Q 1

Q 1: By what amount do your party’s policies aim to reduce our emissions by 2050, and can you point me in the direction of the independent, scientifically peer-reviewed evidence for that?

In the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, countries were simply talking about stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels. Now people are talking about making cuts of 60 percent or more.

I cannot tell you whether a cut of 60 percent by 2050 is enough but what I can say is that prompt action is required.

Australia has a leadership role but a unilateral reduction will not help the globe if the big emitters of the future such as China and India are not locked in as well, given we produce about 1.5 percent of total world emissions. We need developed and developing countries to work together on achievable figures to reduce the man-made effects of climate change.

While Australia’s emission levels are comparatively high compared to other countries, the latest figures I’ve seen has us in 13^th place on a per capita basis. According to figures collected for the United Nations the biggest per capita users are in Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. The United States is in 10^th place, followed by Canada, Norway and Australia. Carbon dioxide emissions in 2004 in Australia were the same as 1990 figures.

But yes, I think we can do better – much better. For all our futures, we will need to. top

1992 Rio de Janiero Earth Summit - Yes, Hajnal's right about the 1990 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, and the first plan to stabilise emissions at 1990 levels. Here's an extract and link:-

Israel Klabin, head of the Brazilian Foundation for Sustainable Development (FBDS), is less upbeat. "Although the Earth Summit created mechanisms to reduce emissions of contaminating gases, by themselves these are not enough," he told IPS.

"The goal in 1992 was to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, but now the situation is completely different, because emissions have doubled," he said. Link HERE top

Bigger CO2 cuts needed - Hajnal is also right prompt action to reduce CO2 emissions is needed, and she's backed up by the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change. Here's a link to a recent ABC report re the Roundtable recommendations.

She's also right to question whether a 60% cut will be enough (as the Planet doesn't negotiate). Here's an extract (and link), from Australia's "Climate Institute":-

To protect both our economy and our environment we need to better plan the emissions path to 2050. From 2010 we need to stop greenhouse emissions increasing and begin turning them around. The CSIRO estimates that greenhouse emissions from developed countries like Australia must be cut by 60-90% from 1990 levels by 2050 if we are to help avoid dangerous climate change. Link HERE

Plus here's a very worrying article from "The Guardian" (UK), "Bigger Carbon Cuts Needed to Avoid Disaster," Sept 2006, HERE top

Unilateral action? - I also agree with you Hajnal that Australia has a "Leadership role" in these issues (an avoided responsibility, after 11 years of Co-alition rule at Federal level). However Hajnal, no-one is asking for Australia to take (as you put it), "Unilateral action," just to join the rest of World in signing the Kyoto convention (Australia & the USA are the only two countries that haven't).

So yes, Australia has already taken (almost), "Unilateral action," but it's been in the opposite direction. top

China & India - And as for China and India (which Hajnal mentions as big CO2 emitters), they're already locked into the Kyoto mechanisms, as this extract from Wikipedia shows:-

"Common but differentiated responsibility

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to a set of a "common but differentiated responsibilities." The parties agreed that

The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries;
Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.

In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were exempt from the emission reduction target of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change. However, even without the commitment to reduce according to the Kyoto target, developing countries do share the common responsibility that all countries have in reducing emissions." Link HERE

. . . And further, Hajnal should read this article from "The Centre for Environmental Law," HERE

And further still, the above is richly and roundly illustrated by this recent quote from the Australian CSIRO:-

“On average, each person in Australia and the US now emits more than five tonnes of carbon per year, while in China the figure is only one tonne per year. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the US and Europe account for more than 50 per cent of the total, accumulated global emissions over two centuries, while China accounts for less than eight per cent. The 50 least developed countries have together contributed less than 0.5 per cent of global cumulative emissions over 200 years.” Dr Mike Raupach, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research, 22May 2007 http://www.csiro.au/news/GlobalCarbonProject-PNAS.html

top

Per capita CO2 emissions - And yes, Hajnal, I've also seen the figures quoting Australia as the World's 13th largest CO2 emitter (per capita), they're here at wikipedia But there seems to be some differences of opinion (giving an even more gloomy picture), firstly in this recent CSIRO paper, here's a quote:-

"Australia's per capita emissions in 2004 were 4.5 times the global average, just below the value for the USA."

"After the USA, the two highest Carbon Dioxide emitters are Australia and Norway." top

Summing up - But to sum up Hajnal, I think you're entirely correct when you say:-

"I think we can do better – much better. For all our futures, we will need to." top

Q2: Have you heard of ‘climate tipping points’ and can I have your comments on this extremely dangerous phenomenon?’

We need to avoid getting to these points. Hopefully it is not too late but we are only now fully appreciating the science.

“Some tipping points for climate change could be closer than previously thought. Scientists are predicting that the loss of the massive Greenland ice sheet may now be unstoppable and lead to catastrophic sea-level rises around the world.

In drawing together research on tipping points were damage due to climate change occurs irreversibly and at an increasing rate, the researchers concluded that the risks were much greater than those predicted by the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely, for example, it would raise global sea levels by 7 meters. According to the IPCC report, the melting should take about 1,000 years. But the study, by Tim Lenton of the University East Anglia, showed the break-up could happen more quickly, in 300 years. Professor Lenton said: “We know that ice sheets in the last ice age collapsed faster than any current models can capture, so our models are known to be too sluggish”.

His study identified eight tipping points that could be passed by the end of this century. They include the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, the melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet and a collapse of the global ocean current known as the thermohaline circulation. If that circulation stopped, the Indian monsoons and the gulf stream could be shut down.

Prof Lenton said the IPCC way of working, including multiple reviews, caused it to issue more conservative reports than his team’s studies. He added that the inevitable collapse of the Greenland ice sheet was closer than thought because of the latency in the Earth’s climate system. “If you could stabilize the greenhouse gas levels to today’s level, you’ll still get some further warming [by 2100].”

A global average temperature rise of just 1C would be enough to slip the Greenland ice over the edge. The IPCC's prediction for 2100 is a rise of 1.1C- 6.4C.” top

Kim's reponse to Hajnal on Q. 2, "Climate Tipping Points" - Great candidate, DISMAL Party top

Thanks for the above Hajnal, it's spot on - and hi-lite in horrifying detail the risks we're facing, a Planet hostile to all life as we know it.

And as I type these words on Tuesday 22nd October 2007, even more frightening news has hit the headlines. Everything is happening much faster than predicted. I quote from yesterday's "Scientific American":-

"The world may finally acknowledge that global warming is a major environmental hazard. But new research shows that reducing the main greenhouse gas behind it may be even more difficult than previously believed. The reason: the world's oceans and forests, which scientists were counting on to help hold off catastrophic rises in carbon dioxide, are already so full of CO₂ that they are losing their ability to absorb this climate change culprit." Link here

And to-day, Southern California - and its forests - are ablaze:-

"A firestorm ravaged Southern California today for the second consecutive day, destroying scores of homes and businesses, blackening thousands of acres and forcing tens of thousands to evacuate ahead of blowtorching flames." Link here

And yet, shockingly, The National Party policy on Climate Change, the biggest threat to all life on this Planet consists of just one limp, meaningless sentence (and I guess the "Australian Industry" mentioned in this one sentence will just have to pack up shop and evacuate itself to Mars when T.S.H.T.F. - or maybe it can just miraculously exist in another dimension, not connected to the World we live on?):-

"The Nationals support efforts to reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions but do not support international rules which disadvantage Australian industry and interests." Link here

Further, here's the verdict of "The Big Switch" vis a vis The National Party and Climate Change:-

"The Nationals, previously known as the Country Party, are closely aligned with rural and regional Australia. Along with the Liberal party, the Nationals make up the Coalition Government. As such, the Nationals’ stance on climate change is essentially that of the Coalition Government’s. Given their ability to influence government policy, it is a shame that The Nationals have not chosen to protect the interests of their rural constituency, Australians who will be particularly hard hit under climate change." Link to more" here top

Q3: Here’s a quote from Wendy Creighton, Liberal Candidate for Forde “The new climate change measures announced in this Budget take the Australian Government’s investment in climate change to $2.8 billion.” Is it true that this $2.8billion will be spent over 25 years and do you think it’s potentially misleading not to mention that? top

My understanding is that $2.8 billion is over the 25 year period. However, I would expect that additional monies will be allocated over the years to combat climate change.

Hajnal admits that John Howard's spruiked $2.8 billion dollars for Climate Change is to be spent over 25 years, and gives no firm commitment to further monies . . .

