Page 5248 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
consumption of electricity and transport fuel, as well as our indirect consumption of energy and resources through buildings and infrastructure, a very high quality of life.
This is reflected in the size of our ecological footprint which is significant by national standards as well as in our per capita emissions. The argument is often put that we should not take action because it will make no difference to the global problem of climate change. This is an argument that has been used at an Australian level when considering taking global action. People say Australia contributes to less than one per cent of global emissions; so why bother taking action?
This is an extremely flawed argument. If only we could all get away with arguments like that. The truth is that while the US, China and the EU contribute to 40 per cent of global emissions, the other 60 per cent is made up by smaller contributions from the balance of other countries. It is true that nine other countries are ahead of us on that aggregate, including Indonesia, Japan, Russia and India. But just on the raw amount of emissions produced—putting aside the EU, the US and China—Australia is then ranked 10th.
It is a wonder that we rank so high given that we have such a small population. Those countries ahead of us all have significantly higher populations. But it is not so surprising when you notice that Australia’s per capita industrial emissions are the highest in the world. Within Australia, while the ACT has a lower per capita emissions level compared to the rest of Australia, primarily because we do not have any heavy industry or manufacturing, our emissions are rising faster than the national average.
Coming to the announcement made by the government yesterday, as I said publicly yesterday, I believe that the aspiration of carbon neutrality is a good one to have, partly because it is a clear framework within which the whole community can develop all public policy. It overlays on policy making an approach that we should take to all development, all activities, even through to shaping our budget on an annual basis. It demands of us that we apply a filter to every decision that we as policy makers will take to assess the greenhouse impacts of decisions because we are moving towards that aspiration of carbon neutrality.
In the context of Mr Seselja’s comments, I think the 2013 peaking target is a good thing because we need to turn the trajectory around and we need to do it quickly. This is a fairly close time frame. I think a peaking target is a good one. In the context of the ACT’s continuing and rapidly rising emissions, we simply need to stop increasing our emissions and at least find a point where we say, “We are not going to grow our emissions any further.”
I do believe we need a 2020 target and I am encouraged by some of the feedback we have had in discussions with the government today. When I come to my amendment later, there is some text that we have discussed there that does identify that a 2020 target is coming down the line. I do not think there is a need to wait. The science and the economics are clear that early and decisive action is needed.
Pinning any decision on what our local responsibility is on the fate of the CPRS and the outcome of Copenhagen is simply a fallacious argument. I would like to know
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video