|
representatives vote 2022-08-04#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-08-12 16:32:47
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-08-04.29.1) to *disagree* with amendments introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means they failed.- The majority voted in favour of a motion to *disagree* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-08-04.29.1) introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What were the amendments?
- Mr Wilkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-08-04.29.1):
- > *Firstly, we need much more ambitious targets because what we do this decade is obviously critically important to the success or failure of Australia's response to climate change. [...]*
- >
- > *...With all this in mind, amendments (1) and (2) replace the weak targets that are currently in the bill with targets of a 75 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 and a commitment to reach net zero by 2035 at the latest. These are science backed and equitable.*
- >
- > *Secondly, Australia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels on the globe, and our own measuring and reduction of carbon emissions needs to reflect that. [...]*
- >
- > *...That's why amendment (3) requires that Australia's scope 3 emissions—the emissions we export overseas—be included in the minister's annual climate change statements. This would ensure that the public cannot not be misled when it comes to Australia's huge contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and puts our fossil fuel exports front and centre.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 10, page 5 (line 10), omit "43%", substitute "75%".*
- >
- > *(2) Clause 10, page 5 (line 16), omit "2050", substitute "2035, at the latest".*
- >
- > *(3) Clause 12, page 7 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add:*
- >
>> *; and (e) Australia's scope 3 emissions of greenhouse gas.*- >> *; and (e) Australia's scope 3 emissions of greenhouse gas.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-08-04#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-08-12 16:18:46
|
Title
Bills — Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - More ambitious targets needed
Description
<p class="speaker">Andrew Wilkie</p><p>I move amendments (1) to (3) to the Climate Change Bill 2022 as circulated in my name:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-08-04.29.1) to *disagree* with amendments introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What were the amendments?
- Mr Wilkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-08-04.29.1):
- > *Firstly, we need much more ambitious targets because what we do this decade is obviously critically important to the success or failure of Australia's response to climate change. [...]*
- >
- > *...With all this in mind, amendments (1) and (2) replace the weak targets that are currently in the bill with targets of a 75 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 and a commitment to reach net zero by 2035 at the latest. These are science backed and equitable.*
- >
- > *Secondly, Australia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels on the globe, and our own measuring and reduction of carbon emissions needs to reflect that. [...]*
- >
- > *...That's why amendment (3) requires that Australia's scope 3 emissions—the emissions we export overseas—be included in the minister's annual climate change statements. This would ensure that the public cannot not be misled when it comes to Australia's huge contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and puts our fossil fuel exports front and centre.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 10, page 5 (line 10), omit "43%", substitute "75%".*
- >
- > *(2) Clause 10, page 5 (line 16), omit "2050", substitute "2035, at the latest".*
- >
- > *(3) Clause 12, page 7 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add:*
- >
- >> *; and (e) Australia's scope 3 emissions of greenhouse gas.*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 10, page 5 (line 10), omit "43%", substitute "75%".</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 10, page 5 (line 16), omit "2050", substitute "2035, at the latest".</p><p class="italic">(3) Clause 12, page 7 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add:</p><p class="italic">; and (e) Australia's scope 3 emissions of greenhouse gas.</p><p>As I mentioned in my second reading speech, the government's bill is a good start. But it is deficient, seriously so, and the three amendments I've presented to the House would go some considerable way to remedying it.</p><p>Firstly, we need much more ambitious targets because what we do this decade is obviously critically important to the success or failure of Australia's response to climate change. Indeed, experts at the Climate Council tell us that net zero by 2050 is at least a decade too late. In fact—and I quote the Climate Council—this time line 'carries a strong risk of irreversible global climate disruption at levels inconsistent with maintaining well-functioning human societies'. And using the same methodology as the Climate Change Authority did in 2014, experts have calculated that the global emissions budget gives Australia only about 15 years to reach net zero.</p><p>The message could not be clearer, and when reflecting on it we need to also consider the fact that Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and that much of our wealth has come directly from our fossil fuel resources, which directly contribute to the problem. This economic advantage, plus our abundant natural resources, actually places us in prime position to develop renewable energy capacity and the ability to export this clean energy to the rest of the world. In other words, Australia, of all countries, can be so much more ambitious. With all this in mind, amendments (1) and (2) replace the weak targets that are currently in the bill with targets of a 75 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 and a commitment to reach net zero by 2035 at the latest. These are science backed and equitable.</p><p>Secondly, Australia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels on the globe, and our own measuring and reduction of carbon emissions needs to reflect that. Indeed, since 2005 our fossil fuel exports have more than doubled, meaning that the emissions caused by other countries burning Australia's exported coal, oil and gas are more than double our total domestic emissions. This contribution to global climate pollution is significant, and it's our responsibility. Yet the current government, even while acknowledging the need to reduce our emissions at home, continues to commit to new fossil fuel exports, which will exacerbate the global climate crises—as though these are separate issues.</p><p>We simply can't pretend that even though it's Australia's policies that have led to Australian companies digging up Australian fossil fuels we simply have no responsibility for the carbon emissions released as a result. That's why amendment (3) requires that Australia's scope 3 emissions—the emissions we export overseas—be included in the minister's annual climate change statements. This would ensure that the public cannot not be misled when it comes to Australia's huge contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and puts our fossil fuel exports front and centre.</p><p>As I've said before in this place, the overall goal is to reduce the amount of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere, and we cannot lose sight of this. This isn't a question of whether Australia must report on scope 3 emissions according to international law or whether these emissions are counted in some other country's database—no. Regardless of whether we plan to export it or burn it here, what matters is that we leave Australian coal, oil and gas in the ground—and when we do dig it up, we need to account for it. Amendment (3) requires the government to report to the parliament on what we are doing to ensure that this is the case in the future.</p><p>Time is rapidly running out to reduce emissions and to mitigate the worst of the extreme impacts of climate change. There is so much opportunity for Australia in the energy transition, and we should be taking a lead on the international stage, not sitting on our hands. Amendments (1), (2) and (3) reflect this ambition, and I call on all members to support them.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p><p>The government will not be supporting these amendments. I do not want to belabour or delay the House. I think the reasons for the government's 43 per cent target have been very explicitly explained before the election. It's the target for which we sought a mandate during the election and after the election, and we'll be sticking with that policy. For all the reasons the Prime Minister has made very clear, a mandate is something that we on this side of the House very much respect.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is the amendments moved by the member for Clark be disagreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|