Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Kyoto protocol entered into force last year in 165 countries. As the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2006 [No. 2] tells us, Australia was not one of those countries. Australia stood back, despite having been an active participant in the early years of Kyoto and despite winning some very, some would say, embarrassing concessions—certainly very generous concessions—on the strength of arguments back when we were in the tent, when Senator Hill went to Kyoto negotiations and made sure that Australia’s interests were being looked after. Since that time, we have seen the hard heads in cabinet, those in the coalition, become nonbelievers in global action and we have seen a much more selfish approach to the way Australia views global warming and greenhouse emissions.

Why should we ratify Kyoto? For one thing, the government says that we will meet the generous targets of 109 per cent of 1990 levels by 2012. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage confidently and consistently gets up and says, ‘Australia will have no difficulty meeting those targets; we will do it.’ So I would ask the question: why not ratify? When you think about it, we do not have a good reason not to ratify. If we are going to meet the targets, how can you then say, ‘This is not in our economic interests’? If we are heading down that path in any case, why not ratify?

Another reason that we should ratify Kyoto is that we are currently missing out on engagement in the international carbon trading market. We had the embarrassing spectacle of Australian officials and the minister himself going over to Nairobi last month, talking about engaging in dialogue, talking about long-term cooperative action, talking about the fact that Australia will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments, being the spoilers, trying to get in on the act and putting motions forward to say that Australia should have the ability to be part of the discussion. But the fact of the matter is that if you are not in you are not in and you are locked out of a whole range of benefits. The greatest benefit of all is being part of the decision-making process, but we are not. We can go off to Nairobi and pretend that we are part of the process, but we are outsiders.

It has been said many times in this place that what is needed for the passive reductions in greenhouse emissions that are going to be needed by 2050 if we are going to avoid even more serious climate change—60 per cent on current levels around the world—is great leadership. The prime ministers and governments of every country will have to put aside the petty bickering and put aside the sectional interests—like the coal industry—for future generations. I know that sounds a bit Pollyanna-ish, but that is how dire the situation is. If we do not take action now, we are going to leave a very much damaged environment for our children and grandchildren.

It is just not good enough for governments to be—as we and the United States have been—so dismissive of the process, so disdainful, so willing to write it off and so willing to say, as I think Senator Ian Campbell has said on a number of occasions: ‘Kyoto is not cool anymore; Kyoto was only ever the first step. Kyoto has had it. Kyoto is finished as a plausible way forward.’ Kyoto in Nairobi was a serious discussion about what happens after 2012, but we were not part of it. We had to sit on the sidelines and watch the discussion without being able to make a meaningful contribution.

But, of course, the elephant in the room is the United States. One of the reasons I think that Australia has been so willing to be part of the coalition of the unwilling—if I can put it that way—is that we are such great friends of the United States, and we could not bear to leave the United States out all on their own, so we joined them. Even though we are going to meet the targets, we joined the United States outside the process. Why? The United States emits 25 per cent—that is, a quarter—of global emissions. I do not know how many times we have heard the Prime Minister and Minister Campbell talk about China and the ‘huge, looming emission problem’ that China represents and the statement: ‘We can reduce our emissions.’ The statistics get trotted out all the time: ‘It’s one day’s worth of China’s emissions,’ and so forth. But no-one ever mentions the United States—the richest country on earth—which produces a quarter of global emissions, with far less than a quarter of the population of China.

We so often hear that we should not be worried about Australia’s emissions, that they only represent one per cent of the total. It does not sound like a lot; however, Australia is the 10th largest emitter, close behind the United Kingdom, which of course has many more people than we do and far less by way of resources. Australia is No. 10 on the list of the biggest emitters in the world, and that is a reason why Australia must be part of the process. We cannot pretend that, at one per cent, we are down the bottom of the list. We are right up the top at No 10. That means we have a global responsibility to take part in global collaborative efforts to massively reduce emissions.

I can understand why the government does not want to go down this path. As I said, it is very keen to be part of the coalition of the unwilling with the United States. It values the Prime Minister’s friendship with George Bush far higher than the future of this country, quite frankly. If you look at who is going to be most impacted on by climate change, it is our farmers, the backbone of the country. They are already experiencing a drought which is ongoing and one of the worst known. We are also experiencing low rainfall across the country, which now scientists are saying has all the signs of being a direct response to the huge percentage of the atmosphere being made up of CO.

Another reason is the $26 million worth of coal that Australia exports every year. I can understand why the government would not want to see that coal market diminished. I can understand why we would want our coal exporters to continue to make lots of money and how the government benefits from that. I can see that our coffers are filled with coal export royalties and dollars and how that might seem to government to be important to our economy.