Page 2803 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The collective size of the ACT public schools’ contribution to renewable energy is 1,192 kilowatts. As an example of how effective these systems have been at schools, Franklin Early Childhood School expects its solar panels to provide 58 per cent of its energy needs. At Neville Bonner school the solar panels are predicted to provide 79 per cent of its energy requirements. That is a very positive outcome for the schools and again it demonstrates the investment that this government is making in our schools to address the matters of climate change. But perhaps more important, it has prevented the release of 1,806 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The commitment to renewable energy in schools is only one part of the overarching approach to reduce the carbon footprint of schools. Ten schools have been selected as part of a program to reduce their carbon footprints: Theodore Primary School, Canberra High School, Arawang Primary School, North Ainslie Primary School, Alfred Deakin High School, Evatt Primary School, Fadden Primary School, Weetangera Primary School, Stromlo High School and Caroline Chisholm School. Canberra High School and Theodore Primary School are intended to be the first carbon neutral schools, and this will be achieved through a variety of ways, including ceiling insulation upgrades, LED light upgrades, florescent lamp upgrades and replacements at seven schools and also reducing the cost of lighting.
I also would like in the time I have left to go to an article—as we are spending time here this morning reflecting on climate change—in the Canberra Times of 17 February, headed “Liberal government’s ideology threatens renewable energy future”. I think it is important because you made the point earlier, Madam Assistant Speaker Lawder, that our amendment supports industry and you made the comment about your support of people.
I hope that there is no motion coming from the Canberra Liberals that supports small business but is devoid of supporting Canberra families because the two are linked. You do not support industry, you do not support Canberra families and you do not promote economic participation of people who are striving to get a job, run a small business and look after their families. It was a bit of an irony when you uttered those words this morning, Madam Assistant Speaker.
But back to this article. It reads:
I was astonished to read Nicole Lawder’s advice on these pages (“Helping the environment needs a realistic approach” (Times2, February 13, p5) that Canberrans should focus on “keeping ponds clean and viable” instead of building a solar power station to provide 4500 households with environmentally sustainable electricity.
It’s an extreme example of what psychologists call “displacement activity”.
Furthermore, she accuses the ACT government of being “ideological, not environmental”, a statement that psychologists could classify as “projection”.
I am reading from this article of February 17:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video