Page 4926 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
described as a magic number. I just heard Mr Smyth use the word “druid”. For the education of the chamber, there is a 25 to 40 per cent bracket. It was derived based on evidence from the intergovernmental panel on climate change which is comprised of more than 2,000 of the world’s leading scientists.
They come from countries around the world and their reports are developed by consensus. You have got peer-reviewed science that has set this set of parameters. That science was taken to the Bali climate negotiations in 2007. How the years fly by. At Bali 198 governments came together under the banner of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. There were 198 governments and around 10,000 or 11,000 delegates, which also included NGOs, scientists and business.
The outcome text from there indicated that developed countries should adopt targets in the region of 25 to 40 per cent in order to match the scientific evidence. That is the reality. That is the science. That is not the Liberal Party making stuff up. That is the real world that Mr Smyth and Mr Seselja should pay more attention to.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.30): I cannot believe that Mr Rattenbury actually took time to stand and make our argument for us. He actually said that the consensus was that we needed a number somewhere between 25 and 40 per cent.
Mr Seselja: But 40 per cent is the magic number, apparently.
MRS DUNNE: Somehow, if the Liberal Party adopts a number which is within that consensus range—30—and the last time I looked 30 was somewhere between 25 and 40 per cent, unless there is the new Green math, that is not legitimate. That is in no way legitimate. The only—
Mr Seselja: The only way you can do it is 40; that is all we have been told.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja! Can you please let your own member speak.
MRS DUNNE: number that you can possibly select is the one that the Greens have selected. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Greens and the Labor Party in the form of Mr Rattenbury and Mr Corbell today have been desperate. They have spent all day arguing the point over and over again about why their number is better than ours.
Mr Seselja: It’s a magic number.
MRS DUNNE: No, actually it is not a perfect number, Mr Seselja. I think a perfect number has to be some sort of prime number and 40 is not a prime number. It is a beautiful round number and it can be divided by a whole lot of things. But every time Mr Corbell and Mr Rattenbury get up and argue the case as to why their number is superior to the figure put forward by the Canberra Liberals, they reinforce the case made by the Canberra Liberals.
Mr Rattenbury did it just then. He said there is a range; there is an international consensus. The IPCC has an international consensus somewhere between 25 and 40.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video