Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We seem to have this debate, initiated by the Greens, quite frequently in the chamber. There is no doubt that the climate of the world is changing. We all agree on that. The evidence of climate change is all around us. I am told that, during the last winter in Europe, there was very little snow on the Austrian and German alps. We know that there have been icebergs floating off the coast of New Zealand, suggesting that the Antarctic icecap is melting. It is quite apparent that there is a change in the climate.

We know that, over the last 30 or 40 years, there has been a lot less rainfall in the south-west of Western Australia. We come to this part of Australia and find that an enormous drought has been affecting the south-east and that towns like Goulburn, which is not too far from here, are on very strict water restrictions. Also, we hear that Melbourne is in danger of running out of water in the not too distant future. So climate change is real, and the government and everybody else, I am sure, in positions of responsibility accept that.

It is said by some that climate change is due to greenhouse gas emissions, and it well may be. There are other people who point to the fact that, over the centuries, the world’s temperature has risen and fallen and that, at the moment, we are cycling out of an ice age. It has also been suggested that these changes are due to variations in the orbit of the earth around the sun. It does not really matter too much, I suppose, what the exact cause of it is, but, obviously, we have to accept the reality that climate change is occurring.

I had a look through Senator Milne’s second reading speech on the Climate Change Action Bill 2006, which she incorporated when she first introduced the bill into the Senate, and noted that she was quite critical of the Howard government. She said that, over the years, the Australian government had refused to take action to address global warming. That is something which Senator Wong has often said in this chamber and which is, of course, complete and utter nonsense. In fact, the Howard government has had a very strong policy on dealing with climate change and with issues related to the need to get sources of energy other than hydrocarbon fuels.

The Howard government is very proud of the fact that it established the world’s first greenhouse office. No other country in the world had a greenhouse office in its government, but the Howard government established one very early during its period in office. So it is nonsensical for people on the other side of the chamber to argue that the government has not been concerned about climate change, because it has been concerned from day one of its term of office. Another Howard government initiative, which it is equally proud of, was to establish the world’s first policies on water. It shows, as I said, that the government has been concerned about climate change from day one.

Since the Howard government came to office, part of Australia’s comprehensive climate change strategy has been the investment of some $2 billion in environmental and other issues. This has leveraged $6.5 billion in private sector investment in climate related issues. Some of the key elements of the Howard government’s climate strategy have included supporting world-class scientific research to build understanding of climate change and its impacts. After all, we do have to know what is causing it and what its impacts will be.

We have undertaken broad measures to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to meet our Kyoto targets, even though we have not ratified the Kyoto treaty. We have had very wise reasons for not doing that—which I might come back to, but, briefly, they relate to the Kyoto treaty being very flawed. It does not cover the world’s great emitters. It would make very little difference to the world’s levels of greenhouse gases if Australia were to sign the treaty, but signing it would have dire consequences for the Australian economy. It would mean, among other things, that we could not use our cheap coal resources, and that would in turn cost jobs in the coalmines of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. This would then impact on other industries because the cost of power would go up. Whether or not the Labor Party and the Greens are prepared to concede that point, the fact remains that signing Kyoto would cost Australian jobs. That is not something the Australian government are prepared to do, especially when we are meeting our Kyoto targets, in spite of the fact that we have not signed the treaty.

In addition, we have been supporting the development and commercialisation of low-emission technologies, which are essential for future deeper cuts. These include renewables, clean coal and carbon sequestration programs. We have evidence of one of those being proposed for Barrow Island, off the north-west Australian coast. When the gas comes in from the Gorgon deposits, the carbon dioxide will be sequestrated well below ground and it will not contribute at all to greenhouse gas emissions.

The Howard government have been identifying regions and industries which are vulnerable to potential impacts of climate change and we have been working with them to adapt to changes. We have also been pushing for an effective global response involving all major emitters of the world, including China, India, the United States and Canada, so that there really will be an international treaty which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. But it certainly is something for the future and certainly not something that the Kyoto treaty is achieving.

The Australian government have committed over $2 billion to responding to climate change. Our climate change strategy recognises our reliance on fossil fuels and renewable sources. The government’s strategy provides a pathway for moving Australia’s energy sector to a low emissions future. It includes the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, the $100 million Renewable Energy Development Initiative, the $75 million Solar Cities trial, the $20 million advanced electricity storage technology initiative and the $14 million wind energy forecasting program.

In Senator Milne’s second reading speech, she talked about increasing mandatory renewable energy targets. Of course, mandatory renewable energy targets were an initiative introduced by the Howard government. The Howard government have recently increased the renewable energy targets so that we now have a target of 20,000 gigawatt hours by 2020. We are supporting programs such as wind, solar and hydroelectricity to ensure that Australia is making the most of renewable energy. That is another example of how responsible the Howard government have been in addressing climate change issues.

There are other areas of the environment in which we are working. We have invested billions to improve the resilience of the land, with a $10 billion national plan for water security and a $2 billion national water initiative. As Senator Lundy and Senator Milne may recall, when this government first came in, one of the first things that was done was to establish the National Heritage Trust, which was first funded with $1 billion from the sale of Telstra. More recently, we have established a $1.4 billion National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. The Australian government is aware that Australia and the world must be open to every viable option. The anti-nuclear, anti-geosequestration, anti-technology and anti-growth brigade would condemn the world to a latter-day Dark Ages. That is why Australia has helped to establish the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which brings together some of the major emitters in the world—which together are responsible for around 50 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions—to develop clean energy technology. It just makes sense that, if we are going to have a treaty which really does something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that is a treaty that Australia should be willing to sign quite happily.

The simple reality is that the Kyoto treaty, which the Greens and the ALP keep saying Australia should sign, is not going to achieve its objectives and it would cost Australians very heavily in terms of jobs. It would have a negative economic impact and it is something that we should not sign. The fact is that a mammoth 75 per cent of global emissions are not covered by the Kyoto protocol, and that severely limits its efficacy. It is estimated that Kyoto will probably reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a mere one per cent by the end of the first commitment period of 2012. This compares to a need, based on the best science currently available, to reduce global greenhouse emissions by some 60 per cent, based on 1990 levels.

Kyoto is a flawed treaty and it is certainly not something which the Australian government has any intention of signing. Although I am sure that the ALP speakers who rise in the Senate to promote the signing of the Kyoto treaty are fully aware of its disadvantages, they persist in holding it up as something which we should adopt, while knowing full well that Kyoto is no more than a symbol of the need to do something about climate change if we can. While it is a symbol, it should be recognised as perhaps a worthy endeavour, but in fact there are many other ways of dealing with climate change which are more practical than signing the Kyoto treaty.

We know from an analysis conducted by ABARE, the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, that, if we were to close down completely, turning off every school, hospital, car and truck—as Labor and Green policies would have us do—a rapidly expanding Chinese economy would negate the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Australia in just 11 months. We know that, if we were to cut our emissions as the Greens and the ALP suggest we do, with a unilateral cut of 20 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, that would have quite significant effects on the Australian economy. For example, we know that petrol prices would probably increase by around 100 per cent, our gross domestic product growth would be reduced by 10.7 per cent, real wages would be about 20.8 per cent lower than they would have been under a business as usual scenario at 2050, oil and gas production would fall by 60 per cent, coal production would be down by 32 per cent and electricity output would fall by 23 per cent. The agricultural industry is also projected to decline by some 44 per cent if these proposed reductions of 80 per cent are imposed by 2050.

The Australian government is very interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also interested in finding practical solutions to support renewable energy and finding other ways of dealing with the great environmental problems that we face today, such as salinity and water shortages. One of the solutions to water shortages in the south of Australia that has been taken up by the Howard government is the idea of using some of the great water resources of the well-watered lands in the north of Australia for the agricultural lands which are suffering drought in the south of Australia. I think that is a great concept, and I certainly hope that it is a possibility that can be brought to fruition, because the north of Australia certainly has great potential.

As I said, the ALP keep perpetuating this rather tired old line that the Howard government has done nothing about climate change, when in fact we have done a great deal. We are very proud of our record on environmental policy. No other government in the history of this country has done as much for the environment or has introduced as many programs and policies to improve the environment of this country as the Howard government. That is a very proud record of the Howard government. In their 13 years in power, the ALP did nothing in environmental policy.

The Greens, sitting on their little pile of high moral virtue over there, can say, ‘You should be doing something,’ and, ‘You should’ve changed things.’ Of course, it is easy to say that, but it is very difficult to do. This government has shown great concern about environmental issues and has put in a lot of programs to ensure that the major environmental problems that this country faces are addressed and that very innovative and clever initiatives are put in place to address them.

That very largely concludes what I would like to say about this. I just repeat: it is a very tired, repetitive mantra of the ALP and the Greens to say we must sign Kyoto. They know full well that the Kyoto treaty would not produce any benefit for Australia or the world and they persistently refuse to recognise the fact that the Howard government has an outstanding record in introducing environmental policies and initiatives.