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

I rise to support the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2006 [No. 2]. Of course, Australia should ratify the Kyoto protocol as a first step and what this bill does is to allow that first step to be taken. I am sorry that the bill is an exact copy of the bill that was introduced and passed here three years ago and that it has not been strengthened and advanced further. That is work that the Greens are doing. I introduced a bill this morning that will do that through a range of measures, including setting targets. Nevertheless, this is a first step, and ratifying the Kyoto protocol is an ambition that most Australians share with the Greens, with the Labor Party, with the Democrats and with the rest of the world, so this is a step we should take.

But I have to say to the Senate that it is time Australians were told the truth about what is going on globally as far as Australia is concerned and as far as climate change is concerned. We need to hear a few home truths, and the first one is that the rest of the world is appalled by the fact that Australia and the United States have not ratified the Kyoto protocol and they are working very hard to improve the protocol. Nobody argues that it is perfect. What they do argue is that it is a first step towards an international framework for reducing greenhouse gases, and there is an expectation that the rest of the world will get behind it.

As to this nonsense we hear time and time again from the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the minister and now Senator Eggleston that the Kyoto protocol is a symbol: what an extraordinary symbol, because last year the carbon market was worth $US11 billion. That is a symbol that perhaps Treasurer Costello might understand. The Kyoto protocol has three financial mechanisms in order to deliver the reductions. The first is joint implementation—that is, projects between two developed countries. The second is the clean development mechanism, whereby a developed country invests in a developing country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the developed country is given credit for the reductions. That is why I think that Senator Eggleston’s example of gas is ridiculous. He argued that China was going to get credit for the result of Australia’s gas, but, no, we are not in the protocol and therefore the credit arrangement does not operate. The third mechanism is emissions trading. The Prime Minister came out recently and said, ‘We’re going to have a mirror strategy, a looking-into-it strategy.’ The only reason he did that was that the Business Council of Australia was about to come out and say that it supported emissions trading, leaving the Prime Minister completely and utterly isolated. He had to come up with something to say at dinner, so he said, ‘We will have a joint task force and we will look into it.’ The rest of the world has already looked into it and is doing it.

The pan-European trading system is up and running. There is a trading system between nine north-eastern states in the US, and there is the Chicago Climate Exchange. There is also work in California, and New South Wales has a version as well. The rest of the world is now talking about how to link up existing emissions-trading systems that will be operating from now—and they are operating now—in the first commitment period, 2008-12, and looking at ways in which they can become a global emissions-trading system in the post-2012 period. Australia will not even have thought about setting up a system, and when it does it will set up some absolutely silly system that does not go with a national cap and will not be compatible with what the rest of the world is doing. So, rather than run around with this nonsense about the Kyoto protocol being a symbol, there is a huge amount of work going on to perfect the clean development mechanism, joint implementation and emissions trading, and Australia is nowhere to be seen.

Let us look at AP6. Senator Eggleston tells us that it is a treaty, but it is not. As Senator John McCain of the Republicans in the US said, it is a nice little public relations exercise. And that is the extent of it. If this AP6 were something to write home about, all the countries involved in it would have met when their representatives were in Nairobi. Did they have a meeting? No. What did they have? They had drinks. That is a fabulous treaty, if ever I saw one: ‘Let’s get our mates together for drinks.’ Worse still, all the countries in AP6, with the exception of the US and Australia, have ratified the Kyoto protocol, and all their serious negotiators were in the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol. Other people on their delegation were having drinks and chatting with Australia and whatever, but those countries—China, Japan and South Korea—are all involved in the Kyoto protocol, because their economies are now gearing up to benefit from the investment mechanisms. It is giving competitive advantage to the renewable energy sector. Their businesses are getting on with working out how to make money in a low-carbon economy, but Australia is not even engaged. That is where this government is not only letting the world down in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also actually hollowing out the Australian economy, because all the thinkers and progressive businesses are going overseas as rapidly as possible to get involved in those mechanisms and we are left high and dry with no expertise in a lot of these areas. A classic case is our solar billionaire, Dr Shi, who has made his billions in China in renewable energy.

The Chinese have got a renewable energy target of 15 per cent. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment and Heritage or the Prime Minister or Senator Eggleston, when they keep talking about China, might acknowledge what China has done. Senator Ian Campbell almost created a diplomatic incident in Nairobi by accusing China of being likely to become the world’s greatest polluter. The Chinese got up, very offended, because China has a far lower greenhouse gas emission rate per capita than Australia does. What is more, China is taking significant steps. It has got its renewable energy target at 15 per cent. It has mandatory vehicle fuel efficiency standards such that Australian vehicles will not be able to be imported into China because they do not meet China’s standards. That is the extent to which we are getting behind the eight ball here.

