|
senate vote 2021-10-20#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-10-29 15:56:41
|
Title
Matters of Urgency — Climate Change- Matters of Urgency - Climate Change - Adopt strong 2030 emissions targets
Description
<p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 19 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter was received from Senator Hanson-Young:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-10-20.155.1) introduced by SA Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:*
- >
- > *The fact that the Government is failing to do its fair share of limiting global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures by continuing to approve new coal mines and gas fields and refusing to adopt strong 2030 emissions targets of 75% below 2005 levels.*
<p class="italic">Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</p><p class="italic">The fact that the Government is failing to do its fair share of limiting global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures by continuing to approve new coal mines and gas fields and refusing to adopt strong 2030 emissions targets of 75% below 2005 levels."</p><p>Is the proposal supported?</p><p class="italic"> <i>More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</i></p><p>I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</p><p class="italic">The fact that the Government is failing to do its fair share of limiting global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures by continuing to approve new coal mines and gas fields and refusing to adopt strong 2030 emissions targets of 75% below 2005 levels.</p><p>I rise to contribute to this debate today, and it is an important debate because, in less than two weeks time, the Prime Minister of this country is going to be travelling to Glasgow to meet with world leaders in relation to the biggest threat that humanity has seen, and that, of course, is climate change and the climate crisis, a crisis that has been brought about by the enormous amounts of pollution that are pumped into our atmosphere because of the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, one of the key elements that world leaders like the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Scott Morrison, are being asked to contribute to this most important global meeting is a commitment to cut pollution and to stop expanding the projects that make climate change worse.</p><p>The International Energy Agency has said in no uncertain terms that there can be no more new oil, gas or coal projects opened, created or built if we are to achieve zero pollution and a target for net zero pollution in order to keep temperatures at below 1.5 degrees, which is what we know we need if we are to stop the most dangerous elements of climate change. Only a couple of months ago, last time the Senate was meeting here in this place, we were discussing and debating the recent report by the world's leading climate scientists. They said we have less than a decade to take the urgent action needed—less than a decade to cut pollution to keep the rise in temperature below that important element of 1.5 degrees—if we are to have a fighting chance of stopping runaway climate change.</p><p>We can already see the effect of climate change all around us. Only two summers ago we saw those devastating bushfires rip through bushland in regional and rural Australia. We saw billions of hectares of Australia's forests and wilderness areas go up in smoke. We saw three billion animals in this country perish because of those bushfires. We saw dozens of towns and cities in this country choked with smoke.</p><p>COVID-19 has brought about an enormous amount of concern and fear right around the world. Governments have been called to take urgent action to stop the spread of this most devastating disease. Governments, largely, have responded—of all political persuasions, at all levels. Governments and political leaders have listened to the science, listened to the experts, and taken the swift action needed to stop the spread and the escalation of this disease. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we saw the same type of response from our political leaders that we've seen in relation to COVID-19 for action to save the climate and our planet—listening to the science, taking the swift action that's needed, showing leadership and investing in the transition to an economy and a society that is cleaner, greener and safer.</p><p>If we thought that the crippling effect of COVID-19, a disease that has ripped through not just our communities in Australia but around the world, was bad, just wait until we see the diseases that rip through our communities when climate change really hits. The experts tell us that's what's coming—unless we take the action that's needed in the next decade to cut pollution. That's why, as a country, we need to be taking to the world's most important summit— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Perin Davey</p><p>Yet again we have the Greens wanting us to strive for some ideal at the expense of jobs, industry and our community. Make no mistake: this is what we look forward to, potentially, under an Albanese-Greens coalition government. Seventy-five per cent emissions reduction by 2030 is the target the Greens are saying. Senator Gallagher refused to say that Labor would have a target for 2030 or to announce their target yet—but the Greens are doing it for you, Senator Gallagher. They want 75 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. But what the Greens like to keep ignoring is what we have already achieved to date. I've spoken about it already today in this chamber, and I will continue to speak about it time and time again because I am sick to death of people ignoring what Australians have already done. I am sick to death of people from this nation saying Australians are laggards and denialists when so many Australians are not—not the National Party and certainly not regional Australians.</p><p>Of the 20 per cent emissions reduction that we have already achieved to date from 2005 levels, 71 per cent has come from agricultural land use changes and a reduction in agricultural emissions. Our agricultural industries have done the heavy lifting, and yet we have people over there on the crossbench trying to tell us that we should stop eating meat because cows fart. Well, excuse me. They're saying we should stop planting crops like rice because it uses too much water. They're saying we should make sure our farmers can't clear their land but that it's okay to clear 125 square kilometres in the centre of Australia for solar farms. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.</p><p>I want to focus today on agriculture and forestry, because forestry is part of the solution that keeps getting ignored by those on the crossbench. Forestry keeps getting closed down by those opposite and their state counterparts. Forestry is the best carbon sequestration you can have. The trees grow and they absorb carbon. Then you turn those trees into furniture, like what we are surrounded by here today. This room is sequestering tonnes of carbon forever. But those on the crossbench would rather us lock up land and just walk away. I can tell you, while that absorbs carbon in some stages, it plateaus at a certain point in time and it is not sequestered for good. It actually starts to become carbon positive.</p><p>We need to focus on what is actually going to achieve real outcomes, and what is achieving real outcomes is what our agricultural industry is doing. The work our meat industry has done with the CSIRO and James Cook University, developing new feed regimes for livestock, is leading to world-leading outcomes. Net greenhouse gas emissions from the red meat sector in Australia are less than half what they were in 2005. The red meat sector have cut their emissions by 50 per cent already. It is by far the greatest reduction by any single sector in Australia's economy. I congratulate them, and I congratulate the CSIRO for its world-leading work in this area.</p><p>Through our government's commitments, we are providing over $1 million to an agricultural science company called Sea Forest. This grant will allow them to upscale their production of seaweed additive for livestock feed so the livestock sector can continue to cut emissions. The work that CSIRO is doing with the agricultural sector on soil carbon sequestration through cropping regimes is world leading. Why aren't we talking about this? Why aren't we talking about these ground-breaking innovations that support existing industries and create new jobs and new research that we can sell to the world? But, no, they'd rather focus on the negatives. They would rather focus on the fact that we still have coalmines. And so we should. Because our coal is the highest-energy, lowest-emission coal in the world. I would rather see one of the 129 new coal-fired power stations currently being constructed around the world—in net zero countries—burn our higher-energy, lower-emissions coal than dirty brown coal from another nation that emits more. I would rather see Australia use our gas—our natural resources—to produce blue hydrogen than burn dirtier products with higher emissions to do the same.</p><p>We've got Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson going around saying, 'Aren't we good.' They're flying off into space in, yes, hydrogen powered rockets. Congratulations. The only pollution from those rockets is oxygen and water—very clean. Read the fine print. With that hydrogen that they are using to produce enough hydrogen to power those rockets, they need to burn fossil fuel. That's because industry isn't ready and can't yet produce enough green hydrogen for those rockets. But we're all putting Bezos on a pedestal because he's exploring the new frontier. I actually agree with Prince William on this. We need to focus on this planet, before we start ruining other planets.</p><p>I have grave concerns about the thought of mining the moon. I don't want to mine the moon. But I have no problems, in this country, when we know we need more lithium to produce the batteries that will underpin our renewable energy. I am very proud that Australia is one of the largest lithium producers in the world. I am very proud of our mineral sands resources sector that is producing the silicon, the silica and the other core ingredients so that we can actually have renewable power and electric vehicles.</p><p>So mining always will be part of the solution, and that includes our coalmining. Agriculture is part of our solution. Agriculture has already done the heavy lifting in Australia. The worst thing we can do to our agricultural sector is a repeat of what we signed up for with Kyoto. The worst thing we can do is tell our farmers: no, you can't clear that paddock that has the opportunity for soil carbon sequestration and food production. Let's not forget: Oxfam released a report in August raising red flags, because to plant enough trees to reach net zero—if you're just relying on planting trees—you will stop feeding the world. We are at risk of a food shortage. We need to work out how our agriculture can be a part of the solution, so that we can continue to feed the world. I'm not just talking about meat. Vegans need plants. It takes a lot of water to grow a soy crop. It takes a lot of soil carbon for that soy crop, but then it can be put back into the soil. We need to be working with our industries and embracing the innovations and the new technologies they have, and embracing the opportunities that a low-emissions future presents. I am not against a low-emissions future. What I am against is a blank cheque that allows people to trounce our industries, our people, and our communities, and that says, 'We will sign up to net zero at any cost.' I don't believe in ' at any cost'. I believe in opportunity. I believe in technology, not taxes.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|