Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received the following letter from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The need to take effective action on climate change.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday I attended a very large demonstration in Sydney, and I was pleased to be there with Labor's Acting Leader and Deputy Leader, Tanya Plibersek, the member for Sydney, and a number of other senators from this place, and I know that all around the country many of my Labor colleagues attended similar events.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senators are correct: I did not see any Liberal senators at this demonstration; I did not see Liberal senators standing up yesterday for meaningful action on climate change. That suggests to me just how out of touch the government is with community sentiment on this question, because the events over the weekend were attended by Australians from many walks of life. Our first peoples were well represented and honoured at these rallies. Faith groups were present at the rallies. Workers were represented—there were unions and representatives from migrant workers' groups present at these rallies. There were ordinary Australians from all walks of life who understand how very, very serious the challenge of climate change is, not just for Australia but for the globe.

What all of these people were asking for and what all of them expect from our government is that, when they attend the meetings in Paris this week, they will be putting forward a serious contribution on behalf of our nation that will allow the globe, the world, to start to take serious steps to address this existential threat. Sadly, those people are destined to be disappointed under the leadership of this Prime Minister. And of course we understand why that is: it is because, although the Prime Minister has made his personal views on climate change very plain on a number of occasions, he is hamstrung by a party room that fundamentally does not accept the seriousness of this issue, does not accept the science behind this issue and is unwilling to take any sort of serious action.

We do know what the Prime Minister thinks because he has told us very clearly what he thinks about Direct Action—the current policy mechanism. He said: 'The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing.' That is a pretty clear statement. Those are words of conviction, are they not? But this Prime Minister is unable to act on that conviction—unable or unwilling to because of the forces in his own party room. We have heard them speak out again and again and again, and today, in a number of our national papers, we see the coalition party room playing up again. Because the Prime Minister has headed over to Paris, he is not here to defend himself. But what we see are the same repeat offenders—the repeat offenders who do not accept the policy, who do not accept that we should be taking action, and, as is reported in the AustralianFinancial Review, they are about to go nuts. It is the usual crowd: it is Barnaby Joyce; it is George Christensen; it is Senator Canavan; it is the former industry minister Ian Macfarlane. And they are tweeting about it, they are briefing on it and they are speaking up about it because these are people who, fundamentally, are unwilling to support even the modest action that is proposed by this government in Paris.

I want to talk a little bit about the targets that Australia is taking to Paris under this government, because they are woefully inadequate. The Liberal Party has committed Australia to a 26 to 28 per cent reduction by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. This target is not compatible with the internationally agreed goal to limit warming to two per cent.

Even at two per cent, we know that there are serious consequences. There are serious consequences for Australia. There are serious consequences for our Pacific neighbours. There are serious consequences for many people in the developing world who do not have the resources to protect themselves from the impacts of climate change. But this government cannot even bring itself to bring forward a target which would meet that two per cent goal.

The Climate Institute suggests that actually the government's target is in fact consistent with a three to four per cent rise in global temperatures. If all the other nations of the world go to Paris with a target equivalent to ours, this is the outcome we are presenting not just to our generation but to our children. And the Australians who were out in force yesterday and out in force on Friday night in Melbourne—all of those Australians were saying no. They were saying: 'This is simply not good enough. This is not the role that Australia wishes to play in the global environment.'

Modelling by The Climate Institute also suggests that, under these targets, we will have the most pollution-intensive economy and the highest per capita emissions in the developed world by 2030. How shameful! We can do better than this. We should do better than this, because we owe it to our Pacific neighbours and we owe it to many people in the developing world, but we also know that it is in our own interests.

We have heard, time and time again, of the impacts that climate change will wreak on Australians—on Australian industry, on Australian farming, on Australian tourism and on Australian suburban life. We know about the impacts of drying already in the agricultural regions in south-western Australia and also in south-eastern Australia. We know that a drying trend is likely to have very, very serious impacts on agriculture in those regions, and we also know that farmers, in very practical ways, are preparing for that, but it will have a devastating effect on our agricultural industries. We know how worried the tourist operators in Northern Queensland are about the impacts of a warming ocean on the Great Barrier Reef, and we know how very sad it is for many Australians that that treasure, which we hold in trust for the entire world, is presently on a path of deterioration.

We know how worried the insurance sector is about the likely increase in extreme weather events, about the costs that that will present and about the challenges in constructing an insurance market that can respond to the level of damage presented by very extreme storms and by increased cyclone intensity; We know how worried the insurance sector is about that, and we know how devastating that will be for the many communities who will be affected by these events.

What is unfortunate is that we also know that as the rest of the world moves to decarbonise, right now Australia is not doing enough to get on board with this global trend—with this economic trend. We need to make substantial investments in renewable energy. Under Labor, renewable energy was booming. Australia rose to be one of the four most attractive destinations for global renewable energy investment, along with China, the US and Germany. Households with solar panels rose from 7,000 to more than 1.2 million. Jobs in the renewable energy industry tripled.

We made significant investments in renewable energy when in government. We established the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and we established the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. But it is a very different story under the Liberals. Under Tony Abbott, and, of course, continuing under Prime Minister Turnbull, the Liberal government has almost destroyed the renewable energy industry. Investment in large-scale renewable energy projects such as wind farms has fallen by 88 per cent. It is unbelievable that a government would preside over a collapse in industry performance at this scale. The intransigence, the indolence, and the indifference to this industry has been absolutely unbelievable. I say to those who are listening to this debate this afternoon that I understand how very serious this problem is, as do the people on this side of the chamber and in fact everybody except the people opposite. We understand that this is not a problem that will fix itself. It is a problem that will require real leadership, both domestically and internationally.

We are approaching a very significant global meeting. It is an opportunity for Australia to stand up, to take its place on the world stage and lead. But unfortunately we are sending overseas a Prime Minister utterly hamstrung by his party room—a Prime Minister who probably understands how serious this is but is unwilling to act and is incapable of acting. I say to all of you that Australians deserve much better than this.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I have to say up-front that I could not agree more with the topic and with the need to take effective action on climate change. I am sure everybody in this chamber wants to leave the world and our environment in a better state than we inherited it. The simple fact is that this government is taking effective action that, no matter how much those on the other side hate to acknowledge, is making a real difference.

While we agree in this place on the need to improve our environment and to leave the world in a better state than we found it, what we very clearly do not agree on is how to achieve that goal. We on this side believe in practical solutions, versus those on the other side who have fanciful policies and a lot of rhetoric but very little substance and very few gains. For example, Labor's most recent emissions reduction plan, so to speak, is quite simply a flight of fancy, even under their own costings. If ever imposed, which clearly it never would be, it would kill our Australian economy. In contrast, this government is taking real and direct action to protect our environment without destroying the economy but instead contributing to it. Our practical, realistic climate change policies and emission reduction targets, in contrast to Labor's record when in government, are actually working. They are demonstrably working.

Australia is the 12th largest economy in the world, and yet we are only responsible for 1.5 per cent of global emissions. Here is the kicker for those on the other side, which they will never acknowledge, and it is a fact that they hate: Australia is currently on track to beat our 2020 emissions reduction target by 28 million tonnes, and our policies will ensure that we are able to meet the 2030 target of 26 to 28 per cent.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's because you are cheating with the way you are counting. It is clever accounting!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite may want to interject, but that is a fact. That is a demonstrable fact. I will say it again for the benefit of those here. We are currently ahead of our 2020 target by over 28 million tonnes, and we are well on track for our 2030 objectives. Despite all of the rhetoric and all of the marches and demonstrations they organise, the fact is that our policies are working.

Our target, unlike that of those opposite, is responsible. Our focus is on direct action—not talking about making changes. We are getting out in the Australian community, the Australian environment and the economy and implementing policies that actually work. In fact, the target we are taking this week to the Paris climate talks is, per capita, the second highest and second most ambitious of any G20 country. You might shake your head over there, Senator Lines, but it is true.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do shake my head! It is clever accounting!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You might not like it, and you might not like the fact that those on this side are implementing—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Direct your comments through the chair, Senator Reynolds.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apologies, I will refer my comments through the chair. That is what they cannot stand—that we are implementing policies that are actually working. Let's put the rhetoric aside and look at some of the demonstrable facts. The Emissions Reduction Fund has so far contracted 92.8 million tonnes of carbon reduction for an average price of $13.12 per tonne—nearly half of what a tonne of carbon abatement cost under the previous Labor government. Despite all of the rhetorical flourishes and everything that has been said in this chamber by those opposite, the Emissions Reduction Fund is working, and it is backed by Australian businesses. In fact, it has been so successful that there are currently 500 projects underway that are registered under the fund, and we expect this success to continue, all at a fraction of the cost of Labor's carbon tax.

Our other Direct Action policies, including the National Energy Productivity Plan to improve energy productivity by 40 per cent by 2030, are realistic, practical and deliverable policies for Australia. We also want to use our energy more efficiently, not put up the prices of electricity and other consumer costs as happened under Labor. So this week at the Paris climate conference the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for the Environment will send a clear message to the world that Australia is serious about addressing climate change. Again, that is in stark contrast to those opposite. This government is actually ensuring that Australia pulls its weight on the international stage when it comes to mitigating the effects of climate change. We are achieving real and significant emissions reductions, at around one per cent of the cost of Labor's carbon tax. I will say that again: we are making real change and reductions, at one per cent of the cost of the carbon tax which Labor imposed on the economy. We have actually implemented policies that are working and are on target to meet our goals.

What do we get from the Leader of the Opposition? The Labor Party has had five different carbon tax policies in five years. The Leader of the Opposition cannot make up his mind. First he promised to abolish a carbon tax, then he voted to keep it and now he wants to bring it back—which, inevitably, would see electricity prices skyrocket again. Even worse is the Greens policy. Fairly typically, it has been put forward with little or no thought as to how it would work in the real world. They want emissions reductions of 60 to 80 per cent by 2030. Not only is not just unrealistic; it is not credible, and it would simply kill the economy if it were ever introduced—and with the economy goes jobs.

Under Labor's previous carbon tax, under their own figures, Australia would have experienced a rise in carbon emissions from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes per annum by 2020—all of that at a cost of $9 billion to Australian industry and Australian workers. So, not only was their policy, by their own projections, going to increase carbon emissions; it was killing the economy, and it was not working. Couple the carbon tax debacle with other flip-flops and failures in implementing environment policy. Remember, they scrapped solar projects, they botched the integration of renewable energy into the grid and they wasted millions of dollars on stop-start funding for so-called green initiatives before a lot of these initiatives even got off the ground. And that continues today. Their ideological blindness is blocking the Carmichael mine. The practical consequence of that for the environment is that if India does not get our cleaner coal it will have to turn to other countries for much dirtier coal. That will inevitably increase pollution across the Subcontinent and also increase carbon emissions, not decrease them. The truth is that coal will remain a part of the energy mix into the future and will play an important role in alleviating poverty in developing economies.

How does all this contrast with the government's record? We are providing $15 billion in support of renewable energy. If you listened only to those opposite, you would think we were not doing anything for renewables, but of course we are: $15 billion worth of investments into renewables. We are establishing the Office of Climate Change and Renewables Innovation to bring a new focus to the role of innovation in the future of energy technology. As anybody who has had anything to do with the sector knows, more innovation is required in order to generate more and more baseload power. Australia has a strong record on renewable energy, and this government is committed to improving on it. We are supporting Australian households to reduce their electricity bills by further investing in rooftop solar energy. In Australia we now have the highest proportion of households with rooftop solar panels in the world, at about 15 per cent, and this government's support for rooftop solar will see more than 23 per cent of Australia's electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020—a doubling of large-scale renewable energy over the next five years.

So, despite everything that is said by those opposite, we are supporting and actually implementing policies that are demonstrably working, and we are putting a lot of investment into renewables and particularly into finding new and innovative ways of producing renewable energy. The fact is that this government is implementing ambitious but achievable emissions reductions targets under Direct Action— (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too was at one of the climate rallies—the one in Melbourne on Friday, where tens of thousands of people marched in solidarity to see our government commit on the world stage to much more ambitious action when it comes to tackling catastrophic global warming. It was terrific to see so many ordinary people—mums, dads, families and so on—join together to call for more ambition. I think that is a reflection of the fact that a big change is happening within the Australian community—among business leaders, people who are very concerned about the direction our country is headed when it comes to attracting new investment. There is also a change in the political wind. We saw the announcement from the ALP, which I certainly welcome, of a 45 per cent reduction in levels by 2030. I think that is a good step forward—light in detail, no plan for getting there, but at least it has been put on the table by the ALP.

So, there is action here in Australia, and there is so much going on right around the world. The fastest-growing segment of China's energy generation sector is solar power. In the US, emissions standards and regulation are in place to help drive that change. California is committing to ambitious renewable energy targets. That is the eighth biggest economy in the world. In the UK we have seen the commitment to phase out generation from coal fired power. There are so many things happening internationally, but Australia is showing itself to be an international laggard when it comes to action on climate. Here we are in Paris, trumpeting the fact that we are on target to exceed our 2020 benchmark—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aren't we?

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, emissions are increasing. Let's just remember: our emissions are increasing. The reason we are on track to achieve that target is an accounting trick. It is simply an accounting trick with a carryover that allows us to meet that target while our emissions increase. That tells you all you need to know about whether achieving that target is of any meaningful value.

And we have Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull spruiking Tony Abbott's climate targets on the world stage—targets that, again, when it comes to international comparators with OECD countries, are the worst in the world. Based on 2000 levels, which are the benchmark that many other developed countries use, we are talking about a 19 per cent reduction. You can get bamboozled with the facts and figures, the numbers and climate targets and so on, but just know this: if we achieve the targets that have been established by Tony Abbott and taken by the Prime Minister to Paris, we will remain the biggest per capita polluter in the world. That tells you everything you need to know about the level of ambition when it comes to achieving those targets.

All this comes at a time when we have a prime minister who promised to put science and innovation at the heart of policymaking in this parliament. If he is true to those words then the targets we take to Paris need to be based on the best available science, and the best available science tells us that we should be achieving a 60 per cent reduction by 2030 if we are to ensure that what we are doing is consistent with the huge body of expert opinion when it comes to climate change. But it is not just about achieving an environmental imperative, as critical as that is. It is also about driving the innovation that we need in this country to transform our economy from one that is reliant on those sources of generation that helped us to achieve our prosperity over the last century but which will not be the pathway to prosperity over this coming century. We need to recognise that investment in renewable generation is precisely that—an investment—and that, while people discuss the costs of that investment, there is a much bigger cost in not acting.

The Prime Minister should start with a couple of simple things. He should abandon his plans to axe the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, for they are hubs of innovation that have helped to kick-start the transformation we need. And he needs to recognise that if he does not tackle this challenge he will simply be another prime minister who says one thing and does another.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too joined the thousands and thousands of Australians who met and marched yesterday, demanding action on climate change. I marched here in Canberra. If you need clear proof that it does not matter who leads the Liberal Party, just look at the climate change policies: they are exactly the same. Despite a change in Prime Minister, the policy is written by the climate change sceptics, the parliamentary members of the Liberal Party—many of whom, I am sure, make up the 44 who did not vote for Mr Turnbull to be our Prime Minister.

It is not that Mr Turnbull, our Prime Minister, believes that climate change is 'crap', to quote the former Prime Minister. He does not. In fact, he is on the public record as saying quite the opposite, as recently as a few years ago:

The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is crap and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.

He went on—I will not say it here, because I am sure it is unparliamentary language. But he described it as something beginning with 'bull' and said that not only was it that, but that Mr Abbott knew it to be that as well.

Despite not being one of the Liberal Party's climate sceptics, Mr Turnbull will do nothing about climate change because he knows he will lose the prime ministership. He lost the leadership of the Liberal Party once before because he stood up for climate change, so he already knows what the outcome will be if he airs his real views and beliefs that climate change is real.

We now know that three-quarters of Australians, according to the CSIRO research, believe in climate change—which is, funnily enough, about the same who believe in and support marriage equality. And, although Mr Turnbull says he supports climate change and believes it is real, and that he certainly supports marriage equality, he is going to do nothing about either. Why? Because he wants to be Prime Minister more than he wants to do what the Australian people want, whether it is about climate change or marriage equality.

The farce which Mr Turnbull used to describe the Liberals'—his own—climate change policy is really a farce being perpetrated on the Australian public, led by Mr Turnbull and his government. The Climate Institute's research states, 'The majority of Australians don't believe this government'—the Turnbull government—'is doing enough on climate change.' And the number of Australians who think that the Turnbull government is not doing enough on climate change is increasing.

Rather than thinking that coal is good for humanity, as the Turnbull government thinks, almost three-quarters of Australians believe it is inevitable that coal-fired generators will need to be replaced with clean energy. Sixty-five per cent of Australians do not believe in divesting wind power and solar power, yet what has the Turnbull government done? They have appointed a very expensive wind power commissioner who is paid $205,000 for a part-time three-year position. Again, why? It is a sop to the party's own climate sceptics and a sop to those crossbenchers who also do not believe in climate change. Mr Hunt has gone on to tell us that that will be within budget, yet the new wind commissioner is telling us that he is going to make outside appointments. I think we now need to know what is being cut to accommodate the climate sceptics within the Liberals' own party. And once again Mr Turnbull just backs in those old views.

Today, we saw that the Nationals—the great Nationals; the tail wagging the dog—in exchange for their support of Mr Turnbull, have taken another backwards step. First, Mr Turnbull put them in charge of water. He put them in charge of water!

And, today, they have urged the Prime Minister not to sign up to a communique at the UN climate summit in Paris, pushing nations to speed up the removal of subsidies on fossil fuels. Why? It could jeopardise the future of the diesel fuel rebate. The Nationals seem to have completely ignored the impact that fossil fuels have on climate change. Even the IMF have said that fossil fuel prices should reflect not only supply costs but also environmental impacts like climate change and the health costs of local air pollution. The IMF did not stop there; they went on to say that fossil fuel subsidies are also socially regressive.

Those climate sceptic Nationals discussed it at their caucus this morning and have sent a direct message, or was it a warning, to Mr Turnbull. The biggest joke of all came from Senator Canavan, who said, 'We'—the Nationals—'don't view the fuel rebate as a subsidy.' So what is it? Is it an entitlement?

Let us see what Mr Turnbull will do to head off this latest backlash from his own coalition. Certainly, they have been tweeting about it, and Mr Christensen took to Twitter saying that if we signed the fossil fuel subsidy, it would be madness. And, then, guess what? Mr Turnbull assured that noisy rump of the Nationals that all would be okay and that nothing that threatened the rebate would be done. Again, the tail is wagging the dog. Mr Turnbull knows who he has to appease in his party and it is, again, the right-wing Tea Party elements, the climate sceptics in this case. It is clear that there are two very different futures for Australia: Labor and renewable energy versus the same old Liberals and coal.

More research conducted for Future Super shows that 84 per cent of Australians think there should be more than 40 per cent of renewable energy in Australia. The Prime Minister is not interested in what the Australian people think. Mr Turnbull is only interested in the dirty deals with the dominant right of his party to serve his political ambitions. Despite them sending that wrecking ball across the renewable energy industry, their emissions reduction fund is a joke. But they will cling to this notion that somehow, with clever accounting, they are doing the right thing.

Was Senator Reynolds really saying in here that the thousands and thousands of Australians who marched over the weekend have got it wrong on climate change and the climate sceptics in their party have got it right? I do not think she is right. History will show we are right.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, can I try to bring a reality check to this debate which the Greens, the Labor Party and the ABC seem to continue to want to thrust upon the Australian public. Senator Lines and Senator McAllister talked about these thousands and thousands of people. Even according to the organiser's own estimates, there were 100,000 around Australia marching in support of this philosophy and against the Turnbull government, which means that there were 23,400,000 Australians who did not march and who think the government's proposals at Paris are just right. So 100,000, even according to the overinflated estimates of the organisers, marched around the whole of Australia; 23,400,000 Australians did not march. Keep that in your mind for a reality check.

As I always say about this debate, Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of all emissions of carbon in this world. If you shut down Australia completely, if there was not a skerrick of carbon coming out Australia, it would not make one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world or to the world's environment, not one iota of difference would it make. So you just need to bring some reality into these debates.

The Greens and the Labor Party hate the fact, absolutely loathe the fact, that under the Turnbull government, under the Abbott government, this nation is actually doing something to reduce emissions. That does not really matter if we stop all our emissions. It would not make any difference to the world's changing climate if carbon emissions are what are causing it. Nevertheless, Australia has gone along and we are reducing particulate emissions into the atmosphere. I think that is always a great idea. I am one of those who always acknowledge that the climate changes. I always say, 'Once upon a time, Australia was covered in ice and the centre of Australia was a tropical rainforest.' So of course the climate changes; always has.

Even if you accept that carbon emissions by mankind are causing something then Australia, with such a limited reduction, will make not one iota of difference. Having said that, Australia is one who meets its targets. We signed the Kyoto protocol, and we have actually beaten the targets we set ourselves then, whereas we are lectured by the American President, Mr Obama, about our Barrier Reef. Yet his country would not even sign the Kyoto protocol and wanted nothing to do with it at all. We have the American President come out and make promises. It is easy to make promises—just join the Labor Party or the Greens. It is so easy to make promises; it is a lot harder when you have to meet the promises you make. President Obama, as long as he is left in the White House, will have no influence whatsoever on the American reductions.

If you believe that carbon makes the difference and you want to do something about it then have a look at America, have a look at Canada, have a look at India, have a look at China. When their carbon emissions are down to what Australia emits then you might start looking at Australia and saying, We've got to take more drastic action.'

But I ask for this reality check. As I say this, 23,500,000 Australians did not bother to go along to the march organised by the Greens, Labor, GetUp! and the ABC on the weekend. Those 23.5 million Australians think the current government is doing a pretty good job. We are exceeding our targets. We are ahead of the game, and the Greens and the Labor Party just hate it.

The Kyoto targets I have mentioned. Australia makes a promise, we do it in all seriousness and we actually meet those targets that we set, and we continue to do that. I heard one of the previous speakers from the opposition talking about how it was a dirty trick—an accounting trick. But, of course, we use the same United Nations accountancy on targets as has been happening for some time and as the previous Labor government used. But it is like so much from Labor and the Greens: if the coalition does it it is bad, but if Labor do exactly the same thing then it is good.