We are told that the dialogue is Australia’s fabulous lead. That is a nonsense as well. Australians should realise that the only reason this dialogue is going on is that, in Montreal, at the first meeting of the parties, Canada was the host country and was terrified that there would not be a commitment to a post-2012 period because of the behaviour of the United States and Australia, so the Canadians came up with this notion of a twin-track process whereby the real meeting of the parties to the protocol would go on and at the side there would be a dialogue, a talkfest, in which Australia and the US could be involved and feel important and it would keep them occupied until such time as there was a change of administration in both those countries or a change of attitude that would bring them into an effective, enforceable compliance regime at the global level.

It was like a main meeting and a creche. Australia and the US were off in the creche with their coloured pencils. They were allowed to come in at the end of the meeting, and what did they have to do with their dialogue? Their obligation in Nairobi was to give an oral report. It was just like bringing in your drawing and saying to the adults, ‘Here we are. We’ve done our drawing.’ And the adults say, ‘That’s nice. Now you can go.’ That is precisely what happened. What do they have to do next year after having given an oral report this year? They have to make a written report, and that will just be noted and accepted. Let us not pretend to this parliament or to the people of Australia that Australia’s contribution in this dialogue is anything other than keeping us occupied while the rest of the world patiently waits for Australia to wake up to itself and get involved in the post-2012 period.

We should be ratifying the Kyoto protocol now. We should be getting the experience of working towards a low-carbon economy, a carbon constrained world, so that that can happen. As I alluded to earlier, the rest of the world is getting very sick of Australia freeloading on it. How do you think European businesses feel about having to meet emission reduction targets and compete on a level playing field with Australian imports? They do not like it. There will be moves in the World Trade Organisation to put tariffs against exports from Australia into Europe, on the basis that Australian businesses get a subsidy from their government because they do not have to rein in their greenhouse gas emissions.

The minister suggested earlier that they have done something wonderful on energy efficiency simply because the 200 largest energy users in the country have to report on that. They do not have to actually do anything about it. They do not have to implement the findings of their energy audits. They just have to report what they could do if they chose to do it. When I moved an amendment to require them to implement the findings of their mandatory energy efficiency audits, the government voted against it. So why would the Europeans not argue that there is a subsidy going on here and that the rest of the world is not going to tolerate it?

Every year that we stay out of these global negotiations is another year that we are behind, that our businesses are being put at risk, that our economy is being hollowed out. The whole opportunity that is presented in a carbon constrained world—of moving to renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency by reducing demand and increasing the supply of renewables—is out the window in Australia. Why? Because of the coal industry, because of the aluminium industry, because of the oil and gas industry; that is why.

As to carbon capture and storage, which we hear so much about, perhaps the minister could explain the Hunter Valley. My understanding is that the geological structure of the Hunter Valley is such that it is unsuitable for carbon capture and storage. So where is he going to put the carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations in New South Wales? This technology is unproven. Renewable energy technology is proven, available and could be implemented tomorrow.

I want to finish on the China point by saying that the Chinese were deeply offended by Australia’s insulting behaviour in Nairobi. The Chinese have actually done a lot. They have nominated 10 of their states to be in pilot programs to try and develop a way of running a state economy on a low-carbon basis. There is a huge amount of work going on in China. They said of the dialogue that Australia chairs:

This dialogue … is neither a negotiation process nor an attempt to set up emission reduction limitation targets for the developing countries.

So, thank you very much, Australia. It is none of the things that the minister claims it is.

Let me tell you about the new Kyoto. The Australian minister and Prime Minister, for the benefit of the Australian community, said in the Australian press: ‘We are taking a new Kyoto to Nairobi. We are going to impress the world with our new Kyoto.’ The minister arrived there and what happened? His speech was scheduled for ten past seven on Wednesday night. The conference dinner started at seven o’clock in another part of Nairobi, 40 minutes away. The Australian minister spoke to an empty plenary hall. Of course, I was there and there were a few other Australian NGOs there because we were anxious to hear about the new Kyoto, but the rest of the world had gone to dinner—because why would you listen to Australia when they are not involved in this process?

What did the new Kyoto turn out to be? The new Kyoto turned out to be two sentences in the minister’s speech, simply saying that we want a global regime that includes all countries. Wake up, because that is what the rest of world wants and that is precisely what they are talking about in the article 9 review of the Kyoto protocol, which is a review of the effectiveness of the protocol. Article 3.9 is a review of the appropriateness of the targets that countries have set themselves. Those things are already happening. When the rest of the world was reviewing the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol, the Australian minister was on the plane on his way home. The Australian minister had left Nairobi before the serious negotiations occurred on article 9. There were a few people from the delegation left, but the minister was long gone.

