More speeches

Similar speeches: 16-Feb-05, 11-Oct-06, 01-Nov-06, 21-Jun-07

Kyoto Protocol

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on this matter of public importance and to outline to the House my disgust with the government's refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol. There are very few aspects of life which are untouched by the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Human-created global warming is a fact, the devastating effects of which can be seen today, and if left unchecked it will create a bleak world for future generations. The key question is: what is this country going to do about it?

This government wants to disengage from the world. It refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol and instead chooses to distance us from all those working towards a global solution. The extent to which the Australian government is an environmental pariah can be seen at the United Nations 10th convention on climate change, where Australia is not even allowed to fully formally participate. How are we supposed to play a role in solving a global problem when we are looking in from the outside?

We as a nation must display some leadership on this critical issue. We must ratify the Kyoto protocol. We must take this action because we recognise the devastating affects of climate change; because Australian industry should not miss out on the benefits of Kyoto, particularly with regard to emissions trading; and because it is clear that this is a global problem which requires international efforts to address.

This is obviously a global problem, but the effects are already becoming evident at a local level. In my own state of South Australia the results of global warming can already be seen. A report which was prepared by the CSIRO for the South Australian government predicts that average temperatures in South Australia's north may increase by up to two per cent by 2030 and by up to six per cent by 2070, with temperatures in the south of the state tipped to rise by up to 4.4 per cent by 2070. The report states that rainfall will tend to decrease over most of the state, with drought frequency increasing later this century, and the intensity of storms around our coastal areas is forecast to increase. Members would be aware that two or six per cent is indeed a dramatic rise, but even the most modest percentage changes in average temperature have profound effects. The renowned scientist and chairman of the South Australian sustainability roundtable, Dr Tim Flannery, informs us that a one-degree-Centigrade change could destroy up to 70 per cent of plant species in some plant groups in South Australia.

Across Australia and the rest of the world, the picture is just as bleak. Australia is currently experiencing the worst drought ever. A two per cent increase in temperature would destroy Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef. We have already had a 0.6 per cent increase in temperature over the past 100 years. It is clear that climate change is the single most important environmental issue of our time. It would therefore stand to reason that our government would be making every effort to adequately address it. We cannot shy away from our responsibility.

Australia is one of the worst offenders, being the largest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the world, but our government is standing outside, almost alone, rather than engaging in global efforts such as the Kyoto protocol. Why wouldn't our government want to eagerly be at the forefront of solutions to this issue? The response of this government to that question is to start talking about the economic costs associated with ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Perhaps we should spend just a moment talking about the economic costs of our not ratifying this agreement. Perhaps we should talk about the economic costs of not doing all we can to address this enormous issue.
According to the United Nations Environment Program, the worldwide economic loss from natural disasters in the 1990s was $US40 billion per year. In 2003 it had risen by $US20 billion to $US60 billion per year. Does this government seriously assert that our economy is healthier when the nation is subjected to more frequent and more severe droughts? Does this government assert that it is good for our economy for the nation to endure more flooding? How is it a sensible economic argument to subject our nation to ever-increasing national disasters?

Let us for a moment have a look at the potential impact on our tourism industry alone. Whilst I do not claim to be an expert in this field, I am quietly confident that the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef or of Kakadu would not have a positive economic effect on our tourism industry. The arguments that ratifying the Kyoto protocol would damage our economy are short-sighted, fundamentally flawed and short term.

But, if this government continues to resist putting Australia's long-term interests first, perhaps we should also look at the short-term economic effects. Let us look at the Australian businesses who are already being hurt and who will increasingly be hurt by exclusion from emissions trading. Emissions trading lies at the heart of the Kyoto protocol. It basically furthers environmental objectives by creating opportunities for those businesses which address the greenhouse problem with cleaner products and services. The emissions trading system also encourages structural adjustment of economies away from activities and products that further contribute to the problem. It provides an economic argument for dealing with greenhouse emissions.

Australian companies are already reporting missing out on major contracts because of our government's decision not to ratify this agreement. This will only increase after the agreement comes into force next year. It has been reported that emissions trading is likely to be a $600 billion industry within the European Union alone. It is ludicrous for the government to allow the opportunities that this industry presents to bypass Australia. The government talk about potential job losses, but what they have failed to mention, what they have conveniently skipped over, is any mention of the jobs that would be created in the green energy industry.

If Australia had a clear and coherent greenhouse policy, if we gave our green industry a framework outlining our goals and expectations, industry would have the confidence to invest in new ventures. Without a clear framework, private sector investment in future power generation is stifled. The government must act now to provide some national leadership. Their inaction is preventing both further development and further investment in what should be a rapidly growing renewable energy industry.

The government also puts forward today the absurd position that we are meeting our emissions targets and therefore we need not ratify Kyoto-when in fact this is all the more reason to do so. I would assert that any targets that we meet are despite the efforts of this government and certainly not because of them. It is widely acknowledged that the decision of the states-in particular, that of Queensland-to restrict land clearing has impacted on our performance. It is also true that our industrial emissions are continuing to increase. If we are meeting these targets then surely this is all the more reason to get on board the international effort to address these problems. We must face the reality that Australia cannot solve this issue alone and that our nation will not be spared from the effects of greenhouse emissions, no matter how great our individual effort.
This is a global problem. Only international agreements can offer viable solutions-and Kyoto is the international agreement. If Australia is meeting and continues to meet our targets, then surely that is a further reason to act as a global leader, to get involved in the international movement and to say on the world stage, 'We have met our targets; how about you meet yours?' This is, sadly, starkly different to this government's approach. The sad reality is that this government has ensured that Australia will attend the conference on climate change as an outsider. We have the tragic situation where Australia has rejected any leadership role and, instead, our minister is ineligible to formally participate in the proceedings.

Interjection
Mr Hunt-That is just not true.
Opposition members interjecting -
Interjection
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) - The member for Adelaide does not need any support.
Continue
Ms KATE ELLIS - Dr Tim Flannery wrote:
Climate change is a global problem that can only be solved with international instruments. Kyoto is the only such treaty available, and it is vital to our future that Australia ratifies, then vigorously engages with it.

The Australian Labor Party and I believe the Australian people agree with this statement. This parliament addresses issues which vary greatly in both subject and significance. I will always assert that we have a role to play in making decisions for the benefit of future generations and the nation that we will become, as well as having a role to play in the day-to-day issues we are responsible for. Ratifying the Kyoto protocol is required so that Australian industry will be subject to the opportunities the protocol presents and have a framework to work in and also because we must think seriously about our responsibilities for the long-term prosperity of this nation.

Climate change is a threat greater than many of us have fully realised. The cost of inaction is extreme. The really sad thing about this government's position is that it is not just us who will pay the price. The price will be paid by our children, grandchildren and generations to come. I urge this parliament, and indeed this government, to take this issue seriously. Ratifying Kyoto is just a starting point for beginning to grapple with the extreme issues of climate change that we face.

More speeches