INQUIRY INTO AUSTRALIA'S RESPONSE TO GLOBAL WARMING
GOVERNMENT MEMBERS REPORT
Government members of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information
Technology and the Arts References Committee believe that the Committee's
inquiry into Australia's response to global warming has been wide ranging,
and has made a valuable contribution to public knowledge in the ongoing
debate on global warming. The inquiry has produced a useful insight into
the issues associated with the science behind climate change, the international
context in which Australia is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and the policies and programs Australia is employing to address the issue
of global climate change.
Most importantly the inquiry has enabled a broad range of views to be
heard on these issues. Government members note the significant work that
has gone into synthesising the views and issues brought to the Committee
in the production of the report. Government members were encouraged by
the many and varied suggestions put forward during the inquiry and are
confident that these will contribute to taking Australia forward in addressing
the issue of global warming. However, we also note that many of the recommendations
and conclusions appearing in the Committee's report are unrelated to the
weight of evidence presented to the Committee on the relevant topics.
Such factual irrelevance is a serious shortcoming of the non-government
members' majority report.
The scientific evidence brought before the Committee has confirmed for
Government members the certainty of the rate of increase in anthropogenic
emissions and the increase in surface temperature as a result. It is certain
that if global action to reduce emissions is not taken, there will be
substantial changes in climate over the next century and beyond. What
remains uncertain is the manner in which the complex dynamic system that
is the living Earth, especially the biosphere will respond to such increases
in temperature. For example, while some familiar ecosystems will likely
be adversely affected, will others benefit? And how will human society
respond to such changes? The mix of certainties and uncertainties has
resulted in a precautionary response to climate change that is reflected
in the goals and objectives of the UNFCCC and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol
to the UNFCCC.
Human induced increases in carbon dioxide (CO2), through the burning
of fossil fuels, industrialisation and deforestation is thought to be
the main driver behind the rapid rate of global warming. Evidence put
to the inquiry, and discussion of action that could be taken, focused
significantly on these processes and the reduction of CO2. However, recent
research by scientists who have been pre-eminent in global warming research
suggests that other non CO2 greenhouse gases have a role in driving global
warming in recent decades; and that action taken to halt and reverse the
growth of these gases may be more practical and achievable than attempting
to slow growth in CO2. [1] These gases include
nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), tropospheric ozone (O3) and industrial
synthetic gases such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), perfluorocarbons
(PFC's), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC's) and sulphur hexaflouride (SF6). Little
evidence or discussion of the role and contribution of these gases to
global warming, or action being taken to reduce these emissions, was presented
to the inquiry. In the Government members' view, this has resulted in
an over emphasis in the report's recommendations on one gas only, rather
than looking at the broader picture.
The Government members agree with the Committee's comment that research
into possible environmental, social and economic impacts of climate change
within Australia should be encouraged. With our extensive landmass, Australia
is likely to experience greater regional climate variations than most
other nations, resulting in significant changes to the existing vegetation
regimes, especially with regard to remnant vegetation pockets. However,
while some regions will become more marginal for human habitation and
utility, others could become more productive, so that not all changes
will have negative social and economic consequences. Better knowledge
is therefore essential to enable us to take advantage of any positive
outcome and ameliorate inevitable losses.
The Kyoto Protocol calls for action to reduce emissions of all greenhouse
gases in all sectors. The design of the Protocol also recognises the national
circumstances of parties to the Protocol and allows those circumstances
to be taken into account in the pursuit of action. Government members
agree that there is an imperative to act now on global warming, but disagree
with the report's assertion that existing government programs and policies
do not put us on the path to achieving current and future goals. The approach
that the Government is taking is a prudent and precautionary one. This
approach places the consideration of Australia's national interest in
terms of the international competitiveness of our industry, and of meeting
Australian society's long and short term social and economic needs, on
an equal and balanced footing with consideration of our international
obligations. In the view of the Government members this approach is entirely
appropriate and in accord with the intent and expectation of the Kyoto
Protocol. Giving evidence before the Committee, Mr Ralph Hillman, Australia's
Ambassador for the Environment, was emphatic that Australia's position
is accepted and respected by other countries.
Global warming has been recognised as a major issue in informed political
as well as scientific society for more than 20 years. This Government
has not sat back like previous governments to wait for all uncertainties
to be resolved but has taken a risk management approach, identified key
risks and opportunities, and established a credible record of action to
reduce greenhouse emissions while ensuring our national interests are
protected. Global warming and our international obligations are matters
the Government takes very seriously. The Commonwealth funding of almost
$1 billion is the largest commitment of funding to address climate change
in Australia's history and amongst the largest per capita globally.
