Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Climate change is the greatest threat facing the world at the beginning of the 21st century. The degree and rate of onset of global warming will determine the rate of extinction around the world and the rate of human deaths. Scientists have been warning about the impacts of human induced global warming for decades. Rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, retreating ice shelves and snow lines, extreme droughts, floods and fires, thawing of the tundra all are proceeding faster than predicted. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change representing the world’s leading scientists paints a grim picture of the accelerating impacts of global warming. We are approaching the tipping point of catastrophic climate change. It is already too late for the world’s coral reefs, which have passed the threshold of dangerous climate change. The acidification of the oceans and the rising temperatures mean that the corals are weakened and will not recover if bleaching episodes occur more frequently than every five years and that is now the pattern. One hundred million people around the world depend for their livelihoods on coral reefs. Unless we act before 2020 to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at under 550 parts per million, we cannot avoid run away, dangerous climate change. It will be too late.

In spite of the urgency of this situation, developed nations continue to believe that they can insulate themselves from the impacts of global warming through engineering solutions such as sea walls and water diversions but they seem unable to grasp the consequences of sea level rises if the Greenland ice shelf or the West Antarctic ice shelf break up or if the thermohaline conveyor stops and plunges Europe into an ice age within a decade. In Australia extreme weather events such as floods, bushfires and droughts will be more intense because of changed rainfall patterns, increased temperatures and evaporation rates yet Australian government politicians continue to argue that drought intensity and climate change are unrelated.

For the world’s poor there is no escape. The majority of the world’s poor live in developing countries and they will be the ones most severely impacted first even though they have contributed least to the problem. Our Pacific neighbours will be forced to leave their island homes as climate refugees. Yet Australia refuses to recognise them as such.

Climate change is a moral and ethical question. It goes to the heart of questions of justice, equity and survival of human kind and the ecosystems on which all life depends. These are the values that need to be brought to the question and they are the values not evident in the Australian government’s position. Where are Australian values now?

The Australian government has refused to take action to address global warming because fundamentally it knows it is happening but has decided that corporate profits from the coal, oil and gas sectors feeding into budget surpluses and tax cuts are more important than the long term interests of the Australian community, the lives of the world’s poor or the ultimate survival of the species.

George Monbiot has said, “Climate change is not just a moral question: it is the moral question of the 21st century.” There is one position even more morally culpable than denial. That is to accept that it’s happening and that its results will be catastrophic; but to fail to take the measures needed to prevent it. The Howard government stands condemned.

The Greens will not allow this situation to continue. This legislation seeks to implement a wide range of actions that will accelerate Australia’s transition to a low carbon economy.

This bill seeks to initiate the action the government should be taking to accept its global responsibilities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto protocol. It establishes mechanisms to reduce demand for electricity through energy efficiency; it proposes measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation and from deforestation and it puts in place initiatives to promote the take up of renewable energy. It is a first step and will be followed by other legislative initiatives to address greenhouse gas reductions in the transport sector in particular.

This bill includes provisions to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Climate change is a global problem requiring a global plan of action with agreed emission reduction targets and rules which are enforceable.

The Kyoto protocol provides such a framework setting out mechanisms to facilitate measurement, compliance and enforcement and supporting future climate negotiations.

The government has argued that it will not ratify the Kyoto protocol until the developing countries are included. This is a self serving argument which fails to recognise that underpinning the Kyoto protocol was the understanding that developing countries would consider targets at a future time when developed countries had shown a demonstrable commitment to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. This was agreed in recognition of the fact that developed countries have caused the problem and should not deny developing countries their right to development.

The Kyoto protocol includes three market-based mechanisms – the Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation and Emissions Trading to assist developing nations avoid developing emission intensive economies and developed countries to reduce their own energy intensity.

It is fundamentally unfair for the Australian government to expect developing nations to curtail their emissions without leadership from the rich nations – including the US and Australia.

The government often says Australia contributes about one per cent of global emissions—this is true but misleading. We are in fact about the 11th highest emitter, and about the highest per capita emitter. Our coal exports contribute huge volumes to global carbon dioxide emissions.

The government must immediately establish a Ministry for Climate Change and Energy.

Climate change is an overarching problem and requires a whole of government approach. There is a clear need to create a central agency to coordinate the government response and especially to counter the strong vested interests of some departments. Just as a world war is not a defence issue so too climate change is not an environmental issue. It is a global emergency with economic, ecological and social ramifications that requires a national strategic response.

This bill sets emission targets for 2020, 20 per cent below 1990, and for 2050, 80 per cent below 1990.

Scientists have made it clear that urgent action is required in the next 10-15 years and so the first target is set at 20 per cent below 1990 levels. It is a significant but achievable emissions reduction goal that will be achieved primarily through improvement in energy use efficiency, including in the transport sector, an area that will be the focus of subsequent bills and from halting loss of carbon from deforestation.

The target is achievable with strong government leadership. Individual action cannot make the deep cuts that are necessary. System wide change that only governments can drive is needed. The long-term target, 80 per cent by 2050 is achievable and is intended to provide guidance to investors about the scale of the challenge ahead. It is also a statement of intent with regard to Australia’s international emission reduction obligations.

Emissions reductions will have to come from all sectors. Changes to land use and forestry, transport systems and energy efficiency are where the fast, relatively easy reductions can be achieved. Achieving the 80 per cent reduction will require a fundamental change in the way we generate electricity and hence the provisions of the bill to drive the take up of renewable energy.

To achieve these targets cost effectively the Greens believe that the government should, as quickly as possible, introduce an emissions trading system and/or a levy to impose a price on greenhouse gas emissions. We need a price on carbon to shift investment away from emissions intensive electricity generation infrastructure and industrial plant.

It is important to note that design of emissions trading schemes are complex and require a significant process of consultation with stakeholders and the general public.

It is a disgrace that the good preparatory work that the Australian Greenhouse Office did on this in 1999 was consigned to the waste bin. By the time Australia has a mechanism in place, the Howard government will have truly wasted a decade, at great expense to the Australian economy. We will not be ready to engage in a global emissions trading system because of this decade of blinkered economic policy.

The bill provides for a greenhouse trigger to be inserted into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—the EPBC Act—to ensure that information about the greenhouse gas emission impact of major developments is adequately considered during approval processes. The trigger is set at 100,000 tonnes. This is a more stringent trigger than was proposed by Senator Hill in 1999 and is appropriate given the dramatic increase in urgency in reducing greenhouse gas emissions since then.

The bill introduces a national energy savings target designed to halt the rise in electricity consumption.

Just as we need an overall target for greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy, we need energy efficiency targets.

The provision is about saving energy, about reducing the waste of energy. This is critical because saving energy is the fastest and cheapest way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet we have failed in this country to achieve anywhere near the efficiency gains which are easily achievable. Voluntary action has not worked. Had it done so, there would be a solar hot water system on every roof, incandescent light bulb manufacturers would have closed and the halogen down light would never have become the ecological disaster that it is.

The bill amends the Energy Efficiency Opportunities legislation to require large energy users to undertake energy efficiency audits and to implement the energy efficiency opportunities identified.

The actions I am proposing have two elements. The first is modelled on an existing Victorian scheme and it requires that energy efficiency opportunity identified during energy efficiency audits must be implemented where the payback period is less than three years.

The second is that energy efficiency opportunities that have a payback period of ten years must be publicly reported so as to provide information to managers, company boards and shareholders.

On the energy supply side, to drive the up take of renewable energy the bill increases the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) to ensure that renewable electricity contributes at least 15 per cent of national demand by 2012 and 25 per cent by 2020.

The aim of MRET when it was introduced was to increase the proportion of Australia’s energy generated from renewables from 10.5 per cent to 12.5 per cent by 2010 but the conversion of this proportion to a GWh target, based in inaccurate forecasts of energy use has meant that by 2010 renewables will make up only 10.5 per cent of power generated. By 2020 it will have dropped to a mere 8.5 per cent. This is why the target must be significantly increased.

The renewable energy sector has unanimously called for an increase in the target and extension of MRET beyond 2010 to facilitate ongoing growth and this bill facilitates that outcome.

Changing the MRET from a fixed GWh target to a percentage based target – namely 15per cent of national demand by 2012 and 25per cent by 2020 represents a substantial but achievable increase on the existing MRET. It will position Australia competitively with other advanced developed nations when it comes to renewable energy.

In addition to increasing the MRET, this bill establishes a system of renewable energy feed-in laws inspired by highly successful polices in several European nations, particularly Germany, where feed-in tariffs have driven a solar PV revolution. The fundamental purpose of feed-in laws is to support prospective new renewable energy technologies.

Feed-in tariffs provide a minimum guaranteed price per unit of produced renewable electricity, to be paid to generators for a set period—often about 20 years at a rate that declines each year. Their purpose is to give investors and lenders security of income for a substantial part of the project lifetime.

Deforestation is a major contributor to global warming and so this bill immediately ends the harvesting of old growth forests to maintain carbon stores.

Although the rate of greenhouse gas emissions from the loss of forests has fallen since 1990, as a result of reduced land clearing in Queensland in particular, deforestation still contributes around 10 per cent of Australia’s total emissions. Protecting the incredibly valuable old growth forests for the huge amounts of carbon that they store for biodiversity conservation, for water conservation, and for the preservation of our cultural heritage is essential.

Mature forests have already accumulated vast quantities of carbon over very long periods in the trunks and roots, and especially in the soil. When logged, this carbon is lost very quickly. Replacement tree plantations following conversion of primary forests recapture only a fraction of this lost carbon.

This legislation begins the process of addressing climate change in Australia. I welcome amendments to improve the bill and to strengthen its provisions. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable members.

There is no greater challenge we face as a nation than to mitigate against further increases in greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of global warming. History will judge us according to our efforts right now. We cannot fail because of a lack of courage or imagination.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I table the explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.