Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

In relation to these amendments, let’s note what Professor Will Steffen, the Executive Director of the Climate Change Institute at the ANU, said:

If you keep concentrations of carbon dioxide down to 350, then you’ve got a higher probability of avoiding some of the major risks of climate change, such as losing big polar ice sheets or putting stress on coral reefs.

I think that any approach to policy ought to be evidence based. There are leading scientists saying that 350 parts per million is the gold standard that we need to go for.

I have to take issue with what Senator Moore said, though I have great regard for her. She said that we can go further on this down the track. My concern is this: if you lock in this particular scheme and if this bill receives royal assent, you will have hedging contracts signed between generators and retailers worth hundreds of millions of dollars. They will be locked in, so if we do have an alternative approach—for instance, for deeper cuts—there will be claims for compensation or, alternatively, significant commercial losses and commercial risk. We will have the worst of both worlds. So my concern is that we need to get this right. Let us at least aim for a higher target. I note what the minister said, that it is a question of numbers in terms of what we are aiming for, but I would have thought that if we were at least aiming for 350 parts per million that would drive the policy framework to be more ambitious in what we do and how we do it in achieving deeper cuts.