Sorry Hajnal, that's just not good enough. Firstly, when the Co-alition spruiks "$2.8 billion" to be spent on Climate Change, it needs to be completely upfront about the 25 year time frame for that spending, like mentioning it in the same breath. Secondly, after 11 years in office and massive alarm bells on Climate ringing all over the Planet, going into an election with no firm promises on increasing that paltry sum (which only sounds big as the "25 year" bit is always left out), is absolutely unacceptable. top

Q4: Sydney University estimates Australia spends around $8.9 billion a year subsidizing fossil fuels (which certainly puts spending $2.8 billion over 25 years on climate change into perspective). What’s your response to that? top

I believe that most of the subsidies here relate to transport. However, we can and should be cleaning up emission levels from vehicles. I would support renewable energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. top

It's not true that most of the subsidies in that report relate to transport, and even if they did, "Cleaning up" emission levels from vehicles (if such a thing is even possible when it comes to CO2), public transport and increased rail and sea links have lost out massively to increased road building every time. Further, this choice will deliver a double whammy to Australians as oil heads over $100 a barrel. And supporting renewable energy (which I'm glad to hear you do), means absolutely nothing without a firm commitment to Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets. After 11 years in office, the Co-alition's goal is still a miserable 2%.

And here's a very pertinent quote from the report under discussion, the one that says Howard's subsidising fossil fuels to the tune of over $8 billion a year:-

"About 58% of the total fossil fuel subsidies identified are perverse subsidies. These subsidies increase GHG emissions while at the same time reducing economic efficiency. Removal of these perverse subsidies can provide a ‘double dividend’ of greenhouse abatement and improved economic performance. However, this ‘double dividend’ will only be delivered if careful planning is conducted to ensure that the disruption caused by subsidy removal is minimised and steps are taken to ensure equitable treatment of all parties. Gradual removal of subsidies is more likely to provide an economic benefit than sudden removal."

. . . and 58% of $8.9 billion per year to subsidise fossil fuels is still an awful lot of money, and a great, great deal more than $2.8 billion over 25 years to fight Climate Change. top

Q5: John Howard’s new “Solar Cities Programme” will offset about 476,000 tons of C02 a year which means all of the C02 saved by Australia’s solar power only equals 0.28% of the C02 spewed by coal in this country. What’s your response to that? top

There are increasing number of Australians who are using solar power for electricity in their own homes, and the number who are feeding excess solar power back into the electricity grid. Through the use of some very valuable subsidies, worth $8,000 I believe, more and more Australians are taking up the opportunity to move to renewable solar energy and this is a very good thing.

However, with all that said, there is still a long way to go. I once read that there was enough sunlight hitting Australia to provide all of our energy needs, many thousand times over. Wind and tidal energy can also play a considerable part. The Nationals have been the champions of ethanol too, a renewable fuel that will make us less reliant on foreign oil. If we can identify the best places for wind farms, solar cities and tidal energy plants then we can start to plan for the future. top

Hajnal gives a good and very hopeful response on this question (though despite the domestic solar power she mentions, the big picture is grim), but it's not backed by any firm commitment, nor any policy statements from The National Party - and it's completely contradicted by the history of renewable power in this country after the Co-alition has been in office for 11 years.

Q6: The Chinese plan to install 60 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030 and 60 gigawatts is more than Australia's entire electricity output. Do you think that proves you can run a modern economy on renewables? top

Can we run Australia’s economy in 2007 completely on renewables? No, I don’t think we can. There isn’t a single car on the market today, for example, that could be run totally on renewables. But I do see the day when a very large proportion of our energy use comes from say, solar.

Whilst China is moving in a positive direction, they are not moving to a complete renewable energy market. (I note that just a few days ago they announced they were buying another $45billion of Australia’s natural gas).

However, with all that said, I believe more needs to be done to move towards renewables, not just in Australia but right across the world. top

Yes, you're right about cars - but with some recent official predictions of a 32% drop in global oil production by 2020:-

"My World Oil Production Capacity model has predicted that over the next 14 years, present global production of 82 million barrels per day will decrease by roughly 32%, down to around 55 million barrels per day by the year 2020."

. . . it looks like the convergence of Peak Oil and Climate Change will bring major challenges to our current thinking, like it or not.

And while you're right again that China is not moving to a completely renewable future (which I never suggested), it is true that their planned 60 gigawatts of green power is more than our ENTIRE grid system currently gives us. And that makes a very loud point about our present 2% Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, doesn't it? So I'm glad you think more needs to be done, but unless you openly commit to "Crossing the floor" if the National Party continues on its current (and historic), path in regard to renewables, that doesn't mean much, does it? top