Senate debates
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2]
In Committee
9:14 pm
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source
The modelling looked out to 2050 from memory. You are asking me a question about whether in the last 12 months things have happened such that I might change my view on the accuracy of advice to government on a modelling task which went out for 40 years. That is why this is not a one plus one question.
In relation to what lies behind your proposition about whether or not others have acted, it might assist you to know what has been put on the table. Senator Milne referenced the European Union targets of minus 20 to minus 30. They are coming off a lower level, which I am sure you would know, Senator Milne. I think their Kyoto target was 92 per cent off 1990 so obviously their reduction in percentage point terms from where they are is reasonably comparable to that proposed by Australia—but I digress. The European Union target is minus 20 to minus 30 on 1990 levels; they have an established ETS. Japan has announced a target of minus 25 per cent on 1990 levels and has planned an ETS and a renewable feed-in tariff.
Mexico has committed to reduce emissions by 50 million tonnes annually until 2012 against business as usual and by 50 per cent below 2002 levels by 2050. That was announced in June 2009 by President Calderon. The Russian Federation has officially announced a reduction of minus 10 to minus 15 on 1990 levels. The Republic of Korea on 17 November announced its intention to reduce emissions to 30 per cent below business as usual by 2020. The draft legislation in the United States proposes a very significant reduction of up to 30 per cent on 2005 levels, so it is a different baseline, and they are legislating for a suite of policy measures including an ETS. Brazil’s President Lula announced on 14 November 2009 that they would reduce emissions by between 36.1 and 38.9 per cent relative to business as usual by 2020. The majority of that target is a reduction in the rate of deforestation.
China has announced that it will increase its share of non-fossil fuel energy consumption to 15 per cent by 2020. It will increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares, forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic metres by 2020 and it has indicated it will announce a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by what is described as a ‘notable margin’. So we look forward to that announcement. India has a national energy efficiency plan, which includes a cap-and-trade market, to save about five per cent of India’s annual energy consumption by 2015 and reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 100 million tonnes. India also has a solar target of 20,000 megawatts by 2020.
President Yudhoyono of Indonesia has announced a BAU, business-as-usual, reduction target of 26 per cent below BAU by 2020 and is willing to increase that to 41 per cent with overseas support. We are of course working quite closely with Indonesia on reduction in emissions from deforestation. South Africa announced a peaking year last year where it indicated it would work to peaking by 2020 to 2025 at the latest, stabilising for up to a decade and then declining. I put those on the record, Senator Joyce, because behind your question appears to be a suggestion that no-one else is acting and they are and so should we.
No comments