Again in this whole debate, I ask for and urge some reality—a reality check on what this is all about. I emphasise that Australia has a responsible and achievable—I emphasise again 'achievable'—emissions reduction target. We are going for 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and because it is Australia who has promised it Australia will meet that target, because we are one of the few countries in the world that have met their targets. We have done it without buying these dodgy credits that popped up all over the world and made the merchant bankers a lot of money. We have done it without buying those dodgy carbon credits. We have done it by serious, achievable and affordable emissions of carbon.

When this subject is debated, can I just ask Australians to take a reality check. Look at what really is happening. Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's emissions, and our emissions do not really mean much at all, but still we are going to follow along and reduce our emissions, as we have promised before and as we have achieved before.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From 1940 to 1976 the world's climate cooled. Numerous books were written at that time, including Lowell Ponte's 1975 book warning:

… Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for 100,000 years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance: the survival of ourselves, our children and our species.

Sound familiar? We now have exactly the same statements being made about global warming instead of global cooling. There has not been any global warming in 18 years, even though CO2 levels have risen. There was needless alarm about 36 years of cooling when CO2 levels were rising in the 1940s, '50s, '60s and '70s; there was needless alarm over the last 18 years as CO2 kept rising; and there is needless alarm today.

There is no evidence that CO2 has influenced the climate in the past or that it could do so in the future. Not only that; the additional CO2 that has been emitted has actually been beneficial, with increased vegetation and crop yields—food production—around the world. The world is a bit greener and a bit healthier thanks to CO2. Ninety-seven per cent of CO2 is emitted naturally. Only three per cent is man made, so it is ridiculous to suggest that it is the three per cent that is causing global warming, not the other 97 per cent. As for calling CO2 pollution, that is the most ludicrous, unscientific statement one could possibly make. Over the last 18 years there have also been fewer extreme weather events like cyclones, not more. Not only that; a slightly warmer climate would be beneficial. More people die from cold than die from warmth.

This is the most baffling and perplexing subject I have ever come across in my life, and I am at a loss to explain what motivates 40,000 people to gather in Paris—and, before that, in Copenhagen, Kyoto, Durban, Rio et cetera—when there is such a lack of evidence to support the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming. The best thing that Australia can do at the Paris climate conference is to be a voice for truth, reason and scientific inquiry, not irrational climate alarmism.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the important meeting of the Paris talks, which begins today in Paris to reach, hopefully, a global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions on our planet, I really hope—very much so—that Australia becomes a leading light. But, unfortunately, I think my hopes perhaps will not be delivered, because we know that the government so far has not changed its stance from the Abbott government's position on climate targets, particularly the 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target that it has set for itself, which does nothing, as we know and as the Climate Institute has said, to prevent global warming of two degrees. In fact, it is consistent with global warming of three to four degrees.

Having said that, I live in hope, and I also really hope that there are real gains made at this Paris summit. They may not be made by Australia, but I hope they are made by enough countries—the some 166 that have now pledged their emissions reductions—to ensure that we come out with a very positive outcome. Of course, this summit in Paris, this Conference of Parties 21, has taken a different approach. It has taken an approach where countries pledge what they are able to contribute and then hope to defend that as their reasonable contribution to limit global warming by two degrees. That is what needs to happen. We know that Australia's targets do not do that, but we are hoping that the outcomes from other countries make that happen.

The opposition, however, have very much put forward our position on climate change and renewable energy as a very positive one, one where we can actually make a difference. Over the weekend, I noticed that the Prime Minister described Labor's plan to reduce Australia's 2030 emissions and our policy to the next election of net zero pollution by 2050 as 'heroic'. Well, I have to say that I would much prefer to be on the side of heroism than on the side of failure. Unfortunately, unless the Prime Minister ignores his National Party colleagues, who are urging him, certainly, to do less, not more, and ignores Senator Macdonald, Senator Day—I could go on with a number of senators—and others in the other place from the very conservative side of the do-nothing approach, the forget-about-humanity approach, we will not have a strong outcome for this country out of this Paris summit.

