Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no question that the Copenhagen climate change talks were a big disappointment to those of us who believe in the urgency of concerted action to reduce the world’s carbon emissions and hoped for international agreement on genuine and meaningful carbon reduction targets. There is also no question that the defeat of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the Senate was a big blow to those of us who believe in the need to put a price on carbon, who believe in putting the market to work in delivering least cost carbon abatement and who believe that we have got to start somewhere in turning our upwards carbon trajectory around.

These two events at the end of last year were big setbacks. There is no point trying to pretend otherwise. But this does not mean that the fight against global warming can be relegated to second or third order status. Reducing carbon emissions must remain a top priority. I have been contacted by many of my constituents urging strong, effective, urgent action to reduce carbon emissions. I agree with them. Strong, effective action to cut emissions is urgently needed.

The good news is that a mountain of work has been done on ways we can reduce our carbon emissions—so much work, in fact, that it is hard to know where to start. There is Al Gore’s book Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, with numerous good ideas. But I will start with the recently released report by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions titled Creating jobs—cutting pollution, the roadmap for a cleaner, stronger economy, with its distinctly Australian focus.

The ACF and the ACTU commissioned the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research to conduct economic modelling of carbon emission reduction scenarios. The ‘strong action’ scenario assumed a price on carbon through a carbon trading scheme, along with a targeted suite of policies to reduce carbon pollution without reliance on imported international permits. These policies include: energy efficiency strategies for households, industry and commercial buildings; a rapid expansion of clean energy infrastructure; a cleaner vehicle fleet and public transport infrastructure plan; and targeted regional investment and industry planning. These ‘strong action’ measures lead to a stronger economy, more jobs, better regional outcomes, less debt and higher living standards.

The ‘strong action’ measures lead to a stronger economy, with an average 3.2 per cent GDP in the next 20 years compared with 2.8 per cent GDP if the measures are not taken. ‘Strong action’ leads to 770,000 more jobs than ‘weak action’. There will be 3.7 million created across the Australian economy under ‘strong action’, compared with three million under ‘weak action’. Jobs grow across all sectors of the economy under the ‘strong action’ measures to reduce emissions. Jobs growth is not just about renewable energy; agriculture, mining, forestry, fisheries, manufacturing, construction and services all go up, a total of 770,000 jobs up.

Living standards also go up. Compared to ‘weak action’, Australians will be nearly 10 per cent better off in economic welfare terms in the period to 2030. Australia will have less debt. If we do not take the ‘strong action’ measures, Australia’s balance of payments will deteriorate over time due to the high reliance on importing international carbon permits and the continued high level of oil imports, which comes with failure to invest in a cleaner vehicle fleet and public transport infrastructure.

‘Strong action’ results in significant additional benefits through lower oil imports, lower imports of international permits and improved energy efficiency. The Creating jobs—cutting pollution report makes it very clear that tackling climate change will not be at the expense of jobs or economic prosperity. It is quite the opposite. Failure to reduce carbon emissions will lead to job losses and lower our living standards. I commend the ACF and the ACTU on this report, and I commend the report to the government and to the parliament.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has also released its 2010 national agenda for a sustainable Australia. It has many worthy proposals. Right upfront it proposes a national population policy to stabilise Australia’s population at an ecologically sustainable level by 2050 and assist other countries to do the same. I have been calling for this for some time, and I commend this proposal to the Minister for Population and to the parliament. I note that the Queensland Conservation and the Sunshine Coast Environment Council are also calling for population stabilisation. I hope other environment groups will follow this example. After all, it is pretty hard to reduce your carbon footprint if you keep adding more feet.

The Australian Conservation Foundation 2010 national agenda includes a national feed-in tariff, which I have also supported in the parliament. They propose a greenhouse pollution trigger in federal environmental law and a ban on new power stations with carbon emissions above 0.5 tonnes per megawatt hour.

Speaking of coal fired power, Environment Victoria commissioned a report by Green Energy Markets called Fast-tracking Victoria’s clean energy future to replace Hazelwood power station. Hazelwood power station is the most emissions intensive power station in Australia, with emissions of 1.53 tonnes of CO2 per megawatt hour. Hazelwood produces over 16 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and uses 27 billion litres of water each year.

Green Energy Markets looked at two ways of replacing the power which now comes from Hazelwood. It looked at a supply-side-only option, which involves bringing forward a combined cycle gas turbine plant and renewable generation, predominantly wind. It also looked at a supply-side and demand-side combination option. This involves bringing forward combined cycle gas fired generation, as well as 1,500 megawatts of renewables. It also incorporates additional residential, commercial and industrial energy efficiency options that replace around 25 per cent of Hazelwood’s annual generation, as well as 100 megawatts of demand-side management.

The supply-side-only option would replace Hazelwood’s output in a way that cuts greenhouse gases by 13.6 million tonnes annually, and the combined supply-side and energy efficiency option would save even more—14.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases annually. If it happened by 2013, it would cut Victoria’s emissions by 11 to 12 per cent. It would have a national impact, cutting Australia’s greenhouse gases by three per cent, a single measure which, in its year of introduction, would lift the weight we are going to have to lift each year in order to meet the government’s 60 per cent cut by 2050 undertaking and play our role in keeping global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.

The report expects that between 1,900 and 2,500 construction jobs will be created in building the clean energy replacements for Hazelwood. An additional 2,300 ongoing jobs would be created across all activities under the supply-side and demand-side combination option, mainly in energy efficiency activities. How would this be done and what would it cost? If we had an emissions trading scheme and a price on carbon it would be reasonably straightforward.

Hazelwood’s annual emission of 16 million tonnes of CO2 means that, putting a $20 per tonne price on carbon, Hazelwood has a carbon value of $320 million per year. Green Energy Markets considers, based on public statements made by International Power, that this should be sufficient to cover both the cost of any compensation to International Power to close Hazelwood and the cost of bringing forward clean energy investment to replace the power it now generates.

Of course, in the absence of an emissions trading scheme and a price on carbon, finding this sort of money would be a significant challenge for the federal and Victorian governments. They would need to sit down with International Power and negotiate these matters. But let me make the following observations. First, there is a fair case for Commonwealth involvement and assistance, given that the benefits from doing this are national. Second, the costs of inaction on climate change will exceed the cost of action. It is like getting your car serviced or insuring your house: in the short run it costs some money, but in the long run you are glad you did. Third, replacing Hazelwood will not only cut Victoria’s carbon emissions by over 10 per cent; it will free up 27 billion litres of water each year and in drought-stricken Victoria—for a decade now—we could make better use of that water.

I commend Environment Victoria for this report and I urge the federal and Victorian governments, and federal and Victorian parliamentarians, to give it the serious consideration that the global warming challenge requires of us all. I believe Australians are hungry for action to tackle carbon emissions. This is certainly true of my electorate, where thousands of citizens belong to GetUp! and support its climate action initiatives, and others join local bodies such as the Moreland Climate Group. What I am certain of is this: the climate change challenge is not going to go away. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and wish it away. We must press on with the work needed to turn our carbon emissions trajectory around. At present it is still going upwards. That has to change.