Page 4576 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
some time we may need to do more. There is nothing extreme about this target when one pauses to read the science.
And there are strong reasons not to delay action. Many governments, including the Australian government, have confirmed their long-term positions: many governments have signed up to either a 60 per cent reduction by 2050 or even an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. Either way, long-term targets are dangerous policy indicators. More and more it is becoming clear that we need to peak global emissions quickly—very quickly, by 2015—and then start to reduce. If we wait to reduce the bulk of emissions later on, some time after 2020 or after 2030, it is likely to be too late. Greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere now will be having an impact on our climate for many decades into the future.
And what does business as usual look like? Scientists predict that if we keep to a business as usual scenario, relying on fossil fuels, greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will have tripled from pre-industrial levels by 2100. That is equivalent to a temperature rise of 4.5 degrees, though perhaps as low as three and possibly as high as seven degrees. Yet right now we are not even sure that two degrees is safe.
So there is no excuse for a “fossil fuel based business as usual” approach—not by anyone, not anywhere. Even those countries that have low emission profiles, and often low standards of living, must be assisted to leapfrog past the fossil fuel guzzling years and move straight into the clean energy years as their demand for energy grows.
Of course, when we start considering the ACT’s emissions in comparison to Australia’s emissions, we realise that we are a small part of the national pie. In the same way as when we compare Australia’s emissions as part of the international pie, we realise that, in terms of total emissions, we again make a small contribution. And so, as the well-worn argument goes, why bother?
In response to such comments, I would ask: on what moral grounds can we stand by and say we will not bother? I would ask that question of any community, any city, any state that says, “Why bother?” On what moral ground can any community deal themselves out of taking action? Of course there is differentiated responsibility, depending on current and previous emissions levels. But a community like ours—a community that is, by global standards, wealthy, educated and organised, with stable governance, with great capacity—certainly has no excuse not to lead. We are a community with a high ecological footprint. We consume, per capita, more than our fair share. Our ecological footprint was calculated in 2004 to be four times the global average and 17 per cent higher than the Australia average. And there is no indication that it has gone downwards since that figure was calculated. So to those who say, “Why bother?” and to those who say, “It won’t make any difference,” I say, “On what grounds can you justify your indifference?”
Of course, we are not the only jurisdiction to set a subnational target. South Australia set a 2050 target of 60 per cent back in 2007. Scotland has set a far tougher target—perhaps the toughest globally—of a 42 per cent reduction by 2020 on a 1990 baseline.
And cities have signed up to climate action as well—London to 60 per cent below 1990 levels by 2025; Chicago to 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020; Hong Kong
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video