Page 2245 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
as these: firstly, how does it further the goals of sustainability and social equity? Secondly, what evidence is there that triple bottom line thinking has been applied? Thirdly, does it further the visions for Canberra set out in the spatial and social plans, assisted by the sustainable transport plan, all of which are the result of expert advice and extensive community consultation—and adding as well the economic plans? Fourthly, have the needs of our most vulnerable been taken into account? And, fifthly, what is its environmental impact? This year, I have added climate change to that lens because it is an overarching concern of Canberra’s people.
I am pleased that the climate change strategy has finally been released, but it is no secret that the Greens think that both the interim and the long-term emission reduction targets are profoundly inadequate. The government seems finally to be taking climate change seriously, and I applaud its willingness to change its position. It was shameful that it discarded the previous ACT greenhouse strategy, which had meaningful targets at the time and which were appropriate for that time. They were the result of a Greens motion in the Assembly and they were adopted by a Liberal government, but this ACT government thought they were too ambitious.
Increased renewable energy targets, feed-in laws for solar power, carbon-neutral goals for schools and public buildings, and energy-efficient investment in public housing are all important steps in the right direction for this strategy. Sadly, the target to reduce emissions to 2000 levels by 2025 and by 60 per cent by 2050 is profoundly inadequate. Scientists have shown that we can limit the impact of climate change only if we hold global warming to two degrees, but preferably below that. And the only way we can do that is to start cutting emissions sooner rather than later.
In that context, this target is too small and too distant. Indeed, this climate change strategy is failing not just ACT residents but the wider world. As a community with one of the biggest footprints and the highest emissions in the world, Canberra should be leading from the front. By merely aiming for 2000 levels by 2025, the ACT government is turning its back on informed scientific advice and dodging the real challenge to reshape our patterns of energy and resource use.
Mr Speaker, I am feeling decidedly left out of the cocktail party that is apparently occupying nearly everyone on that side of the house. I guess no-one on the other side was invited, either. I understand that it is important for the Chief Minister to improve his relations with the media but I do feel his timing is rather insulting, having regard to what is the major process that occurs in this place every year.
On the positive side, this strategy can be, and must be, improved over time. I welcome the new role that has been given to the Commissioner for the Environment on oversight of this strategy, and I look forward to additional resources being made available to support his office in that role. It is pleasing to see a number of initiatives that the ACT Greens have championed over the past few years finally getting a guernsey. In addition to the feed-in laws to ensure a good return for solar energy providers, and the energy efficient retrofitting of public housing, I note the differential stamp duty which would make the purchase of energy-efficient cars more attractive. That was another Green suggestion that was formally rejected by this government only a few months ago. Perhaps in another year or two this government will embrace some meaningful targets as well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .