australia’s greenhouse pollution by 60 per cent by 2050, establish a national emissions trading scheme, substantially increase the mandatory renewable energy target, establish a $500 million national clean coal initiative and establish a $50 million solar home power plan. Compare that with the Howard government’s approach. They have said no to the Kyoto protocol, no to a long-term target for emissions reductions and no to increasing the mandatory renewable energy target.

The Howard government still has not established a national emissions trading scheme and it has not spent a single dollar under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund. Now the government refuses to endorse Labor’s $50 million solar home power plan. This is a lazy government—but, when it comes to climate change, the government is more than lazy; it is reckless and indifferent. So, while we welcome today’s announcement, no-one should be under the illusion that the government is seriously committed to taking action on climate change.

In the lead-up to the election we are seeing plenty of politics with regard to climate change, but very little policy. The Prime Minister was right when he said this morning:

... 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from clearing the world’s forest and that’s second only to emissions from burning fossil fuels to produce electricity and it’s more than all the world’s emissions from transport.

But the Prime Minister may not be aware of the fact that, for trees to act as sinks for carbon, they need to be left in the ground. For a forest to work effectively as a carbon sink it needs to be left in the ground for 30 to 40 years, not just whacked in and taken out on a short rotation basis.

The government are correct to point out that, under the Kyoto protocol, forests—that is, standing forests—are not recognised as carbon sinks. The minister for the environment is also correct to point out that this has led to an obscene level of deforestation across the world, something that we on this side of the House feel very strongly about. But—and it is a very big but—what neither the Prime Minister nor the environment minister are admitting is that the rest of the world, the Kyoto-compliant world, is hotly debating this very issue right now. And we have been politely asked to leave the room—we are allowed no role in the discussion because we have not ratified. Had we ratified, were we to be in those negotiations, we could argue powerfully for native standing forests to be recognised as carbon sinks. That way, forests across Australia would make the country a great deal of money just by being allowed to exist. That way, the forests of Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomons would make more money for local landholders by being left alone than they would by being cut down. That is how we create market signals in a carbon constrained world that drive good economic and environmental outcomes. That is why it is vital for Australia to ratify and be part of that debate.

If we had a national carbon trading scheme in place in Australia we could be encouraging commercial investment in reforestation schemes that obtain carbon credits. Without the government seriously embracing a comprehensive framework for dealing with climate change, it cannot be seen as serious in its approach to climate change. Labor has a comprehensive framework. Had we ratified the protocol, Australia, through the clean development mechanism, would be able to achieve carbon reduction credits and assist in meeting its greenhouse targets and help forestry in the region by investing in reforestation activities.

The ministerial statement refers to the Kyoto protocol providing no incentive for the developing countries to reduce deforestation. As a fact, a quick visit to the UNFCCC website shows that this is clearly not the case. A search on that site finds project No. 0547: Facilitating Reforestation for Guangxi Watershed Management in Pearl River Basin. Because we are not a party to Kyoto the government’s $200 million fund plan, welcome as it is, will not assist Australia in gaining highly valuable carbon credits. The fund is an entirely government driven mechanism.

If Australia were a Kyoto party Australian companies would have had the incentive to invest in reforestation in the region, through the CDM, potentially pouring large amounts of money in while achieving large emission reductions through sequestration in growing trees. We would be encouraging responsible action by building sustainable markets. This is another lost opportunity.

The ministerial statement refers to the amounts that the Howard government has spent on the environment, but it does not refer to the very poor progress on repairing, recovering and protecting our environment, clearly detailed in the last State of the environment report: growing numbers of threatened and endangered species, worsening river health and biodiversity literally in crisis.

While this initiative is welcome, the government has missed the opportunity to ratify the Kyoto protocol and set bold targets for emission reductions. There is a growing national consensus on climate change but the Howard government is standing firmly aside from that consensus. Labor is committed to forging a national consensus on climate change. That is why we are holding a national climate change summit this Saturday. This summit will bring together some of the nation’s best thinkers from business and science—and people from the community as well. The summit will begin to shape a national consensus on the best way forward for Australia over the next decade. The summit will examine a number of critical issues including the environmental, economic and social impacts of climate change both now and into the future. The summit will examine the future of emissions trading. And the summit will examine new technologies and renewable energy and community, corporate and government responsibility for reducing our energy needs.

This national climate change summit will give all those sectors of the community who have been crying out for action on climate change, and who are clearly well aware of the risks posed by climate change, the opportunity not only to enter into dialogue with one another but to put their views to the alternative government of Australia as to what we now need to do to seriously address climate change, and particularly to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It is time for a new politics—a politics of action, not a politics of denial and delay. Labor is committed to action on climate change.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context