Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—This week the Senate will vote on the most important piece of environmental and economic legislation that has ever been introduced into this parliament—the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is important at this stage to remind ourselves why the government is introducing this significant reform. The scientific case for action on climate change is clear. The climate system is warming. Human induced emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the warming. Warming will continue, and unless the world dramatically reduces global greenhouse gas emissions changes in the climate will have serious consequences for society, economy and the environment.

This science has been thoroughly tested and verified. These statements are based on careful analysis of hundreds of papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature. They are supported by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 2009 Copenhagen conference, the United States Global Change Research Program and the world’s leading scientific societies, including the United Kingdom Royal Society and the United States National Academy of Science.

Those who wish to dispute these findings must do so in major peer reviewed journals if they want their opinions to have weight in the scientific community or to persuade policy makers. Publication in newspapers and blogs is not a substitute for the careful processes of scientific rigour. The challenge we have is serious and there is no excuse for inaction.

The basic physics of the greenhouse effect have been well understood for more than 100 years. Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the atmosphere. Without the natural greenhouse effect, average surface temperatures would be 33 degrees Celsius lower. Carbon dioxide concentrations varied between 172 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years. The records demonstrate a close relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature.

Burning of fossil fuels, destruction of forests and agricultural practices have caused carbon dioxide concentrations to rise by 37 per cent, methane by 150 per cent and nitrous oxide by 18 per cent. Most of this increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has occurred during the lifetime of those sitting in this House. In 2008 carbon dioxide concentration reached 383 parts per million, which is far in excess of anything observed during the existence of humans on the planet.

Over the past century the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74 degrees Celsius. Temperature rises have occurred on all continents and over the ocean. Thirteen of the 14 warmest years on record occurred between 1995 and 2008. In Australia there has been a warming of 0.9 degrees Celsius since 1950. Warming would have been greater had not small aerosol particles in the air from industrial pollution caused some counteracting cooling of the atmosphere.

Air temperatures are subject to natural variability due to influences such as El Nino cycles, variation in solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Because of this natural variability, it is not possible to draw conclusions about long-term climate change trends from 10 to 15 years of data alone. Claims that global warming has stopped because no trend in air temperatures can be observed in the period since, say, 1998, which has been asserted by some in recent times, are scientifically and statistically invalid. Further, when we consider warming we must look at the entire climate system. The climate system includes the atmosphere, the oceans, ice and snow, and the land.

Most of warming since 1960—about 85 per cent—has happened in the oceans. In the period from 1961 to 2003 the heat content of the ocean increased by 160,000 trillion megajoules. This is a very large amount of heat, enough to melt 479,000 billion tonnes of ice. There have already been massive changes to sea ice, ice sheets, snow cover and frozen ground. Arctic sea ice extent has declined since 1979, while summer sea ice extent has decreased dramatically. The average Arctic sea ice extent for July 2009—last month—was 8.81 million square kilometres, about 87 per cent of the 1979 to 2000 average for July, representing a loss in area the size of the Northern Territory.

Sea ice extent in Antarctica has increased by one per cent per decade due to changes in wind patterns linked to ozone depletion and climate change. This is likely to be a short-lived increase with models projecting Antarctic sea ice will reduce by almost a quarter in total extent and a third in total volume by 2100. Most of the world’s ice is in the vast ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Greenland is melting rapidly, losing ice at the rate of about 200 cubic kilometres per year. Antarctica is also losing mass, though not yet as rapidly. Warming of the oceans and melting of land-based ice causes sea levels to rise. In the last century average global sea level rose by 17 centimetres. Sea levels have continued to rise over the last decade, at an increased rate.

Finally, warming of the climate system can be seen in changes to temperature-sensitive natural ecosystems. Already, Australia is experiencing shifts such as encroachment of eucalypts into subalpine grasslands and early flowering dates for many plants. This wide and diverse body of carefully documented evidence has led scientists to conclude that warming of the climate system is ‘unequivocal’.

The warming of the last 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors. On the contrary, the science shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities very likely caused most of this observed warming. Some have suggested that the current warming is a ‘bounce back’ from the Little Ice Age—a period of cooler temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere from the 17th to early 19th centuries. It is questionable whether this qualifies as a scientific explanation, since it offers no physical explanation for the warming. In any case, the Little Ice Age in that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one (there is no evidence for a Little Ice Age in the Southern Hemisphere at all).