Having said that, I know there is a lot of goodwill—very much so—at this meeting. That allows me to feel comfortable with the fact that other nations will hopefully do the right thing. I have spoken in this place before, though, about the importance of the Asia-Pacific, particularly some of our Pacific island neighbours but also Asian countries as well that will lead to sea level rises over the next decade or more, and how there is going to be a need, with the Green Climate Fund, to ensure that there is support for our region. That is why I also urge the Turnbull Liberal government to ensure that it does increase its contribution to the international Green Climate Fund. That is at least one way that we can hold our heads up high, even if the government is not going to change its current emissions reduction targets, which so need to be changed. The Green Climate Fund is crucial and will be discussed and contributed to by a number of nations at this UN climate meeting because the OECD has made it clear that it is some $30 billion short in its demand to help developing countries mitigate the impacts of climate change.

I guess I am pointing this out to some of those senators who take a different view so that they can take a reality check. It is very clear that they need to take a reality check and read some of the science and some of the reporting that has been done in the area of global warming. I would like to point to one area, and that is sea level rises in the Asia-Pacific. The most conservative estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicate that sea level will rise on average at about four millimetres per year above 1990 levels by the period 2090 to 2099. What does that mean? It means that in South-East Asia another 250 million people, particularly in poor rural areas, who live in the low-lying river megadeltas of Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam—of which two million people will be directly affected by the inundation of sea level rise by mid century—will be affected. That is the reality check. That is what we are dealing with here. That is the result of global warming that has been caused by man-made influences through our activities, which we need to slow and curtail. It is already too late for so many of these poor people who live in these low-lying areas.

Nowhere, I think, is the threat more imminent than in the Asian region. That is why those small developing island countries in the Pacific, which are highly vulnerable to storm surges, to coastal erosion, to flooding and to inundation, need the support and the protection that we can provide. That is what we can do through our contribution to the Green Climate Fund.

So I urge our Prime Minister, while he is over there, to stay true to the position that he once held, and that is that the Direct Action policy is 'a fig leaf', is 'a farce', is 'a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'. They are his words. I urge him to recognise that that is not the policy that he believes in and that we need strong action on climate change to do our part when we make our contribution to limit global warming to two degrees, in the hope that we can hold our heads up high for our sense of humanity.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to rise to comment on the need to take effective action on climate change. I am going to focus very much on the word 'effective' in my contribution. As said previously by Senator Macdonald and others, climate is itself continually changing. Climate has continually changed over millions of years, and I think perhaps it is an oxymoron to use the term 'climate change'. We can make a comment on effective action on climate.

But, as Mr Hunt, our Minister for the Environment, said the other day, not only did Australia meet and exceed our Kyoto targets when many other countries failed to do so but kept criticising Australia but we also go into this process some 28 million tonnes ahead of our target for 2020. And then we are told by others on the other side, 'Of course, that's just creative accounting,' and yet, funnily enough, it is the accounting method used by the United Nations. It is the accounting standards that Labor used when in government. But all of a sudden, when the coalition government led by Mr Turnbull is able to achieve these outcomes with Direct Action, what do we suddenly see? It is all 'creative accounting'.

When we speak of effectiveness, I want to reflect on some of the renewables and other sources that are absolutely phenomenal. I start with hydro, or hydroelectricity. As we know, Tasmania is very, very strong in the hydro space. There is the Snowy Mountains authority. And we have the capacity, I understand, in Far North Queensland for the Tully-Millstream proposal, which would be generating in excess of 1,000 gigawatt hours per annum once that project was up and running. We certainly need to be expending our resources in that area.

In my home state and city of Western Australia and Perth, there is the excellent work undertaken by the Carnegie Wave Energy company, which won an award only recently in The Australian's 2015 Innovation Challenge. And what have Carnegie done using funds partially provided by the successive Commonwealth Labor and coalition governments? We now see a significant proportion of HMAS Stirling's power and desalinated water on Garden Island, south of Perth, being generated by wave action from Carnegie. Secondly, the company has only just recently raised a significant sum of $7.5 million to deliver on renewable energy for the island of Mauritius. How fantastic is that space?

On solar application we have heard others speak already; there are 2.4 million solar hot water systems or solar PV units, and 15 per cent of Australian homes now have solar units on the roof. That is double that of Belgium, which is next, which in turn is double that of Germany, at 3.7. And they say by 2020 we could well have 1 million solar battery technology performances here in Australia. How fantastic would that be?

We often hear the comment of how the Americans are starting to meet their targets—and do you know how, Mr Acting Deputy President? It is because they have moved substantially from coal generated to gas generated electricity. We in Australia probably have the world's largest gas reserves, and by 2019 we will go past Qatar as the biggest exporter of LNG in the world—so how fantastic is that going to be? I would also like to mention briefly again the capacity identified by the CEFC in the recent report showing there is potential for more than 800 megawatts of new generation from bioenergy, which they say could avoid some 9 million tonnes of carbon emissions annually.

