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

Between a rock and a hard place is an extremely apposite title for a report of this kind, given that it has a dissenting report which, frankly, strains credulity, even in a place where extreme views are sometimes heard—and, I should say, always tolerated. But in this day and age it is unacceptable that elected officials, let alone government members, try, through their dissenting remarks in a report of this kind, to rubbish climate change science. The dissenting report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation inquiry into geosequestration technology shows where the government really is on this issue. It shows the government’s true colours, because the Howard government remains divided on the issue of climate change.

We have four government members prepared to put their names to a dissenting report and take the opportunity to express their climate change scepticism. I will come to the recommendations of the report in a moment, but let us consider the sceptics’ basis for dissent. The members for Tangney, Lindsay, Hughes and Solomon state that those who believe humans are causing climate change are ‘fanatics’. Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the dissenting MPs is that evidence of global warming on other planets, such as Mars and Jupiter, makes it unreasonable for humans to take pre-emptive action on earth. This claim alone, I think, qualifies itself as one of the most ludicrous assertions ever made on the issues of climate change science in this parliament. The real question is: what planet is the coalition on? While the MPs are happy to accept claims about global warming on far-flung planets—planets that Australians can never hope to visit, much less live on—they continue to deny the very real evidence we see of climate change in our own backyards, such as more intense drought and extreme weather events, and a plethora of reports and studies of observable data and peer-reviewed material which show, clearly, the connection between human activity, CO levels in the atmosphere and consequential global warming.

The truth is that 1,200 of the world’s leading climate scientists contributed to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007, and found that temperatures on earth rose in the 20th century and will rise at an even faster rate in the 21st century. Today’s events, and the actions taken by these members in releasing this dissenting report, put the government even further out of touch with the common-sense position that Australians now have on climate change, which is informed by climate scientists both internationally and in Australia, particularly those in the CSIRO who have already reported to government on this issue. It is simple and plain: climate change is happening and we need to act now. To suggest anything else is a perverse nonsense.

The question raised during the term of this Howard government is: how can a government full of climate change sceptics deliver climate change solutions? That is not to say that the four members who have authored this dissenting report are alone. Senator Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration, has expressed his scepticism; Senator Macfarlane, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, has expressed his scepticism; and the Prime Minister fudges in his remarks on the impacts and likely consequences of climate change. All the while, the world’s scientific community and world leaders are responding to the climate change scenarios that have been identified by the IPCC, and they are starting to put in place those policies which we need to get in place in order to address dangerous climate change.

The dissenting report heavily emphasises the need for scientific training, method and history; however, it does not cite a single up-to-date peer-reviewed reference in order to back itself up. What a shambolic and, frankly, intellectually dishonest exercise. Instead, the dissenting report makes extensive and selective references to other climate sceptics, old academic work and unpublished nonscientific tracts. Frankly, this parliament and the people of Australia deserve better.

Where are the published peer-reviewed journal articles that dispute the IPCC’s conclusions? Where are the cited references to the peer-reviewed material that is being produced—on an almost weekly basis—that continues to validate the conclusions that have been reached by the IPCC? They are nowhere. This week we had the chair of the IPCC visiting us here in Australia. He stated clearly that climate change is real, that it is an issue we have to address with some seriousness and that the international community needs to get on with it. Yet we have a dissenting report that is little more than a polemic against anthropogenic climate change science.

If Dr Jensen and his colleagues are convinced of their mission, and in particular if Dr Jensen is convinced of the views he expressed this morning on the AM radio program, he should—and I challenge him to do this—in a peer-reviewed journal, publish his theory of climate change and the evidence that leads him and his colleagues to conclude that anthropogenic climate change is disproved. Failure to take that step renders this dissenting report farcical.

Labor looks forward to reviewing the majority report in detail. I note the comments from the member for Kooyong, the member for Werriwa and others, but I need to make some observations on that report as well. Firstly, the report takes up a number of Labor’s policies aimed at developing carbon capture and storage. The report calls on the Howard government to contribute to work being done to find suitable geological carbon storage sites in New South Wales. I note that Labor has committed the necessary $20 million to support this project, but the Howard government has refused to commit any funds. The report also calls for funding to support one or more new large-scale demonstration projects to test and perfect the technology. Again, Labor has committed $40 million for such a project, with the potential for the funding of further projects, and again the Howard government has refused to commit any funds. The report calls on the government to develop a regulatory framework to govern long-term storage of carbon underground. Labor has committed to developing such a framework as part of its carbon mapping and infrastructure plan; yet, despite promising over a number of years to introduce the necessary legislation, the Howard government has failed to do so. Today’s report effectively endorses Labor’s $500 million National Clean Coal Initiative, which will promote clean coal technologies.

The committee recommends that legislation be developed to define ‘financial liability’ for the ongoing storage of carbon dioxide. Liability is an important issue when it comes to industrial by-products, but it is of some concern to note that the legislative model proposed by the committee ultimately places liability with the Commonwealth. The environmental and financial liabilities associated with looking after teratonnes of CO in perpetuity are enormous and at this stage unquantified. This issue will need much more research before legislation can be drafted.

The report also highlights the lack of the necessary skills in Australia to do the job, especially in the science and engineering sectors. As in other areas of important economic endeavour around the country, the lack of necessary skills in the workforce to take on those tasks and to meet those future challenges has been a key failing of the Howard government, especially in this instance when we need all the technological assistance we can get to tackle climate change. I do note in passing that Dr Jensen, one of the authors of the dissenting report, is one of the most aggressive and enthusiastic proponents of nuclear power and nuclear energy for Australia; yet the Switkowski report, which showed amongst other things that the production of nuclear energy would be an expensive proposition here in Australia, also highlighted the lack of available skills and technological capacities that this country has.

The challenge of climate change is real. In addition, the need for us to develop and expand clean coal technologies is very real—it is a great need—as is the need for us to develop and implement renewable energy. We need to have a suite of policies that not only deals with the way in which we will produce energy in the long term by reducing emissions but also shows that we understand the scale of the issues and the challenges we face and that we are resolved—and, indeed, have the capacity—to take them on, as a Rudd Labor government would do. But I have to say that a government full of climate change sceptics can never deliver climate change solutions, and the dissenting report by the members I have mentioned here is the strongest evidence of that we are ever likely to see or hear.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.

See this speech in context