Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3089 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

own electricity generating facilities here. However, this should not be a cause for complacency, as it is the demand for electricity by ACT residents that is creating some of the greenhouse gas emissions from the coal-fired power stations in New South Wales from which we draw most of our power. Situations should be factored into our greenhouse target, as suggested in my motion. Setting an environmental target for the ACT is not a new idea. In fact, this Government set the precedent by announcing a bold target of reducing the ACT's waste to zero by 2010. Presumably, in this case, the Government was quite happy to pick a target that was way ahead of what had been proposed by other States and way ahead of the existing national target of reducing waste going to landfill by 50 per cent by the year 2000. Presumably, it also intended to use this target as a performance measure for waste reduction measures over future years. It would be quite hypocritical of the Government to set targets for waste reduction and not be prepared to set targets for greenhouse gas reduction.

In the Government's response to the 1995 ACT State of the Environment Report, the Government listed a range of actions it was participating in as part of the national greenhouse response strategy. However, many of these measures relate to issues over which the ACT has little control or which are more relevant to the larger States. While the ACT should continue to participate in national initiatives, particularly the development of a national greenhouse gas inventory which can help us determine emission levels in the ACT, the ACT also needs its own strategy containing actions which can be specifically applied in the ACT and which will produce quantifiable results in terms of greenhouse gas reductions.

There could also be economic benefits that flow from this. Energy efficiency produces long-term savings, not just in greenhouse gas emissions but also in energy costs for business and consumers. Development of renewable energy technologies in the ACT could also generate new business opportunities. The ANU is currently undertaking world-leading research on photovoltaic and solar thermal electricity generation technologies, which we should be drawing upon. Most buildings in the ACT are very energy inefficient in relation to our cold climate. Providing incentives to retrofit existing buildings with energy efficiency measures will pay for itself in a few years and generate ongoing savings after that. Only today there was a report in the Canberra Times that Canberra consumers could save $7m a year through the installation of energy efficient windows in their houses. These measures will also generate jobs in providing and installing these energy efficient improvements. The Government could use its greenhouse strategy as a way of promoting Canberra as a clean and green business centre, rather than seeing it as a burden to be avoided.

The existing ACT greenhouse strategy was released in 1993 and does need updating. The Government should use this opportunity to set specific targets for the strategy and introduce a real action plan to achieve it and not just fill the strategy with generalised objectives and vague measures that give no clue as to what actually will be done and what they will achieve in quantifiable terms. If this motion was accepted and acted upon, the ACT could be a leader in greenhouse gas reduction in Australia, rather than just a follower.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .