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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2534 ..

Instead we are told that the government is exploring energy efficiency measures. These efficiency measures can never go as far in reducing emissions as a full shift to green power. Mr Stanhope’s argument for this policy retreat was that green power is not cost effective. That is another way of saying it costs more to be environmentally friendly on greenhouse. In a few lucky instances you can minimise environmental impacts and save the money up front; however, in most cases the environmental damage of our energy consumption is not paid for by the supplier or the user, so there is no cash saving for switching to environmentally friendly approaches.

After energy reduction measures are adopted you are left only with options that cost more. That is the reality of the situation but the long-term benefits of using efficient energy mean that we have a world to live in in the future, and that our way of living, as far as access to sunlight and oxygen is concerned, is not irreparably damaged.

The federal government has decided that the Kyoto protocol is too expensive to sign up to because some industries reliant upon dirty coal power may lose the competitive advantage they now have, because they can externalise environmental impacts onto the world community at no direct cost to their business. It is an incredibly depressing story, but there is a good outcome. If each state and territory government did everything they could to ensure that Kyoto targets are met within their area of geographic influence, it would not matter whether or not the federal government is following through on its responsibilities.

The disappointing thing, though, is that at the ACT level we have not seen solid evidence that our territory government is serious about trying to meet the Kyoto targets. We seem to be waiting forever for the ACT government’s revised greenhouse strategy and, in the interim, nothing seems to be happening to improve the energy efficiency of public housing or private rental housing. Government agreement to the list of commitments in this motion would greatly reassure us that the government is serious about cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The federal minimum renewable energy target to increase renewable energy output by two per cent by 2010 is insignificant, and we need to go further. A commitment to many greenhouse benchmarks seems a reasonable licence condition for electricity retailers. I understand that the New South Wales system requires retailers to reduce per customer emissions to five per cent below 1989-90 levels by 2007, through the meeting of a series of progressive annual targets. I understand that, if these targets are not met, they will lose their retail licences. If retailers in New South Wales have to do this, then it cannot be hard for them to do it in the ACT as well. If we are not doing it, we may even end up as a dumping ground for dirty power, which I am sure nobody in the ACT wants to see.

A subsidised loan scheme for home energy efficiency measures would be a great step forward for home owners, and retrofitting public housing to a four-star energy standard as a minimum would be a great benefit to financially stretched tenants and for environmental outcomes. An energy efficiency and water use rating system for commercial buildings would bring commercial developments more into line with residential developments.

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