Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

With the important meeting of the Paris talks, which begins today in Paris to reach, hopefully, a global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions on our planet, I really hope—very much so—that Australia becomes a leading light. But, unfortunately, I think my hopes perhaps will not be delivered, because we know that the government so far has not changed its stance from the Abbott government's position on climate targets, particularly the 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target that it has set for itself, which does nothing, as we know and as the Climate Institute has said, to prevent global warming of two degrees. In fact, it is consistent with global warming of three to four degrees.

Having said that, I live in hope, and I also really hope that there are real gains made at this Paris summit. They may not be made by Australia, but I hope they are made by enough countries—the some 166 that have now pledged their emissions reductions—to ensure that we come out with a very positive outcome. Of course, this summit in Paris, this Conference of Parties 21, has taken a different approach. It has taken an approach where countries pledge what they are able to contribute and then hope to defend that as their reasonable contribution to limit global warming by two degrees. That is what needs to happen. We know that Australia's targets do not do that, but we are hoping that the outcomes from other countries make that happen.

The opposition, however, have very much put forward our position on climate change and renewable energy as a very positive one, one where we can actually make a difference. Over the weekend, I noticed that the Prime Minister described Labor's plan to reduce Australia's 2030 emissions and our policy to the next election of net zero pollution by 2050 as 'heroic'. Well, I have to say that I would much prefer to be on the side of heroism than on the side of failure. Unfortunately, unless the Prime Minister ignores his National Party colleagues, who are urging him, certainly, to do less, not more, and ignores Senator Macdonald, Senator Day—I could go on with a number of senators—and others in the other place from the very conservative side of the do-nothing approach, the forget-about-humanity approach, we will not have a strong outcome for this country out of this Paris summit.

Having said that, I know there is a lot of goodwill—very much so—at this meeting. That allows me to feel comfortable with the fact that other nations will hopefully do the right thing. I have spoken in this place before, though, about the importance of the Asia-Pacific, particularly some of our Pacific island neighbours but also Asian countries as well that will lead to sea level rises over the next decade or more, and how there is going to be a need, with the Green Climate Fund, to ensure that there is support for our region. That is why I also urge the Turnbull Liberal government to ensure that it does increase its contribution to the international Green Climate Fund. That is at least one way that we can hold our heads up high, even if the government is not going to change its current emissions reduction targets, which so need to be changed. The Green Climate Fund is crucial and will be discussed and contributed to by a number of nations at this UN climate meeting because the OECD has made it clear that it is some $30 billion short in its demand to help developing countries mitigate the impacts of climate change.

I guess I am pointing this out to some of those senators who take a different view so that they can take a reality check. It is very clear that they need to take a reality check and read some of the science and some of the reporting that has been done in the area of global warming. I would like to point to one area, and that is sea level rises in the Asia-Pacific. The most conservative estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicate that sea level will rise on average at about four millimetres per year above 1990 levels by the period 2090 to 2099. What does that mean? It means that in South-East Asia another 250 million people, particularly in poor rural areas, who live in the low-lying river megadeltas of Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam—of which two million people will be directly affected by the inundation of sea level rise by mid century—will be affected. That is the reality check. That is what we are dealing with here. That is the result of global warming that has been caused by man-made influences through our activities, which we need to slow and curtail. It is already too late for so many of these poor people who live in these low-lying areas.

Nowhere, I think, is the threat more imminent than in the Asian region. That is why those small developing island countries in the Pacific, which are highly vulnerable to storm surges, to coastal erosion, to flooding and to inundation, need the support and the protection that we can provide. That is what we can do through our contribution to the Green Climate Fund.

So I urge our Prime Minister, while he is over there, to stay true to the position that he once held, and that is that the Direct Action policy is 'a fig leaf', is 'a farce', is 'a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'. They are his words. I urge him to recognise that that is not the policy that he believes in and that we need strong action on climate change to do our part when we make our contribution to limit global warming to two degrees, in the hope that we can hold our heads up high for our sense of humanity.