Global warming is a long term issue, requiring a long term response and
structural change. It is important that the appropriate level of consideration
is put into developing that response and that structural change is managed
fairly. It is the view of Government members that action to address the
issue of global warming and to meet our international commitments must
suit our particular national circumstances, have the least impact on our
international competitiveness, and must focus on the most cost effective
action that can be taken now while establishing the pathway for the future.
The Government members agree that it is important in setting this path
that:
- the science is well understood;
- stakeholders are engaged;
- policy is integrated and a whole-of-government approach taken;
- the costs of both acting and not acting are taken into account; and
- support in principle the recommendations in the report to that effect.
- However, we do not support those recommendations that depart from
this path and place Australia's national interest second place to fear
of alleged international opprobrium.
- Government members agree that areas of significant growth in emissions
such as electricity generation and transport need to be addressed with
some urgency. In some instances consideration of beyond `no-regrets'
measures may be needed - we note that some mandatory measures have already
been put in place, including the renewable electricity generation Bill
currently before the Senate. However, before embarking on a wholesale
pursuit of draconian CO2 emission control laws, the existing mandatory
beyond `no-regrets' measures must first be given the opportunity to
work. The recommendations for the electricity and transport sectors
put forward in the report are, in many instances, high cost approaches
to reducing emissions, and without the backing of a strategic framework
have little chance of achieving systematic change and long term success.
In the Government members' view, it is important that action in these
areas be developed in a strategic manner and not in isolation of the
broader policy picture. Action should take into account the full range
of costs and benefits; combine the efforts of governments, industry
and the community; and achieve long lasting results leading to sustained
reduction in emissions.
- Government members support the use of economy wide market-based measures,
such as emissions trading, and agree that measures such as this are
most likely to be the fairest way to share the burden and ensure all
sectors are contributing to the abatement effort. We do not support
the introduction of a carbon levy on industry and we disagree that such
measures are required now. There are many factors still to be considered
before the introduction of emissions trading, such as the impact on
competitiveness, design issues, how to ensure industries already taking
action are not penalised, and the risk of pricing carbon ahead of the
rest of the world. Government members do support the continued investigations
and preparations for the introduction of emissions trading so that when
the timing is right it may be easily introduced.
The Kyoto Protocol and Australia's Negotiating Position
It is disappointing to the Government members that the non-government
members' majority report, albeit numerously and elaborately qualified,
hedged and carefully segregated on all important issues, has chosen to
focus on certain Utopian and partisan views of Australia's approach to
the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, and the misunderstandings of the provisions
and intent of the Protocol by those groups.
The approach that Australia took to the Kyoto Protocol negotiations was
one that was endorsed by all state governments and the majority of stakeholders.
The result of the negotiations represented a fair outcome for Australia
and, as indicated, regarded a fair outcome by others in the context of
these negotiations. The target that Australia accepted is in line with
our national circumstances and is a commitment that is equivalent to that
of other Annex 1 countries - an over 30 per cent reduction in business
as usual growth in emissions.
Ratification of the Protocol
Government members support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. However,
we believe that it is not in Australia's national interests to do so until
certainty is provided in the outcome of the international negotiations
on outstanding issues. These include the flexibility mechanisms (international
Emissions Trading, Joint Implementation, and the Clean Development Mechanism);
definitional and operational issues associated with the use of carbon
sinks; and what compliance system should apply and the consequences of
non-compliance. An issue of great significance for further consideration
prior to ratification is the extent to which developing countries will
be engaged in contributing to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.
As noted in the non-government members' majority report the next round
of international negotiations, CoP 6, at The Hague in November, is expected
to provide a greater degree of certainty on these issues. It should also
be noted that no major developed country has ratified the Protocol, nor
will they until the implementation arrangements are clearly specified
and agreed.
The Government members are pleased to note that the non-government members'
majority report agrees that Australia has a legitimate interest in ensuring
that key features of the Protocol are well designed and that developing
countries should be encouraged to take on specific commitments. It is
as important for the developing countries as it is for the developed nations
to see that the global aim of the Protocol is operationalised in the manner
that best suits the circumstances of all Parties. Australia needs to pursue
twin tracks. We need secure sound decisions on the specifics for implementation
of the Kyoto Protocol paving the way for countries to ratify the Protocol.