Let us be realistic here. We are becoming more and more peripheral to the global debate, but in so doing we are also offending our partners in this region and other countries in this region. I would like to read a statement from the head of the delegation from the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu. He was speaking on behalf of the 43 small island developing states. Many of those countries will disappear because of sea-level rise, saltwater incursion and extreme weather events. Already, several of these countries are making evacuation plans, not least of which is the Kiribati islands, where they have already identified 40 islands for evacuation, from which 30,000 people have to be moved. That is happening in the Pacific at the moment—at the same time as Australia utterly refuses to recognise the idea of environmental refugees. We refuse to reduce our greenhouse gases. We are the ones making it worse for the world’s poor. They are the ones most affected the soonest, and the people who are creating the problem are refusing to then take them as environmental refugees.

This is an issue of justice. This is an issue of values. The minister, in this place, or the Prime Minister, in the other place, had better not stand up in the chamber and talk about family values, because family values include things like respect, decency, kindness, charity and generosity. They do not include selfishness, meanness of spirit or exclusiveness. The rest of our Pacific island neighbours are looking at Australia and asking: ‘This is a matter of justice. Who caused the problem and who is helping to do something about it?’ On both counts, Australia fails. I will read this statement because it is really important. I hope there are some government ministers who are listening, because this was the report that was given to the plenary after our minister had left Nairobi:

In a speech to the COP in November 2000, Chair of the IPCC Robert Watson advised all Parties that small island developing states face “the possible loss of whole cultures” due to climate change.

And recent research on the impacts of climate change on SIDS—

small island developing states—

makes this clear.

For example, a study published in Global Change Biology in 2005 shows that a 2 degrees Celsius rise in temperature will make coral bleaching an annual or biannual event in most regions of the world, with most reefs never recovering.

This is significant as the Hadley Centre’s models show that there is a 78% chance of temperatures increasing by 2 degrees Celsius if concentrations are stabilised at 450ppm carbon dioxide equivalent.

So the science tells us that at 450ppm there is a 78% chance that the world’s coral reefs will bleach annually or biannually.

Therefore, at 450ppm, it is highly likely that the world’s four low-lying atoll countries—and most SIDS—will cease to exist.

Sea level rise, which will not stop even if we limit warming to 2ºC, will only compound this threat.

So a 2ºC increase will clearly be dangerous climate change.

And will clearly violate many of the Articles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Are you listening, Australia? The statement continued:

Think hard about this—when in the history of the world have we been asked to choose about the future of whole countries?

What will history say of us if we make decisions that let whole countries disappear?

This is an unprecedented issue for the UN system.

We wonder how these negotiations on future commitments might proceed if all Parties were told that 43 of their number would cease to exist in the future—but not which 43. We suggest that all Parties would be striving for big reductions in greenhouse gases.

So we ask all Parties to take this message back to your capitals: failure to achieve significant reductions in emissions will mean the loss of islands, countries, cultures, and a fundamental breach of the human rights of the world’s island peoples.

And given existing concentrations of GHGs—

greenhouse gases—

in the atmosphere, significantly more assistance for adaptation is required.

The delegates then went on to ask that a special theme on adaptive actions to address the special circumstances and needs of small island developing states be included on the agenda next time. It will horrify Australians to know that the reason it was not on the agenda in Nairobi, even though they moved for it to be on the agenda, is that Australia and the United States blocked it. They blocked that issue of how the small island states are going to adapt to climate change. It was blocked from being on the agenda by our country and by the United States. Doesn’t that make us all feel proud! That is why I stand here outraged by people on the government side standing up and saying that Australia is responding to climate change in something of an appropriate way. We are not.

What is more, it is apparent to me that most of the members on the opposition benches simply do not believe that this is actually happening, that it is serious, that there is a likelihood that the west Antarctic iceshelf will break up, that there is a likelihood that the Greenland icesheet could slip off or that we could have mega sea-level rise. We are already having extreme drought and extreme fires. This summer, Australia will dry up and burn, and there has been 10 years of inaction by this government. One thing we can do—and one thing which is rushing onto the agenda globally—is stop emissions from deforestation, from logging forests. There is now a recognition that we have to do that. So I now foreshadow an amendment. When we get to the committee stage of this bill, I will be moving to stop deforestation in Australia by stopping old-growth logging. That is the first thing we can do to protect the large carbon sinks of the Tasmanian forests, the Victorian forests and the forests of southern New South Wales.

Deforestation contributes more than transport emissions do globally to greenhouse gases. There is now a major move to stop this. The World Bank has its BioCarbon Fund. There is a move to include a void of deforestation under the Clean Development Mechanism. Once again, the pressure is on Australia, and the joke of it all is that Australia offered to host a workshop next year on a void of deforestation for developing countries. Good; I am glad. At that workshop Australia can perhaps tell developing countries why it is saying, ‘Do as we say and not do as we do,’ because we will most certainly be offering those developing countries the opportunity to— (Time expired)