Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the Prime Minister’s announcement that nuclear power might be an answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, he included this as one of his terms of reference for his task force on nuclear energy. If the Prime Minister accepts that emissions need to be reduced, how is it that the government’s own modelling, the ABARE report issued at AP6 in January, shows overall emissions increasing steadily over the next 30 years?

Given that nuclear power is likely to be too slow and too expensive, and given that last month the Centre for Low Emission Technology told the ABC that the government’s contribution to the low emissions technology fund was nowhere near enough, how will the government fund its so-called low emission technology, or nuclear power? Will the government finally concede that relying on not clearing land will not be enough, and that a carbon price signal will be needed to reduce greenhouse emissions significantly?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has been committed to a lowering greenhouse gas policy for a decade now. It is internationally recognised as leading across a whole range of areas. That is one of the reasons that the deputy secretary of my department, Mr Howard Bamsey, has been asked to co-chair the key United Nations framework convention dialogue on trying to develop an effective post-Kyoto regime.

We know that, under Kyoto, greenhouse gas emissions will increase by around 40 per cent. We know that Kyoto ignores roughly 70 per cent of the world’s emissions. We know, for example, that a range of European countries that have signed up to Kyoto—and this is in answer to Senator Allison’s question about price signals and carbon trading—have created a European trading scheme. Most of the countries within that trading scheme will fail to meet their targets under the Kyoto protocol and many of the countries within that carbon trading scheme—where you effectively get Labor’s policy of a trading scheme and a new carbon tax which will drive energy prices up—will have emissions growth that is higher than Australia’s.

I will just pick some countries to get these on the record. Denmark will overshoot their Kyoto target by 25 per cent. Austria will overshoot their Kyoto target by 22 per cent. Their emissions growth is likely to be higher than Australia’s. They are on target to have 109 per cent emissions growth when Australia is on target for 108 per cent. France, which has a substantial reliance on nuclear power, will see their emissions growth overshoot their target by nine per cent; they are on track to reach about 109 per cent during the first Kyoto period. Ireland will overshoot by 20 per cent; they are on track for 133 per cent emissions growth. Spain will overshoot by 36 per cent; that is 151 per cent emissions growth. Portugal will reach 152 per cent growth and Norway will reach 123 per cent.

All of these countries are within the European trading scheme, which Labor and the Democrats support. It is difficult for Labor to get their idea of this national emissions trading scheme up because, as you will remember, Mr President, last time we discussed this trading scheme I was able to say that before question time WA had pulled out of the scheme, and I predicted that by dinnertime Queensland would as well. So I might as well complete my artwork here. Queensland is out. So Labor’s policy is dead. They only have one state left.

Senator Allison also asked about our low emissions demonstration and deployment fund. We have not only put in place that fund, which I and the minister for industry will be announcing the successful applications for, but we have also funded an additional $1.5 billion worth of programs in the renewable sector, across a range of technologies. This government believes that you need a range of technological solutions. We say to those people on the left of politics, ‘If you think you can solve this problem by simply relying on wind and solar and energy efficiency, you are as wrong as those people on the right who say that you can solve it purely with nuclear.’ In fact, you need, across the globe, nuclear power to be expanded. The Prime Minister has shown leadership by saying it is a head in the sand attitude to not look at Australia’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle. You need a range of technologies. You need to clean up coal; you need to capture carbon from burning coal and geosequester it. If you do not do that, you will not solve the problem. (Time expired)

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I would ask that the minister look at the actual question I asked because none of it was answered. However, I also ask: is it not the case that by 2004 emissions in Australia from power generation had already increased by 43 per cent over 1990 levels, that the figure was 23.4 per cent for transport, 18 per cent for industry and 2.2 per cent for agriculture? Isn’t it the case that ABARE’s research report shows that the cost of carbon capture and storage from CO from coal-fired power would increase the cost of electricity by 17 per cent—CSIRO says 50 per cent? Minister, when will the government face up to what is obvious to everybody else in this country—that is, Australia needs a carbon levy or some other price signal to drive emission reductions?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is very obvious to anyone who is dispassionate and without an ideological bent—unlike the Democrats or the Labor Party—is to say that the last thing this country needs, if we want to address climate change, is a new tax. We actually need to invest billions of dollars in the world—ultimately trillions of dollars—in a range of technologies. That is going to mean a whole range of technologies. If you say you have an ideological bent against capturing carbon and buying it under the ground, if you have an ideological bent against the coal industry, you are part of the problem; you are not part of the solution. The last thing you need is a carbon price that drives up taxes on energy. We need a healthy, growing economy with full employment which gives the government and the private sector the wherewithal to invest in the technologies, be they renewables, in solar—where Australia leads the world—or in geothermal, using energy from under the ground. We need to make sure that we have a modern approach to our role in the nuclear fuel cycle. Let us take the ideology out of this and get on with some practical solutions.