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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4427 ..

leaked Pentagon report to which I have already referred set out a worrying list of implications of inadequate action on climate change. For example, some of the likely scenarios include: major European cities sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020; nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting across the world as countries attempt to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies; and wealthy industrialised nations becoming virtual fortresses to prevent millions of refugees from entering who have been forced from land drowned by sea level rise, or that are no longer able to support crops.

Closer to home we can expect to see similar dramatic consequences. Climate Action Network Australia has released a list of serious implications of only slight increases in temperature. It is of concern to note that since 1990 we have experienced nine of the 10 warmest years on record. For example, CANA states that should current levels of climate change continue there would be no snow on the Snowy Mountains and there would be significant changes to the outback, beaches, forests and mountains across Australia. Climate change will impact severely on species and ecosystems as well as on the tourism, fishing, forestry and agricultural industries in regional Australia.

There will also be significant impacts on human health. A 2002 risk assessment of human health and climate change in Oceania predicted impacts such as an expansion of the malaria and dengue receptive zones in the northern parts of Australia; an increase in food-borne and water-borne diseases Australia-wide; and an increased number of heat-related deaths among older people. Extreme temperatures already contribute to the deaths of 1,100 people aged over 65 each year in 10 Australian and two New Zealand cities. It is shaming to note that while there is so much evidence pointing to the terrible consequences of climate change, Australia has the highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions per head of population in the industrialised world.

It is particularly alarming that in the ACT energy use is 40 per cent higher than the national average. That is why the Greens are arguing for a stronger effort, including reducing Australia’s emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. I also note that while this bill is a step in the right direction in seeking to regulate the territory’s greenhouse gas emissions from electricity, it is out of step with other more progressive schemes worldwide. For example, the European Union recently signed up to a cap and trade scheme which sets a cap on industry emissions, rather than the baseline and credit scheme that we are about to adopt in which companies can earn credits for emissions below their baselines.

In relation to both environmental and economic benefits, the European Union’s cap and trade scheme has much to recommend it. In particular, it would ensure that emissions could not blow out due to population growth and the absence of an overall cap, as is the case with this scheme. It is interesting also to note that penalties for exceeding emission benchmarks in the European scheme work out at $A176 against this scheme’s $10.50 per tonne over the benchmark. The European Union penalties provide a serious incentive to reduce emissions. However, it is not all bad news.

I am pleased that this bill provides real incentives for investment in the renewable energy industry—an industry facing an uncertain future, given the federal government’s refusal to extend the mandatory renewable energy target, or MRET, from the current paltry 2 per cent to 10 per cent by 2010. In contrast, the United Kingdom announced an MRET

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