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

That was yet again another rant from the parallel universe occupied by the member for Kingsford Smith, one in which he gives the House one misrepresentation, one falsehood, after another—for example, the proposition that the government has said ‘targets of any kind are damaging’. How absurd. We are working towards a target right now—our Kyoto target, which is 108 per cent of 1990 emissions. That is a target and we are committed to it and we are on track to meet it. The reality is that we are on track to meet it whereas many countries that have ratified Kyoto will miss their Kyoto targets, and by very large margins.

We have been delighted today by an address from the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Harper. The Canadian government, at best estimates today, is likely to miss its Kyoto target from its own domestic actions by around 40 per cent. Our harshest critics in the Climate Institute suggest we may miss our Kyoto target by one or two per cent. We will not miss it; we will meet it. But that gives you the scale of the divergence between us. This is the parallel universe that the member for Kingsford Smith lives in. He berates Australia, runs down his own country—a nation which is going to meet its Kyoto target, which is on track to meet it, through its own domestic efforts—and extols countries that are going to miss their targets by very wide margins. The Canadian government recently estimated that the cost of domestic action to purchase international credits to comply with its Kyoto obligations would produce a crash in GDP of 6½ per cent, with a one-year net loss of national economic activity in the range of $Can51 billion in 2008. New Zealand, a much smaller economy, is also going to miss its target by domestic measures alone, and its Treasury estimates the cost of purchasing credits at $NZ567 million. Let us not kid ourselves—we have committed ourselves to a target, we are on track to meet it. Most countries that have ratified Kyoto will not meet their targets.

The member for Kingsford Smith was scornful of what was achieved at APEC. The member for Kingsford Smith’s approach to the international climate change negotiations is not only dangerous and ill informed; it is manifestly contrary to Australia’s best interest. The reality is that there has been a divergence between the developed countries, known in the Kyoto protocol language as annex 1 countries, and the developing countries, which include a number of industrial giants like China, India, South Korea, Singapore and all of the Middle East—so it includes a wide range of countries—which collectively account for the bulk of global emissions.

But more importantly they account for the vast bulk of the growth in emissions—and the divergence is that, in Kyoto, there is an assumption that the obligation to reduce emissions will only fall on developed countries, annex 1 countries. It is stated in the protocol that in subsequent commitment periods—that is, after the commitment period of 2008-12—only the annex 1 countries will bear obligations. The melancholy truth—be it convenient or inconvenient, I know not; but it is true—is that we cannot achieve the massive reductions that we need in global greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century unless there is action from all of the emitting countries, certainly all of the major emitting countries. If we were to proceed on the basis that China and India do not have to make any reductions in emissions, do not have to make any commitments to reduce emissions and do not have to set any goals of their own in the next commitment period, we simply will not get there.

There is a very good table in the emissions trading task group report which shows very graphically what the result would be of the developed world reducing its emissions by 2050 by 50 per cent—which would be a very significant reduction, I am sure everyone would agree—but with the developing world continuing business as usual. That would result in total global emissions being around twice what they are today. As we know, most scientists are calling for a reduction in emissions to 50 per cent or thereabouts of 1990 levels by 2050—hence the Japanese target of 50 per cent by 2050, which was echoed and supported by the Canadians and, of course, was commented on favourably in the G8 communique and referred to in the Sydney declaration.

The breakthrough that occurred in Sydney—and it was a vital breakthrough—was that, for the first time, developing countries, in particular China, agreed that they would work towards a long-term global emissions reduction goal. There has been enormous resistance to that effort to date. This is the first time that has been achieved. But the vital part is that, once you agree on a global goal—take your pick: 50 per cent by 2050 or the Japanese target if you like—then it follows as night follows day that the developing world, in particular the big industrial developing countries like China and India, will have to make reductions. In other words, you have taken the first step to getting real about an environmentally effective reduction in global emissions. Of course, the problem with Kyoto—and it is typical of the member for Kingsford Smith, who is so obsessed with spin and sloganising, that he regards Kyoto as a sacrament, not an international treaty—

See this speech in context