Senate debates

Monday, 22 November 2010

Matters of Urgency

Climate Change

Photo of Alan FergusonAlan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 22 November 2010, from Senator Milne:

Dear Mr President,

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Government’s negotiating position at Cancun to be informed by an understanding of both the latest climate science and what constitutes an equitable contribution by Australia to the global challenge of decarbonisation.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

3:49 pm

Photo of Christine MilneChristine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The need for the Government’s negotiating position at Cancun to be informed by an understanding of both the latest climate science and what constitutes an equitable contribution by Australia to the global challenge of decarbonisation.

Today in the House of Representatives, there was a debate about whether climate change is real and human-induced. Frankly it is embarrassing that in the Australian parliament in 2010 we are still having this debate which is long gone in all other developed countries, who are now getting on with determining the policy framework necessary to address the climate crisis.

I am glad to say that a few minutes ago a motion of mine was passed—the coalition said they would not call a division on it and they did not say they opposed it. The motion stated that not only is climate change real and human-induced but also that urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is required to achieve the goal to which Australia committed under the Copenhagen accord—namely, constraining global warming to two degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The point is that the debate we should be having here today is about the latest climate science, about what Australia is going to do about it and about what our fair share is. What is an equitable burden for Australia in a global negotiation? Our minister will be representing this country in Cancun next week, and the parliament really ought to know what the government is taking to those negotiations.

The first thing that this parliament—politicians—need to actually respond to is: how much warming do we think is safe for the planet? We have never had that discussion in this parliament and we need to have it. You have to know exactly what you are aiming for and with what degree of certainty you are going to reach that goal before you can set in place what you need to do.

The second thing we need to do is determine how much the world can emit and stay below that threshold. That is the global carbon budget, which will determine the constraint on warming you are aiming for and the degree of certainty that you have about it.

Finally, we need to determine Australia’s fair share. The scientists have already given us the answers we need. The science is not the problem—we have it. Overnight, the scientists said that 2010 is the hottest year on record. From January to October, terrestrial and marine temperatures combined to make it the hottest year on record. The scientists also told us overnight that in 2009 emissions of fossil fuel gases have edged back less than had been hoped. We were told that the global financial crisis would bring us some respite, and the scientists had modelled an expectation that greenhouse gases would retreat marginally, but they actually retreated by only half of what these scientists and others expected. Emissions of fossil fuel gases in 2009 fell by 11.8 per cent in Japan, 6.9 per cent in the US, 8.6 per cent in Britain, seven per cent in Germany and 8.4 per cent in Russia but—in contrast—rose by eight per cent in China, 6.2 per cent in India and 1.4 per cent in South Korea. As a result of all that, there is still a trajectory of incredible increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

In Copenhagen last year, Australia signed the Copenhagen Accord, which said that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development and that, further, that would enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. But is two degrees safe? The scientists would argue that in fact it is not safe by any means and that allowing 450 parts of atmospheric CO2 per million only gives us a 50 per cent chance of constraining global warming to less than two degrees. I would hope that we would be aiming for better than a 50 per cent chance of achieving something as serious as survival on this planet. If 450 parts of atmospheric CO2 per million is only going to give us a 50 per cent chance of survival—and in fact the science says that 450 parts of atmospheric CO2 per million is probably only going to give us a 35 per cent chance—shouldn’t we be saying, ‘Actually, that is too much; we need to rein this in’? The developing countries around the world say that they would like global warming to be constrained to 1.5 degrees.

Let us put this into a real-world context: we have only had 0.6 per cent of one degree Celsius of warming so far, and look at what we have already experienced. We have experienced extreme weather events, glaciers melting, sea levels rising and storms that have devastated so many parts of the world. We have seen extreme flooding. We have seen all sorts of problems, not to mention the extreme drought in the Murray-Darling for so long and the fires all over Australia, particularly in Victoria where we saw extreme bushfires. We know that with global warming there is going to be an increasing number of days of extreme weather conducive to the outbreak of bushfires around Australia. We know that, by allowing two degrees of warming to occur, we virtually guarantee the loss of the Great Barrier Reef. I am going to say that again, because most Australian parliamentarians do not get it: by allowing two degrees of warming to occur we will lose the Great Barrier Reef.

