HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:46): I move:

1. That this council notes—

(a) the release this week of the final part of the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change; and

(b) that a 2° Celsius (median value) increase in global average surface temperatures above pre-industrial levels is accepted by the European Union as the limit beyond which there will be sufficient adverse impacts on the earth's biogeophysical systems, animals and plants to constitute 'dangerous' climate change;

2. And agrees that the imperative of constraining global temperature increase to no more than 2° above pre-industrial levels should underpin government policy responses to global warming.

This motion has a very simple question at its heart, that is, how much climate change are we prepared to impose on our children? Is it 1°, 2°, 5°, or is it more? Because if one message can be taken from the Fourth International Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report released last Saturday it is that climate change is real, that it is accelerating and that, if we do not act quickly and decisively, climate change threatens to spiral dangerously out of human control with devastating implications for all of us.

The International Panel on Climate Change report says that, as policy makers, we are in an enormously privileged and responsible position to affect the way that our corner of the planet responds to climate change. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is fairly and squarely aimed directly at us as legislators and policy makers. Reading the report—and I mean really reading it, understanding it and trying to imagine the impact that it will have on us—is extraordinarily sobering. Every time the report mentions 'annual river run-off' and 'water availability will decrease', we in South Australia should be thinking about the Coorong and the way it is dying, and we should be thinking about our farmers and the way they are suffering. If we do nothing to heed its warning the truth behind the report is achingly depressing.

I would like to read a few short extracts from the report, because I think it is vital for them to be included on the record of the South Australian parliament in 2007. These extracts state:

...warming of the climate system is unequivocal...global atmospheric concentrations of [greenhouse gases] now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years...the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios projects an increase in these emissions by 25 to 90 per cent between the years 2000 and 2030...continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century...anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedback, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilised...

In relation to Australia the report says, 'By 2020 we face a significant loss of biodiversity—up to 30 per cent of species are severe risk', and it refers to a 'decline in agriculture production' and 'mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef'. And so the report goes on.

It is important to note that this IPCC report is not the work of some lunatic fringe making outrageous claims; these findings are contained within a highly conservative and politicised but, importantly, consensus document that has been written by cautious scientists. For them to be so stark in their warnings should make the hair on the back of our neck stand upright.

If we need more authority than the International Panel on Climate Change we could go to someone such as Dr Graeme Pearman, one of Australia's pre-eminent climate change experts. Whilst releasing his own synthesis report last week on behalf of the Climate Institute Dr Pearman said that the IPCC evidence is already out of date. He referred to new data this year which shows that the melt of Arctic sea ice occurred at a much faster rate this year than any of the scientific models had forecast. It shrank the ice 40 per cent below its average size—in other words, losing an area the size of New South Wales. So, global warming is happening much faster than all the models have suggested, and Dr Pearman's devastating finding is that, 'Greenhouse emissions are rising faster than worst-case IPCC scenarios.'

If we want another commentary we can look to the normally reserved and cautious commentator, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. After seeing for himself the devastation of climate change in Antarctica and the Amazon he said 'these scenes are as frightening as a science-fiction movie—but they are even more frightening because they are real.'

The head of the United Nations climate negotiations warned this week that failure to recognise the urgency of the warnings 'would be nothing less than criminally irresponsible'. If that is not enough, then I urge members to look at page 9 of today's Australian newspaper, where unlikely allies and groups as diverse as the CFMEU Mining Division, the Property Council of Australia, Agforce Queensland, banks, churches and environmental groups have all signed a statement saying, once again, that urgent and decisive action is needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

So, for South Australia this is urgent. We must act, and act now. What we desperately need is real leadership from the Rann government on this issue far beyond the small, baby steps that we have taken to date. We have to get beyond the trials, we have to get beyond the iconic or demonstration projects.

What we need is the scientific expertise of this IPCC report to seep into all that we discuss and debate in this parliament. Next time we get a Penola Pulp Mill bill, or bills to change our national electricity laws, or the Roxby Indenture bill comes along for review, we have to stop and consider, in that legislation, the impact on the warming of the planet. When someone comes along with a new proposal for a brown coal mine and a brown coal power station in the South-East we should not be welcoming it, as has been the political response from major parties.

One constituent wrote to me yesterday and stated, 'To even contemplate a new brown coal mine and brown coal power station under the pretence of carbon sequestration is unthinkable', yet we are thinking about it and, at a political level, many of us are offering support and approval for such projects.

As policy makers, we would be foolhardy and reckless if we did not stop and consider how each and every piece of legislation that comes through this council will contribute, or not contribute, to the warming of our plant. If we do not, in 50 years we may well be regarded by our children and grandchildren as criminally irresponsible. I do not think it is possible any longer for us to fall back on the excuse that we did not know. We do know—and we ignore that information at our peril.

It is important to note why 2° Celsius is such a critical figure. Fundamental to any climate change initiative must be a scientific assessment of how much climate change we can bear. It is beyond saying that we can avoid all climate change; we cannot. The question is: how much can we bear? Without this basic assessment it is impossible to set well-targeted policy measures to achieve the real aim, which is preventing runaway climate change.

Two degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels is the globally accepted upper limit above which climate change is projected to spin out of control. However, even if we do manage to keep within that 2°, it is still projected that 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef will bleach each year, and the Murray-Darling will have as much as 25 per cent less water flow, with all the devastating effects that we have seen and we are now facing—25 per cent less water, and that is on top of any other effect, such as the effects of a drought. I think it is reckless for us to ask future generations to accept anything more than a 2° rise in temperatures.

The other important message from the IPCC report is that we can do something about this. While reaffirming the extreme urgency of the situation that we have created for ourselves, the IPCC also notes that we do still have time to keep global warming below 2° Celsius if we act now with resolve. In the report, the world scientists have, again, made it abundantly clear that if we are to stop climate change from spinning out of control and if we are to minimise the change to 2°, then global emissions must peak by 2015 and then must start going down. That is only eight years away. That is only, effectively (in the terms of this parliament), two terms of government before we have to peak our emissions. If our state's emissions continue to increase after that date, then we are effectively thumbing our nose at the rest of the world and at the next generation.

In conclusion, I refer to Bob Brown's words, where he says, 'What we do or do not do about climate change in the next two terms of government will determine the course of human history.' It is that serious. In South Australia, in 2007, we have the wealth, social cohesion and access to historically cheap energy and, most importantly, we have access to the knowledge to make change happen. When our children and our grandchildren look back at our time (2007) what story will they tell? We all need to understand that there is such a thing as being too late.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT