 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: In the Governor's speech made on the occasion of the opening of parliament, I note the lack of undertakings by the South Australian government to deal with this state's obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is slipping further behind the benchmarks for emissions that were established at the Kyoto conference. Unfortunately, they were never enforceable and one can only argue the moral case for keeping one's word-and politicians, of course, do not have a very good reputation for that.
In August this year I attended in Cairns the fifth international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies. In attendance were 350 people, mostly academics and scientists, principally from the developed world with some representation from industry and industry bodies, most predicably the coal industry, which was amongst the sponsors of the conference. The main focus of proceedings was carbon sequestration, principally in the oceans, used coal mines and aquifers. It was observed that this concept had not gained much recognition in Australia. The coal industry in Australia, however, is very bullish about the prospect. Nevertheless, a number of the presenters stressed that there is no silver bullet.
The observation made by one speaker was that the world needs an energy source that is affordable, clean and abundant and that there is not such a thing. Fossil fuels are abundant and relatively easy to access, so they will be used. That is the reality with which we are having to deal, I lament, in Australia. By its very nature, being a conference about greenhouse gas control technologies there was not a huge deal of interest in the ecologically sustainable energy sources that the Democrats promote. A number of workshops on these sources were held but the great majority of conference attendees attended workshops that advocated the technological solutions that will allow the continued use of fossil fuels.
It was noted in one of the keynote speeches that some people hold concerns that the money that goes into CO 2 capture and storage will be at the expense of the budget for renewables. I echo that concern. I am always wary of technological solutions, as they often come at great cost with problems emerging that were not envisaged at the time of their introduction. Witness the problems of salinity in the Murray River following the diversion of water from the Snowy River. Witness the problems that we now face with the destruction of the ozone layer because of the ease of use of spray cans. Witness the damage caused by thalidomide.
So many of the so-called solutions which were proposed at the conference encourage a `business as usual' approach, but it was extremely useful to hear the propositions and to know what measures will be proposed in a few years when the media, and later the politicians, become aware of them. A poster on display from ANSTO had this to say about the way this knowledge becomes mainstream:
The passage of a scientific hypothesis from conception to public explanation through the media appears to take around eight years. This process cannot be rushed. We have only eight years from now until the start of the first Kyoto budget period in 2008. Scientists' current guesses are greenhouse policy reality.
For me, that is something of a worry, because some of the solutions I heard were mildly harebrained, some will have massive financial costs, and some could transfer environmental problems from one area to another. For instance, if we pump CO 2 to the bottom of the oceans in order to justify the continued burning of coal for energy production, what will be the effect on marine life of carbonating that part of the ocean?
That may sound like a theoretical question, but in fact this is about to take place off Hawaii early next year. A pipe, which will be sunk to a depth of 800 metres, will release large amounts of carbon dioxide, and a team of international scientists will be on hand to study the biological effects. Somehow, in this I am reminded of the mistakes of Maralinga. Who do you sue if fish stocks are killed as a consequence of carbon sequestration in our oceans? How long will it take before the impact is felt, and will it even be traceable to the site where it was released?
Sustainability was a hot topic at the conference with varying definitions. I could not help but note that the economic benefit to be gained from using non-renewable energy resources had a strong impact on those different definitions. A decade or so ago, industry appropriated the term `sustainability' from the environment movement and replaced it with the catch-all term of `sustainable development' and that even more incredible term `sustainable growth' which is in the same category of believability as `sustainable acceleration'.
Greg Boyce from Rio Tinto told the conference that `sustainable development seeks to maximise goal attainment' and that `continued extraction of non-renewable resources is a necessary part of sustainable development'. It is quite a contradiction in terms to use `non-renewable resources' and call it `sustainable development'. Stuart Dix of a Queensland based company, E3 International Pty Ltd, told the conference that sustainability is about growth. However, I think this was an observation about the way business views the matter rather than his personal view.
Phil Harrington of the Australian Greenhouse Office was much closer to the mark when he said that sustainability is about maximising human welfare within ecological limits and that it must involve environmental, economic and social dimensions. He observed that we do not know what the ecological limits are and that, therefore, we should adopt the precautionary principle. Dr John Wright of the CSIRO deferred to the Bruntland report's definition as `development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the future'. Such a definition is in keeping with that adopted by a COAG meeting held on 7 December 1992. That meeting declared that sustainable development is `development that improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends'.