The point to be made is that Australia's excellence in this space is our capacity to innovate and our capacity to develop new technologies and then to extend them through other parts of the world, especially in those developing countries of the world that cannot afford to pay for this new technology. That is where Australia's contribution lies, and why it is not recognised is beyond me. A prime example is the work of Carnegie.

I want to talk in the few minutes left available to me about the term 'effective'. I want to speak for a few minutes on the ineffectiveness of industrial wind turbines and make the point that it is estimated to be about 18 years for an industrial wind turbine to repay the greenhouse gas cost of originally developing it and putting it in place. For those who are interested, and for those who are not, it is about 18 years of use, so by the time an industrial wind turbine is getting to the stage of being decommissioned you will tend to find it is getting somewhere near the original cost of its greenhouse gas.

But those in South Australia would know, and you are one of them, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards—and Senator Ruston and Senator Wong are here in the chamber—that on November 1, the first day of this very month, at 10 pm, across South Australia there was a blackout. More than 100,000 homes were without power—why? For two reasons. First of all is the enormous reliance on wind power now in South Australia—and you would not believe it, but the wind did not blow. And at the same time the wind was not blowing there was an interconnector problem with bringing the power coming from Victoria's coal fired Latrobe Valley. So we had a circumstance then, for that period of time, that South Australia and those 110,000 homes were without power, as were the small businesses and other businesses around.

In the United Kingdom, only in the last month did the UK government have to pay those heavy users of electricity factories and others to actually decrease their power for a period of time, again simply because of the lack of wind power. Having moved to rely on that particular form of energy for that purpose they are predicting now that it is going to cost them some billions of pounds into the future to compensate high-electricity users so that they can keep the lights on in their residences.

As we know about wind power, it is unpredictable. First of all, you do not know whether the wind is going to blow this time tomorrow. Secondly, you have absolutely no idea how much generation you are going to get. It is unreliable: you do not know how long the wind is going to blow for, and of course without other forms of generation it is totally unsustainable. So what we are going to see in South Australia over time is a higher and higher loss of reliability and, as we know, as a state South Australia has the highest cost in this nation for electricity.

I am a Western Australian, and we are all asked, as we should be in a nation, to make sure we support every state. But which manufacturing operations are going to want to go to set themselves up in South Australia when the supply of power is unreliable and it is the most expensive in the nation? It is no wonder the Premier, Mr Weatherill, is so actively trying to have a look at nuclear. We know that it is the ultimate when it comes to being a source of energy which produces no carbon at all.

The point to be made in these final few minutes is that when you have a high proportion of renewables, particularly wind-turbine-generated power in a community, you pay three times. First of all, you pay for the power. Secondly, you pay for the subsidy of the industrial wind turbines to the tune of about half a million dollars per turbine per year. Then, increasingly, we are going to be paying some sort of subsidy to keep the baseload power generation going. I certainly support the notion of effective action.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I strongly support the need to take effective action on anthropogenic climate change. It is up to us to do what is necessary to meet this challenge and to meet it as soon as possible, because the costs of not acting now will be much higher in the long run. The issue is: how do you drive the best possible reduction in emissions as efficiently as possible? Senator Back does have a very good point in terms of wind energy. It is intermittent and it is unreliable. In terms of the renewable path, it is much better to go down the path of large-scale solar, for instance. And South Australia needlessly has the highest power prices in the nation.

My concern with the previous government's carbon tax policy, the Labor government's tax policy, was that it was a huge revenue churn, and that itself is inefficient. Back in 2009, when the now Prime Minister was opposition leader, we jointly commissioned Frontier Economics to prepare an alternative emissions trading scheme. It was in my view cleaner, greener and smarter, because its churn on revenue was lower and it was based on energy intensity. I believe it has an enormous amount of merit.

Politics has intervened. I have worked constructively with the coalition since the election to improve its Direct Action legislation, to strengthen the safeguard mechanism and to make the overall scheme much more accountable and practical. We have heard what the costs of emissions reductions have been: an average of $12.25 per tonne.

More must be done. I think it is a good thing that our Prime Minister is in Paris. I think the previous Prime Minister had no intention of going there. The fact that Malcolm Turnbull is there is a good thing. We also need to regularly review emissions targets. I believe the 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 needs to be much more ambitious, so I will work constructively with my colleagues on both sides of the chamber to see what we can do in practical terms to reduce emissions as much as possible, to constantly review those targets and, of course, to be aware of the damage that has been done, not to ignore issues of adaptation.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has expired.