Others have suggested changes in solar irradiance are responsible. However the ‘warming power’ of the additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities is about 20 times greater than that of the increase in total solar irradiance from the year 1750. Similarly, there is little evidence to support suggestions that changes in cosmic rays are responsible for warming. There is no demonstrated physical mechanism by which cosmic rays could influence climate. And there is no correlation between cosmic ray intensity and recent temperature change.

In summary, despite prolonged and careful examination by scientists, no natural causes can explain the observed warming. Indeed, if only natural changes were considered, it is likely the Earth would have cooled during the 20th century. In addition, the amount of warming observed to date is consistent with the additional greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere due to human activities.

Climate scientists use a range of indicators or ‘fingerprints’ to study the human influence on climate. These are characteristics we would expect to see if warming were caused by an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations but not if other causes were responsible. For example, increased greenhouse gas concentrations should lead to warming of the lower atmosphere (or troposphere) and cooling of the upper atmosphere (or stratosphere). This is exactly what has been observed. On the other hand, increased solar irradiance should lead to warming of the upper as well as the lower atmosphere. We can therefore say with a very high degree of confidence that greenhouse gases have been the main driver of the global warming trend since the mid-20th century, while a range of natural processes have affected—and continue to affect—shorter term variability. For practical purposes we can be sure that human activities are responsible for warming.

The massive stores of heat in the world’s oceans mean climate change cannot be reversed for many centuries. Even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilised at their present levels, a further warming of the atmosphere of at least 0.6 degrees Celsius would inevitably follow. However, if we fail to control global greenhouse gas emissions, global average atmospheric temperature could rise by up to five or six degrees Celsius above 1990 levels by the end of this century, an alarming figure.

These are very dramatic temperature increases. To provide a point of comparison, the difference in average global temperatures between the last ice age and today is only about five degrees Celsius. These temperature changes would be accompanied by significant and ongoing rises in sea level, heat waves, bushfires and droughts, disruptions to ecosystems including the extinction of many species, disease threats and social and geopolitical destabilisation.

Sea level rise is directly related to increased temperature through thermal expansion of the ocean and melting of land-based ice. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that sea levels could rise between 18 and 76 centimetres by the year 2100, allowing for the break-up of land-based ice sheets. Further research over the last two or three years suggests this may be an underestimate. Sea level rise of up to one metre by 2100 cannot be ruled out.

Increased sea levels will combine with storm surges and other extreme events such as king tides to flood low-lying coastal areas and erode coastlines. Even an apparently modest sea level rise of 50 centimetres would cause extreme sea level events to occur hundreds of times more frequently along many parts of the Australian coastline. More than 700,000 residences across this country are estimated to be at threat from the effects of climate change including storm surges and extreme weather events. Globally, megadeltas and low-lying islands are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and could be uninhabitable by the year 2100. Many of the most vulnerable of these, of course, are in our neighbourhood—the Asia-Pacific region.

The heatwave in south-eastern Australia in January and February this year illustrates clearly how our vulnerability to extreme heat events exists. This heatwave set new record temperatures and had observable impacts on human health, infrastructure and ecosystems. During this heatwave, the Basslink Interconnector experienced shutdown when temperatures exceeded its design limits, reducing power supplies to Melbourne. Rail lines buckled for the first time, causing delays in transport. In Victoria there were 374 additional deaths. Climate change will result in more heatwaves. Bushfires are expected to become more intense, and the interval between them will shorten. The megafires in Canberra in 2003 and Victoria in 2009 are consistent with these expected changes in fire regimes and, of course, with dreadfully tragic consequences.

Climate change is already affecting our water resources and larger impacts can be expected in the future. Rainfall in south-west Western Australia dropped by about 15 per cent in the 1970s and has not recovered. Stream flow into Perth’s dams between 1976 and the year 2000 almost halved as a result. There is evidence that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are responsible for half the decline in rainfall in south-west Western Australia. There is also evidence that reduced rainfall in south-eastern Australia—Victoria and the southern part of South Australia in particular—cannot be explained by natural factors alone.

Projections indicate that water availability will continue to decline in major areas of Australia. This has large implications for water availability in our major cities and agricultural centres including the Murray-Darling Basin. Under a worst case scenario irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin would virtually disappear by 2100.

