Page 344 - Week 01 - Thursday, 27 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
highlight the immense severity of the situation we human beings have got ourselves into. To be honest, I struggle with this sometimes. When I read the impacts that scientists anticipate for us: when I imagine the horror of those who will live through and die in the storms, floods and bushfires that are starting to occur with greater frequency and greater ferocity around the world; when I imagine the struggle of people, particularly in poorer countries, trying to access clean water and fresh food in the aftermath of extreme weather events or even just in the face of spreading drought.
I am not a climate scientist, but I respect those who are expert in the field and the consensus of scientific opinion that climate change is happening, that it is happening faster than predicted, and that this is due to man-made activities, primarily burning fossil fuels.
I will take some time to respond to some of the issues that Ms Lawder raised in her article a couple of weeks back. Firstly, on the ACT’s capacity to meet the targets, I think, with respect, that Ms Lawder is wrong. There is nothing unachievable about the ACT’s targets. They are high goals, but they are not unachievable goals. Yes, it is likely that it will entail the ACT purchasing electricity from generation sites that are interstate, but we do this now. It is just that we currently purchase power from fossil fuel-based generators both in New South Wales and in Victoria. Our large-scale feed-in tariff will ensure that our purchasing power goes towards green electricity production either in the ACT or outside its border.
Secondly, it is entirely technically feasible and affordable that Australia can be 100 per cent renewable. We would not have to buy green electricity from other countries at all, as Ms Lawder suggested in her article. Indeed, it is more likely that Australia would be a net exporter of green electricity if the facility to connect to the Asian grid ever eventuated. Either way, worldwide emissions trading is inevitable, something recognised by conservative governments around the world.
Ms Lawder makes some valid points in her article: that our personal consumption patterns, choices and demands for better lifestyles and amenity contribute to the climate change problem significantly. This is true, and individuals can make personal decisions to reduce their own emissions. However, government intervention is required to drive the shift from coal to renewables and to reduce emissions in the industrial sectors.
The other valid point Ms Lawder made was that good environmental works at a local level would have a flow-on effect to other areas. Yes, that is true, but to suggest that a local government should focus exclusively on management of local environmental issues to the exclusion of taking action in regard to climate change and energy is flawed. The reality is that some of our local environmental issues will be exacerbated by the problems of climate change. Indeed, years of local conservation efforts risk being undone by the impacts of climate change.
How will these impacts look in real terms? They will look a lot like Giralang Pond after a heat wave. The fish at Giralang Pond were most likely lacking enough oxygen as a result of low inflows of water and ongoing hot temperatures. Extended dry periods will also affect the health of urban and non-urban forest, our native species including our birds, even the koel, and the health of our wetlands and waterways.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video