Simultaneously we need to be working with developed and developing countries
to secure agreement on moving forward with concrete steps on developing
country commitments.
It should be recalled that the Government will not be in a position to
ratify the Protocol until such time as a National Interest Analysis has
been conducted, as is required for all international treaties. In this
process the reasons for Australia becoming a party to the treaty will
be noted for the consideration of the Parliament prior to action being
taken to ratify. Such an analysis would include, inter alia, consideration
of the forseeable economic, environmental, social and cultural effects
of the treaty action, obligations imposed by the treaty, the direct financial
costs to Australia, how the treaty will be implemented domestically, what
consultation has occurred in relation to treaty action and whether the
treaty provides for withdrawal or denunciation.
Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol
In the Government members' view the opposition to the use of greenhouse
sinks under the Kyoto Protocol as a response to climate change is over
hasty and based on idealogical preoccupations, rather than a full understanding
of the likely extent of their use, and the contribution they can make
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As noted by Professor Farquhar,
from the CRC for Carbon Accounting:
… as far as the atmosphere is concerned, reduction in the level
of greenhouse gases by enhancing sinks or reducing emissions from the
land sector has equal validity with reduction of fossil fuel emissions.
We have the opportunity for better management of Australia's land surface,
in partnership with land users, to reduce greenhouse gases and reverse
land degradation. [2]
It is highly unlikely that any country is intending to meet their Kyoto
target entirely through carbon sinks, and certainly not this Government.
This is demonstrated by the almost $1 billion in investment in measures
other than sinks that the Government has made. In addition, while the
Kyoto Protocol does not permit unconstrained use of sinks, it allows the
use of a limited range of sinks as defined in Articles 3.3 and 3.4. of
the Protocol.
Professor Farquhar also noted that there are many common misconceptions
about the use of sinks, for example, perceptions of loopholes in accounting,
confusion regarding the difference between carbon stocks and fluxes, and
issues of the permanence or otherwise of carbon sinks. As noted in the
non-government members' majority report, these issues have been dealt
with in the recent IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and
Forestry and all are considered manageable through the establishment of
a credible accounting system. The Government support for such a system
is demonstrated by the significant effort and funding that has been put
toward establishing the National Carbon Accounting System and our participation
in the international discussions on these issues.
Government members also note that under the UNFCCC Australia is committed
to the promotion of sustainable development, and promotion and cooperation
in the conservation and enhancement of greenhouse sinks. This overall
commitment addresses both loss of vegetation cover through land clearing
and establishment of plantations and other increases in extent of vegetation
cover.
The Clean Development Mechanism
Government members do not support the recommendations that restrictions
be placed on activities to be included in the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM). The CDM is a particularly important element of the Kyoto Protocol,
as it provides a means of engaging developing countries in greenhouse
gas mitigation activities, facilitates technology transfer and helps with
achieving sustainable development. In the Government members' view there
is little merit in singling out particular activities for exclusion. It
should be the choice of developing countries to judge, in line with their
national circumstances, whether prospective CDM projects will assist them
with sustainable development. What is important is that all activities
meet the requirements of the mechanism. That is, they assist in achieving
sustainable development and contribute to the ultimate objective of the
convention. As noted in the non-government members' majority report, guidelines
could be adopted to ensure that projects do not have adverse socioeconomic
or environmental effects. In the Government members' view this is preferable
to the exclusion of specific activities.
Compliance
Mr Hillman informed the inquiry that `the shape and nature of the Protocol's
compliance system was an issue left undetermined at Kyoto. A compliance
system is needed to help parties comply with their Protocol emission abatement
targets and to sanction those parties that fail to meet their targets'.
[3] Furthermore, `current proposals range from
facilitative means designed to help parties overcome their implementation
problems to enforcement or hard measures such as requiring additional
emission reductions in a subsequent commitment period'. [4]
Government members agree with the conclusion of the non-government members'
majority report that the Protocol should have a pro-compliance approach,
that is, the system should encourage and facilitate countries to meet
their obligations before punishment for infringements is considered. However,
Government members do not agree that draconian punitive sanctions are
required to achieve compliance, as recommended.
In the Government members' view draconian sanctions will not be a useful
way to assist countries to achieve their target. As noted in the Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade discussion paper on this issue `Parties have
reasons other than the threat of hard sanctions for meeting their commitments
and that the incentive value of less than completely enforcement-based
consequences, such as publication of the Party's non-compliance should
not be underestimated'. [5] And it is also `more
environmentally sound and less costly for Parties to avoid non-compliance
than to correct it after the event'. [6]
Developing countries
The non-government members' majority report implies that Australia has
taken a divisive and uncooperative stance with regard to developing countries,
and has not demonstrated leadership to these countries. This is, once
again, a biased and ideologically-based view not supported by evidence.
The Australian Government has been taking an active role with developing
countries both in terms of the ongoing negotiations surrounding the Protocol
and in taking action to mitigate climate change. Some examples include:
- The hosting of training and development courses for developing countries
to learn about setting baseline definitions, monitoring and verifying
emissions and estimating greenhouse gas reductions; as well as working
through the practical aspects of potential projects for collaboration
in areas such as energy efficiency, electricity generation, renewable
energy and fugitive emissions.
- Agreement under the International Greenhouse Partnerships Program
with a number of countries for cooperative projects to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
- Funding of projects through the Australian overseas aid program that
help to abate greenhouse gas emissions, and facilitate adaptation to
climate change, while simultaneously assisting developing countries
to reduce poverty. This includes projects and programs to a current
total value of approximately $268 million.
- Working with like-minded countries to bring on developing countries
under the Protocol, by ensuring that design and operation of the flexibility
mechanisms is such that they will deliver the maximum economic and environmental
benefits and participation by a wide range of parties. [7]
It should be noted that developing countries emissions are expected to
overtake those of Annex 1 countries by 2020. This is a major cause for
concern. As noted in the non-government members' report, climate change
is a global issue, so there is very little point in Annex 1 countries
taking action to curb emissions unless, down the track, developing countries
take reasonable action. The Australian Government is not asking developing
countries to ratify the Protocol but is asking that they agree to a pathway
towards taking on commitments. This is a perfectly reasonable approach,
consistent with both Australia's interests and the interests of the developing
countries. We do share the same Earth and face the same challenge.
The potential for carbon leakage to occur, if developing countries are
not brought on board the Kyoto Protocol in some way, also cannot be dismissed.
Investment in carbon intensive industries, for which there is still much
demand, will shift to countries which are not carbon constrained, simply
because the cost burden of operating in Annex 1 countries will be too
high. It is therefore in the interest of Australia's international competitiveness,
and the global environmental outcome, to ensure that developing countries
are included in the global greenhouse effort as soon as possible.
The Performance of Existing Programs and the Policy Framework
The Government has taken a consistent and comprehensive approach to tackling
climate change and meeting our international obligations. This approach
was outlined by the Prime Minister in his 1997 Statement Safeguarding
the Future: Australia's Response to Climate Change. That is, seeking
realistic, cost-effective reductions in key sectors where emissions are
high or growing strongly while also fairly spreading the burden of action
across our economy. It needs to be appreciated that the Government has
a responsibility to do so in a manner that will not harm our international
competitiveness, and will protect Australian interests, Australian jobs
and Australian industry. To successfully achieve our goal requires the
commitment and support of industry, the community and effort on the part
of the states and territories.
In the view of Government members of the Committee, as it is a mere 2
years since the National Greenhouse Strategy (NGS) was put in place,
it is premature to be making judgements on existing programs and calling
for substantial new measures, when the scope, performance and effectiveness
of these programs is yet to be fully tested. The first report on progress
in the implementation of the NGS is being produced in accordance with
the published timetable, and requirements, for tabling in the Parliament.
In addition, programs such as the $400 million Greenhouse Gas Abatement
Program (GGAP), which has been designed to deliver significant reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions and a broad range of associated benefits to
the community, were only announced a little over a year ago. Projects
funded under GGAP will only commence in early 2001.
Government members do not agree that bringing forward a review of NGS
is necessary at this stage. A decision to bring this forward should await
the outcomes of first progress report to Parliament and the outcomes of
the international negotiations, before determining such a review is necessary.
