Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Then I withdraw. If the first reference to an asseveration of the new Leader of the Opposition is unparliamentary then I will pursue that no further and I withdraw the alleged reference from Tony Abbott.

But you can see where we are going here. The fact is that we are now debating a circumstance which arose with a different set of leaders. We are in the quite farcical situation where the new leader, Mr Abbott—who is a climate change sceptic now dressed up as a person who wants to act on climate change but does not want this legislation and does not know what he does want—will move for this whole proceeding to go across to a Senate committee so that we start again. We have such a disorganised opposition that the only thing we do know is that we are simply paddling time in here. I do want to seriously ask the minister: under these circumstances, is the government going to pursue the windfall arrangement, where polluters get billions, made with the then Turnbull coalition now that we have an Abbott coalition that no longer supports that deal? The new leader, Tony Abbott, has said that if the opposition do not get a delay mechanism in place through a reference to a Senate hearing—and a delay is all it would be; it would not really be looking for information, because he has made it clear he opposes this course of action from the government—then they will vote against it. The presumption must be made that the coalition which was voting for this yesterday will vote against it today.

We have seen this huge swing in the camp of science scepticism by a client coalition which is now, in truth, owned by the first four letters of that word—the ‘coal-ition’. It is going to be out banging the drum, as we have heard from the Leader of the Nationals here this morning, about a carbon tax effectively being applied. As Senator Milne was making so cogently clear, the National Party, which is now an almost wholly owned subsidiary of the coalmining industry, wants to keep featherbedding this fossil fuel consumption and export industry. If you add the exports to Australia’s own consumption of fossil fuels, you would double or triple the per capita amount of coal being burned and greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere from Australia.

There is a central question to the validity of this debate that we are now in. It is reasonable for me to ask the minister if the arrangements she and Prime Minister Rudd made with Mr Turnbull last week to transfer billions of dollars from the Australian public across to the big polluters still stand, or is she reneging on that, now that the coalition is reneging on it, and going back to where the original legislation was? If that is the case, what is the point of proceeding with this debate? It is a complete mess, just as the coalition is a complete mess.

Senator Milne referred to Dr James Hansen. Dr Hansen is a physicist by training. He directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a laboratory of the Goddard Space Flight Centre at the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He gave a speech at the National Press Club and at a briefing to the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming in the United States last year, 20 years after he first told congress about the need for urgent action on climate change in 1988. As we know, governments in his country have been as remiss as governments in this country in failing to take the appropriate action that is required.

This particular amendment is to alter the terms of reference of this legislation to 350 parts per million—because that is what is safe—rather than 450 parts per million, which the minister herself said is a 50 per cent gamble with the security of this nation and the future of the planet. Dr Hansen said:

The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.

These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today’s carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.

Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.

Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear …

I interpolate here that in Sydney yesterday His Holiness the Dalai Lama poignantly made a plea to the world to act on climate change because of the disaster unfolding in Tibet where the glaciers are melting. As Senator Milne has said a number of times in this debate, the great rivers of Asia which go to more than a billion people are simply not going to have that glacier melt in coming dry seasons. It is going to have an enormous impact on people’s livelihood and their ability to get water, let alone their ability to grow food.

The glaciers are receding. This is not a future forecast. This is what is happening under current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which are well short of the 450 parts per million target the government has written into this legislation. We are at 386 or so parts per million. This is happening now and the government says, ‘Oh, it’s okay to go to 450 parts per million.’ Dr Hansen says the glaciers ‘will disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is reversed.’ That is, unless they are reversed from the current levels of 386 parts per million. Minister Wong says, ‘Well, we can go to 450 parts per million and there is a chance that it will be all okay.’ That is not the case. Here we have an Abbott opposition now that thinks that this is not happening; it is okay to keep going business as usual and we must not take action on this. Dr Hansen, who has been looking at this for decades now and warning the US congress, has a much more sober take on it. He says:

Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home for one-third of the species in the sea. Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. That is, greenhouse gas ... Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.

I remind you, Chair, that these are the CEOs due to receive billions of dollars from the Australian people under this formulation from Minister Wong and Prime Minister Rudd, worked out with the coalition, including the coal oriented National Party. Dr Hansen continues:

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

       …         …         …

Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.

If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They provide continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy solution.

He goes on to say a lot more in this address to the US National Press Club and the House select committee.

This is the reality of the situation we face, yet we have government legislation here which is going to pour an estimated $60 billion over coming years into the pockets of those very CEOs and those very corporations. I ask you: can this nation afford this prescription for fostering the very people we need to tackle and for draining those funds from the very enterprises—renewable energy, energy efficiency; this is common sense—to which we should be giving that largesse that government has. It is a Faustian bargain that the government has got here and the minister should be supporting these amendments from the Greens.