For those people who addressed this conference, that there is a greenhouse effect is a given; that average global temperatures are rising is a given; and that there is a correlation between CO 2 emissions and temperature increase is a given. CO 2 contributes 81 per cent of global greenhouse gases. The conference was told that there are three ways of addressing the problem of CO 2 emissions: first, via the replacement of fossil fuel energy; secondly, reducing the carbon intensity of the emissions; or, thirdly, technological solutions to store the CO 2 .
Speakers at the conference made the following observations about possible alternatives to fossil fuel based energy production. I do not present this information as a report on what they had to say rather than as the ultimate truth. Wind, hydro and thermal sources are not always available in all areas; biomass has problems associated with transport and land use; solar energy has issues of land use, capital cost and storage; nuclear power is expensive, politically taboo, and has the added problem of proliferation issues; and hydrogen does not contain a great deal of energy and faces cost problems.
I stress again that in relation to solar energy I do not necessarily uphold what was said, but I am reporting what the conference said. Much of the technology is both costly and unproven and industry believes that the capture and storage of greenhouse gases will in themselves be energy intensive-sure arguments, as I see it, for conservation rather than technological fixes. Fuel substitution may inevitably occur because of our society's unwillingness to switch to other methods of energy production, but at this stage methanol uses up to three times the amount of energy in production as it is able to deliver as a fuel. We were told that fuel replacement will certainly not happen in the short term because fossil fuels sustain 80 per cent of the world's energy and power stations will not be shut down overnight.
Reducing the carbon output intensity of fossil fuels was the second major method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Substituting gas for coal can make some contribution, but there is not enough natural gas to meet the demand. Reducing it by political action is a possibility, but petrol taxes (as we are seeing in Australia at present) are not popular anywhere. As I have already indicated, the third method of the `business as usual' scenario but capturing and storing the CO 2 was the one that was the most attractive to these technocrats. Their blind faith in technology was extremely disturbing. One speaker observed that the next Microsoft will be an energy company, and I assume that each of them wants to be Bill Gates.
It seems to me that conservation is not on the agenda of these scientists because conservation does not need the invention of a new process, nor will it get a paper published in a scientific journal. Rita Bajura from the US Department of Energy began her presentation with the following quote: `If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.' I fear that with many of these scientists that is the case. By the time most politicians become aware of their proposals, the momentum of the research and that boundless faith will most likely convince decision-makers that this is the way to go.
Although it is still to be proven, the conference presenters postulated that technology will be able to reduce CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel sources by up to 50 per cent. We were told that in Denmark they have been able to produce coal based electricity at 47 per cent efficiency, which is extraordinarily high for a conventional power station.
One would hardly expect a scientific and technical conference to include presentations that prick one's conscience, but there was one. South Africa was one of the few countries from the third world that had any representation at the conference. Members may recall that, at the Kyoto conference, the Australian government took the approach of arguing for greater reductions to be made by the third world before we reduced ours. Njeri Wamukonya from the University of Cape Town informed us that only 68 per cent of South Africa has access to the electricity grid and that in rural areas that is down to less than 40 per cent.
Yet-and I stress that this is my observation and not hers-the Australian government wants countries such as South Africa to reduce their production of greenhouse gases. Most grid power in South Africa is generated using coal: what are the alternatives for them? How much will the first world provide to assist South Africa to change to a less greenhouse-intensive fuel? Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, given the amount of coal powered electricity that is produced in Australia?
For South Africans without access to the grid, paraffin is the principal source of fuel for cooking and lighting. What does the first world and the Australian government propose that they use instead? I felt embarrassed and ashamed to be an Australian as I listened to her presentation. It reminded me of the so-called consultation that the Department of Foreign Affairs initiated in the lead up to the Kyoto conference.
I attended one of those consultations, where I put my personal view about Australia's proposal for the third world to reduce their greenhouse gas outputs before we take action. I recounted the fact that the child I sponsor in Vietnam has a staple diet of rice and, in one meal out of three, her mother is able to supplement it with some vegetables. That family's only energy output comes from the boiling of rice, and I asked the Foreign Affairs boffins whether they wanted my foster family to stop boiling their rice and eat it raw, because that was the only way that they could reduce their greenhouse gas outputs.
They told me that I did not understand. Yes, I do understand, and I understand that governments in the developed world are lazy and not meeting their responsibilities. Which brings me to South Australia. We are not meeting our greenhouse gas targets here, and the inadequate response of the state government to this is very disturbing.
The Queensland Minister for Mines and Energy used the opportunity of formally opening the Greenhouse Gas Controls Technology Conference as a vehicle to tell the world about his state's green energy programs. He announced that their publicly owned electricity utility, Ergon Energy, has entered into a contract to buy electricity produced from mill waste of the Tully sugar mill, which will result in an annual greenhouse gas reduction of 120 000 tonnes.
He told the conference that his government, through its Office of Sustainable Energy, will be taking action on a number of fronts, ranging from the development of a wind farm on the Atherton Tablelands to changes to building codes, so that by the year 2010 Queensland will have achieved a greenhouse gas reduction of four billion tonnes. An Office of Sustainable Energy: I'd like to see that in South Australia.
I have twice introduced my Ecologically Sustainable Energy Authority Bill to this parliament, but the government would not support it. Two years ago, in the throes of selling our then publicly owned electricity utilities, I was pleased to see that the government introduced a Sustainable Energy Authority Bill almost identical to my own. But it was only a sweetener, it seems, introduced to try to win us all over to supporting the privatisation. The bill lapsed at the end of the parliamentary session and the government has declined to reintroduce it.
For nearly three years the state government's priorities in energy have been to sell our electricity utilities. In the process, it has opted out of any long-term energy planning for this state. I recently asked the Treasurer whether the contracts for sale of the electricity utilities included any provision for the production of green energy, and he was not able to answer the question. If the person in charge of the sale process cannot tell us, it is unlikely that anyone else will be able to.
South Australia is being left behind. Last week the Victorian government announced four new renewable energy projects resulting from the commonwealth's Renewable Energy Commercialisation Program, another of the positive outcomes from the Democrats' negotiations over the GST: 3 800 square metres of solar panels are to be installed at the Queen Victoria Markets in Melbourne; BP Solar is to develop a new long-life battery for use with renewable energy systems; a new grain storage facility using solar power to reduce spoilage is to be developed; and Pacific Hydro is working on producing hydro- electric power from an irrigation channel.
Where is South Australia in all this? Nowhere. Why does this government not have the vision to come up with similar projects with their capacity to produce jobs, the opportunity to produce exports (as with the batteries) and, most importantly, to reduce greenhouse gases? We ignore the scientific facts at our peril.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I appreciate what the minister has said and I acknowledge the efforts that she is making with public transport to fuel our buses differently, but they are really only a token effort compared to the sorts of efforts the government ought to be putting in as a whole.
From 1880 to the present sea temperatures have increased from between 0.1° and 0.8°, while land temperatures have increased from between 6° and 8.6°. CO 2 concentrations have risen from 280 parts per million in 1800 to 370 parts per million at present. The natural uptake rate of greenhouse gases by the biosphere and oceans is three gigatonnes per annum, and we are now exceeding that. The Kyoto agreement ought to be only the first of a series of reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
The International Panel on Climate Control has produced a range of global scenarios up to the year 2100, depending on which course of action we take-and we are talking of only 100 years from now. If we choose to take no action, average global temperatures will rise by up to 5° and sea levels will rise by somewhere between 10 and 90 centimetres. These are risks that we should not be taking.
Mr Kelly Thambimutu of the University of New South Wales told the Greenhouse Gas Controls Technology Conference that we are all accountable for the state of the world we hand on to our children and grandchildren. One of the speakers told the conference that the Kyoto protocols created a mandate for change, giving the courage for politicians to act. I wish!
Some of us know that the actions are required and have been pressuring the government to respond, but the message appears not to be heard. When the government does respond, I urge it not to be seduced by the `business as usual' approach with its associated costly technological fixes. The Artistic Director of the 2002 Adelaide Festival of the Arts says that Adelaide can become the world centre for ecological sustainability. I hope that he is right. It is certainly what I aim for, but he will need to drag so many of our decision makers out of their current stupour for this to happen. I support the motion.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT secured the adjournment of the debate.