About one quarter of human emissions of carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans. While this provides a brake on the rate of climate change, it has serious consequences for marine ecosystems because the dissolved carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans. Coral reefs face the double threat of increasing sea surface temperature causing coral bleaching and acidification reducing their ability to grow. Increasing acidification will cause severe disruptions to marine ecosystems in general, and will endanger many of the world’s fisheries.

Seventeen of Australia’s World Heritage properties, listed for their outstanding cultural and natural values, will experience increased risks from climate change as well. The threats to our largest World Heritage area—the iconic Great Barrier Reef—from increased ocean temperatures and acidity due to carbon pollution are severe. The Great Barrier Reef is home to important biodiversity and contributes around $5 billion and around 60,000 jobs to Australia’s economy.

Kakadu National Park represents a unique combination of outstanding ecological and cultural values, both of which are threatened by climate change. Rising sea levels are already causing salt water intrusion into low-lying freshwater wetlands at Kakadu.

Climate change will also have numerous and far-reaching health impacts in our population. Assuming no adaptation, there could be an additional 5,000 heat related deaths in our five largest cities by 2050. Climate change will also change the geographical range of mosquito-borne infectious diseases. Climate change and population growth are likely to increase the number of people living in areas suitable for supporting dengue fever by up to 1.4 million by 2050.

Climate change impacts will also have far-reaching economic implications. It is not possible to calculate the full economic costs of future climate change impacts. However, the 2008 Garnaut review provided a partial estimate. Garnaut concluded that the limited range of impacts he was able to consider would result in costs amounting to eight per cent of gross domestic product by the end of this century in the event of unmitigated climate change. The full cost to the economy from the entire range of climate change impacts and their flow-on effects would be much higher.

Of major concern is the growing realisation that climate change can be accelerated beyond current predictions by reinforcing ‘climate feedbacks’—that is, climate change feeds on itself to enhance the rate of warming. One feedback of concern is the possible release of hitherto stable carbon stores to the atmosphere, for example, by the thawing of carbon-rich frozen soils.

A tipping point is where the climate is effectively flipped into a new state with no way to recover. Some of these flips can occur rapidly with little advance warning. It is possible that a temperature threshold will be crossed later this century that will see the eventual disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet. If this happened, it would lead to seven metres of sea level rise. Such a change would be irreversible in any timeframe meaningful for human societies.

In March this year over 2,000 leading scientists gathered at a conference in Copenhagen found that many aspects of climate are changing near the upper boundary of IPCC projections. Unabated emissions will cause major societal and environmental disruptions for our children and those that follow.

In July in Italy, leaders of the world’s 20 largest emitting economies, including our own Prime Minister, agreed that the science is compelling and that urgent action needs to be taken. These were the leaders of the world’s 20 largest emitting economies. The government is helping to shape the global solution in its approach to this issue. We are working to achieve at the UN Conference in Copenhagen in December a new and effective long-term approach on global cooperation. The government recognises that a global agreement stabilising greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalence or lower is in Australia’s national interests.

Even if we do achieve an ambitious new global agreement, the climate will continue to change. The government has therefore put in place the first steps to prepare to adapt to this challenge and there is much more as a nation that we shall need to do to make us resilient to the climate change risks that will confront our society, economy and the environment. To drive the carbon intensity of the economy down and to contribute to the global effort, the government has committed to challenging emissions reductions targets. If there is a comprehensive agreement capable of stabilising greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalence or lower, then the government has committed to a target of reducing emissions by 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme constitutes the foundation stone of Australia’s ability to reach those ambitious national emissions reductions targets. There is no soft way forward to confront this issue. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is being supported by other measures, including the expanded Renewable Energy Target and our efficiency measures. Inaction on climate change is inexcusable. The government is committed to action.

The Leader of the Opposition agrees with the climate change science that I have outlined. He apparently agrees that we need a price on carbon in our economy as well. He is also on the record supporting the government’s emissions reduction targets. These are very important commitments. It is now up to the coalition to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the Senate, to support the legislation in the Senate that has been carried by this House on the grounds of the solid foundation of the science and to help this country make its contribution to bring about reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to meet this most serious of challenges.

by leave—I move:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Flinders speaking for a period not exceeding 21 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to 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.