Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 2 August 2021:

The need to reduce carbon pollution from the transport sector, with particular reference to:

(a) the need to urgently transition to a net zero economy by 2035 to address the climate crisis, including through emissions reductions in the transport sector;

(b) the urgent need for government policies to support a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including through consumer incentives, government procurement and other policies;

(c) opportunities for the manufacturing of electric vehicle and electric vehicle components in Australia;

(d) the need for federal resourcing and planning to support walking and cycling;

(e) reducing emissions from shipping and aviation;

(f) the need for a broader transport transition plan, to coordinate and support workers, communities and companies in the transition to a net zero economy; and

(g) any other related matters deemed relevant by the committee.

I'm proposing this inquiry because what is missing from this place, other than in Greens contributions in multiple debates, is serious consideration of the most existential issue facing humanity today both here in Australia and around the world. Basically, if global humanity doesn't do what's necessary to tackle our climate crisis then we are cactus.

Almost 20 per cent of the carbon pollution from Australia comes from transport. We have to tackle our transport pollution if we are serious about tackling our carbon pollution. But at the moment there isn't a way forward that has been proposed by this government or this parliament. A few weeks ago we saw the Liberal Party's release of their Future Fuels Strategy discussion paper, and in a way it actually summed up the Liberal Party's approach to electric vehicles, to transport emissions and, indeed, to the climate crisis. It was late, it was devoid of meaningful content and, basically, it was just pathetic.

Before I go on with the specifics of what this inquiry would encompass, which I envisage would enable us to lay out what we could and should be doing in the transport sector to slash our carbon pollution to zero as soon as possible, I want to lay out the problem of our climate crisis, because it does not seem to have sunk in to most people in this place what a huge problem we are facing.

Barely over a year ago we saw Australia burn. We had more than 12.6 million hectares burnt in the 2019-20 summer fires. Twenty per cent of the mainland forests of Australia burnt, including forests that have never been burnt before in thousands and thousands of years. There were over three billion animals killed. The smoke from the fires alone was linked to more than 4,000 hospital admissions and 445 deaths, and that is in addition to the 30-odd people who, tragically, were killed in the fires. This has occurred with global warming of just over one degree, so frankly I am terrified to think of what we will face with three or more degrees of warming by the turn of the century. That turn of the century—I just want you to think about this—is in 79 years time. That's within the lifetime of the children and the grandchildren who we love and hold dear today. We are facing an existential crisis of more than three degrees of global warming.

Tragically it's not just fires. The climate crisis means multiple species are facing extinction, with the homes they live in disappearing as climate change causes our environments to become hotter and drier and fires more intense and more frequent. We know there will be extreme weather—it's not just fires, it's also floods—and we've already seen insurance costs in Queensland absolutely skyrocket and become incredibly difficult to get. People can't get insurance for their property. We're seeing the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef affecting so many other precious life forms in our oceans. And we're seeing the rising sea levels, the rising tides and the threats to shore-front properties, infrastructure and people's whole towns.

At the moment we're at about 1.2 degrees of warming. There is strong evidence that, at or around 1.5 degrees of warming, both the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will have reached their tipping point—that is, melting will be locked in because of the level of heat that's in the atmosphere. Can we just stop and think about what that means. The melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets means eight metres of sea level rise. Current science is saying that, on the way to that eight-metre rise, we're looking at somewhere between two and three metres of sea level rise by the turn of the century—again, in the lifetime of children alive today. I'll give you one example of what that means. The Fishermans Bend development project that's currently underway in Melbourne is touted as the largest urban renewal development in the country. It's projected to be home to approximately 80,000 residents by 2050 and provide employment for up to 80,000 people. The only problem is that, by 2100, the vast majority of it will be under water, because it is all less than two metres above sea level, as will a huge area of our coastal cities, including places like my childhood home in Altona in Melbourne.

