Page 2116 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In last year’s budget, before I arrived in this place, the government placed a particular focus on climate change by appropriating $100 million for climate-related measures. Unfortunately, these measures were breathtakingly Howardesque in their imaginative scope. Only around $8 million of the $60 million was allocated to measures that would actually deliver emission reductions. I make mention of last year’s climate budget because the $40 million that was put aside last year as future provision for climate change works, appears now to have been allocated. In looking at the budget papers, we discover that $38.3 million of that has been put aside for drought-proofing sportsgrounds, replacing urban forests and for that paragon of marvellous climate policy, the Canberra International Arboretum.
Mrs Dunne: Yes, growing trees and grass; yes, they are carbon things.
MR RATTENBURY: Yes, that is right. Another $6.3 million of capital expenditure has been allocated to the arboretum. It is also worth noting here that this is not the only extra funding that has gone the way of the arboretum in the last three appropriation bills. In all, something in the order of an extra $3 million to $4 million has been sent towards the arboretum in the past 12 months. There is a big difference between mitigation measures like planting trees and reduction measures like increasing the energy efficiency of existing buildings and intelligent urban design to maximise solar access and minimise reliance on private vehicles.
Most of the ACT’s greenhouse emissions come from our heavy and increasing use of electricity and gas for heating and cooling houses, offices and other buildings, and our transport system. This is where we are going to need to focus our thinking and the resources of government in the years ahead. Yet last year’s climate change budget allocated as much money to managing water reduction measures on sports fields as it did to all other measures that delivered greenhouse emissions reductions.
While funding to build resilience and manage climate change impacts is welcome, let us not kid ourselves that the bulk of the government climate change money under their building the future program was in any way related to actually reducing the ACT’s emissions.
More specifically, it is disappointing and frankly disingenuous of the government to continue to label projects such as the arboretum as climate change measures. We have no evidence that the arboretum is even climate neutral, by the time earthworks, pumping of water and use of pesticides and fertilisers have been accounted for. While the arboretum may be a fine tourist attraction when it is completed, it is nowhere near a serious measure to tackle climate change.
We thought the government would have learnt this lesson last year, but no. They are still claiming it is a climate change measure. Why is this important to note? It is important for two reasons: firstly, I do not want to hear in the year ahead about how the government will not be able to afford genuine greenhouse efficiency measures or genuine measures to invest in renewable energy production or public transport. I do not want to hear the government say, “It costs too much” or “That is unrealistic” until they acknowledge that they have wasted money on so-called climate projects that do not deliver any actual benefits to the climate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .