Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the end of this year, 196 countries will converge on Paris in pursuit of an effective global deal on action to cut greenhouse emissions and keep global warming to less than two degrees by the end of the century. The United States has already submitted its target to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025. China and the EU have also committed to significant reductions. Meanwhile, the Abbott government remains coy about the commitment it is prepared to make ahead of the Paris conference.

In that respect, the story remains the same: while Australia has the highest per capita emissions in the world, this government refuses to take responsibility for our role in the advancing global crisis. So far this year we have seen the first instalment of the government's plan to pay polluters, with the announcement that 43 firms will be handed $660 million dollars to reduce 43 million tonnes of carbon. The Minister for the Environment has claimed that buying emission reductions will allow Australia to easily meet its target of cutting five per cent on 2000-level emissions by 2020—but there has been plenty of analysis to indicate this is more front than fact: the low-hanging fruit is likely now gone so future abatement will come at a higher cost, and on that basis the remaining Direct Action funds will not get us there. This means we will either miss our target or the government will have to pay polluters more to achieve it. What is more, only a small fraction of the recent carbon emission reduction contracts deliver within five years—which of course means the government has agreed to pay for emissions beyond the current target deadline. How much, we simply do not know.

What we do know is that the government continues to undermine and obscure the need for action to address global warming. It appointed an out-and-out climate change denier to head the review into the Renewable Energy Target; it has repeatedly insisted that burning and exporting more and more coal is at the heart of our economic future; it scrapped the Climate Commission; and recently it blocked efforts by France, the US and the UK to repeal subsidies of new coal-powered stations in Asia. And in their recent energy white paper the coalition has done something truly exceptional—it has made Howard-era policy on climate look progressive. Where the Howard government included a whole chapter on climate change, this government mentions it just once. What is more, they deny their own economically rationalist nature in stalling climate change action in the name of economic costs, partly through framing, cherry-picking, and misrepresenting a range of analyses that actually show that early, effective action will always cost less. On this subject, Richard Denniss recently wrote:

The government has used the IGR, the National Commission of Audit, the budget, the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook, and the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook to scare the public into accepting that we can never afford to tackle climate change or spend more on health, no matter how rich we become.

The coalition selectively ignores the economic damage likely to be inflicted by climate change—including loss of agricultural viability, damage to coastal property and the impact on the tourism industry—let alone the likely security and health costs. It also chooses to ignore the opportunities in the clean energy sector and watch passively while other countries steal a march in developing their renewable energy sectors. More and more evidence suggests that decoupling emissions from growth is possible. Building on the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate continues to debunk the myth of a trade-off between growth and climate action; in fact, it emphasises the economic benefits of building a low carbon economy.

Considering the fact that the Abbott government regularly features both 'future generations' and 'hard choices' in its rhetoric, they have been deeply hypocritical when it comes to the principal threat to future generations. Breezily dismissive of evidence, the coalition seems to combine wishful thinking, suspicion of the scientific method, a cosy relationship with lobbyists and a profound indifference on matters of climate science. This is a toxic combination of lazy thinking and undue influence.

The World Bank has outlined five ways to reduce the drivers of climate change: (1) put a robust price on carbon; (2) remove fossil fuel subsidies; (3) accelerate energy efficiency and renewable energy use; (4) build resilient low-carbon cities; and (5) implement climate-smart agriculture and nurture forest landscapes. At a time when—however briefly—there was bipartisan recognition of the extreme danger, human impact and cost of climate change, the Labor government put Australia well and truly on the path to implementing those kinds of measures. As the Essential poll from Tuesday indicates, support in the Australian community for effective action on climate change remains clear, it remains strong.

The stakes at the Paris summit on climate change this December are extremely high and common sense says that Australia should play a leading role in urging nations to join in the necessary effort. We can only do that if we take a leading approach in our own policymaking. We therefore urge the government to put politics aside and start acting with responsibility and leadership before it is too late.