Page 4577 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to 50 to 60 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2020; and Seoul to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030.
There are strong reasons not to delay action. Setting a 2020 target is important. As the scientists in Exeter pointed out, action in the long term just is not going to cut it. We must move quickly to actually cut our emissions.
It is that failure to act quickly that is so frustrating at a federal level. Even if the CPRS had been supported in the Senate, it in no way delivered what the science demands—aside from the fact that the CPRS paid polluters to keep polluting, and did little to discourage investment in polluting infrastructure.
This is what the two major parties at state and federal level are really delivering when it comes to action on climate change: extra funding for coal ports; digging up rural lands, prime agricultural land, in New South Wales and Queensland for new mining exploration; and subsidising the building of railways to get the coal to port faster so that we can export it faster. Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter, and black coal is Australia’s largest export, worth more than $50 billion in 2008-09. But the coal industry, rather than considering ways to transition out of this destructive commodity, is actually growing capacity at an alarming rate. The value of our exports more than doubled in 2008-09 from the previous year. And federal governments and state governments of every persuasion have so far done everything they can to fund the expansion of this industry. Where, I ask you, is the long-term planning in those decisions?
If every city and state on the planet took action where federal government had failed, perhaps we would see progress. The announcement by the ACT government that they, too, supported a 40 per cent target was welcome against a backdrop of political decision makers constantly compromising and reneging on climate action.
The community, I think, are often perplexed, and frequently even angry, at the lack of action that legislatures have taken in response to this challenge that we have before us. But for once we have here in the ACT given the ACT community hope that we are listening, that we do understand the scale of the challenge and that we do see the opportunities that are in front of us. I would like to congratulate the government on taking up this challenge and on showing the kind of leadership that is so often lacking.
I know that there has been some cynicism in the community about setting targets that are effectively aspirational and for policy guidance. People have been critical of the Liberals’ original no waste by 2010 target, for example. But I would say that we should never be afraid of setting targets, of making goals, of having a plan about what we might be able to achieve. It was at the community forum in Woden a few months ago that someone put a compelling argument. He said, “If we set a 40 per cent target, we may or may not reach it, but if we set a 25 per cent target, we know for sure that we will never reach 40 per cent.” I for one would rather we almost reach our ambitious targets than congratulate ourselves on reaching a level that just does not match what the planet really needs.
In the last few weeks my staff and I have had many comments about this climate change target from people we know and from people writing us emails. One person
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video