Page 252 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We need to recognise that actions must be taken to develop a broad-based and coordinated approach to the issue of climate change, but at the same time we need to recognise the economic realities that inevitably affect any implementation of policy in this area. Arguably the ACT government recognised these realities when it took a position that was critical of our 2004 greenhouse policies and when it said that they were too expensive. I do not agree with what it is saying but it illustrates that one has to weigh up economic considerations.
If one accepts the view of the government that the program may have been too costly for the territory one then has to ask: where is the viable alternative? We are still waiting for an answer. For that reason I would struggle with Mr Hargreaves’s proposed amendments that take out that element of Dr Foskey’s motion that seeks an immediate release of the greenhouse strategy, because we have a reasonable expectation that this should be forthcoming.
We are seeing initiatives on all fronts, nationally and globally, and it is important that the ACT government catch up to community expectations and deliver a policy in this regard. One of the few points with which I agree in Dr Foskey’s motion is the need for the territory government to quickly release its greenhouse strategy so that we can all examine it and so that the people of Canberra can know where we are heading. On 21 February Mr Hargreaves said in the Canberra Times:
In the ACT we take a holistic approach to reducing energy emissions.
I appreciate the sentiment but I am curious as to what action has been taken to back up this proposition. The Australian government, for its part, is correct in its approach. A strong economy has allowed high levels of expenditure on specific items, including combating climate change. The strength of the economy cannot, however, be undermined through these measures. A former federal minister for the environment said:
I think what we all need to understand is that to address climate change, you are going to need to invest in excess of $17 trillion globally to transform entirely how we produce energy and how we use it. We need a massive investment, a step change, in how we produce energy … All of that requires massive investment so measures that unnecessarily harm economic growth will in fact harm our response to climate change. You have to find policies that transform how we create and use energy but also maintain economic growth. The two are essential; you can’t have one without the other. You can’t harm economic growth or you’ll harm the world’s capacity to address it ...
I think that is an important principle that we need to appreciate but which I do not believe the Greens can come to terms with. As the minister pointed out, it is very easy to have policies that really do not call for that level of accountability for the entire economy when you know that you are never going to have the ultimate responsibility of governing.
Policies must take the direction of encouraging private sector and industry partnerships whereby considerable investment is put into newer and cleaner technologies that replace and improve the economic viability of existing industries.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .