Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the member for Mayo's motion this afternoon. The member notes in her motion in paragraph (1)(a) that 'the scientific evidence for … the existence of climate change' is in, and ' should no longer be held in doubt'. To clear up any ambiguities, I agree with that. The science is in; the climate is changing. We only have to look at a recent paper, published in January 2014 in the journal Nature that said Australian tropical cyclone activity is lower than at any time in the past 550 years. We only have to go to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and their numbers, and we see a declining trend in cyclones in this nation. In fact, for the season 2015-16, not a single severe cyclone struck Australia—not one. If we compare that to the season back in 1984-85, we had no fewer than 11 severe cyclones, yet in the other season there was not a single one. So, yes, the climate is changing; there are fewer cyclones affecting Australia. We see the same with tornados in the USA—a significant downward trend. This year likely has the lowest number of tornados in history—so, yes, the climate is changing.

We can look at the information on snowfall. The trend in winter snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere is actually increasing; we are getting more snowfall in winter in the Northern Hemisphere. The climate is changing. We are a land 'of drought and flooding rains'. The current drought is terrible, as I'm sure that you, Deputy Speaker, among all members in this place know. But, thankfully, if we look at the rainfall records, in many places in this country the drought was far, far worse back over 100 years ago. Yes, we are seeing all those climatic changes.

We hear also in this motion that the government should take serious action on climate change. I say that the greatest moral challenge that we face as members of parliament is to admit that nothing that we do in Australia will actually change the climate. This is not only what the science says, but what the Chief Scientist says. During questioning in estimates, Senator Ian Macdonald said to the Chief Scientist:

In Australia, we emit less than 1.3 per cent of the world's carbon emissions.

The Chief Scientist said:

About that.

Senator Macdonald asked:

If we were to reduce the world's emissions of carbon by 1.3 per cent, what impact would that make on the changing climate of the world?

In other words, if we reduced our CO2 emissions ,and CO2 equivalents, to zero, what effect would that have on the temperature? The Chief Scientist's answer was:

Virtually nothing.

The fact is, whatever we do here in policy will have no effect on the climate.

You may well argue: what if all nations worked together, like they are at Paris Agreement? If you do the numbers, and if we assume that every single nation meets its Paris commitments by 2030 and we assume that the computer modelling is correct, how much warming do we avoid? One-twentieth of one degree by the year 2100. That is what is achieved under the Paris commitment—one-twentieth of one degree. The greatest moral challenge that we have is to make those admissions to the Australian public and not virtue-seek on this issue.

Others have brought up the issue of Tuvalu and have said that Tuvalu is at imminent risk of disappearance. But actually, if you look at the peer-reviewed science and what the peer-reviewed science says about Tuvalu, Auckland University's Professor Kench has found that, since the 1970s, Tuvalu has actually increased in size by 2.9 per cent. The professor said:

The study findings may seem counterintuitive … but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.

That is the peer-reviewed science.

When we talk about taking action on climate change, it is very important to remember that our electricity sector, which we all talk about with our solar panels and wind turbines, is only one-third of our CO2 emissions. I ask other members of parliament to please tell me this: what are you going to do in the spaces of agriculture, what are you doing in road transport, what are you doing in commercial aviation and what are you doing in the mining sector to reduce our emissions? The fact is that, no matter what we do, the reality is that we will not make a change to the climate— (Time expired)

See this speech in context