Page 253 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Adverse impacts on economic growth must be minimised so as to create the most efficient transition to greenhouse-friendly industry practices, and this means extensive education, support and advice to industry to guide them in this new direction, not punish them with draconian taxes, unrealistic targets and contentious restrictions on production.
This approach is reflected in the ACT Liberal Party’s approach at territory level. Last year I indicated that we would be developing and pursuing a no-regrets approach to environment policy. The Liberal Party, in government, will incorporate practical measures to reduce energy wastage and costs. By introducing sensible environmental measures the community will support the changes resulting in a practical result at a local level.
For its part, the Australian government has also shown a willingness to take practical steps to implement measures to reduce consumers’ impact on the environment. On 20 February this year the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull, announced that the Australian government will be taking action to phase out inefficient light bulbs, a move that should reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by four million tonnes by 2012.
The greenhouse challenge plus program is another example of this approach. When I said that you could do these things the Greens were dismissive of it and said, “This is stuff from the 1960s.” It is not from the 1960s; it is actually a very contemporary program. It is a $31.6 million partnership between the Australian government and industry to support and encourage industry to help reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. I would encourage Dr Foskey to get herself briefed, understand how successful it has been, see how it has delivered savings for industry, and how it has helped the environment in which we are all living and which we are trying to preserve.
Current projections suggest that challenge plus will deliver more than 15 million tonnes of abatement each year in the Kyoto period 2008-12. So I would encourage Dr Foskey and her colleagues not to so quickly dismiss no-regrets type policies, because they can in fact achieve considerable change. While we are dealing with the Kyoto protocol let me also make mention of that. I noted that Dr Foskey’s motion refers to “the failure of the Howard Federal Government to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change” therefore concluding that we have failed in these tasks of managing the environment.
Firstly, the Australian government is playing a major role in the Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate with key countries such as China, the USA, Japan and India, which together make up a considerable proportion of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. It is significant that Australia chairs the United Nations Commission dialogue seeking to engineer the new agreement that will replace Kyoto. Secondly, I want to talk about some of the problems with Kyoto itself. What we need to recognise is that the Kyoto protocol has not been successful and that the global mood is towards developing a new Kyoto protocol that better reflects the realities of greenhouse gas emissions and control.
Of the 166 countries that ratified the Kyoto protocol, only 35 signed up to greenhouse gas emission targets, none of which are developing countries. Many crucial countries
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .