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

Including the National Party, of course. Sorry, I should have named you particularly. I also note that I have moved in here endless times for a higher renewable energy target, for a gross feed-in tariff, for a national energy efficiency target and for higher standards on just about everything, including vehicle fuel efficiency. I cannot tell you the number of initiatives I have moved in the last several years that go directly to the issues not only of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but also of driving the transformation to the low-carbon, zero-carbon economy. So let us not have that nonsense.

The point of difference between the government and the Greens on this is that the Greens totally adhere to the science which says that two degrees can no longer be regarded as a safe level for the climate—in fact, we are already seeing dangerous climate change with far less warming than that—that 450 parts per million would not give you a 50 per cent chance of avoiding the two degrees limit and that we need to get it down. We need to be on a trajectory to 350 parts per million. Graham Pearman says that. He is one of Australia’s leading scientists. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a credible scientist in Australia who would not tell you that getting to 350 is far safer and gives us a better chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change than 450. The scientists are very clear about what is necessary and that is where they got the 25 to 40 per cent from. I agree with the minister that it was meant to be an average of what annex 1 countries would do in cutting their emissions by 2020. What does the minister think the average annex 1 country cut should be in the global treaty in Copenhagen? What should the average be for annex 1 countries—somewhere between 25 and 40? Should it be based on the latest science and on the principle of burden sharing between developing and developed countries?