Page 3239 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
2011 as promised, we need more rigorous benchmarks. As it stands, the benchmarks that we have have never been reviewed since the scheme was conceived and that means that the legislation we are looking at is not based on anything that represents science, economics or any other discipline that should inform it. Now that we know so many of the scheme’s problems, we really have to look at it again.
My amendment seeks to give some meaning to the benchmarks. Even though the scheme is not perfect, we need to at least ensure that it does continue to lower the increase in emissions per capita even if it does not lower the overall output of emissions, which would be an even better result. As I said earlier, modelling from the Total Environment Centre showed that to achieve emissions five per cent below 1990 level the benchmark should drop annually until it reaches 5.85 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per head, and that is considerably below the 7.27 tonnes provided for in this bill. At the rate I am proposing today we are not going to hit this point until 2013, which means it is worth while introducing these benchmarks.
There are, of course, many actions we should be taking in symphony with other governments to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions. We have heard today from the government a number of other initiatives which have been further funded, or will be further funded depending on the success of the appropriation bill. These are good steps and the Greens would also like to see increased renewable energy targets, the feed-in laws for solar power approved, carbon neutral goals for schools and public buildings achieved, and energy efficiency investment in public housing immediately.
Today, we are only focusing on the greenhouse gas abatement scheme; we will be discussing all the other issues another time. My amendment today proposes to reduce the emission reduction benchmarks to attempt to make this scheme meaningful. I am not proposing to tinker with the scheme in any other way as I believe that there are too many serious flaws and that the whole thing needs to be looked at anew rather than trying to fix it up. If I were to suggest any other amendments, they would be to add caps and withdraw the option of rolling over savings. However, understanding that we in the ACT are a smaller jurisdiction than New South Wales, I think we probably would not be able to achieve those things as easily. But it is within the realms of possibility and quite practical. The machinery is already there. That would probably need enhancing to set ourselves separate emission targets from New South Wales but at the same time it would show the leadership that New South Wales has not been able to show and lobby the New South Wales government to reduce their benchmarks as well so that this GGAS scheme, instead of sounding so good, actually becomes effective.
I think we should keep these issues in mind and understand that the ACT at the moment, though it has one of the smaller populations of any city, is one of the bigger emitters and that therefore we have an obligation to take bigger actions. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Environment, Water and Climate Change, Minister for the Arts) (12.12): As members are aware, and as has been commented on, the ACT greenhouse gas abatement
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .