Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1616 together:

(1) Clause 10, page 5 (line 10), omit "43%", substitute "at least 75%".

(2) Clause 10, page 5 (line 16), omit "2050", substitute "2035 and working towards negative emissions thereafter".

(3) Clause 10, page 5 (line 20), omit "43%", substitute "75%".

These amendments would increase the targets for cutting pollution in this country to something resembling science. The bill that we have before us today was designed not by climate scientists but by political scientists, and the flimsy 43 per cent emissions reduction target that this bill will enshrine is not enough. It's not based on science, and it puts us nowhere near the 1½-degree aspiration of the Paris Agreement on climate. It puts us closer to two degrees, which we know is an incredibly risky scientific situation where we may see catastrophic effects that set off a chain reaction that is not stoppable. I don't know about anyone else in this chamber, but I can't actually bear the thought of that. We must do everything we can to stop that from happening.

So we are moving today to change the targets in this bill to a 75 per cent reduction by 2030, which is what the science says is necessary. People will have heard us say before that this isn't just the Greens' proposition. This is what international scientists are recommending is the necessary target for our nation to help us do our bit to globally keep warming limited to 1½ degrees.

We don't have support for this amendment—spoiler alert! The two big parties will both oppose this, because we know the influence of the fossil fuel sector on this building, and it continues while those political donations continue to flow into the coffers of both of the big political parties. I see the now opposition shaking their heads about how we keep mentioning this inconvenient fact, but one does wonder what is the basis for the climate policy of the other parties when it's not science and when they do take millions in donations from fossil fuel companies. It's pretty hard not to draw the conclusion of who's in charge of writing climate policy.

That is why we are moving today to increase the targets to 75 per cent by 2030 and to make sure that our net-zero target is brought forward to 2035. We can actually do this, and I have a lot of confidence and optimism in the ability of our nation and our workers to take this transition seriously and create the fantastic domestic manufacturing opportunities that 100 per cent renewables will provide. This could be a real boon for our economy, and I think most people understand that. They know that coal is on the way out. Even the coal workers themselves know. They know they're being lied to when the big parties claim that the coal industry will still be employing them in decades to come. They just want to know what happens next and they want a chance to say what happens next in their local region, and they deserve that say. You'll hear us continue to talk about a worker led transition and a transition authority. We look forward to progressing, through various different channels, because this country is ready to have, and capable of having, 100 per cent clean, renewable energy and a prosperous economy that will flow from that.

We can meet net zero by 2035, and we don't really have a choice, because look at what we're already facing with the natural disasters. I'm from South-East Queensland. We've just had terrible floods that we are still recovering from. Of course, that then went down to the Northern Rivers, exacerbating the homelessness crisis that was already there. We actually can't take the increasingly severe and regular natural disasters. It's too much for people to bear, so we've got to do everything we can to avoid that and have targets that reflect science and give us the best shot of not only managing and lessening those natural catastrophes them but actually embracing the future, the new green economy that will be good for workers, good for regional communities, good for our agricultural sector, good for our tourism sector and good for all of us. It is a jobs generator. There are no economic downsides except for the coal and gas companies, who are used to bringing in record profits, paying no tax, ripping off their workers and having fancy dinners with people in this building. They are the people that will miss out under a clean economy, and I'm okay with that.

So we're moving this amendment today because, if we stick with the 43 per cent, it just makes the task harder later. If we've got science based targets that we can work towards delivering now, that transition can be smoother and it can be managed. If this government kicks the can down the road then the task for the next parliament will be harder, and those cuts will need to be deeper and faster than in an approach that is based on science from the outset and allows us to plan that transition to 2030 and to 2035. The science won't forgive us if we kick the can down the road.

As I said, I don't expect we'll get support for this amendment today, because, sadly, the fossil fuel companies seem to have more influence than the scientists in this building. Maybe one day that that will change. Perhaps we'll see a government with the guts to say, 'We're going to ban donations from fossil fuel companies, because we're sick of them running our democracy.' Certainly the Greens have been saying that for 10-odd years, and we look forward to the day when that actually becomes law. But, until such time as that happens, we want to see this 43 per cent target increased in this term of parliament.

As many of my colleagues have said, the climate wars are not over when you are still ignoring science and when you are opening new coal and gas mines. As we know—and I'll be asking the minister some questions about this—there are 114 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline that this government has to decide whether it's going to approve or not.

And so that brings me to my first question to the minister, and it's about your modelling behind the 43 per cent target. Have you factored in the emissions from those 114 new coal and gas projects? To be specific, there are 69 new coalmines and 45 new gas projects proposed in the pipeline. Have you factored the emissions from those projects into your modelling to create your 43 per cent target?