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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Cormann. Does the government accept the findings of the world's scientists contained in last December's United In Science report, prepared for the UN climate summit, that the world is currently on track for up to 3.4 degrees of global warming? And can you please tell the Senate what the impacts of 3.4 degrees of global warming will be on Australia's economy and how many people will die?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said on a number of occasions now in response to similar questions from Senator Waters, the government accepts the need to take action on climate change. We also are committed to ensuring that our actions are both environmentally effective and economically responsible. What we won't do is shift emissions, together with jobs and economic activity, overseas where, for the same level of economic—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Waters, on a point of order?

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

With respect, Mr President, it's relevance. I've heard the general spiel before. This question specifically went to the impact on our economy and people's lives of 3.4 degrees of warming.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, I can't instruct the minister how to answer the question, as long as he's being directly relevant to it. There's an opportunity after question time for senators to debate the merits or otherwise of answers. The minister can continue.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, the reason what I'm explaining to you is directly relevant is that if we did not do what we're doing then we would make the challenges for the global environment worse. If we were to decide to stop producing and exporting Australian coal and it were to be displaced by coal from other sources which are more polluting, the emissions in the world would go up. If we decided to pursue the reckless agenda that you're suggesting, we would shift jobs, economic activities and emissions overseas where, for same level of economic output, emissions would be higher and the world environment would be worse off. That is why what I'm saying to you is directly relevant.

The course of action that you're suggesting would not only harm working families around Australia; it would harm the global environment. This government will never do anything to gratuitously harm the Australian people in a way that would then also harm the global environment. Our agenda—we are committed to effective action on climate change, we are committed to taking action that is environmentally effective and economically responsible, and we will not make meaningless commitments without being able to tell the Australian people what the impact is going to be on them, on their jobs, on their future job security, and on their future job opportunities, particularly if it means making the situation for the global environment worse.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, a supplementary question?

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

The government's own inadequate 2030 targets are consistent with three degrees of global warming. Given that it appears to be government policy to heat Australia by three degrees, can you please tell us, to the nearest billion dollars, the damage expected to be suffered to the tourism, agriculture and infrastructure sectors by your government's policies, or are you not costing your own policies?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are quite right: we are committed to a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target, which on a per capita basis means that we will be reducing emissions by half and on an emissions intensity of the economy basis means we will be reducing the emissions intensity in our economy by two-thirds. And do you know what? We have a target. The Labor Party doesn't even have a 2030 target—none. They're running for the hills. They're now trying to run a smokescreen. The reason the Leader of the Opposition came out with the statement he did last Friday is that he knows he can't get a consensus in his party room between Otis and Mr Butler around a 2030 target. That is what that is all about. It's just one massive smokescreen.

We are taking responsible action. We are being guided by our commitment to ensure that our agenda is environmentally effective and economically responsible. We will have to agree to disagree, and the Australian people— (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?

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

Do you accept the findings of three key Australian climate scientists reported in the media today that neither the government's targets nor a zero-by-2050 target alone will limit global warming to less than two degrees and that what is needed is deep cuts to pollution now and a stronger 2030 target? Do you accept that science?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said on many occasions now, the government is committed to effective action on climate change. But we're also committed to ensuring that the agenda that we pursue is environmentally effective and economically responsible. We will not be pursuing an agenda that gratuitously harms the future opportunities of Australians in a way that makes global emissions increase more, that makes the situation for the world environment worse. We want to improve the global emissions outlook, not make it worse. Indeed, Australia as a net exporter of energy—including, of course, as an exporter of Australian coal, displacing more polluting coal from other sources—will continue to help reduce global emissions in the way that we have for some time.