Government members also consider without substance the assertions that
there is a lack of coordination across governments on programs. The NGS
provides the framework for cross government coordination and arrangements
designed to facilitate implementation, monitoring and reporting of outcomes,
as well as the review and ongoing development of the strategy. Coordination
and reduction of duplication is a key objective of the NGS. Government
members agree that in some areas coordination across governments could
be improved and note that the Commonwealth is committed to working with
the states to ensure that where national coordination is required, progress
is made to achieve that. For example, a number of state governments have
signed memoranda of understanding with the Commonwealth to facilitate
uptake of the Greenhouse Challenge in their state; and several Ministerial
Councils are engaged in facilitating coordination of a number of greenhouse
measures. [8]
Likewise the non-government members' majority report is clearly wrong
to assert that Government has not placed sufficient emphasis on the development
of a structural framework and long term industry plan to reduce the level
of uncertainty for industry. The NGS is only one element of the policy
framework. The NGS sets out a comprehensive range of measures for tackling
this issue at all levels of government and provides a framework and guidelines
for determining future directions, however, the strategy alone does not
and cannot address all the policy uncertainties.
The Commonwealth, through the Australian Greenhouse Office, has been
actively engaging key stakeholders in discussions to move the broader
policy framework forward and reduce the level of uncertainty for industry.
[9] As acknowledged in the non-government members'
majority report, there remain a number of key uncertainties affecting
the policy framework and future policy directions that will not be resolved
until international negotiations surrounding the Protocol have been finalised.
Government has clearly indicated that it agrees that reducing some of
those uncertainties is a desirable objective. However, the complexity
of the current situation, also acknowledged in the report, does not present
any simple solutions. The question of when to start factoring greenhouse
into investment decisions will differ for each industry and individual
firms, and according to developments in the international negotiations.
Action the Government has taken to provide as much certainty as possible
for industry includes:
- Positioning Australia well internationally, by ensuring that Australia's
national interest has been taken into account in all negotiations. Australia
has been a world leader in policy development on sinks and has made
strong contributions to the discussions on emissions trading and other
flexibility mechanisms.
- The commitment by the Government of almost $1 billion to greenhouse
response programs - amongst the highest per capita public investment
in greenhouse action in the world. These resources have been put towards
a broad mix of government programs including voluntary, regulatory and
market-based approaches and the Government is continuing to work with
stakeholders to identify cost-effective measures, and means of increasing
opportunities for action by industry to hedge against future greenhouse
liabilities.
- The Government was also first amongst nations to put a strong institutional
focus on greenhouse response with the creation of the Australian Greenhouse
Office. [10]
The establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office has proven a highly
effective and efficient mechanism for the delivery of greenhouse policy
and programs. The Office has played a leading role internationally. It
leads the coordination of domestic climate change policy and delivery
of Commonwealth programs, and has provided a central point of contact
for stakeholder groups. The Office has substantially improved coordination
and integration of greenhouse policy across Commonwealth agencies, has
been highly effective in bringing key stakeholders to the table for discussions
on greenhouse policy, and is successfully delivering a number of key greenhouse
response measures. [11]
Government members agree that governments should be leading others by
example and note that there are already several measures in the NGS aimed
at encouraging this behaviour. We note that as a result of action under
the Commonwealth Energy Policy, Commonwealth agency greenhouse gas emissions
declined by 11 per cent in 1998-99. [12]
Government members agree that states and territories should be encouraged
to play their part in areas of their responsibility. The contribution
of the states and territories will be important in meeting the Kyoto target.
Government members note the good efforts of some state's that were brought
before the Committee, we believe that had all states put forward submissions
or given evidence to the inquiry Committee members would have gained a
much better impression of performance overall.
The Greenhouse Challenge Program
The Greenhouse Challenge Program was launched in 1995 and has proven
to be one of the Governments most successful programs in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. The Program is a joint voluntary initiative between the
Commonwealth and industry, providing a framework for undertaking and reporting
on action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by industries signed up to
the Program. The Program has been highly effective in engaging business
leaders in both taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and facilitating
a dialogue between government and industry. [13]
The Program underwent a major review process in 1999 that concluded that
participants in the Greenhouse Challenge had already exceeded the expected
22 Mt CO2 abatement projected for 2000; and that the Program has significant
potential to attract further participants and expand to fill current sectoral
gaps. A particular area of success noted in the evaluation was that the
collaborative relationship between industry and government, in the design
and implementation of the Program, has resulted in a strong industry commitment
to reduce emissions and the achievement of early results. [14]
The credibility and success of the Program has been reaffirmed with recent
results of the independent verification of 35 major Australian companies
participating in the Program. The process cleared 30 of the firms taking
part and those who did not pass are committed to working with the Australian
Greenhouse Office to rectify the problems identified. [15]
Government members acknowledge that there has in the past been an issue
of transparency and accountability with regard to companies' performance
under the Program. The introduction of the independent verification process
has gone a long way towards improving this aspect of the Program and Government
members note that some useful suggestions have been put forward in the
non-government members' majority report that would contribute to improving
this further. Government members are concerned, however, at the potential
cost of some of the suggestions put forward, in particular, the suggestion
that benchmarks be established for emissions abatement by sectors of activity,
and that participants are assessed in relation to those benchmarks. The
non-government members' majority report already notes that independent
verification is costly.
