Senate debates
Tuesday, 28 November 2006
Questions without Notice
Climate Change
2:47 pm
Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell. Does the government agree with leading scientists that we have a window of only 10 to 15 years—that is until approximately 2020—to take steps to avoid crossing a catastrophic climate tipping point beyond which we have little hope of stabilising greenhouse gas emissions below 550 parts per million, a level already associated with significant risk?
Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have never argued with the consensus of the science. I believe that—
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What is your answer?
Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is good to get a question from Senator Milne, who I think does care about climate change and actually does a bit of research, as opposed to Senator Brown, who spends most of his time asking questions and writing policies to make drugs more freely available for young Australians, making drugs available at venues, and coming up with policies to tax the family home. At least Senator Milne is a Green who cares about the environment.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Mr President, you know that the minister is misrepresenting me. Whatever the minister thinks, the Greens policies diminish the availability of drugs to children but will save the future of children if only he would do something about climate change.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
He should answer the question, as you know, Mr President.
Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Return to the question, Senator Ian Campbell.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On a point of order, Mr President: time and time again we in this chamber have to put up with the nonsense of Senator Brown deliberately abusing standing orders, pretending to make a point of order when he is not making a point of order.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What is your point of order?
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, the point of order very simply is—and if Senator Evans were to stop interjecting on behalf of his Greens-Labor accord mate, he would learn—that this sort of disruption to question time should not be allowed.
Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Points of order should be short and there should be no debating. In this case both alleged points of order were rather long and disrupted question time. My job is to ensure that question time is carried out in an orderly manner, and I ask the minister to return to question.
Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I apologise to you and the Senate because I know that whenever I mention the Greens’ ‘soft on drugs’ policy and their policy to tax family homes, Senator Brown gets to his feet. It upsets him enormously. He is deeply embarrassed, and so he should be. Senator Milne at least cares about the environment and does a bit of work. We probably disagree on some of the responses. We probably disagree on some of the policies to address climate change but what we do not disagree on is that it is an incredibly important issue for Australia and for mankind and for the ecosystems of the world. We do not disagree on that; we agree on that.
We agree that about a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide have been pumped into the atmosphere over the past 150 years and that if mankind do not change what we are doing, about another trillion tonnes will be pumped there in the next 50 years. We know that the world is going to demand about a 100 per cent increase in the energy that it consumes over the next 40-odd years. I suspect Senator Milne and I would believe that it is not a bad thing that you expand the amount of energy that is provided to the world so that the people who are starving and dying of malnutrition in Africa and the 300 million people in China who live below the poverty line can get distributed energy. I think that we agree that if we keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the rate we are doing at the moment, and at the rate, I might say, that it is occurring during the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol—a 40 per cent increase under the Kyoto protocol—there can be dangerous climate change.
Within a few months, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be producing a report on the science as it stands at the moment. That report is likely to show that temperatures across the world have increased by just over 0.6 of one degree in the past 100 years. It will show that the warming is roughly double that rate at the poles, which has implications for the melting of ice that is on top of, for example, the Antarctic continent and therefore has ramifications for sea level rises.
The report will show that sea level rises have occurred and that the oceans are warming. It will be no surprise to Australia, because the government invests over $30 million in climate change science to ensure that Australians are well aware of this. As environment minister, I have ensured that all of the scientific reports and all of the investment that we make in science is made available to the Australian public. So when Professor Will Steffan from the Australian National University was given a grant by the Australian Greenhouse Office, the first dedicated climate change office established in the world, I released that report and Professor Steffan put into the public domain his assessment of where the science is.
We do not disagree with Senator Milne that climate change is very serious and needs to be addressed. That is why we are investing $2 billion in a range of measures across a portfolio of solutions to address climate change, one of the largest public sector per capita investments anywhere in the world. That is why we are one of the few countries in the world that is on track to meet our Kyoto target. (Time expired)
Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for acknowledging the science and the critical 10 to 15 years that we have got before we approach this catastrophic tipping point. I ask the minister: has the government estimated how many tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions will be avoided by its pilot carbon capture and storage programs and its nuclear power proposals by 2020 in this critical 10- to 15-year period? What are the best- and worst-case scenario predictions for these two technologies in that period? If the government has not done that estimate, when will it admit that carbon capture and storage and nuclear power will not make any significant contribution to achieving emission reductions in the critical 10- to 15-year period up to 2020 before we reach this critical tipping point?
Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I believe that carbon capture and storage is one of the technologies that you absolutely must have. I was happy to announce a $60 million grant to the Gorgon partners for their proposed development off the Pilbara coast of Western Australia to bury three million tonnes of carbon. As Eileen Clausen from the Pew Center, President Clinton’s chief climate negotiator, said to me last year, ‘Of all of the technologies you need, I agree that you need renewables, I agree you need energy efficiency, I believe the world will need nuclear—
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The point of order is that the question is not being answered. It was about the avoided volumes of greenhouse gases, not about the opinion of other people.
Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You need all of those technologies and, in terms of carbon capture and storage, the Greens want to have a climate change policy that does not have nuclear, does not have carbon capture and storage, and today Senator Siewert has said that she does not want North West Shelf gas to be exported to China, which gives you a 50 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. So the Greens want us to address climate change with two hands tied. (Time expired)