Page 904 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
timelines and targets. In 2003 the conservation council suggested that $33 million was needed to do some basic retrofitting of existing public housing for basic energy and water efficiency measures. I note the government made a start in the 2004 budget by allocating $3 million to $4 million.
We have to act as though we really care about our environment and our society and not be prepared to leave the clean-up to our children and theirs. We might find that future generations will see this period of their history as a different kind of dark ages to the ones that we learned about. Many commentators—most recently Jared Diamond—have said that the turnaround must begin in this generation, while we are the politicians in the ACT Assembly, or no turnaround seems likely. The point that Hamilton makes strongly, and which the Greens strongly endorse, is that we will never achieve sustainability by any definition if we continue to rely upon consumer decision making—the mantra of “choice”—to do it.
This morning I referred to my recent washing machine purchasing experience. My 30-year-old-plus machine, which had been grinding noisily for the last two years, finally lay down and died. If I were poor, I would have had to have purchased a machine that fitted my meagre budget, despite my concerns about water and energy efficiency. The point is that, if we are serious about sustainability, there should only be choices between very efficient and very, very efficient appliances. There should also be support for disadvantaged people to be able to buy such appliances, perhaps through the provision of no interest or low interest loans.
We have the technologies and the knowledge to produce energy and water efficient appliances across the range and we must ensure that manufacturers produce them—not guzzlers. We cannot expect manufacturers to do this by themselves. They need governments to set targets, incentives and regulations for their manufacture. Since we do not produce very many appliances in the ACT, regulation for mandatory levels might need to be targeted at retailers. In any case, while I do not know the answers yet, we can look to other more progressive municipalities for initiatives to serve our needs.
At the broader level we need mandatory regulations to ensure that future buildings are energy and water efficient because individual householders do not have the power to do it. They still have to persuade many builders and plumbers to move away from familiar materials and methods. This may lead to higher prices as the necessary technologies are brought into Canberra in very small, expensive quantities because our market is too small.
Home owners have to grapple with urban infrastructure—roads, water supply pipes, drains and power lines—that was set down with anything but water efficiency and solar amenity in mind. Instead of being “cutting edge”, Canberra now lags behind its neighbours—Queanbeyan, Yass and Cooma—where owners, builders and developers are required by government regulation to work together to find reductions in energy and water use. If—and hopefully when—the ACT joins New South Wales in this project, we will have a larger market for technologies and services, making them cheaper to transport. If we decide to tackle unemployment at the same time, our governments might assist innovative businesses to begin the manufacture of them ourselves. We certainly have a few builders, a few engineers and many businesses, with sustainability as their focus, who would welcome a friendlier environment which only government can foster.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .