Page 1115 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A classic case in point is wind energy. If we follow through Mr Ferguson’s thinking, wind energy, as the cheapest form of renewable energy, should be the first choice of renewable energy every time. Wind energy has a huge role to play in Australia’s energy future, yet we all know that wind energy has restrictions on its deployment because of the nature and capacity of energy supplied, because of the locations and sometimes because of other potential environmental impacts. Tidal power and geothermal will also have restrictions based on their location and capacity.
I make this point only to demonstrate that not all renewable energy is suitable for all locations or all requirements. We need policy that is sophisticated enough to allow us to develop a diverse and resilient energy portfolio that maximises efficiencies appropriately and is in harmony with the environment. We should not be afraid of choosing the right technology for each environment.
Feed-in tariffs have been proven around the world to be the most effective tool to stimulate investment in renewable energy generation, with an additional benefit of growth in jobs—a very relevant point in the current economic climate. I would like to take the opportunity to read a quote from German MP Herman Scheer on his analysis of the public investment made in that country. He says:
We got with the help of this law, a renewable energy industry that has now 170,000 people employed—a new industry. That means if you compare this with the money that makes that possible, it became the [cheapest] public industrial and job promotion program ever happened …
You will excuse the grammar, but that was a direct quote. Jobs in the German renewable energy industry have continued to grow since Herr Scheer made his observation in 2005. In 2006 the German government estimated 230,000 people employed in the renewable energy sector, 130,000 directly attributed to the feed-in tariff. That is an enormous industry, of which I think many people in Germany are very proud. Now the solar industry alone is employing some 50,000 people.
Of course, Germany is not Canberra, so one would need to scale the numbers down, but it does give some indication of the potential not just to grow the generation capacity but also to grow an industry. The investment we are making is not just for electricity but for jobs for the future.
The issue of cost has been raised in relation to this scheme. It is true that some of the actions that we put in place to manage climate change will have costs, and debates will continue, I am sure, about who bears those costs and how they are distributed equitably. Here it is worth recalling that both the Stern report and the report by Professor Garnaut have said that those who act soonest will have the lowest costs and those who leave it longer will bear even greater costs and will hand greater costs on to our children and their children.
The Greens remain very concerned to see that those who are worst off in our society are not unfairly disadvantaged by carrying more than their fair share in the costs. We have indicated to the government our desire that they review the rebates to energy
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .