Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Stern review warns of a possible 20 per cent loss in GDP, economic costs equivalent to both world wars and the Great Depression, the loss of such treasures as the Great Barrier Reef and potentially millions of refugees because of rising sea levels? Why does the Prime Minister have a plan for his future but no plan to protect future generations from the impact of climate change?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware of those comments and those projections made. I think the Stern review, along with other reports, is making a contribution to the debate on climate change. I think it is very important, if we are to have a proper and intelligent analysis, that we look at these reports objectively. We do not ignore them nor do we invest them with some kind of scriptural relevance and status so as to blind ourselves to an objective embrace of what is needed. The future challenge of climate change can only be met by a variety of policies. Nobody put it better than the member for Batman. Let me return to his words because they are thoughts that I share:

Those who hope to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources—

and that obviously includes the member for Grayndler—

such as solar, wind and wave power need to come to terms with the reality that renewable energies, while they have an important and growing role to play, can’t provide affordable and continuous base load energy.

He concludes by saying:

Uranium is the other option for base load energy.

Let me say this about the future: if you are serious about a future that deals with climate change, you have to look at the nuclear option, and those who set their faces against that have no conception. According to the member for Batman—who does at least continue to speak for the working men and women of this country, on the Labor side—you cannot replace base load power generation with solar and wind, and so you really have two alternatives. You either have to clean up coal or, alternatively—or in conjunction with that—you have to look at the nuclear option. If you are serious about the future, you will at the least do that. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to bring on his censure motion.