Page 343 - Week 01 - Thursday, 27 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
most people’s definition, substantial. Not completely aligned with the science, but substantial nonetheless. It was the kind of target that would have required many of the substantive changes to the way we consume and produce electricity if we were to meet it. It was aspirational and it was achievable. Not enough, but achievable.
However, I have been concerned that the commitment of the Canberra Liberals made to the Canberra community was wavering, and so I have brought this motion here today as an opportunity for this Assembly to reaffirm the commitments we made to the Canberra community in 2010. I am not suggesting any of the parties represented here today should change their position, just reaffirm their position. The ACT Greens still strongly stand by a 40 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020 and support the legislation that is in place that delivers that.
So why has this become of concern to me? Two weeks ago, one of my Assembly colleagues wrote a piece of commentary and had it published in the Canberra Times. It was a piece called “Helping the environment needs a realistic approach” and it was written by Ms Lawder in response to an issue of local governance to do with the water quality at Giralang Pond. The main thrust of this article was that the ACT government should be more focused on keeping our ponds clean than we should on lofty, unattainable goals to do with cutting our emissions through moving to clean energy generation. Ms Lawder described the ACT’s 40 per cent greenhouse emission reduction target and our 90 per cent renewable energy target as: “Big words. High goals. Utterly unachievable.”
If Ms Lawder thinks our target of 40 per cent is utterly unachievable then what does this say about the Canberra Liberals’ target of 30 per cent? Is that, too, in her view unachievable? You can see why I was concerned to read that article. When the 40 per cent target was implemented, the people of the ACT had a commitment that there was tripartisan support for strong targets. Ms Lawder’s comments bring that assumption into question, and so I am concerned today to understand exactly what the position is. Perhaps there is an intention on behalf of the Canberra Liberals to change their position to align with their federal colleagues, who are certainly no supporters of action on climate change. I certainly hope not because I believe Canberrans deserve better than that.
You might ask: why does it matter what the opposition in the ACT think? I think it does matter. It matters that our political leaders are clear about what they believe in regard to climate change and what actions they support. It matters because we need to not have the constant undermining of climate action we have seen in other jurisdictions. It is destructive when people sit on the sidelines and throw rocks while others are trying to move forward to solve a problem. It matters because of the scale of the problem we are talking about, the scale of the policy response we are implementing, the scale of commitment that will be required by political leaders, the community, consumers and business.
My motion outlines in some detail a number of facts, facts inasmuch as they are statements made in regard to our changing climate by reputable agencies. I am not going to spend any time discussing those points in detail, in part because I believe they paint a clear picture. The only reason I would discuss them in detail would be to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video