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
10:10 pm
Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source
Yes, I know that is the point you were making, but I also understand that at the international negotiations Australia is pushing to have fires, as natural disturbances—bushfires, if you like—excluded from having to be counted in Australia’s accounts. I would like to know if that is Australia’s position in the negotiations, and I am asking this second question: how do you determine whether a bushfire is a natural disturbance—that is, caused by a lightning strike—as opposed to most of our bushfires, which are deliberately lit? What are you pushing for in the negotiations in relation to that issue? That is an important one. The second thing is: if you succeed in having the emissions from bushfires taken out, wouldn’t that mean that Australia would automatically get a substantial reduction in its emissions from actually doing nothing?
No comments