Page 2246 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The greenhouse gas abatement scheme, for example, needs considerable strengthening. The ACT has only about one per cent of Australia’s population but we emit five per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gases, and our electricity use is a big factor. The greenhouse gas abatement scheme, which requires electricity providers to set a cap on the amount of electricity they supply, is a key part of the ACT government’s climate change strategy—the major part, according to Mr Stanhope last week. I am still waiting for him to get back to me with the answer to a question he took on notice during questions without notice last Thursday. Often, it turns out that the government actually does not know a great deal about these schemes that it applauds as being major strategies for achieving government ends. It turns out that ministers do not know very much about them and cannot answer questions. Maybe that is the nature of government, but I think it is very worrying that on the one hand you can be applauding a strategy while on the other you know very little about it.
The government has yet to demonstrate an intention of decreasing the total amount of electricity Canberra retailers will provide in the future. The greenhouse gas abatement scheme will allow 7.27 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions per person, per annum. If Canberra’s population grows, greenhouse gas emissions can also grow. Holding up this scheme as a strength of the climate change strategy is, frankly, an embarrassment. Modelling from the Total Environment Centre shows that Canberrans must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5.85 tonnes per person to achieve emissions five per cent below 1990 levels, and that is a much more realistic target than achieving 2000 levels by 2020. The government needs to review the benchmarks in the greenhouse gas abatement scheme immediately and look to reduce the total greenhouse emissions provided by ACT electricity retailers.
Water security for the ACT remains an enormous issue, and the Greens are concerned that we ensure that the ACT is prepared for droughts, and perhaps floods, while also learning to work with what we have got. In terms of water security, this means educating our community, and especially commercial water users, about wise water use. It also means not trying to create water from nothing, and this includes concepts such as cloud seeding, which has recently been brought into doubt as a strategy used over the Kosciuszko, or building a dam to catch water which we do not have. Treasuring the water we do have and treating it with respect is a first step. The urban waterways project, which has just gained federal funding, needs to be commended for doing just that. We certainly look forward to the results. I hope that local communities can be involved in these restoration projects, just as they were in the David Street wetlands project, which the government is always holding up as an iconic example of this kind of project.
I was very disappointed to see that Actew’s recent recommendations to government did not incorporate efficiency measures. I am still not convinced of the need for a reverse osmosis water recycling scheme. This is probably one case where the costs may outweigh the benefits. We should look closely at developments in Singapore, where I am told the shortcomings of the reverse osmosis process are becoming evident, and they are exploring other recycling techniques. It is not the only way to recycle water. I know that a decision has not yet been made. However, in terms of the budget, I am certain there are better ways to spend $350 million to ensure a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .