Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to indicate support for the amended Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. Firstly, I would like to put on the record that my party, the coalition, has a long and proud history of protecting the environment and protecting jobs. The one advantage I do have in this chamber is that I have a greater longevity than probably most people in the chamber and a greater lifespan. Having lived on the land for 30 years and also having lived in cities, in that time I believe that the climate has changed substantially. In particular, rural areas have changed sufficiently that agricultural enterprises of a region have had to change as well. Droughts are longer and rainfall has dropped. For instance, in the farming area where I lived in Western Victoria, the rainfall when I went to live there in the mid 1960s was an absolutely permanent 33 inches—dare I say it, on the old scale—every single winter, and you could not drive trucks in the paddocks between May and September. The rainfall in that area has now dropped to about 19 or 20 inches, which is a substantial drop, and the fact is that many livestock farmers have been able to change their farming practices to cropping, something that would have been quite out of the question in previous years. The severity of weather events is also much greater than it was in earlier years.

I have not always been convinced. I, like most Australians, have had to be convinced that there has been climate change and that humans were the principal cause of the additional warming the world is facing. I point out that since 1950 the world population has trebled. If that has not had some influence on the way our climate and atmosphere works, I would like to know what has. When I considered my own personal observations, combined with what I believe is the sheer weight of evidence from an overwhelming number of scientists and science academies, it became clear to me that we must act on climate change—and it is churlish and irresponsible to say that because there is disagreement around particular aspects of climate science, the whole of the science is discredited. That is not how science works. Science is constantly refined and expanded upon as more information becomes available and discrepancies between theory and observation are investigated and resolved. The fundamental criticisms that some of the sceptics have levelled against the science have not, I believe, stood up when they have been responded to. In short, I believe that there is global warming, that greenhouse gasses generated by humankind are the principal source of the excess of the greenhouse gasses, and that we need to take steps to remedy this or there will be severe economic, social and environmental consequences, both immediately and increasing in severity in the future.

I am not a scientist, and I do not seek to rebut every single claim made by people who disagree with the climate science. However, with one possible exception, none of my fellow members of parliament are scientists either, and I believe that we have to rely on what I would call learned authority to make our own best judgment on this. I would like to make some general points, though, so that the Senate can understand the type of information that informed my choice. I do apologise for the paraphrasing of the information—as I said, I am a not a scientist. Some claim that there is a natural cycle, that earlier periods have been warmer, that water vapour and urban heat islands are more important than carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is a natural and important part of the life cycle of the planet. To my understanding, these claims are more or less true but, as usual, the devil is in the detail. Just to compare the impact of human activity, volcanoes are cited by some as a major emitter of CO2, and I understand that they were an essential element that led to the warming of the earth that allowed life on earth to begin. Volcanic activity worldwide produces annually approximately 200 million tonnes of CO2. Human industrial activity produces 24 billion tonnes. Humans produce 100 times more CO2 than what was needed to thaw the ice age.

There have been and there continue to be natural heating and cooling cycles in the climate. The CO2 levels have risen and fallen as a result of these cycles, and CO2 is an important part of the natural greenhouse effect that allows life on earth to exist. The levels of CO2 have sometimes led and sometimes lagged behind temperature changes, due to basically a feedback loop, and it accelerates the direction each variable is heading in. Previous warming periods have either not been as warm as the period we are in, or the hotter heat levels have not been as widespread. Rather, they have been localised to a particular hemisphere and largely offset by cooler temperatures elsewhere. But I firmly believe that what we are currently witnessing is a consistent widespread heating. Water vapour, urban heat islands and regional variations have been accounted for in the projections and observations and, while they do play a part, they do not represent the cause of the change. They have been present for long periods of time and have had a constant effect. The issue is what is causing the change to a sustained heating period. Overall, it is the combination of scientific factors that makes the need for action so compelling. The extent, the speed, the severity and the potential consequences mean that, even if you accept there is only a small chance of these factors, we should take action. It is my belief that there is a strong likelihood that these consequences will come to pass if we do not take action.

There are not only environmental concerns to consider. Many people have spoken about the costs of action. Quite simply, there are costs for inaction as well, and while this legislation may be flawed in many ways—it has been amended by the very substantive efforts of the coalition—we will all ultimately have to accept that to a greater or lesser degree we will all pay in some form or another to combat global warming. There are costs for inaction, and it is not just from the human effects on the climate. I believe business is already of the view that there will eventually be an ETS of some description at some point in the near to medium future. The energy generators, the distributors and other businesses that depend on the reliable supply of electricity are holding back on the necessary investment needed to guarantee that supply. Tens of billions of dollars in that sector alone have been put at risk because up till now we have not made a decision; and that is leaving alone the lack of investment in other sectors of the economy, all of which need to know the details of any such scheme.

To my mind, they are not particularly fussed about the basic mechanics of one type of scheme as opposed to another. Yes, we need to ensure that there are adequate protections and that the scheme is suited to Australia’s needs. But we all know that the scheme will eventually be some kind of cap and trade. The important part is to finalise the details, even though they are on a broad level, and to enact the legislation so that business can plan for the future with confidence, knowing what their obligations are and what investment decisions they need to make to remain viable and to maintain supply. These projects have long lead times and massive budgets. We cannot leave these businesses stranded for another six months before they can start making those decisions. That is as much a risk to jobs as any other aspect of this legislation.

There is also considerable focus on the impact of the scheme upon people’s costs and livelihoods. I believe that the amendments negotiated by the government with the shadow minister, Ian Macfarlane, have gone a long way towards protecting people’s jobs. As for higher costs, ultimately that is the purpose of introducing a carbon price. By having a price on carbon, people can decide whether they really want to use these carbon-intensive products. It is an effort to move people away from carbon towards other alternatives, and the most effective and efficient way to do this is through a price signal. The other consequence of the price signal is that it makes alternative sources of energy viable, and I am strongly of the belief that the nature of public opinion is changing as more people accept that carbon based energy is less desirable.

I also believe that the only way Australia can secure her long-term economic and environmental future is to encourage and embrace nuclear power. I think this realisation is dawning on many Australians as this debate goes on. I say, ‘Shame on the Labor Party,’ who for decades, and in the last election, ran a massive and unwarranted scare campaign on nuclear energy. It is you who have put our future at risk by closing off an important option in nuclear power. We cannot seriously prepare our economy for the long term without the nuclear option as part of our armoury. The damage that the ALP has done in the public mind will take a significant amount of time to unwind and to allow the facts to become cemented in the public mind. I urge the ALP and the Labor government to declare that they are now prepared to engage constructively in the nuclear power issue without raising hysterical, inaccurate and populist objections and to take the responsible course—as they know they eventually will have to do.

That has been difficult for my party, and the Labor government will find it a hundred times worse when eventually they are mugged by reality and realise that they are not credible on the environment until they embrace nuclear power as well as a long-term baseload energy provider. I also believe that that while having a global agreement such as the one foreshadowed at Copenhagen is desirable—indeed, preferable—we may not have that option. I hope that a framework is put in place at Copenhagen so that the millions of carbon emissions generated by the 16½ thousand attendees at that conference will pay its way in terms of proper activity. Somebody has to make the first move—not to mention the bottleneck in investment mentioned before. Australia should be a world leader in this area as it is in other scientific endeavours.

I conclude by saying that it is my belief that my party will be stronger for the struggles of this week, and I say that in the plural. We do hold different opinions within our party, and I am pleased that my opinion and that of others can be accommodated. It has to be a vital part of modernising our party, making us relevant to mainstream Australia and forming the character of the next Liberal government rather than reflecting the biases of previous governments.

Should the passage of this legislation occur or not, it will still be a momentous day for our country that we have had this debate. Each of us will be judged by history for the decisions we make. I urge senators who are inclined not to support these bills to consider that if people like me are wrong there will be many great gains achieved nonetheless. And if people like me are mostly correct then we could achieve one of the most important reforms in our nation’s history.