Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I want to begin with three clear principles before addressing both the science, with which we are in agreement, and the solution, on which we have points of disagreement. The three clear principles are these: firstly, that climate change is real and significant and important. This is my deeply held, passionate belief. It is also our clear, precise and strong policy within the coalition. That is our policy. That is my belief. Secondly, at this moment we are at the point of ‘big history’. It is a phrase I used in a speech at the Centre for Independent Studies on 30 November 2006, and we are at that point of big history because of the confluence of two events. What we see is the evidence of an emerging tragedy of the commons, as Garrett Hardin wrote about more than four decades ago. A tragedy of the commons is where individual action, when grossed up collectively, leads to a common problem. In this case we have the accumulation of individual action through the consumption of electricity, through the use of automotive vehicles, through the way in which we treat our land, adding up to a collective problem in terms of the accumulation of C02 in our atmosphere—now at 383 parts per million, on the latest evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and that that in turn is having an impact on our climate. This big history is caused by the tragedy of the commons. It is solved through the incorporation of externalities which have not otherwise been included within our economic system. And that is a principle which is clear, strong and absolute in dealing with the fundamental scientific point established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established during our time in government through the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO, the Greenhouse Office, and the Antarctic Division of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. That is strong, clear and absolute.

This brings me to the third principle: that there are good actions and there are bad actions. Not all actions represent a solution. Not all attempts represent a positive outcome. It is quite conceivable to worsen the global problem by taking the problem of carbon leakage and by sending production to higher-emitting environments which are less efficient. That can in fact defeat the very purpose for which legislation is crafted and have an impact not just on Australian jobs—and profoundly on Australian jobs—but also on the very source question of reducing global emissions. The point here is very simple. The problem is real and significant. It is a moment of big history with which we have to deal, but we have to choose our solutions wisely and, in our view, in dealing with the very science set down by the Minister assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Water, there is a greener, cheaper and smarter way forward which could double the base case of savings in terms of emissions from five to 10 per cent if there were no global agreement. It could be cheaper to the extent of $49 billion or $9,000 per family and smarter to the extent that it would save 68,000 rural jobs or create part thereof. In that situation it is incumbent upon the government of the day to examine with good faith a proposal for a system which is greener, cheaper and smarter and which addresses the very problem which they outline as being in need of action in a more effective and more comprehensive way.

Having made those points, I want to turn first to the science before looking at the four pillars of our solution. In dealing with the science, let me begin by making two brief statements. I am well known and publicly convicted as being of the belief that the science is clear and strong in relation to the contribution of human activity—the release of C02 and equivalent gases—to the increase in levels of CO2 and in turn the impact of climate change on our global environment. That puts me in a position where I can make the statement with clarity that we must never get into denouncing those who have a difference of view. I am a believer in climate science but I stand squarely for the right of those who have a difference of opinion to present their view without fear of being denounced as deniers, without fear of being harassed and without fear of being mocked. Science advances through contestability. Science advances through an open society. Science advances through people being able to present their case without fear of being hounded, harassed and abused. So I make this statement very clearly as one who does believe in the science: those who have a difference of opinion and a difference of understanding have not just the right but the duty to present that view and they have the right to present that view without fear of harassment or denunciation as being deniers.

Having said that, let me say this about the science: I welcome the statement made by the minister today and I thank him for what he put down in terms of the science, although I reject of course the persiflage of the political comments at the start and at the end. In terms of the global science, let me make these points clear: we believe that it is absolutely without dispute that an additional 40 billion tonnes of CO2 or equivalent gases per annum is being put into the skies through human activity. There is very little dispute about that component. We also believe and accept—although there is more dispute around this element—that that has led to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere to 383 parts per million, which is up from about 280 parts per million during the course of the industrial revolution. But that is largely also not a disputed fact. We also accept that this has had an impact and is likely to have a more significant impact on climate change over and above that which is normal, natural and part of the global movements and cycles. We accept that there is a direct link between the accumulation of CO2 or equivalent gases in the earth’s atmosphere and the phenomena of climate change. There has been a 0.7-degree increase in global average temperatures over the last century. There has been an increase of approximately 20 centimetres in global sea levels over the last century. We also see that there is likely to be an impact of between 18 and 76 centimetres, according to the IPCC, in global sea level rises over the coming century if no action is taken. But I speak from a position where I believe that we will take action and we can take action and there will be an impact. So the business-as-usual case is the worst case scenario; it does not take into account what will happen if we do take the actions that I believe we will take collectively at the global level and within Australia.

I also note that for Australia there are risks of inaction at the global level, because action taken in Australia alone will have no impact. There must be a global solution. Therefore, we know that there are likely to be changes in temperature. We also know, from the advice I had in government from the Bureau of Meteorology and other government agencies, that there is likely to be a change in rainfall patterns such that, if we take a diagonal line stretching from north of Perth to north of Brisbane, there will probably be an increase in rainfall to the north of that line and there is likely to be a decrease in rainfall to the south of that line. Nevertheless, what the Director of Meteorology repeatedly stressed to me was that we should not attribute individual events such as rainstorms, periods of dry and periods of wind to climate change. It will be on average an overview. That is very important. There is a danger and a risk that people will overstate individual activities.

We are, as Dorothea Mackellar told us over 100 years ago, a land of ‘droughts and flooding rains’. That was 100 years ago, before climate change took root. Many of our climatic records date from before climate change had any impact. So there are huge natural fluctuations and huge natural events; that is what weather is. But, the trend we believe is clear and strong and I thank the government for putting down the scientific elements of this statement.

I want to turn to the response to the science, because if this science is the case, I make the point very clearly that there can be good and bad policy responses. The contention presented repeatedly by those on the government side is that all responses are by definition good. That is palpably and demonstrably false. What we are pursuing is an approach based on four pillars of action. Those four pillars are: firstly, green carbon; secondly, a clean energy revolution; thirdly, a price on carbon; and, fourthly, a comprehensive global agreement. Together they offer Australia the best chance of securing its future in terms of the environment to the extent that human activity has an impact on the environment.

Let me deal with the first of those, the green-carbon approach. I pay great tribute to Malcolm Turnbull, who did an extraordinary body of the heft of this work himself. We have set down a clear, achievable objective of 150 million tonnes of savings of CO2 per annum by 2020 through the adoption and implementation of green-carbon practices. What does that mean? It means that the farmers of the Liverpool Plains, with whom I visited last week accompanied by the member, Mark Coulton, and others will be able to sequester carbon in their soil through the changes in practices that they are presently adopting. Biochar, mallee and mulga revegetation, avoided deforestation, avoided degradation of forests and reafforestation can all contribute to this amount. And lest it be thought that this is an overambitious target, Professor Garnaut’s chapter 22 sets out the potential for 800 million tonnes per annum of savings. So we are one-fifth of that which is proposed by Professor Garnaut, but we are a heck of a lot more than that which is embodied within the government’s system because green carbon, other than from the pure planting of trees, is not recognised, unlike in the United States and unlike what is occurring within the European Union. The point here is very clear. We need a system that will reduce the costs to farmers by making it clear that direct emissions from farms from burping cows are not taxed in Australia. It is an almost ludicrous proposition, but it is a fact that the government is proposing to tax burping cows in Australia. Let me make it absolutely clear that we will not contemplate a direct tax on direct emissions from agricultural activity.

We will also seek to reduce the electricity and other input costs. On the upside, we will seek to ensure that there are opportunities for farmers, through soil carbon and the improvement in the carrying capacity of their soils in relation to carbon, to receive credits. Those credits could be traded on the international market, or they could be traded on the compulsory Australian market to companies such as BHP, Alumina or Rio Tinto, who may seek to offset their emissions through purchase of agricultural credits, or they could be traded on the domestic voluntary market that we hope will be established by the government, and, if they will not do it, we will move to do such a thing.

