Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Kingsford Smith said towards the end of his rambling and irrelevant remarks about climate change that fitness to govern is measured by the extent to which a party understands the nature of the challenge ahead. If that proposition is accepted as right—and it seems a reasonable one—then the member for Kingsford Smith has demonstrated comprehensively that he is unfit to form a part of any government and that he is certainly unfit to make any contribution to climate change. In his 15 minutes to speak on this matter of public importance, he missed the key point: that we are facing the greatest economic challenge of our times. The world needs a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the course of this century, and in order to achieve that massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions we need global action. We need to get all of the world’s major emitters committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is the challenge of the future.

Whoever you talk to in the climate change world—be they environment ministers, scientists or economists—they all recognise that the big challenge is how to bring the big emitting countries such as China, the United States, India and Europe together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, above all, to achieve that which Kyoto has failed to achieve, which is to secure meaningful reductions in emissions from the fastest growing emitters in the developing world—in particular, China, which in and of itself will contribute to 40 per cent of the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades. None of that was mentioned. The member for Kingsford Smith has no strategy for achieving the object that we need to achieve of global reductions in greenhouse emissions. If we do not achieve that, we will get nothing.

We do emit 1½ per cent of global greenhouse emissions, but we receive in our own territory 100 per cent of the consequences of climate change. So global action is vital. The Australian government is leading the world in climate change policies. We are leading the world on energy efficiency. We are the first country to phase out incandescent lighting. The British Prime Minister elect, Gordon Brown, complimented Australia on this only a few days ago. If the rest of the world were to follow Australia’s example, the world would reduce its energy demands by an amount equal to five times Australia’s electricity consumption. That is a significant move in energy efficiency.

We have also been a world leader in changing the standards for stand-by power so that, when devices like stereos or televisions are put on standby mode, they use less energy. That is again where we have been leading on energy efficiency—which is, after all, one of those early action opportunities that we have identified as being vital. We recognise that, to achieve the massive cuts in emissions that the world needs in the course of this century, we will have to get to a point by the middle of this century where the bulk of our stationary energy is generated with zero or near zero emissions. That is an enormous challenge. It is technically not possible to do today.

There are three countries at the cutting edge of clean coal development—Australia, the United States and the Netherlands. The fact is we are leading the world in those energy efficiency measures I mentioned: in clean coal development, which is so vital. There is no low-emissions technology more important to achieving the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions this century than clean coal, because coal is the most abundant source of stationary energy around the world. It is the most abundant source of energy for the fastest-growing economies—particularly China and India, who have substantial coal resources of their own. And if we can commercialise and complete the technology that the CSIRO is working on today to capture CO emissions after combustion and store them we could then begin to retrofit the coal fired power stations of the world.

We are leading in that area. I am not suggesting we are the only country working on it—we want everybody to work on it—but the member for Kingsford Smith runs down the achievements of Australian scientists and despises them in his arrogance. We are ahead, and it is because of the ingenuity of Australian scientists, the commitment of those men and women, and the support they have had over 11 years from the Howard government.

Let me mention another area where Australia is leading the world. The second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions comes from deforestation, and the bulk of that is in the tropical countries of the developing world. The Kyoto protocol basically does not deal with deforestation. It has been completely ineffective in dealing with deforestation in developing countries. In fact, as I have said in this place before, in some respects Kyoto actually encourages deforestation by promoting the use of palm oil. Of course, palm oil is grown in plantations which have been built after rainforests have been clear-felled, and many NGOs have said that the way Kyoto operates at the moment promotes deforestation.

That failing in Kyoto is well recognised, but it is Australia that has put $200 million on the table for a global initiative on forest and climate. It is Australia, first among developed countries, that is leading the charge to put forestry on top of the climate change agenda because, like energy efficiency, it is early action. If we reduce deforestation we can cut emissions today. What did the member for Kingsford Smith say about that measure, which has been so well received around the world in developing countries and developed countries from Washington to Jakarta? What did he describe it as? ‘A modest measure’; again he despises this effort, just like he despises the work of Australian scientists on clean coal. He despises the achievements of his own country and seeks to put it down.

We know we must do better in the battle against climate change—we all must; every country must—but let me say that Australia is playing its part and in vital areas is leading the way. Let me give you another example of where we lead the way, and that is in national carbon accounting. No country has a better-respected system for carbon accounting, so vital to responding to climate change. After all, if the objective is to reduce CO emissions, how can you manage something you cannot reliably measure? Our technology is so well regarded we are working closely and sharing it with other countries, including China.

But I will get back to the really big challenge of bringing all the nations together—that global commitment which Kyoto failed to achieve. The problem with Kyoto is that it did not deliver a pathway for the fastest-growing emitters to commit to emission reductions. Article 3.9 of the Kyoto protocol actually states that in future commitment periods—that is to say commitment after the one between 2008 and 2012, which is what we are tracking to at the moment—only developed nations will be asked to make cuts. That cannot work. We cannot achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions we need only with cuts from the developed world. There has to be contribution from across the world.

The honourable member also said it was absurd for me to say that we were doing well as against other developed countries. Let us remember this: our Kyoto target was 108 per cent of 1990 emissions, and we are on track to meet it. We have been criticised, I recognise, and there is an institute that said we may miss it by two per cent. Well, we will not miss it by two per cent; we will meet it. But let us compare our position to that of some other developed countries. We could be like Canada, which will miss its Kyoto target by 44 per cent; Spain, which will miss its by 36 per cent; or Austria—by 28 per cent—or the EU-15 itself. The 15 countries of the EU will collectively miss their target by seven per cent, based on their own domestic measures.

The reality is that among developed countries that are not former parts of the Soviet Union—which therefore benefited in a perverse way from the collapse of the Soviet Union, which of course resulted in their post-1990 emissions being dramatically lower—the only countries on track to better their Kyoto targets are the UK, which of course has benefited from Mrs Thatcher in effect shutting down the coal industry and moving to gas, although the move is coming back the other way, Sweden and Iceland.

See this speech in context