Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst other countries and global business leaders step up their efforts to combat climate change, Australia continues to dither. That Australia does so under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, who previously proclaimed strong belief in the science of climate change, is deeply disappointing—even more so when the most recent climate science data from around the world confirms that the climate is changing and that human activity is a critical cause. CO2 emissions are now above 400 parts per million compared with 280 parts per million in the pre-industrial era and the 350 parts per million considered to be a safe level. Of greater concern is that, if the world does not substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2, climate scientists tell us we are heading towards catastrophic consequences in some parts of the world. Sadly, leaders who deny the risks will be long gone and will not have to account for their failure to act.

The Turnbull government's new emissions reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 is inadequate when compared with the equivalent US target of 41 per cent, the German target of 46 per cent and the UK target of 48 per cent. The international criticism is that Australia, as the 13th largest emitter of greenhouse gases and per capita one of the highest in the world, is not making its fair contribution towards meeting global targets. Whilst the Australian government bickers with other countries about who is responsible and what action each of them should take, the most vulnerable people of the world and future generations, who today have no voice, pay the highest price.

I also note a report on 'peers and partners' highlighting that Australia is not doing as much as its major trading partners and allies in dealing with climate change. In particular, Australia is lagging behind in energy efficiency and carbon pricing. The Turnbull government's climate change response is centred around a $2.5 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, which pays big business to reduce emissions, and the $700 million Green Army program. Compare that with what other countries are doing. China, the world's largest emitter and Australia's largest trading partner, has pledged to peak its emissions in the year 2030 and to cut CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 60 to 65 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. In 2013, China generated 29 tonnes more renewable energy than Australia. By 2016, Beijing City will close all of its coal-fired power stations.

The UK, led by a conservative government and with current emissions levels similar to those of Australia, has binding targets to cut emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050 on 1990 levels. The UK also has legally binding five-year carbon budgets that set a cap on emissions in addition to being part of the European Union's emissions trading scheme. The UK does not subsidise fossil fuel companies, and has a renewable energy program and an energy efficiency program in place. South Korea, also a conservative-led nation, has a suite of measures in place, which include an emissions reduction target of 37 per cent by 2030. In January this year, South Korea commenced its emissions trading scheme, which accounts for 65 per cent of national emissions. It also is progressively replacing coal power with nuclear and gas. The USA, in addition to its emissions reduction target, recently released a clean power plan to reduce emissions from power plants by 32 per cent by 2030. Many US states have their own renewable energy targets, energy efficiency targets and building energy codes. California, with a larger economy and population than Australia, began an ETS in 2012, and last month California's parliament passed a law requiring utilities to purchase at least 50 per cent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030.

Fortunately, not all governments or people of influence are in denial about climate change or believe that it is someone else's problem. I was therefore encouraged to see the number of global entities that partially or completed divested themselves of shares in sectors which add to global carbon emissions. According to a report from Arabella Advisors, to date 436 institutions and 2,040 individuals across 43 countries and representing $2.6 trillion in assets have committed to divest from fossil fuel companies. This week in the US 81 companies, including Walmart, Intel and Hershey's, with a combined market value of assets worth $5 trillion, met with President Obama and pledged support for drastic action on climate change at the Paris conference.

Climate change is not just an environmental challenge but equally an economic and social challenge. The next global conference on climate change will be held in Paris next month, and at that conference Australia will be judged by the international community. I urge the Australian government to do what is right and at the Paris conference commit to meaningful climate change policy instead of succumbing to popular domestic politics and vested interests. (Time expired)