Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) declares an environment and climate emergency;

(2) recognises that:

  (a) the recent report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5C, indicates that we are facing a climate emergency, and as a result, meaningful action on climate change is urgent, at home and internationally;

  (b) this IPCC report has found that the world is not on track to limit global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius;

  (c) at a national level, England, France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Canada have all declared a climate emergency; and

  (d) extreme weather events will devastate large parts of Australia and radically impact food production, water availability, public health, infrastructure, the community and the financial system;

(3) notes that the Government has acknowledged urgent action is required to address climate change; and

(4) calls on the Government to take urgent action consistent with the internationally accepted science.

Over three degrees of global warming is what we are currently on track for—3.4 to be precise. We were told at the global summit—which the Prime Minister snubbed in favour of meeting Donald Trump and a Liberal Party donor—that over three degrees of global warming is what the government has us on track for. We have just lived through catastrophic fires that have happened at one degree of global warming. That is what has happened at one degree. We have been told that we could hit 1½ degrees of global warming as soon as 2030. We are no longer talking about our kids' lifetimes or our grandkids' lifetimes; we are talking about our lifetime. We could tip over dangerous global warming tipping points of 1½ degrees as soon as 2030. This is an emergency and it is time to tell it like it is.

The Prime Minister says, 'It's okay; I'm taking action on global warming and I've got it under control.' He does not have the climate crisis under control and he has no plan to get it under control. The more that the Prime Minister says we can talk about action in the future and keep putting it off to the never-never and putting it off and putting it off, the more he puts us all at risk and fails in his first duty, which is to keep people safe. The answer has to be to start telling it like it is, and that begins with declaring a climate emergency which is why I am moving this motion.

In my first media conference after becoming Greens leader, I said we should refuse a future in which our children are wearing gas masks because their cities are full of smoke. But that is what we have just experienced over this summer and that is what is in store for us unless we get this under control. I also spoke about the people that I meet who are angry and anxious and desperately looking for leadership. Now is the time to face up to the reality of the powers we face if we are to save the planet and save the future.

The last time there was as much carbon dioxide in the air as there is at the moment was at least 2.6 million years ago, before humans existed. Back then, temperatures were more than three degrees warmer, there were trees in Antarctica and sea levels were 25 metres higher. If we keep polluting at the current rate, we could be at 1,000 parts per million by the end of the century. Last time that happened, dinosaurs roamed the earth. Like them, we face an existential crisis brought on by a rapid shift in the climate system, but this time it has been created by us. This world, as former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said just a couple of days ago, is an uninhabitable world. If we are on track for up to four degrees—we are talking about a world that might happen during my kids' lifetime—the carrying capacity of the population of the world will be reduced to a billion people or less.

I have an unwavering belief that nothing will stop the clean energy revolution. Nothing will stop the scientists and engineers from solving these problems. We will get there eventually, but the problem is that we don't have until eventually. We have to act now. If we reach net zero by 2050 or 2060 or 2070, we still confront disaster without science based targets now, and that means urgent action now. That's why the government and the whole of society must recognise that we are in an emergency and take action at emergency speed, devoting all the resources we need to stop a threat that simply may become overwhelming.

Next week I will introduce to the Commonwealth parliament the Climate Emergency Declaration Bill. This bill will declare a climate emergency, require every government department to be guided by the declaration and mandate the establishment of what was called in the past a war cabinet to guide the country through rapid society-wide and economy-wide mobilisation to decarbonise the economy. This bill and this motion reflect the scale of the crisis we face and the scale of action we need.

Winston Churchill was a flawed man and a flawed Prime Minister, but in his greatest hours he reached across the aisle during World War II and formed a grand coalition with the Labour Party and others. I know it seems incomprehensible in today's political context that this could happen, but it's what should happen and it's what we need to keep fighting for, because the time for appeasement is over. We need climate change Churchills, not climate change Chamberlains like we have on the government benches.

It is time for a green new deal. A green new deal is a government led plan of investment and action to build a clean economy and a caring society, a plan where we can fight the climate crisis and inequality at the same time, but right here, today, we have no choice but to tell the truth about the crisis we face and what is needed. The time for half measures is over because time is running out, and that is why parliament should pass this declaration.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is such an incredibly important issue, and it's just such a shame, frankly, that what we have consistently seen from the Greens is media stunts, panic rhetoric and posturing. The Greens are the party of protest over policy and the party of disruption over real debate. The Greens are the party that will unapologetically herald protesters who break the law, shut down our economy and prevent you from getting to work and to your families. The Greens are the party that will bully small business with baseless boycotts that hurt Australian families. The Greens are a total sham. They are the political equivalent of a con.

The government, however, is absolutely committed to taking action on climate change, but it will do it in a way that does not take a wrecking ball to our economy. Action will be despite the Greens, not because of them. The Morrison government is committed to reducing Australia's emissions as per our climate policy and our global targets while ensuring that both the Australian people and the Australian economy benefit. We will reduce emissions while we maintain our strong economy, and we will do it through technology, not taxes.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 18:11 to 18:21

The Greens like to make comparisons when it comes to Australia and the rest of the world, so let's do that now here in this chamber. Australia is a world leader when it comes to renewables. In 2019, Australia's investment per capita in renewable energy was greater than that of the United States of America, Japan and the UK, and more than triple the per capita investment of Germany, China, France and Denmark. We are committed to practical change driven by science and technology and we are doing some great work in this space.

I particularly want to commend my electorate of Ryan, which is home to the Pullenvale CSIRO facility in Brisbane and has been at the forefront of developing the technology needed to make hydrogen power a reality for Australia. Hydrogen represents a low-carbon—in some cases no-carbon—renewable power source with the capacity to power homes, businesses and heavy vehicles more efficiently than other renewable energy sources. By growing a strong domestic hydrogen industry, Australia will be able to see the practical benefits of hydrogen at home with cheaper power bills and improved power reliability. By growing our export pipeline—something we are also working on at the CSIRO facility in Ryan—we can help other nations reduce their emissions globally as well.

Hydrogen has the potential to benefit Australian businesses across sectors as diverse as transport, agriculture and electricity generation. That is just one example. We have already invested $8.9 billion in more than 670 projects, including a charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, large-scale solar and the world's largest battery, in South Australia. We have a $2 billion climate solutions fund that supports practical projects, like capturing methane from landfill and storing carbon. Instead of making placards, like the Greens do, we are making changes. We are reducing emissions.

Australia's emissions are lower than in 2013, when we came into government. Emissions per capita are at the lowest level in 29 years. They have been reduced by 41 per cent since 1990. We have set a 2030 target—the Paris target—and accounted for how that will be achieved, down to the last tonne. We have accounted for the cost of achieving that target. We have accounted for it to the Australian people; that is something that many other nations that have signed up to the Paris agreement and are lecturing us now won't be able to say.

This is a very important point, because in the last few days we've seen the exact opposite from Labor. We've had an announcement from the Labor Party—well, notwithstanding the rebel members who attended the Otis group dinner—that they will reach net zero emissions by 2050. How? That's a good question. That's what everyone else is asking as well. Nobody knows—not the Leader of the Opposition, not the media, not the Australian people. All the Leader of the Opposition can do, as some kind of meek assurance, is say that he will consult—whatever that means. We don't even know what on.

The Prime Minister has been very clear when it comes to this government's position on targets. We won't set new targets without being able to look Australians in the eye and tell them how much it will cost and how we will achieve it. We will meet and beat our Paris target— (Time expired)

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Melbourne. We are in a climate emergency. The motion that the member for Melbourne put on the Notice Paper is obviously a further motion to those a number of people, including the member for Hindmarsh, have attempted to put forward in this place. The member for Hindmarsh put forward a motion last year that, of course, didn't make it to the floor of the House of Representatives for debate, because those on that side of the House are afraid of what that debate would look like. That side of the House is full of people, like the member for Hughes, who are climate change deniers. I'm sure that when the member for Hughes gets up here and has his five minutes of glory, we will hear and see the true colours of those opposite.

We are in a climate emergency. Before I touch on some of the contributions in this debate from members of the government, I reiterate the commitment made by the Australian Labor Party of net zero emissions by 2050 as part of our efforts to tackle climate change. This is not controversial, this is not extreme; this is in line with the science. It is in line with the recommendations of the IPCC and in line with the commitments made by Germany, by France, by Sweden, by New Zealand, by Denmark—by 70 other countries around the world. It is in line with the commitments being made by all of the states and territories in Australia, including those being governed by Liberal governments. I know this might be an inconvenient truth for the dinosaurs in the opposite party—

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's you, Craig.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the assistance of my colleague here—but we need to set a direction; we need to start lowering our emissions. Of course, the only time that we have done that effectively was when Labor was last in government and we had emission reductions of what we have seen on 2005 levels. They have plateaued under the governance of the Prime Minister and on the watch of the Liberal Party, but we must take action.

Let's go through some of the reasons why we haven't seen any climate action from this government. The first comes from the member for New England. The member for New England is a big reason why this government is not taking action on climate change. The member for New England spent the summer videoing himself in fields talking to clouds, saying climate change had all sorts of other reasons behind it—but he refused to take action on climate change. Senator Molan went on Q+A and admitted that his views on climate change had nothing to do with evidence, because apparently evidence isn't something that we need to consult on or think about when tackling climate change. Senator McMahon said that we are all going to go back to living in huts before the days of electricity because of our net zero emission targets. And the member sitting over here, the member for Hughes, only recently was supporting a campaign in schools, as reported in the Fairfax papers, that said that climate change is a hoax. That's what the member for Hughes wants in our classrooms. The member for Hughes wants to say to our students, who are worried, who are anxious about the future, who want hope and who want leadership in this place, that climate change is a hoax. It is a disgrace. It is no wonder that this government is not interested in listening to the science, it is no wonder that this government is not interested in tackling climate change and it is no wonder that we have become an international embarrassment under the leadership of the Prime Minister.

Our targets are in line with the science. We are emitting greenhouse gases right across the economy, across the country, and we must take action to reduce them. It is difficult and I acknowledge that it is difficult. I acknowledge the fact that to lower our emissions means changing the way in which we're doing it, but I remember that when the Labor Party first set our 2020 renewable energy target people scoffed at us. People said it couldn't be done.

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

It had to be wound back, remember?

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't quit catch the interjection from the member for Hughes. But all they are interested in is tackling Labor. They are not interested in tackling climate change. They are not interested in providing hope. They are not interested in listening to the science. They are not interested in responding to the calls of the international community. We are on the front line of climate change as Australians, and this government is taking a back seat and is ignoring the signs. We must change that now.

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

In the five minutes allowed for this debate I will quickly go through the science and the data to show that the facts are the exact opposite of the hysteria, the scaremongering and the antiscientific voodoo we have just heard from the members opposite. Firstly, whenever we have a debate on the climate, it's very important to make the acknowledgement, as I do here, that 'Great changes have taken place in the climate of Australia, all testimonies satisfactorily prove.' That is my belief. I didn't make those words up. Those words actually come from The Maitland Mercury on 11 March 1846, 174 years ago.

Let's look at this through the assertion that there is a climate emergency. Around 700 or 800 scientists and professionals have signed this declaration saying there is no climate emergency. Who signed this? Nobel Laureates, emeritus professors, geologists, meteorologists, medical doctors—

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Name them.

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

There are 800 of them. If those opposite agree to an extension of time, I would be prepared to read out the whole list of 800 names. But let's continue.

Let's not just take the word of hundreds of scientists that there is no climate emergency. Let's look at the evidence and let's look at the facts. Where do we start? I suggest we start with the Insurance Information Institute. Let's see how 2019 stacked up. If there is a climate emergency, things should be getting worse in 2019. In 2019, the number of events classified as natural catastrophes was down 3.5 per cent on 2018. The overall losses worldwide from natural catastrophes was also down 19.3 per cent.

Despite the deceptive claims from the insurance industry, who are trying to soften people up for premium increases, 2019 was actually a great year for the insurance industry. Their own data shows that insurance losses from natural catastrophes was down 39.5 per cent, $34 billion less in 2019 than in 2018.

Mr Burns interjecting—

I will take the interjection. Some may say that is only 2019 against 2018. It's only one year. Let's look at the long-term data and see what that says. There is a peer-reviewed, published paper on global climate related losses. I quote exactly from the peer-reviewed science.

Mr Burns interjecting—

We hear the interjections. They don't want to know what the peer review says. It says, 'since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global GDP'. Here is this nice, cute little graph which shows the decline in the loss.

An honourable member interjecting—

I'm happy to table it later. We'll see whether they want to know or live in ignorance. It will be very interesting.

Let's go on. We also look at the figures from the International Disasters Database. It shows that, this century, the number of weather-related losses has been declining. Most importantly, they show that today we are 98 per cent safer from extreme weather events than our grandparents or our great-grandparents were. So while you are wandering around saying 'climate emergency, climate emergency', the numbers show that we are 98 per cent safer today than we were back in the twenties and thirties. So while we have people brainwashed and gluing themselves to the roads, claiming a climate emergency, just remember: on extreme weather, children today are living in the safest time in human history.

What about the sea-level-rise emergency? I go back to the 24 September 1988 issue of The Canberra Times:

Male, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation … within the next 30 years …

according to United Nations authorities. So the Maldives should have been underwater by 2018. With the aid of modern technology, I have here a live cam. This is Kuredu Island Resort—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Hughes, I hope you are not seeking to tender that iPad.

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

No, I am showing a picture. Right now, as we speak—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member's time has expired.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Member for Hughes, are you seeking leave to table any documentation?

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

When I'm at the end.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are at the end! You need to seek leave.

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

I would like to seek leave to table a few documents.

Leave not granted.

You don't even know what the documents are!

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Hughes will resume his seat. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.