Photo of Julian McGauranJulian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Photo of Christine MilneChristine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

You can say it is rubbish, Senator McGauran, but that is the science. Thermal warming of the oceans is already occurring and, in addition to that, there is the acidification of the oceans—that is, the oceans are becoming more acidic as a result of the take-up of carbon dioxide—and that is weakening the coral reef systems and threatening the whole marine food chain. Creatures that require calcification of their shells cannot make their shells with the level of acid in the oceans, which means that the krill and the whole marine food chain are threatened. That is the reality.

At the CRC in Hobart, which is looking at this issue, it is said that 450 parts of atmospheric CO2 per million is the tipping point for ocean acidification at which those creatures are lost. I would not want to be taking a 50 per cent chance; I would want to be saying, ‘We need to actually increase the probability of our getting a safe climate.’ If we say that, we have to answer a more difficult question: how sure do we want to be that we do not cross the two-degree guardrail and how sure do we want to be that we can actually constrain warming to less than two degrees? I would say that the precautionary principle says that we want to be much more certain than we would be by only giving ourselves a 50 per cent chance.

Here we come to the issue of the carbon budgets. Professor Will Steffen said quite clearly in his presentation to the Multi-party Climate Committee, which is now readily available, that if global emissions peak in the year 2015—that is, five years from now—we can stick to a reasonable budget by reducing emissions by about 5.3 per cent every year for about 30 years. So if we started we could do it. But, if we postpone the peak beyond 2015 until, say, 2020, global emissions would have to fall by nine per cent a year for two decades, and just about everybody says that would be virtually impossible to achieve.

We are at a critical time for the future of the planet. This is not something we can come back and revisit in 2020. These are the years in which this generation will make the decisions that will determine what life will be like for every generation after us in terms of species extinction and marine food chain issues. There are no more critical questions to answer than: how high are you prepared to let the temperatures go? How much warming will we accept? What degree of probability do you want to achieve where we set out to achieve a safe climate? What is the carbon budget that does that and then, inside that carbon budget, how much is Australia’s fair share?

I will go to the actual carbon budget. Professor Steffen said to maintain a 75 per cent probability of staying within a two-degree temperature range, humanity can emit 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2 between 2000 and 2050. To stay at two degrees, 1,000 gigatonnes, 2000 to 2050 and, already in the nine years from 2000 to 2009, 305 gigatonnes were emitted—in other words, over 30 per cent of the budget between 2000 and 2050 has been emitted this decade. It simply cannot go on if we are to meet a carbon budget that can constrain global warming. So we have to not only decide the temperature target; we have to decide how we are going to achieve it.

If you recognise that a third of the budget has already gone that puts you in the frame of saying: ‘Developed countries, you are on notice. A five per cent reduction is laughable. It’s nowhere near in the ballpark.’ As for the coalitions suggesting its policies can achieve the kinds of reductions we are talking about here, it is errant nonsense, absolute nonsense. If you are going to get the kind of trajectory that has developed countries taking on their fair share, we have to know what the principles are that the Australian government is going to put forward.

We have said in public fora, ‘Australia will contribute its fair share.’ But what does that mean? What is our fair share? What are the principles that we are going to use to underpin that fair share? Ethical approaches to this in any kind of global discussion contain debates about: do we have an equal per capita allocation so every person on earth gets the same carbon budget? If we were to do that, rich nations like Australia would need to reduce our emissions to about four tonnes of CO2 per person by 2020. Now in Australia we are emitting 27 tonnes per capita. Currently, we are on 27 tonnes per capita. We would need to get that down to four tonnes per capita, if you used a baseline year and went on equitable access to the world’s carbon budget.

If you took into account our historical responsibility and the development rights of developing countries, that is the kind of notional view that you would come to. Instead of that we are seeing in the global negotiations a cost-equalisation approach where we are trying to divvy up the pie so that the economic cost borne by nations, particularly rich nations, is about the same. That is just not going to work, because some developed countries are going to say, ‘Hey, that’s not fair. We have been working to reduce our emissions to transform our economy for a very long time. We’ve made decisions to stabilise and reduce our population. You in Australia have done nothing for decades. You are deliberately increasing your population. You haven’t put into place those frameworks that you should have, so we are not going to accept that approach.’

The only way you can do this is to take an ethical approach which, either way you look at it, will see Australia being given a very small share of this global carbon budget that we have got left out to 2050. If you agree that a third of our budget to 2050 has already gone, it means the steepness of the reductions has to be very steep. That means deep reductions in Australia and a rapid transformation of the Australian economy. That is the debate we should be having in Australia today—not whether global warming is real, not whether it is human induced, but rather what degree of warming we are prepared to accept. What level of probability do we want that we will constrain global warming to far less than two degrees? In that context, what is the global budget and what is our fair share?

Before Minister Combet goes to Cancun next week, Australia needs to know: what are the principles that Australia is going to put forward? All I have seen is that we are there rent-seeking again, saying ‘We’ve got an increasing population.’ Yes, we have because we choose it. It is a policy decision to do that, and that is not something other countries are going to be sympathetic to, so we need an explanation from the government as to those principles.

4:04 pm

Photo of Doug CameronDoug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I am pleased to participate in this urgency debate. Senator Milne’s motion goes to two issues: the latest climate science and an equitable contribution by Australia to the global challenge of decarbonisation. I am not one of those senators who argue for the precautionary principle; I am convinced by the science. I participated in three inquiries into the CPRS and climate change in this country, and every reputable scientist who came before those committees has argued that we must take action on climate change. I do that not only from an economic perspective and an environmental perspective; I support this because, like many senators, I have got grandchildren. Like many senators who have got young children, we have to think about what their future is on this planet, not some crazy debate that as Senator Milne has said has bypassed us and gone everywhere else in the world. I want a future for my grandchildren.

I have had the benefit of the overuse of carbon around the world but I think there comes a time where we have to pay a price to overturn that, and I think a price on carbon is absolutely essential. As a union official some four years ago, I attended a conference in the UK where the president of Ford Europe gave an overview of where Ford were going in the future. This is one of the biggest corporations in the world, and they were arguing that there was no debate about global warming. There was no debate about the need to make change. They were setting about looking at how they could develop the technology, designs, materials, new work practices and new manufacturing processes to make sure that Ford could survive in a changing environment and a changing world. When you have some of the biggest corporations in the world accepting that we need to make change, I think it is important that the parliament of Australia accepts that we need to make change as well.

There are different points of view, but, in my estimation, they are not instructed by science; they are instructed—when it comes to some in the coalition—by short-term political gain and a refusal to accept the reality of the science on climate change that faces the whole world. You only have to look at what is happening around the world and at some of the scientific models that have been there for some time to realise that the modelling is becoming reality. We see floods in Asia and massive heatwaves in Russia and yet in some parts of this Senate we try to pretend that it is all just, as the Leader of the Opposition would have it, ‘crap’. It is not crap; it is the reality of climate change; it is the reality of us having to face a situation that we can do something about. We should not allow that position to be hijacked ever again by the extremists, the climate change deniers or the climate change sceptics—because I want a future for Amy and Scott, my two grandkids. They are the important ones for me for the future. Even the precautionary principle as was outlined by Senator Milne should be enough for the coalition. They should accept that their children and their grandchildren deserve the benefit of the precautionary principle.

We will need to get through this very tough economic, environmental and political debate. I do not think the government or the Labor Party should ever, ever walk away from what is important in terms of making sure that there is a future for future generations. We have paid a heavy political price for not being clear and unequivocal about our position, and I am convinced that we will not make that mistake again. We will not be intimidated. We will not be confronted by the misrepresentations, the short-term politics and the lies out there in relation to global warming, because global warming is real. Global warming is something that we must face and deal with. It is not rubbish, as has been said here today.

The scientific facts are clear. We must make cuts to our carbon footprint and we must play our part. We need to get through the political problem that we have in convincing not only this parliament but also the community that it is appropriate to take changes forward and make the necessary sacrifices to ensure the future of not only future generations but also this planet. I want to do that in conjunction with the leadership of the Labor Party in a courageous but scientific way, because we will need to be courageous to confront some of the lies and misrepresentation that will be out there on global warming. We will need to confront those that would go out and run a short-term scare campaign at the expense of the long-term future of this country.

We would be able to make deeper cuts and wider changes to deal with carbon emissions in the community if we had a consensus in this parliament. But there is no consensus because the extremists in the coalition have taken over. I notice that Senator Birmingham will be speaking on this debate next and I do not include him in that description.

Photo of Ron BoswellRon Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

What about me, Doug?

Photo of Doug CameronDoug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Yes, I would say that you are an extremist, Senator Boswell. I am glad you woke up because I think you are part of the problem, not the solution. I think you are a huge problem. The National Party is a huge problem in this country. Senator McGauran, who jumped ship from the National Party to the Liberal Party, is in the chamber as well. He says this is rubbish. We have the National Party out there doing what is not in the interests of rural and regional communities in this country, and that is denying the reality of climate change in this nation and on this planet.

You are an extremist, Senator Boswell, on this issue. You are a climate change denier and sceptic. You are entitled to be all of those things, but I am not prepared to allow you to do that at the expense of my grandchildren and future generations. That means that I have to stand up here and argue the point that we need to take strong action on the basis of maintaining a decent future for generations to come. If you say that you are an extremist and you ask me to call you an extremist, I am there—I will do that because that is what you are. You are a denier and you will not accept the science. You are not doing the right thing by regional and rural communities and you are not doing the right thing by our future generations. Slogans and oppositionalism are not good enough on this issue. We are prepared to take action to ensure that the environment is preserved for future generations. (Time expired)

4:14 pm

Photo of Simon BirminghamSimon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | | Hansard source

I am pleased to contribute to this debate and I will certainly return to some of the remarks made by Senator Cameron during his contribution. Notwithstanding the faint praise—or however one may wish to accept it—he gave me during that contribution, there are a number of issues on which I wish to take task with Senator Cameron.

First of all I am surprised that the Australian Greens have brought this motion to the chamber today. I am surprised because I thought in the new paradigm, in the new world in which we are living, that perhaps the Greens had the access to get the answers to the questions that Senator Milne was asking in her contribution directly from the government. I thought that was what the new arrangement entailed. I thought that if Senator Milne wanted to know what principles the government would be taking to Cancun, she would be going into the multiparty committee on climate change and carbon pricing and asking, finding out and getting some answers. It is a little disconcerting to come into this place and find that in the agreement between the Greens and the government we now have the Greens unable to get the types of answers to this key issue on which they negotiated to keep the Labor Party in government after the recent election.

I would have thought that they would ask the questions in the weekly meetings that I understand Senator Brown and members of the Greens of various persuasions have with the Prime Minister and find out the position the government was going to take at Cancun. But they appear not to be able get answers to this important issue—and reasonably important and understandably important to the Australian Greens—from the government to satisfy them in a way that prevents them from having to come into this chamber and pose a motion, pose questions and conduct the debate in the public fray rather than getting some clear answers from those who we thought were their partners in government.

But I do welcome the motion and I particularly welcome the aspects of the motion that call for an equitable contribution by Australia and that highlight that decarbonisation is a global challenge. These are important words to draw attention to within the construct of this motion. It is indeed a global challenge because action on carbon requires unified, comprehensive global agreement. In particular, of course, it requires real agreement from developed nations and from the major developing economies. For all that some have tried to pitch Australia’s contribution as not being significant enough or Australia as not doing enough to put itself ahead of the rest of the world, the reality of this debate is that we will only succeed in tackling climate change, in reducing emissions, if we have genuine global action that encompasses all of those major emitters—all those countries who emit far more than Australia does.

One of the great disappointments of last year was the Copenhagen conference. For all the build-up, for all the hype, for all the thousands of people who converged on Copenhagen, we saw a three-page accord signed. I know that Senator Milne was disappointed by that and I understand the intent of this motion is of course to hope that something better can come out at Cancun than came out of Copenhagen. Insofar as that intent is the case, I welcome that intent, but that will require genuine agreement from all of the other major emitting countries. That will require, echoing the lingo used at the time in Copenhagen, outcomes to be ‘measurable, reportable and verifiable’. That means that, rather than at present where all we are getting are relatively glib contributions or pronouncements from most of the countries who have signed up to the Copenhagen accord, we will need to see some far more concrete commitments as to how reductions will occur.

If that is the case, the coalition has been on the record consistently supporting reductions in emissions in Australia in a manner that is commensurate with those in the rest of the world. Indeed, we have supported them at least at a minimum of five per cent and we will support more if that is what the other developed and developing countries who are major emitters choose to do. We are willing for Australia to take a lead. We think it should. We put the five per cent in place from our policy perspective. We think that is an ‘equitable contribution’ and starting position, to use the words in Senator Milne’s motion. We think to go beyond that then requires global action and that that is where we will see Australia able to continue to make a contribution at an equitable level.

We think an equitable contribution is one that does not drive carbon leakage from this country—that does not push emissions offshore; we think that an equitable contribution is one that does not place undue and unreasonable costs on Australian households, families, small businesses and industry. We think that an equitable contribution is one that, so far as possible, delivers win-win outcomes—outcomes that, yes, you reduce emissions but actually provide benefits for the rest of the economy. These are the types of contributions that we think are equitable contributions to decreasing the amount of carbon in our economy, especially at present when we see such limited activity from the major developed and developing emitters to do likewise. That is what the coalition policy exactly does. It does seek to remove carbon in a way that does not provide for carbon leakage. It does seek to do so in a way that does not impose great costs, great taxes and higher electricity charges on Australian families, businesses or industry. It does so in a way that tries to provide for win-win outcomes.

I note that the government, even today, is reported to be advancing carbon farming initiatives—the types of things that are front and centre in the coalition’s policy. These are the types of things that many members of the coalition have argued for for a long, long time—the types of soil carbon and sequestration opportunities that can provide win-win benefits by sequestering carbon in Australia’s soil, increasing that carbon content and in doing so allowing us to manage our water resources better and enjoy greater productivity. These are the real benefits.

I finish on Senator Cameron’s comments. I noted that Senator Cameron made a very clear and pointed statement about his own party, saying that he did not think that Labor should ever walk away from a contribution to this debate again. Indeed, we see a government that is void of a policy position in this space. We have a Prime Minister who convinced the former Prime Minister to abandon an emissions trading scheme and who went to an election promising not to have a carbon tax. Yet now she is trying to choose between the two without telling the public what the real agenda is. It is time for the government to own up because on this side we know what our policy is.

4:22 pm

Photo of Mary FisherMary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I speak on this motion moved by Senator Milne and in particular to the urging of the government to inform its understanding on the basis of evidence, which this government, both in its previous term and this term, is proving again and again it is incapable of doing. That is despite the promise of previous Prime Minister Rudd that the Labor Party would formulate and implement evidence based policy.

On climate change and climate science, Senator Cameron could have saved, firstly, himself and, secondly, us from having to hear his regaling the Senate. He must think that there are people in this place that think that something should not be done about climate change. I think he misunderstands. There are very few people, particularly in this place, who think something should not be done. The difference lies in whether or not we are prepared to agree that anything—just anything at all—will do. This government is hell-bent on policies that sound good without proving that they will do any good. In the words of Malcolm Turnbull, if I may borrow them—he applied them to the National Broadband Network but they apply here as well—this government seems to think that it can go about designing and implementing policies, including policies on the environment, where the end ex post facto justifies the means, rather than building from the means up to the end. This government believes that, with its policies, the ends will suffice to justify the means.

We agree with this government on the ends. That is why this parliament and the coalition have agreed with the government about reducing targets for emissions. We agree on the ends, but where we very, very much disagree is on the means to get to those ends. So, where this government would tax the Australian people and this government would increase electricity prices paid by the Australian people, the opposition would go down the route of direct action to make a practical difference to achieve those ends.

We believe that we have produced the evidence that demonstrates that our means to get to those ends will work, whereas this government, particularly in respect of environmental programs, have not demonstrated this by again and again supporting policies that sound good but do little good. They do not seem to be able to understand what should be a connect between formulating the means to achieve the ends rather than thinking that the Australian people will be fooled into accepting the other way around. A recent Senate Environment and Communications References Committee report into the Green Loans program recommended, amongst a raft of other things:

… that the government not implement any environmental programs without prior completion of an evaluation which shows either net environmental benefits and/or a program cost which gives taxpayers value for money.

That recommendation was largely born out of frustration of a number of members of the committee with this government’s apparent failure to understand the basic wisdom of evidenced based policy. They have demonstrated that in their programs time after time—for example, with the Home Insulation Program. Under the Green Loans program itself, around 360,000 home assessments were done. There are a lot of carbon miles in those home assessments, yet at the end of the abysmally failed program only about 7½ thousand out of the original 200,000 interest-free green loans were taken up. How is that an environmentally beneficial use of some 360,000 home assessments?

We still do not know how many of the Home Insulation Program insulations were dodgy. There has not been an audit of every home, but we do know that the government embarked upon the Home Insulation Program supposedly to stimulate the economy, to create jobs and to benefit the environment. The economy has been stimulated more by the government having to fund mopping up the mess than it has been on the input side of the equation. As for jobs, any jobs that were created were smashed overnight, at the stroke of a ministerial pen, with the suspension and then the cancellation of the program. As for environmental benefits, how can a home insulation program provide any environmental benefits when, because of the failings in the administration of the program, things happen like putting the wrong sorts of insulation in the wrong ceilings in the wrong sort of climate? Dangerous and dodgy insulation was installed and then had to be either neutralised with a safety switch or removed. Indeed, when some of that insulation was removed, depending on the nature of it, it was not biodegradable. Not only were there the excess carbon miles created by putting stuff in and then taking it out with a nil result but also there was the disposal of the insulation at the end of the day.

We still do not know how many carbon emissions will be saved as a result of the Home Insulation Program. Indeed, I suspect they are more likely to be created. The Hawke review found that the level of deficiency in the installation and removal of insulation under the program would suggest that the departmental estimate of 1.65 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per home insulated saved each year is overly optimistic and will need to be revised downwards. This government needs to get with the program, get with the evidence, get with policies that do good—(Time expired)

4:30 pm

Photo of Claire MooreClaire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Milne’s motion this afternoon has highlighted some core aspects of agreement, and I think that is really important. We have spoken many times before in this place about the importance of this issue being openly discussed in the parliament. As this motion puts it, it should be openly discussed and accountability should be taken at the international level. We will have a real opportunity at Cancun, the first international gathering on these issues since Copenhagen, to accept that we have moved on. I remember debating this issue in this place for many hours in the lead-up to the Copenhagen conference. People were talking about whether we were going the right way and what the appropriate response to these issues would be, and there was a lot of pain expressed in those debates—and all of that continues.

But the core aspect of Copenhagen, despite the frustration and anger that we did not get the result that we wanted in terms of an effective international agreement, was that, through that process, there was effective discussion of the issues, and there was agreement by a large number of countries—which consistently gets forgotten—about the need for action and the need for concurrence on the science. Through those hours of discussion in this place, it certainly became clear that there was a genuine difference in the whole of the parliament—the House of Representatives and the Senate—about the science. The government remains committed to having an open and aware discussion of the science. Professor Garnaut’s paper in 2008 was the basis on which we went to the community to look at the issues of climate change and the need to take action in this country. Minister Combet has worked with Professor Garnaut to continue his extraordinarily important work and update the work he put in place in 2008. So we still have the core assessment, the knowledge that all of us shared in 2008, and we are going to update that.

I am sad to say this, but the reality is that that does not mean there will be agreement in this place on these issues. We will hear that in this afternoon’s debate. We will hear many of the same people—quite rightly, because it is their right and it is their job in this place—put forward their views on the science and the issues around climate change. We know that there is not agreement here. What we should do is try to bring ourselves forward so that we can find out what we agree on and what we disagree on, and then it will come down to the numbers, as it so often does in this place. Frankly, the government knows that the last time issues around climate change came to this chamber we did not have the numbers. We hear a lot about alliances in this place, and during that debate there was an alliance of people who had agreed to vote down the proposal for climate change action in this country leading up to Copenhagen. But that is history. Moving into the Mexico round of discussions we now have the opportunity to make progress—and I believe there is real hope.

But that does not mean that everybody in this place is suddenly going to have a Damascus experience and believe in the issues of climate change. I wish that would happen but I am doubtful. I think what will happen is that we will have the same disagreements. I have six regular correspondents who email me on, I think, a daily basis with an amazing amount of email references—often the same ones—which can prove beyond doubt that there is no such thing as climate change. That is their belief and they should put it forward. I do not agree with them. I actually believe that we have a genuine responsibility and climate change is a huge issue. But it is not just an issue for Australia. We cannot talk about this as a purely Australian issue. Leading up to Copenhagen we said we needed to take our role as part of an international response to an international issue. Climate change knows no boundaries. You cannot draw boundaries on a map and say climate change is an issue for one country but not for a neighbouring country.

And that is particularly clear in our region. One of my clear memories of Copenhagen—I was one of those people who was mad enough to watch it on the Sky Channel news to see what was going on; and I am sure there were a few other people in this place who did that—was the evidence put forward by a group of people from the Pacific nations. They knew their science but, more than that, they knew their reality.

Photo of Julian McGauranJulian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator McGauran interjecting

Photo of Claire MooreClaire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

They came to that conference, where a range of people were talking about what was occurring in their world—I was not at the conference and I know Senator McGauran did not attend—and they begged all of us to take notice of their concerns. I do not think we have the right to move away from that. There are people in this chamber who do not accept that and that will be their position—and no amount of science, no amount of email attachments and no amount of personal evidence will change their minds.

In terms of Senator Milne’s motion and what we move forward to at Cancun, we as a nation need to be informed by the science—and our government is attempting to do that by getting more information through the process led by Professor Garnaut and encouraging each of us to follow up these issues for ourselves. It is not good enough to just sit back and let other people do it. I think there is a tendency to do that in some cases, because it is not easy, it is complex. But when we have the information provided by Professor Garnaut and the Australian Chief Scientist and a range of international bodies coming forward to talk about what is happening in our globe, that is a pretty firm base on which to look at the future and see what our own responsibilities are.

So many people who visit my office can point to what they are doing personally. That is an incredibly powerful message. There are people in our community who are already making personal efforts to change their own lives and look at how they can contribute to ensuring that Australia has a lower carbon future—and, if Australia has a lower carbon future, the world will have a lower carbon future. It is too easy to argue—and we heard it here for weeks—that we should not act before everybody else does because somehow all the citizens of Australia would have to take the pain. I do not accept that. As Senator Milne’s motion says, Australia needs to make an equitable contribution to the global challenge of decarbonisation—and that certainly means we should be aware and informed.

It is inspiring to see what some of our citizens are already doing, in small groups and communities, to change the way they live, travel and communicate. They have put a challenge to us as their government: if they are prepared to do that, why don’t we as a government understand the need and take stronger action together to work forward? We failed that challenge several months ago in this place, and that is sad, but we cannot dwell on that. We have to look at the fact that we have an issue that is impacting on us. We have science that proves that.

No science is perfect. There have been some jokes about getting parliamentarians into one room—if you get a whole bunch of scientists in the one room, you also get conflicting views. But, when you look at the views on balance, you understand the need for action, and that is what the government is taking by setting up the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee—and we hope it will continue to be multi-party. We are trying to share knowledge, to listen to the science and to listen to the community, and we are planning our policies and action on that.

Cancun gives us the opportunity to take our knowledge to a group of people who share a common commitment to the world. There will be challenges. Even since Copenhagen, numerous countries have introduced their own ways of reducing carbon in their economies and societies, and more are signing up to the need. India and China, which we talked about in this place several months ago, have made international public statements acknowledging that they have work to do and will do it. That is a major step forward. Leading into Copenhagen, there was no such statement.

As a result of what occurred at Copenhagen, I would not think the same hope is there leading into Cancun. But it an opportunity for the nations who choose to be there—again, it is really important that nations that turn up to Cancun have made the choice to be there and be part of the discussion. That is step 1. We can share the knowledge and share the science, because that is how we grow, that is how we can move forward. As Senator Cameron said earlier in this discussion, we cannot turn our backs because we failed before. That is something that we will all live with, but we now have the opportunity to develop effective policy and to take our role seriously in the international struggle with the issue of climate change.

4:39 pm

Photo of Ron BoswellRon Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Milne’s motion refers to the Cancun, Mexico, meeting in a couple of weeks time. I suspect the results will be very similar to those of Copenhagen; I do not expect great results. We will go through the motions and in the end it will be the same. There are certain realities that you have to face in this life. I am not an extremist. I do not know whether or not climate change exists. There are many views, and many different scientists say different things. Some very eminent people have said that the way to beat climate change is by developing processes that are not going to cost the world, that are not going to ruin businesses.

According to Senator Milne, an equitable contribution from Australia would be to reduce our emissions per capita from 27 tonnes a year to four tonnes a year by 2020. I did a little calculation—that means we will have to reduce our emissions over the next 10 years to one-fifth of their current level—that is a 500 per cent reduction. Senator Milne, do you understand what you are asking?

Photo of Bob BrownBob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Bob Brown interjecting

Photo of Ron BoswellRon Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Yes, she did say that, Senator Brown. Do you understand what that means? I am a practical person. I know what this means. During the last break, people came to me and said, ‘With the dollar where it is, we just can’t take any more; we’re up to where pussy wore the bow—right up to the neck.’ Let us take groceries as an example. We are importing $181 million worth of groceries. We have lost 330,000 people in the grocery industry and are down to 285,000. That is because our costs are going up and the dollar is higher—put an ETS on top of that and you will blow Australian industry right out of the game.

That is what we have to face. Whoever is right—whether it is those who say we will all be doomed if we do not do something about climate change or it is those who say it is not real—it will not matter one iota if China, India, Russia and America are not on board. America have said: ‘We can’t do this. If we put an emissions trading scheme or a cap-and-trade scheme on our people, on our industry, we won’t have 9.6 per cent unemployment; we’ll have 15 per cent unemployment.’ It is just not politically acceptable for them to do it—they cannot do it. India cannot do it. China cannot do it. Yet you want us to do it. You want us to take this suicidal step and blow our industries out when no-one else will.

At the same time as we are supposed to cut our emissions down by 25 per cent of business as usual, the Chinese will go from putting five billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere to putting 10 billion. Where is the sense in this? What are you going to say to the Indians? What are you going to say to the Chinese: ‘Sorry, guys, just let your people to starve, let them live in cardboard boxes, let them beg in the streets’? That is the alternative—they have to compete in the world.

I listened to Senator Cameron, who called me an extremist. I was out the other day and I saw a car called a ‘Great Wall’—nice car. (Time expired)

4:45 pm

Photo of Bob BrownBob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I respect what Senator Boswell had to say. It is a different point of view and it is wrong. All through history we have seen people who have not wanted to believe the mounting evidence of some coming catastrophe. We saw it before the Second World War. If you study the history of the Byzantine Empire you will see it in the 1450s in Constantinople, where there were those who believed that the angel in front of Sancta Sophia was going to protect them from the invading hordes. It did not.

Very often this attitude means that we do not prepare adequately to meet the challenge of the age. That is the question before all of us in this very worthwhile motion from Senator Milne. By the way, Senator Milne, when pointing to those figures that Senator Boswell is concerned about, was quoting the work of the German Advisory Council on Climate Change, which Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University was quoting. That study says that the rich nations need to reduce their emissions to about four tonnes of CO2 per person by 2020. Right now Australia is emitting more than 27 tonnes per capita—in other words, we need to reduce emissions by more than 80 per cent by 2020. So, yes, the good senator who preceded me is right; he has his sums right. What is worrying is that because it is such a challenge to us the answer is, ‘We can’t do that, it’s too hard.’ We know that when there is a war between human beings economies can transform by 50 to 20 per cent within a matter of 12 months. The challenge to divert two per cent of our gross wealth to protecting ourselves from climate change is too much for many members of this place, and the people they represent, at the moment.

Senator Moore said that last year the majority voted down a plan for action but the plan for action that she cites, under the Rudd government, was a five per cent reduction—not a 20 or 40 per cent reduction—with a $20 billion price tag for taxpayers, which was going to transfer that money to polluters. It was not an action plan; it was a plan with ‘failure’ written all over it. We are very keen on making a success, post election, of the climate change committee, which has been agreed to by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens. We will do everything we can, not only to make that work but to ensure that it meets the challenge that climate change gives us.

I read in the weekend press—and this might help solve some of the worries of Senator Boswell—that getting a carbon price is going to add billions to the economy. To put it another way, the carbon price will remove the restrictions on billions of dollars of investment in the economy—restrictions which are there because there has not been a carbon price to date. There are enormous economic benefits if we take the road of Sir Nicholas Stern and green up our economy and become a world leader, as the Germans have done, rather than a world laggard.

We should look at the effective carbon price that has been brought about through whatever measures. People may have seen the chart in the weekend press: Australia is way behind China and the UK. We are enormously back in the ranks, and we have a big job to do. But we will not do it by having a Wandoan coalmine in Queensland. That one coalmine is effectively going to increase Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 10 per cent. What is the point of working to reduce our emissions if we are simply going to sell coal which will make an even greater impact on the environment elsewhere in the world? We need a great deal of common sense and to make some hard decisions but the future of the nation and the rights of our grandchildren are dependent upon us getting this right.

Question agreed to.