This is the problem we are facing and, sadly, our current Liberal government has failed Australia. There have been years of opportunity when we could have acted at much lower cost than what we are facing now. Future generations are going to pay the price for the greed, the hypocrisy and the selfishness of the fossil fuel barons and their lackeys in the Liberal Party. The Labor Party is not much better. They don't even have a target for carbon reduction by 2030. They are saying 'zero carbon by 2050', but 2050 is too late. The science is in. We need to be reaching zero carbon well before then. Delaying action is the new denial. We need to act on our climate crisis, and that is the underlying reason for this referral.

As I've said, transport is 20 per cent of our carbon pollution. We are well underway in the shift to renewable energy in the electricity sector, but that's not the case in transport. There was an article in The Guardian today basically saying the amount of solar and wind coming online is happening faster than was expected; it's providing power at a cheaper rate than was expected, causing electricity prices to come down; and it's going to mean earlier closure of the coal fired power stations than was previously expected. It's also inevitable that, with that reduction in the price of renewable electricity, it's going to outcompete gas on price within a couple of years.

So things are happening when it comes to stage 3 energy but we are lagging when it comes to transport. It's absolutely essential that we sort out how we can shift to zero carbon transport as soon as possible. Currently, we are just missing out on so many opportunities. The most obvious one is the Liberal Party's failure to act on electric vehicles. This was a real opportunity for Australia. We could have had really exciting opportunities in embracing new technologies. We could have built our science and research sector up in supporting the shift to electric vehicles. We could have supported Australian manufacturing opportunities in components for batteries or maybe even entire vehicles. Wouldn't that be amazing—building entire vehicles here in Australia? We could have made driving around this continent cleaner, greener and cheaper for everybody. Instead, we had our Prime Minister running a campaign against electric vehicles during the election campaign. We know that there were claims that tradies couldn't possibly drive an electric vehicle and that nobody was going to be able to tow anything. After the election was over, I asked the department of the environment if there was any substance to the claims made during the election campaign, and, of course, there wasn't.

We are broken down at the side of the road when it comes to electric vehicles. Other countries are zooming past us, racing along. The conservative UK government now has a commitment to ensuring that all new vehicles sold in the UK after 2030—that's in nine years time—will be electric vehicles. And that radical environment group General Motors has announced that all of its vehicles are going to be electric from 2035. Around the world, many countries are offering clear incentives and support for consumers, enabling them to drive clean, green electric vehicles. But in Australia we've got the Liberal Party and our Liberal-National government sitting on their hands.

As a result, we're becoming a dumping ground for manufacturers who know that they can take their dirty, polluting and inefficient vehicles and bring them to Australia because the Liberal Party will not protect Australians or the environment. We need to be improving our vehicle emissions standards, because Australia is lagging years behind the rest of the world, leaving us with dirty, polluting cars that are damaging our health.

What's more, the Liberal Party's failure at a Commonwealth level has led to greater problems at a state level. We've seen toll-road companies lobbying for state governments to impose taxes on electric vehicles. To be clear, there is a debate that needs to be had about road charging, and we know that congestion charging could deliver real benefits. We need to have that discussion here about road pricing. But dirty deals being done behind closed doors with no community consultation must not be how we determine national transport policy. We are very glad to see that opposition to these short-sighted taxes is mounting in Victoria and South Australia.

In the meantime, I'm glad the Senate's agreed to send my COAG Reform Fund Amendment (No Electric Vehicle Taxes) Bill 2020 off to the Economics Committee to examine it. It's a very straightforward bill that would ensure those jurisdictions that impose unfair taxes on electric vehicles would lose the revenue they'd get from those taxes.

There's a real opportunity for national leadership here. If the Liberal Party is going to try to hold things up on electric vehicles, it must not be an excuse for state governments to make things even worse and impose additional barriers on electric vehicles. Beyond electric vehicles, the Liberal Party's failure to act on climate has huge implications for the transport sector. There is a recent report by ClimateWorks entitled Moving to zero:accelerating the transition to zero emissions transport. It spells out why this is so important. It says:

Transport is the fastest growing and third largest source of emissions in Australia, behind electricity and stationary energy sectors. Australia's road vehicle fleet is one of the most energy- and emissions-intensive in the world; the nation's per capita aviation emissions are the world's highest. An opportunity exists for Australia to turn these trends around and become a global leader in zero-emissions transport.

That report highlights the need to act and that there is an opportunity to make a meaningful difference.

Crucially, they say it's not a moonshot. The strategies to inform Australia's transport networks are known, with many ready to be implemented this decade. Widespread, rapid adoption of well-established solutions, along with mature and demonstrated technologies, can achieve much of what is needed this decade. Substantial investment in research, development and commercialisation can close the gap to zero emissions across the transport sector. The report provides clear recommendations for action across the country, of how we can do what we need to do to address the climate crisis.

Hence, this referral to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. I think this Senate needs to be looking at reports like this. It needs to be looking at the research and it needs to be saying, 'What can we be doing in the transport sector to reach zero carbon transport as quickly as possible?' and laying out, as per the terms of reference, some of the things that would be addressed in this inquiry and what needs to be done. We would end up with recommendations, I expect, that the government needs to provide a clear plan. It is a clear, necessary role for government, because it's government inaction that's causing problems.

It's not just about electric vehicles for passengers. We need to work out what we're going to do with heavy vehicles, freight, aviation and shipping. How do we shift them to zero carbon as well? It's possible. Other countries around the world are tackling it. We are sitting on our hands and not taking the action that's needed.

There is massive benefit as well in actually giving people the opportunity and the choice to shift out of their private vehicles and into public transport. It's so straightforward to make public transport zero carbon. Electric trains, electric trams, electric buses, electric ferries—not difficult to imagine. There are big benefits for healthy and livable cities too, if you get that mode shift and give people the choice to get out of their private vehicles and into public transport.

We also need to get serious about walking and cycling as transport modes. A healthy, balanced, zero carbon passenger transport mix in our cities would be around a third of trips being undertaken by private electric cars, powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, a third being zero carbon public transport and a third being walking and cycling. For the regions, again, if you've got electric vehicles, fast trains and buses to connect the regions to each other and to the cities, and high-speed rail between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane, we can reach zero carbon transport.

I call upon the Senate to support this important referral to lay out the evidence base of what can and must be done so that we can reach zero carbon in transport, just as we can across the whole sector of the Australian economy. Thank you.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's have a bit of fun with some facts. Neither H2O, water, nor CO2, carbon dioxide, is a pollutant. Neither water nor carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The two products from burning hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil, natural gas—are water and carbon dioxide. We have carbon in every cell of our bodies. The term 'organic' refers to something that contains carbon. Earth: the thing that makes our planet so livable, the thing that makes our planet so unique, is the fact that we have more carbon concentrated on our planet than is the case across the universe.

Carbon is essential for life, but the Greens don't understand that carbon is not carbon dioxide. They tell us that we need to cut our carbon dioxide from the use of coal, oil and natural gas, but then they talk about carbon. Carbon dioxide is a gas. Carbon is a solid in every cell of your body.

So let's deal with some facts. Let's have a bit of fun. Carbon dioxide is just 0.04 per cent of Earth's air. That is 4/100ths of a per cent. Carbon dioxide is scientifically classified as a trace gas, because there's so little of it. There's barely a trace of it. Now, some people are going to say, 'Oh, but cyanide can kill you with just a trace.' That's true. That's a chemical effect. But the claimed effect of carbon dioxide from the Greens of global warming, climate catastrophe and the greatest existential threat that we now face is a physical effect. A trace gas has no physical effect that can be recorded, as I'll show you in a minute.

Next point: carbon dioxide is non-toxic and not noxious. It's highly beneficial to and essential for all plants on this planet. Everything green that's natural relies upon carbon dioxide, and it benefits when carbon dioxide levels are far higher than now. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless and tasteless. Nature produces—and this is from the United Nations climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. That means that nature produces 32 times more than the entire human production of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide does not discolour the air. Carbon dioxide does not impair the quality of water or soil. None of what I'm talking about is new. I've compiled it, but none of it's new. Carbon dioxide does not create light, create heat, create noise or create radioactivity. It doesn't distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment, nor impair its usefulness, nor render our environment offensive.

Carbon dioxide doesn't harm ecosystems and, in fact, is essential for all ecosystems. Carbon dioxide does not harm plants and animals, nor humans. In fact, we put it in our kids' soft drink. We put it in our champagne. We put it in our beer. We put it in soda water—we carbonate it by putting carbon dioxide in there. It's essential for all plants and animals. Carbon dioxide does not cause discomfort, instability, wooziness or disorders of any kind. It does not accumulate. It does not upset nature's balance. It's essential for nature and life on this planet. It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it into plants, animal tissue, the oceans and natural accumulations. It does not contaminate, apart from nature's extremely high and concentrated volumes of carbon dioxide from some volcanos and even then it's only locally and briefly under rare natural conditions when in concentrations and amounts are far higher than anything humans can produce.

Carbon dioxide is not a foreign substance. In the past, on this planet, under the current atmosphere, there have been times when carbon dioxide levels were 130 times higher than the concentration in the earth today. In fact, in the last 200 years, scientists have measured carbon dioxide levels up to 40 per cent higher than they are today. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, from the UN ignores those measurements, which were taken, in some cases, by Nobel Prize winners—science prize winners. All they do instead is take one reading from one place over the last 70 years.

As you can see from the list I've just read, carbon dioxide is not pollution. The Greens are talking about doing an inquiry into carbon, yet they say it's the carbon dioxide that's causing this climate change that's supposedly going on. Let's look at something else then, as carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Let's have a look at this climate change crisis that the Greens are talking about. I'm unique in this Senate for holding the CSIRO accountable. All of the other senators have not done their jobs. Former Senator Ian Macdonald, from the Senate in 2016, pointed that out to me. He pointed out that no-one in this parliament ever debated the science until I arrived. We still haven't had the debate, because I've challenged the Greens and they have gone without responding to my challenge for a debate more than 125 days. Senator Waters has gone more than 10¼ years without responding to my challenge for a debate. They won't debate me, because they haven't got the science. Let's listen to the people that the Greens rely on for their science.

I have cross-examined the CSIRO. I've had three presentations and several sessions at Senate estimates. In their first presentation under my cross-examination the CSIRO admitted that they had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a threat or a danger. Never. That means we don't need any of these policies. Let's go to the next session we had with the CSIRO. Each of these sessions were 2½ to three hours long. The CSIRO said that today's temperatures are not unprecedented—that's referring to the blip that ended back in 1995. We have had stasis of temperatures since then—no warming in the last 26 years. The current temperatures are not unprecedented.

My third point is that the CSIRO admitted that they and other bodies around the world rely, for their predictions, on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. That says two things. Firstly, the models are wrong. They're erroneous and invalidated, yet they're using them to make projections. Secondly, it confirms they don't have the evidence. If they had the evidence, they would have presented it. Instead, they've come up with some lame models, which have already failed.

The fourth thing that I will mention about the so-called science is that, when they failed to provide me with the empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut, I gave them a very simple test. I asked them to show me anything unprecedented in the earth's climate in the last 10,000 years. They failed that. I then gave them the absolutely simplest goal of providing me with empirical scientific evidence showing that there has been a statistically significant change to any factor in earth's climate. They failed that. They can't even point to a change in climate, because we all know that climate varies quite naturally, most of it cyclically, but sometimes a combination of cycles makes it look like it's highly random. That's the point. Not only that, there are scientists whom I've communicated with directly, including members who are lead authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, such as Dr John Christy. He was a lead author until he left the United Nations climate body because of the corruption. He was disgusted and sickened by it. These and many other scientists have confirmed to me that nowhere in the world has anyone ever presented any empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut—not NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, not the UK Met Office, not the Bureau of Meteorology, not the CSIRO, not any university, not any academic, not any science paper and not any journal. Check for yourself and tell me if I'm wrong.

The third thing I want to say is that the Greens lunatic policies are not based on science. You'll notice that Senator Rice, in her comments, never once mentioned any proof of causation. Instead, as substitutes for science, they use emotion, stories, fantasies, dreams and promises. That's all they have. Policy needs to be based on specific, quantified cause and effect—this much carbon dioxide is growing because of humans, and this much is the impact. That has never been presented anywhere in the world. The CSIRO's failed three times with me, and it has never been done by anyone. Once we have that measured effect, which no-one has produced so far, then and only then can we shape a policy. Then and only then can we measure the progress along the road of implementing that policy. Without that, it's fundamentally flawed. Then, if we had the connection, specified and quantified, we can cost it to see the benefits of Senator Rice's dreams and fantasies versus the impact on our human species of this climate madness that people are going on with. As a result of this madness, both the Liberal-National government and the Labor Party have driven our electricity prices from being the lowest in the world to the highest in the world, all on unicorn farts and rainbows, and nothing else—nothing substantial; claims of carbon pollution.

Then we have this telling factor. The No. 1 factor that drove the rapid improvement in human's standard of living over the last 170 years was the relentless decrease in the price of energy from 1850 until the mid-nineties. Since then, in Australia, we have gone the other way. We've started to increase prices. We've now doubled and tripled prices for electricity in some areas and nothing has changed. Coal-fired power stations have become more efficient. Yet we have an increase in price because of the artificial regulations and the artificial impediments on the most productive and efficient source of electricity generation and the subsidies for the dreams of solar and wind, which are inherently high and will never catch up with coal, hydro or nuclear.

We had a relentless decrease in the price of electricity over 170 years until 25 years ago. That relentless decrease in the price of electricity and energy meant an increase in productivity and an increase in wealth. That's what has led to humans now living lives that are longer, safer, easier, more comfortable and more healthy and having far more choices than anyone could ever have imagined. This Greens lunacy, calling carbon dioxide a 'carbon'—calling a gas a solid—is driving a decarbonisation that is, in effect, deindustrialisation. Look around us. What will disappear is all the material benefits we've had over the last 150 years.

Opinion and emotion are not science. There is no need to have this reference to the committee, because there is no science underpinning the Greens' call for this reference. We need to get back to the facts, get back to straight logic, stop dreaming, think about the many people who benefit from the wonderful hydrocarbon fuels—natural gas, coal and oil—and look after the people of this planet.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Reconciliation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll speak a few words in relation to this motion. Labor will not be supporting this referral as written. Labor believes this is an important issue and proposed sensible changes to the Greens which would have allowed us to support a referral to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. As always, though, the Greens were more interested in trying to make a political point than they were in finding solutions to the challenges facing Australia.

Labor firmly believes in the future of electric vehicles and the need to progress our economy to net zero emissions by 2050. As the only party of government with a serious interest in addressing climate change, Labor will continue to be open to engaging across the parliament regarding these important issues. We encourage other parties to take the same approach.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia has a track record of meeting and beating our international commitments. We've beaten our 2020 target by 459 million tonnes and we're back on track to beat our 2030 target. But climate change is a global problem and it requires global action. That's why Australia is committed to the Paris Agreement and to investing in the new and emerging technologies that will make net zero emissions achievable.

The government has a comprehensive suite of policies to reduce emissions from the transport sector. The government is committed to enabling consumer choice when it comes to new vehicle and fuel technologies. We are already backing electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, hybrids and biofuels through a range of initiatives, including the $74.5 million Future Fuels Package in the 2020-21 budget and the $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund.

Question negatived.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you please note for the Hansard record that the Greens have voted for this motion.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So noted.