The second thing that I want to deal with here in terms of our four pillars is the clean energy revolution. The clean energy revolution, in dealing with the very issues of science raised by the government, comprises two elements. It is about supply side and cleaning up power generation in Australia and it is about demand side and reducing power consumption in Australia. On the supply side there are two key elements. The first is the embrace of a renewables policy which will see Australia move towards a 20 per cent target of renewable energy by 2020. We clearly, strongly, absolutely support such a target. We clearly, strongly, absolutely would like to see such legislation passed through the parliament, but not at any price—we want that legislation decoupled from the emissions trading scheme. We want to deal on other amendments, we will talk with the government, and we hope and expect that they will decouple that from the emissions trading scheme.

The second element is the process of cleaning up our traditional fossil fuel power generation. There has to be, as the member for Groom and as the Leader of the Opposition have said, a process that will allow us to produce two clean coal power stations by 2020 of industrial scale that are operating, that will test the viability and that are fully functioning. That is what we seek, that is what we will pursue and that is what we think is vital if we are to give Australia a future in its own most abundant resource, whilst also providing clean energy and securing international markets to ensure that our abundant resource is part of a global clean energy solution.

This leads me to the issue of demand. As we have set out and as the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, has set out, on the demand side we believe that 50 million tonnes of CO2 or equivalent gases can and must be saved through energy efficiency by 2020. What that means is the development of smart grid technology, as we see in California and as we can do Australia. It means also that we have proposed an accelerated depreciation mechanism for investment in green buildings—for investment in low-emissions technology for our building stock within Australia. We want to see the rate of depreciation doubled so that we have accelerated depreciation to encourage emissions-saving investment. That is what we seek and what we will do.

We also acknowledge that there has to be a carefully targeted price of carbon. This can be a disaster for the Australian economy or it can be carefully implemented. Therefore, we have proposed a system which is greener, cheaper and smarter. It is greener because it offers a 10 per cent base in the case of no global agreement rather than a five per cent base. It is cheaper because it offers $49 billion worth of savings—or more understandably, and perhaps more importantly, the equivalent of $9,000 per family of four. It would have a $240 per annum impact on their electricity prices—the difference between a $40 and a $280 increase in the rise of electricity bills for families. It is smarter not just because it would reduce the extraordinary churn of dollars but also because it would create a net 68,000 regional jobs in Australia.

Those things must be considered by the government. We say: show real leadership and do what President Obama would do—cross the aisle and negotiate about how to improve the system. If they will not do that then we will not worsen global emissions and hock the Australian economy in order to produce a system which will neither solve the emissions problem nor protect the Australian economy.

The question has been raised as to whether what we have put down in the Frontier Economics report is party policy. There are three key principles in that. Firstly is the principle that green carbon should be encouraged and that agricultural emissions should have an offset capability but not a direct liability. That is already party policy. Secondly is the principle that there must be a level playing field for Australia’s export and trade exposed sector. That is already party policy. Thirdly is the principle that there should be quite different treatment of the power generation sector. The government at the moment are negotiating with the power generation sector, as they know they have a huge balance sheet problem. That is an idea which was greeted with great interest. We will develop that and we want to sit down and talk with the government on that. That is the third of our pillars.

The last of our pillars is about an international agreement. We want to see a comprehensive international agreement which brings China, India, Indonesia and Russia, along with the United States and Europe, to the table with appropriate responsibilities and commitments from each of them. On that basis we could have a real ability to work towards a 15 or 25 per cent target in the case of a comprehensive global agreement, to which we would add the potential for voluntary action.

Lastly, we would like to see a global rainforest recovery program. We will support the government if they pursue with good faith a genuine rainforest recovery program. I go back to where I started: 40 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum leads to the scientific points raised in the government’s statement. Of that, eight billion tonnes comes from deforestation. It is clear that half of that, four billion tonnes, could be saved over the next five years on a per annum basis if there is a genuine global commitment to reducing deforestation. That is the single biggest, fastest, cheapest thing we can do to address the science set out in this statement.

I thank the House and I thank the government for the opportunity to respond. We believe that there is a real challenge, that it is significant, that we have to give the planet the benefit of the doubt but that there can be good and bad responses. That is why we commend a system to the government which they must examine and which is greener, cheaper and smarter. We urge them to cross the aisle to negotiate and make a real difference in addressing the science.

See this speech in context