CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (17:46): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that economists and environmentalists are claiming that flaws in the Rudd government carbon pollution reduction scheme will mean that initiatives by state and local governments, and the installation of solar panels by households, will not reduce greenhouse emissions; and

2. Calls on the Premier, Mike Rann, to seek an assurance from the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, that his carbon pollution reduction scheme will not undermine the efforts of the South Australian government, South Australian councils and South Australian households to cut greenhouse pollution.

I have moved this motion because there is a growing case that Kevin Rudd's planned CPRS will actually make things worse, not better. Like many people, I was disappointed at the very low emission reduction target adopted by the Rudd government, but I reasoned that it was better than nothing.

I realise that Australia contributes only a tiny portion of the world's pollution. For example, China's emissions dwarf ours. However, there is such a thing as leadership. If a rich country like Australia cannot act, why should anyone else? In fact, that is exactly what is happening. China will not make cuts because they are industrialising; the US will not make cuts because China and India will not; and we will not, because we are too small—so almost no-one will.

In a situation like this, someone has to break the impasse and lead. That could have been Australia, but we have failed that test. At least we had something—or so I thought. There are many other initiatives that can make up for the Rudd government's lack of leadership on this issue. Households are installing solar panels and the household sector is responsible for something like 35 per cent of emissions. Local governments are greening their car fleets, installing solar streetlights and making buildings energy efficient.

Our state government has a plethora of programs including greening of government offices; solar panels on top of Parliament House, the SA Museum, the Art Gallery and the State Library; converting government cars to low emission fuels; a target of 250 solar schools; government operations are supposed to be carbon neutral by 2020; and the desal plant is supposed to be carbon neutral. But all these initiatives will count for nothing. They will not reduce emissions; in fact, they will just help big polluters take their foot off of the accelerator because they will have to do less to meet their targets.

Two experts—Richard Dennis, an economist from the Australia Institute, and Chris Reidy, Director of the Institute for Sustainability at the University of Technology, Sydney—have highlighted flaws in the CPRS and explained how it will have negative effects.

The Rudd CPRS sets a low target of 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. It is said that this target is both a cap and a floor: it is the maximum and the minimum. The target is to be reached through a system of tradeable pollution permits in certain designated sectors of the economy, such as stationary power, manufacturing and transport. A polluter in one of these sectors can increase emissions as long as it is able to buy permits from another polluter that is reducing its emissions.

Local governments, state governments and households are not included in the carbon pollution reduction scheme. Therefore, any reductions in pollution that they achieve will just free up pollution permits that can be traded to polluters that are included in the scheme.

Richard Dennis explains it like this: if households all install solar panels, there will be less demand for energy. Therefore, power stations will have pollution permits that they can trade to another polluter, say, a manufacturing plant that needs to increase the pollution it generates. In other words, the households or the state government will be subsidising the big polluters. They will have to do less to meet their target. They will be able to take their foot off the accelerator. Therefore, any investment by state and local governments or households will simply subsidise the big polluters.

This creates two negative consequences. One is that hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds across Australia will be wasted if the CPRS goes ahead in its current form. Even worse, the good intentions of hundreds of thousands of Australians are being treated with contempt. All those people installing solar panels, taking up the insulation offer of the Rudd government and turning off air conditioners (as they are asked to by the black balloon ads) will be bitterly disillusioned if it transpires they are wasting their time and money.

This matters. People want to do the right thing, and many of them do not want others to be discouraged by the sort of message I am conveying today. In fact, one response I received from someone who is in other ways a keen supporter read like this:

I feel very strongly that the state government and individuals should be encouraged to cut emissions. Telling people that it is a waste of time (because of the current CPRS) is, I find, depressing. I encounter this attitude all the time. 'Why should I bother when others don't?' I hear this in my own family. It's got to start somewhere. This argument reminds me of John Howard saying he wouldn't do anything while the big emitters like China and the USA were not prepared to contribute (to carbon reduction). I support the state government's initiatives.

Maybe there are flaws in the ETS, but I think discouraging people (including the state government) from doing their bit in reducing carbon emissions is not the way to go. It all starts with the power of one. Eventually, I believe the big polluters will be forced to act.

The questions about the CPRS are growing. Get Up has launched a campaign, Permit Me to Make a Difference, about the very same issue. It explains it like this:

Action you take at home to reduce energy—like changing to efficient light bulbs and appliances or installing solar hot water—will not reduce Australia's total greenhouse emissions further than the government's weak target. It will even make it cheaper for industry to increase their own emissions. Kevin Rudd, do your bit to fight climate change and let me do mine.

Get Up further says:

This is about more than policy detail. The Rudd government's scheme insults the very idea that ordinary people have a role to play in tackling climate change. Even the government's own action, like investing in insulating Australia, will only serve to reward polluters, not cut our emissions further than their weak target.

So, clearly, Get Up also thinks that the CPRS is a gigantic carbon con. As I said earlier, the consequences if it goes ahead in its current form will be a tremendous waste of money and it will destroy the enormous amount of goodwill and energy in the community. Goodwill and energy are going to be essential resources if we are to weather the challenges and the sacrifices that climate change will force on us, and they are, if carefully nurtured, renewable resources.

So, the second part of the motion calls on Premier Mike Rann to do what he can to make sure that the flaws in the Rudd plan do not mean his greenhouse schemes, funded by taxpayers' money, are a waste, and to ensure that all that goodwill about climate change does not turn into cynicism. I believe that Rann must act, for several reasons. First, he must protect the investment of taxpayers' money in state and local government greenhouse reduction initiatives. Secondly, he must maintain the community's goodwill on this issue. Thirdly, I would have thought he must act to protect his reputation as an environmental leader—a reputation he has worked very hard to cultivate.

In highlighting this issue, I am joining an unlikely alliance of environmentalists who desperately want a decisive response to climate change and certain industrialists who desperately want to avoid even the smallest sacrifice. Some argue that because this scheme is better than nothing we should not take this risk of derailing it by raising these sorts of questions. I do not believe this will happen. Kevin Rudd cannot afford to have no response to climate change. What he has now is a fig leaf to cover pitiful inaction. If we expose the truth, if we rip off that fig leaf, he will be forced to put something else in its place. I believe the chances are that it will be better.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.