Page 295 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
expert scientific evidence confirms that human activity is causing a significant increase in global temperatures, increases which will have a dramatic impact on the sustainability of existing ecological systems and human settlements, and therefore the transformation to a low carbon future is one of the greatest economic, social and environmental challenges for the ACT community. We are constantly reminded, each time that another scientific report is released, that the science around likely climate change impacts is changing at such an alarming pace that it is almost out of date by the time we read it. What we urgently need in the ACT is a strategy and target that reflects the most recent science, understanding of the problem and what needs to be done to address it. There are a range of sources readily available—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Stern report, the Garnaut report—all of which give a good analysis of the problem and measures that need to be implemented.
Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreement in Bali, Indonesia in December 2007 which agreed on the need for targets to reduce carbon emissions by industrialised countries in the range of 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. However, we must remember and take account of the need to ensure that the ACT climate change strategy and its greenhouse gas reduction target are updated accordingly to properly reflect the most up to date science. The IPCC science is at least 12 months old by the time it is published in their reports.
Dr David Karoly, one of the IPCC lead authors from Melbourne University, gave a paper about this problem last year. He said that 40 per cent by 2020 is not enough. Dr James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, agrees with this position, arguing that we must aim at stabilisation at 300-325 parts per million CO2 equivalent in a recent paper of his. Currently the atmospheric concentration of CO2 equivalent is around 385 parts per million.
That said, and the problem recognised, I think that we should all be excited at the creation of the inquiry as well as the creation of a standing committee on climate change and the potential for a great outcome to be achieved. It is a real milestone for the ACT. The broad terms of reference for this inquiry give the committee the scope and responsibility to consider not only the science that should determine what the appropriate emission reduction target for the ACT should be but also the impacts of that target on various sectors of the community and the mechanisms, programs and policies that will have to be implemented in order to achieve this.
Indeed, there is much that we in the ACT need to do. It has been mentioned at some length in the inaugural speeches of Greens members that there are unique and significant challenges facing this community. We hold the unfortunate title of the most wasteful and emissions intensive city in the country. The ACT only has about 1.7 per cent of Australia’s population and yet we emit five per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gases. Our electricity use is a big factor. The current climate change strategy relies heavily on the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme which we have heard both Mr Stanhope and Mr Corbell tell us is such a strong measure. You may have heard Dr Foskey tell the Assembly in earlier years that the scheme is seriously flawed. I am exasperated that the scheme is to continue until 2020 with the existing benchmarks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .