Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to begin by saying that I have reservations about the way some of this motion has been worded. A problem can come from that wording because, I think, it necessarily leads to some misrepresentations in the debate around the science of climate change and the economics of climate change, in making sure that we can properly address the issue. For starters, the motion starts with the words 'notes that the scientific consensus'. This is not a pedantic point. Science doesn't work on the basis of consensus. 'Consensus' is political language, not scientific language. I don't think using political language is a sensible way to have a dialogue and a conversation about scientific matters. In the end, the logic of science for climate change is quite straightforward. There is a natural greenhouse effect that's caused by the capturing of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases, you will get a warming effect. Humans are contributing more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, so you will get a warming effect. Once you go beyond the fundamental physics of it, it becomes much more speculative in terms of modelling and different trajectories. When you talk about using the political language of consensus, you actually hamper the discussion and the debate and not in a constructive way.

The second point that I raise is a concern with (1)(c), which talks about the role of renewable energy. It says:

renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power ...

That is a political statement as well. It actually doesn't reflect market practice. In some circumstances, that can be right; in lots of other circumstances, it can't, whether it's centralised or decentralised. The heart of this motion, which is designed to do nothing more than support the political objectives of the opposition, is fundamentally flawed. I want to make it clear: in some circumstances, renewable energy with battery storage can be economical and competitive and beat all other alternatives, but that isn't universally the case. At the heart of this motion is political language and political dialogue to try to trap discussion, when we're supposed to be having a sensible discussion about how we're going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as part of a package of delivering reliable and affordable power to Australian households and, critically, to Australian businesses as well so we can continue to be internationally competitive and drive the jobs growth that this country needs. This sort of language does nothing to engender that as a process.

We're going through a transition in the energy market. Natural tension, sovereign risk and carbon risk come as a consequence of international commitments that the federal government has signed up to and as a consequence of public concerns around the environment, around what people will reasonably pay on their household bills and the expectations, particularly of people on lower incomes and fixed incomes, of reliable and affordable power. It requires a multitude of solutions to make sure we can provide the energy that is the core source of our greenhouse gas emissions in this country. To label it as solving it through renewable energy misleads and deceives the public and doesn't improve the outcomes for their lifestyle because we know full well that we will continue to rely on fossil fuels as part of our core baseload reliable energy mix. That's going to continue into the future, beyond any announcements made on energy policy in the next couple of days or even the potential of a future Labor government. We know full well that coal and particularly gas play an important part during peak periods. In addition to that, renewables have an important place.

I'm a great optimist about the role of renewable energy in the market. In fact, I wrote papers about the opportunity of renewable energy and why we have to encourage it and incentivise it, dating back to the early 2000s. In the end, this technology, as it matures, particularly with battery storage, provides the opportunity for energy generation, particularly decentralised energy generation, across our great country, harnessing the potential of the earth's natural forces. So I'm a great optimist about it, but I'm also not naive. I'm also not disconnected from reality and I say that it can serve some purposes but not others. It can't power to the volume you need for aluminium smelters and it can't be used to the extent necessary for many mining projects to extract the energy that we need for other purposes. So we have to look at the policy setting holistically, which recognises the challenge we have in delivering reliable and affordable power to Australian households and Australian industry. We also have to make sure that it's anchored in the reality of how we generate energy to deliver it to the people and set that against the backdrop of an honest discussion around the science of climate change, making sure that we're doing actions proportionate to what is appropriate for this country in the future.

See this speech in context