Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the critical importance of confronting the future challenge of climate change and the dangers of an approach that is stuck in the past?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Climate change is a great economic and environmental challenge for this generation of Australians. In fact it is a challenge that has stared in the face of governments around the world since the states of the world gathered together and put together the Kyoto protocol and realised that we had a challenge that goes beyond any one nation state to fix. That is why the nations of the world agreed to ratify Kyoto, with the exception of one or two. When the opposition were in government they were one of those two. They said that the only way to fix climate change was for Australia to act unilaterally out there and not in concert with the rest of the international community.

If you are looking at the overall challenges of climate change, I think it is important to note that those opposite are now part of the climate change sceptics brigade mark 2. What we have here quite plainly with this new fear campaign on emissions trading is this: we have the return of the Kyoto sceptics in their new fear campaign on climate change and on emissions trading. That is what this is all about.

I suggest to those opposite that they soberly look at the economic cost. We know that they have no interest in the environmental consequences. They simply look at the flow-through effects in terms of the potential economic cost. I quote from the Preston and Jones report for the CSIRO in 2006, which is when those opposite were in the midst of their 12 years in government. It states that with a less than one degree temperature rise the snow covered area of the Australian Alps will shrink by 10 to 40 per cent by the turn of this century. That will have a huge impact on Australian tourism. The CSIRO report further states: with a warming of between two and three degrees, almost all of the Great Barrier Reef will be bleached every year; 80 per cent of Kakadu’s freshwater wetlands will be lost to a 30 centimetre rise in sea level; with a three to four degree rise in temperature, Murray-Darling river flows could fall by almost a half—between 16 and 48 per cent.

For those opposite who say that they have a particularly keen interest in representing the interests of rural Australia, let us look at the effect on primary industries. I will quote from figures provided by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO in 2007. They stated that climate modelling by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology suggests rainfall in southern Australia could be reduced by up to 10 per cent by 2030 and by up to 20 per cent by 2050. Furthermore, CSIRO in 2006 stated that livestock heat stress leads to a decline in milk production flowing from the effect which climate change has on temperature rises; that there will be a high annual cost of approximately $12 million a year to manage the southward spread of the Queensland fruit fly; and that with a warming of between two and three degrees there will be a 40 per cent reduction in livestock carrying capacity for native pasture lands. These are significant effects for rural Australia, and because they affect rural Australia they will have widespread effects on the entire national economy.

Let us go to the effects on human health. Annual heatwave deaths in Brisbane will increase from 134 today to between 165 and 189. Furthermore, a Climate Institute report of 2007 states that the southward spread of malaria receptive zones—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These figures are from CSIRO reports, Climate Institute reports and various other reports. So CSIRO is spreading a scare campaign according to those opposite.

Then we have a further report from the Climate Institute of 1,200 to 1,400 more heat related deaths a year in major population centres. Putting all those things into their global context—the impact of overall temperature rises—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that the global economic costs associated with an increase in average global temperatures of 2.5 degrees could cost between 1.5 per cent and two per cent of global GDP a year. The case on this question is clear for those who are responsible about long-term planning for Australia’s economy, long-term planning for the future of our rural industries, long-term planning for the future of our public health and long-term planning in terms of what needs to be done to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

This government came to the election with a very clear-cut policy. We would ratify Kyoto. Those opposite remained committed to opposing the ratification of Kyoto. Prior to the election we were committed to the introduction of something called an emissions-trading scheme. Prior to the election, those opposite were also committed to the introduction of an emissions-trading scheme. Prior to the election, those opposite committed further on the question of an ETS. They said that the transport sector should be included in that ETS—and the member for Wentworth seeks to hide once again in his notes. The bottom line is that, if you are responsible about long-term planning for the environment, it means embracing these long-term challenges.

We have a clear-cut strategy for dealing with climate change, a clear-cut strategy for dealing with emissions trading and a clear-cut strategy when it comes to acting on new technologies which assist in dealing with what is not just a global problem but—

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Laming interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bowman is warned!

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a national problem as well. These strategies includes a half-billion-dollar clean coal fund, a half-billion-dollar renewable energy fund and a $240 million clean business fund. These are in addition to our commitment to introduce an emissions trading scheme—a responsible, market based way of dealing with the challenge of greenhouse gas emissions.

I say to those opposite that this should be a challenge which transcends politics. This is a challenge for the globe and for the nation which is so intergenerational in its scope that people should start working together on it. Instead, those opposite, since they have lodged in opposition ranks, have decided that this once again is simply a platform for the short-term playing of party politics, rather than long-term planning for the nation’s future. This government is committed to taking long-term, responsible action to deal with the challenge of climate change. I appeal to those opposite to abandon their current commitment to a fear campaign. It may be politically attractive for them once again to see the return of the Kyoto sceptics through their current campaign of fear on emissions trading. I would commend them instead to the challenges which their children and grandchildren face and ask them to act responsibly in their interest, the planet’s interest and in the interest of the Australia economy.