John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The government think we may be able to reduce emissions by up to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. They think this commitment balances Australia's environmental and economic responsibilities. They say we can achieve the target through low-cost abatement while still being able to maintain strong economic and jobs growth. Let us hope so.

The Labor Party endorsed the Climate Change Authority's target of 40 to 60 per cent at their national conference recently. The opposition had already flagged its obedience to the wind industry and union owned super funds when it announced its hypothetical, uncosted 'aspirational' 50 per cent renewable energy target thought bubble.

One of the objectives of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 is to 'to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector'. The RET is already costing electricity consumers in the order of up to $45 million. The RET is a rising stealth tax on electricity which relies on the premise that electricity created from renewable energy infrastructure will reduce emissions.

Are modern-day wind turbines capable of reducing emissions and, if so, at what social, economic and environmental cost? We know all too well the divisive social impact wind farms have on rural communities. The economic benefits of wind turbines flow to offshore, subsidy-hungry wind farm operators. And environmentally? It is not possible to build, operate or maintain a wind turbine without a reliance on fossil fuels. In 2012 the founder of the Greens, Dr James Lovelock, described wind turbines as monuments to a failed society. He said:

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood … We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs.

Back in 2004 Dr Lovelock told Australia's 60 Minutes:

At the best, wind power cannot provide more than a tiny fraction of the energy needs of civilisation. It's a nice idea. It looks good. It's showy. I think it's one of those things politicians like because it can be seen that they're doing something. But in practice, it's not really a useful remedy.

Those in the chamber who want an emissions target higher than the government's are the same senators who mindlessly advocate for the installation of environmentally destructive, fossil fuel dependent, industrial wind turbines

These senators seem happy to burden Australian families, farmers, manufacturers, food processors and businesses with the extra financial pressures that will come with increased emissions reduction costs. They threaten Australia's competitiveness. Perhaps, too, they just want to look good, showy and like they are doing something.

Why don't those who are howling with selective moral outrage who want to commit this country to an irresponsibly higher emissions target and potentially put Australia's social and economic prosperity at further risk do us all a favour? Don't get in a dirty, polluting Comcar to travel to and from the airport. Don't get on a fossil fuel dependent flight to Canberra when parliament sits 20 weeks a year. Think of all those emissions you will be saving. Do your bit to supplement what Senator Siewert says is the Abbott government's week and dangerous carbon pollution reduction target and stay at home. Lead by example and perform your Senate duties, low emissions style by skype or teleconference. Make some use of the recklessly expensive NBN. Better still, make sure your computer is only powered by electricity that is created by wind turbines. At least that way, we are only likely to hear from you 30 per cent of the time.