Kim Beazley, Leader of the Opposition: Matters of Public Importance: Kyoto

Protocol

16 February 2005

Mr BEAZLEY (Brand—Leader of the Opposition) (3.00 p.m.)—I thank the House.

Today, across the world, parliaments and people are observing the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change: the Kyoto protocol. It is a day of great

historical significance. The threat of global warming is one of the greatest

challenges that the world community now faces. It is complex, demanding and

urgent. Just as also are the other great challenges of our time: global

terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the crisis of

extreme poverty that afflicts one billion people.

At the outset of this debate, in the context of what the Prime Minister had

to say, I want to say this: it is in Australia's interests to sign and ratify

this protocol. Not a single economic benefit flows from the failure to do so. As

the government itself has said, it will meet the Kyoto targets which it

negotiated in 1997, so the government cannot argue that the Kyoto targets

detract from this country's economic potential. The second thing is this, and it

is more vital: if you are a ratifier and a participant in this treaty, you sit

at the table that determines the next phase from 2012 onwards; if you do not,

you are liable to all sorts of economic action by those countries who are

participants in it—and we could potentially have a very great deal to lose were

those circumstances to arise. Another thing is that incorporated within this

regime is a carbon trading arrangement which, as a major exporter of energy, we

have substantial opportunities to participate in, yet we have been taken out of

that. The Sydney Futures Exchange anticipated commonsense from this government

and set up a capacity to trade in those carbon futures, but this government has

let this element of the capitalist system monumentally down.

No nation can solve these global warming problems alone. They require an

immense effort of technology, diplomacy and leadership for our world to tackle

them effectively. I am no master of scientific knowledge on climate

change—unlike the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources—but, like many in

the Australian community, my sense of concern has deepened over several years as

the scientific evidence has mounted. The picture is bleak; the evidence is

compelling. I do not need to dwell on that—we are reading about it every day in

our newspapers. I think, too, that we understand the consequences will be

severe. The frequency of droughts and floods will increase. Water resources will

become more scarce. Vast tracts of agricultural land will become arid. Many

plant and animal species will face extinction. Australia will face a hotter and

drier climate. The severe bushfires that have menaced us in recent years will

intensify. Water shortages will become more frequent. Some of Australia's most

spectacular natural heritage, like the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu's wetlands and

the alpine regions of south-eastern Australia, will be severely damaged.

Already, many of our folk can see these trends. It is an issue that is raised

with me constantly as I go out and address groups and meet people in the

community. The government are defying the commonsense and the observations

already of the Australian people who put them where they are. Despite this

threat, when the Kyoto protocol comes into effect today with the names of 140

countries on that list, we are not there.

Making sense of this government's position on Kyoto, as I said, is not easy.

When the Kyoto protocol was negotiated in December 1997, the Prime Minister

described the Kyoto outcome as an `absolutely stunning diplomatic success',

saying that it would:

... make a massive contribution to the world environmental effort to cut

greenhouse gas emissions but also to protect Australian jobs ... a win for the

environment and a win for Australian jobs.

The Prime Minister, as we all know, is given to hyperbole when it comes to

describing his achievements, but I have rarely heard him wax so eloquent in his

own praise and I have never heard him before, having waxed so eloquent, spurn

the product of his announcement. His position is now different. He says that

Australia just cannot afford it, that it would cost us too much, that it is not

in our best interests. Meanwhile, his minister for the environment has another

message: that Kyoto, with its one per cent reduction in emissions, does not go

far enough. As he said on 23 October 2004:

... until the protocol reduced emissions by 60 per cent, Australia would not

accept it. “That would be accepting the argument that you sign on to something

that is half-hearted and not likely to deliver a good result.

In other words, the Prime Minister, if he is honest—according to his

environment minister—would be standing up here saying, `I'll not sign this until

there is a 60 per cent reduction.' I tell you what: there would be a few

comments from Australian industry then! His industry minister is not even sure

that there is any problem with global warming. He is quoted in the Sydney

Morning Heraldtoday saying:

Whether or not those emissions are causing climate change, I don't know. If

you go back across history, millions of years, carbon dioxide levels go up and

down, and global warming comes and goes. I mean, the Earth is a lot warmer than

it was when the glaciers formed.

But the government's position gets still more confused. The Prime Minister

also says that though we oppose Kyoto and will not ratify it, yet we will reach

our Kyoto targets anyhow—but, no, we still will not sign it. This is the

absurdity, the internal contradiction, the sheer loopiness of this government's

position on global warming. On the one hand, the government is indignant that

Australia cannot bear the cost of signing the Kyoto protocol but, on the other

hand, it tells us Australia is on track and will reach its Kyoto targets.

It seems the government is saying that Australia will bear the costs but not

enjoy the significant economic benefits of ratification. If we ratify Kyoto, we

get access to the global carbon market and trading mechanisms built into the

protocol. We gain the opportunity of building new emissions trading

relationships with both developing and advanced economies. We reduce the cost of

achieving the targets to less than half the cost while we remain outside,

according to expert modelling prepared for the Kyoto Protocol Ratification

Advisory Committee. We generate export income from overseas companies who wish

to establish carbon sinks in Australia. Such investments could generate $1

billion of annual export income, according to the Australian Business Council

for Sustainable Energy.

We could also help to foster new businesses in the booming global market for

low-carbon energy-efficient technologies—businesses that can create jobs for

Australia and give us a stronger foothold in global markets for environmental

goods and services already estimated to be worth $US515 billion in 2005.

Business spurns this government on this issue. Instead, because of the

government's position, we are being excluded from these benefits and face the

risk of being black-listed for trading opportunities by Kyoto signatories.

This government has had much to say which is critical of Kyoto. We on this

side appreciate that Kyoto is far from perfect: it does not go far enough to

stop global warming, it does not yet impose binding commitments on all the

developing countries whose use of carbon fuels is growing, it does not achieve

significant cuts in carbon emissions and it does not set targets beyond 2012.

But we have to be realistic. Regardless of its shortcomings, Kyoto is the only

show in town. While it is not perfect, there is no viable alternative. While it

is not perfect, it gives us a foundation on which to set targets for emissions

beyond 2012 and bring in the developing economies. You will not be able to

address the fact that the Chinese and Indians are excluded from the current

arrangements if you are not there to argue that they should be included after

2012—and we will not be.

It is naive in the extreme for this government to suggest that we can throw

out 15 years of international work on this agreement and think we will get a

deal that addresses these weaknesses. It is simply not credible; it is not how

international diplomacy works. Time, patience and persistence are required. The

Kyoto protocol is the central instrument that will build commitment to the

climate change agenda in the next few years whilst also incubating market based

solutions such as climate change technologies and emissions trading systems. If

this government is serious about addressing the urgent global problem of climate

change then it simply cannot reject the Kyoto protocol—because there is no

realistic alternative to this agreement. That is why we are left scratching our

heads at the bizarre approach this Prime Minister has taken in ignoring the

gravity of the scientific evidence and ignoring the international consensus on

this issue.

There is an image of the Prime Minister that has stuck in my mind this week.

It comes from his comments in an interview with Monica Attard which was

broadcast last weekend. In it the Prime Minister made the point that he is `the

sort of person who retains complete touch with reality' and is even `at work on

the lawns at Kirribilli every weekend'. To test his assertion, Ms Attard asked

the Prime Minister to name the movie he saw when he last went to the flicks. He

enthusiastically shot back that the movie he had last seen at the flicks was

Four Weddings and a Funeral—a movie which, I seem to remember, was released a

decade ago. As I thought about why the Prime Minister would identify with that

movie, the image of its final scene came to mind—the famous romantic scene in

which Hugh Grant, as Charles, is finally brought together with his true love,

Andie McDowell, as Carrie. Carrie shows up on Charles's doorstep, amidst the

thunder, lightning and torrential downpour. As the two embrace and are getting

completely soaked in the downpour, and as the lightning flashes and the thunder

roars, Hugh suggests that maybe they should get out of the rain. As Carrie gazes

into Charles's eyes, she mutters those memorable words which bring to mind the

Prime Minister: `Is it still raining? I hadn't noticed.'

In case the Prime Minister had not noticed, 140 nations have signed the Kyoto

protocol—ratified it—but Australia is left outside. We are left on the outside

with a Prime Minister whose backward looking vision is of an Australia which

bears the black mark of being the nation that belches out more greenhouse gases

per head of population than any other but will not sign up to Kyoto, even though

they gave us comfort, and is left out of the enormous opportunities available to

countries that have ratified Kyoto—the economic opportunities created by carbon

trading and the growth of tomorrow's industries based around low-carbon,

efficient and renewable energy technologies.

Why has the government done this when the evidence is so overwhelming? One

answer comes to mind, based on patterns of past behaviour. There is one thing

that might yet change the Prime Minister's mind. What has changed between 1997,

when the Prime Minister was gushing his enthusiasm for Kyoto, and today, when he

derides it? It is not the science; it is more convincing now than it was then.

It is not the level of world support; it is more overwhelming now. It is not the

urgency; it has become more pressing. It is not the emergence of an alternative

plan; Kyoto is the only game in town. The only thing that happened is the US

changed its position during that period. That is the one thing that has changed

since 1997—just one thing. Beyond all doubt, and despite the Prime Minister's

blustering words, if the US changed its position back again, supporting Kyoto,

the ink would not be dry on the US signature before the Prime Minister would

have ratified the protocol. That is the only change. It is an extraordinary

position to get into, because I honestly do not feel that the United States

would think anything of it if the Prime Minister ratified this agreement. It has

not worried them that Blair has signed. It has not worried them that other

allies and friends of the United States have signed it. Those countries regard

it as their own business; they are not there to be influenced or bullied by the

United States.

It does the US alliance no good, and it does no good to the reputation of

people in this country who are seriously worried about the impacts of global

change and the loss of business opportunities that flow from this to have it

believed in the community that the only thing that caused the Prime Minister to

change his mind was not the economic argument—because we know that he rejected

that and signed up to the targets anyway—but the relationship with the US. And

it is a criterion in the relationship about which the US makes no demands at

all. You will not go further in undermining the alliance and the good regard of

young Australians, who are seriously seized with this, than if you let them

think for one minute that your position has somehow or other been a product of

trying to align yourself with the United States on this position. This is a

moment in time which Australia cannot afford to miss. This is a moment in time

when Australian workers cannot afford to see a government exclude them from the

employment opportunities. This is a moment in time when Australian business

demands a government response, but the government will not make it. (Time

expired)