Page 4381 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 25 October 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
example of idealistic notions that drive a philosophical agenda. What is completely lacking, however, are practical issues of cost, suitability, deliverability and reliability to drive a sensible and relevant public discussion on how the ACT will continue to remain a leader in reducing our carbon footprint. But then again, such approaches are typical of Labor-Greens governments, so it should come as no surprise.
This motion takes on an almost sanctimonious tone when mention is made of the fact that the ACT government is committed to and on track to reach 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2020, that the ACT government has signed the Under2 MOU committing to zero net emissions by 2050, that the ACT is on track to achieve a reduction in emissions of 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 and that the ACT is committed to the mitigation and adoption of climate change as a “state and global actor”.
These might be regarded as laudatory aspirations but, as we know, the minister did sign the Under2 MOU without having any clear idea of how the ACT would meet this commitment and without any consideration of at what cost. And because that policy work was not done either before the minister jetted off to sign the MOU last November or since, it seems, we now have a backbench member of the government party calling on his own government to develop a strategy for how we will reach zero emissions and carbon neutrality.
The only possible suggestion contained in this motion to help the ACT lower emissions is to reduce or eliminate transport emissions. That, presumably, means that this government has a plan to outlaw all public, commercial and private transport that is not electric or at least hybrid. Equally, we know that the ACT has secured contracts for an amount of electricity from renewable sources that seeks to equate the amount of electricity estimated to be used by ACT households by 2020. But whether that 100 per cent can be carried over to beyond that, perhaps to a time when the ACT population expands faster than we can source electricity from interstate wind farms, we just do not know. And does that factor in a wide use of electrically powered trams?
I note that implied in this motion is a presumption that the ACT will embrace reduced private car usage or, at the very least, a switch to electric cars. Will such a switch increase our electricity usage? Has modelling been done on that? Has a cost-benefit analysis been called for? Apart from the geographic practicalities for a territory that is hundreds of kilometres from a major city or coastline, again there is no consideration of cost. There is a magic pudding notion of grants and subsidies—to be paid for by whom? Is this the government signalling yet another reason to gouge ACT ratepayers?
This motion achieves little, represents little and does little to advance the public debate on how the ACT will meet the challenges of affordable and sustainable renewable energy supply into the second half of the 21st century. Canberrans deserve more than symbolic and tokenistic public commitments to targets that look good on paper. Labor and Greens governments around the country are quick to howl down the lack of action by the federal government on energy policy, and yet in the ACT, where we have a tripartisan agreement on 100 per cent renewable energy targets by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video