Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

My recollection of the way in which the 450 parts per million scenario—‘scenario’ might not be the right word—of the IPCC consideration was expressed was that it had around a 50 per cent chance of limiting warming to no more than two degrees. Secondly, we do agree with the proposition that developed countries should act, and should act first—and as a group that is what we are seeking to be part of. The 25 per cent to 40 per cent target that the senator talks about was as a group. There was not an indication that every country had to target 40 or 25 per cent—it was for developed countries as a whole.

I have a number of points more. The government’s view is that our targets are both credible and ambitious. We also believe that if you set a target you should be able to achieve it. We do not believe this is only about slogans and rhetoric. This is sometimes hard—as demonstrated by how much opposition there is by those who do not want action on climate change—and there is sometimes hard economic and environmental policy required to achieve it. These are very significant reductions, particularly when you consider where we are coming from. Australia is, as the senator knows, a very high emitter. We are one of the highest—if not the highest—per capita emitters in the world. That is not an excuse; it does tell us something about the scale of the challenge. We are a carbon-intensive economy and we have to do a lot of work in order to reduce emissions.

I make the point, as an example, that our conditional 25 per cent offer is a 32 percentage point reduction from our existing Kyoto commitment. In other words, we are saying that we will reduce by up to 32 percentage points what we have committed to do as a nation, under Kyoto. That is a very significant reduction. If you compare that, for example, to the European Union, you find that the top end of their target is a 22 percentage point reduction off their Kyoto target. Japan’s is a 19 percentage point reduction off their Kyoto target. The United Kingdom’s is a 21 percentage point reduction off their Kyoto commitment.

What that demonstrates is that we are saying to the rest of the world, ‘From where we are now we will do more than almost any other developed country in the timeframe.’ What the Greens want is to go even further. We say that a 25 per cent target is both ambitious and credible and would constitute a strong contribution to a 450 PPM agreement.

There is a lot of political focus on the 2020 target and I keep saying that we must remember this: this is not about a single goal and a single milestone; this is about a path. The year 2020 is one of the points we pass—and we have to go past it. It is nowhere near enough, out to 2050, when you look at what the world will need to do. We know that. So what we are having a disagreement about here is: how fast can this country transition? That is what this is about. How fast can we make the change that is needed? Our view is that 25 per cent as the top-end target is a responsible position to adopt. I understand that that is not Senator Milne’s position, but I would make the point that in terms of per capita emissions—again, I am simply talking about how much work we have to do—our target implies that between 1990 and 2020 there will be almost a halving of the carbon footprint of every single Australian. That is a pretty significant change.