The potential for the Program to act as a transitional mechanism in preparation
for a national emissions trading scheme is worth further consideration
and would sit well with the risk management approach that has been adopted
by Government. As noted in the Greenhouse Challenge Evaluation Report,
the Program has played an important role as a dynamic mechanism for learning
and capacity building, and facilitating management and cultural change.
[16] In the Government members' view, increasing
the capacity of industry to respond to climate change will be critical
for a future emissions trading scheme.
Energy Markets and Supply
Government members acknowledge the high growth of emissions in this sector
and the failure of energy market reform to deliver greenhouse benefits.
The projected future increases in emissions from the energy sector are
a major cause for concern and concerted effort is required to reduce this
growth. In the Government members' view this can be managed in a number
of ways, building on and extending current measures in the area of energy
supply, and targeting in particular demand management and energy efficiency.
The Government has already in place a number of measures, discussed further
below, that will deliver savings in this sector. Key amongst these measures
is the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. This measure will displace 9500
GWhs of largely coal-fired electricity by 2010, an emissions saving of
up to 7 Mt of CO2 per annum. It is one of the first legally binding greenhouse
gas abatement measures to be introduced in the world; and a world first
in utilising a certificate trading mechanism to maximise flexibility and
minimise costs. [17]
Electricity pricing subsidies, fixed price contracts, effects of privatisation
A number of recommendations have been put forward in the non-government
members majority report relating to the current pricing regime, the transparency
of this regime, and past subsidies. Government members acknowledge that
the way the electricity market runs does favour coal generation, and note
the states have a strong role in this and could exert more influence than
at present. The issue of fixed price contracts appears to primarily relate
to commercial in-confidence issues. Government members believe that there
is little influence that can be exerted with those in place; it is new
contracts that are being negotiated which will be more of an issue and
this is something largely driven by the market. Government members are
not convinced that the recommendations put forward in the non-government
members' majority report offer a practical or achievable solution to these
issues.
Greenhouse emissions standards for coal and energy market reform
Government members agree that it is important to reduce the greenhouse
intensity of energy supply and increase the efficiency of power generation.
This includes ensuring that energy supply markets do not unintentionally
discriminate against more greenhouse friendly fossil fuels and generation,
such as gas and cogeneration. In the Government members' view this must
be undertaken in a competitively neutral manner, consistent with the objectives
of national competition policy. The question of a more sensible use of
coal gas, which is associated with black coal, was not canvassed during
the inquiry. Coal gas has the same chemical composition as natural gas
and in current practice is vented into the atmosphere, as a net contributor
to greenhouse gas emissions. This must be considered a serious omission
of the inquiry.
Under the NGS, governments are working with industry to pursue strategies
to achieve best practice in the efficiency of electricity generation and
to abate greenhouse gas emissions from operations of the energy supply
industry. The Government has introduced efficiency standards for power
generation which will lead to reductions in the greenhouse intensity of
the Australian energy sector and an expected saving of up to 4 Mt per
annum of greenhouse gas emissions. [18] These
standards should be given an adequate opportunity to demonstrate their
effectiveness, or lack thereof, before any more extreme measures are considered.
Basslink
Basslink will enable Tasmania to enter the National Electricity Market,
a move supported by the Government. Government members note that a combined
environmental impact assessment process to satisfy Commonwealth, Victorian
and Tasmanian legislative requirements is to be undertaken and that the
guidelines for this assessment have recently been released.
In, and of itself, the project is not a greenhouse issue - it is not
generating power but allowing power to flow in either direction across
Bass Strait. Due to historic circumstances, Tasmania possesses a substantial
portion of Australia's existing renewable electricity generating facilities.
Government members note that Victorian and South Australian generators
are currently operating at maximum capacity and it would appear far more
likely that renewable power would be flowing from Tasmania to the north,
thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions, than power from the Victorian
generators flowing south.
Tasmania's renewable power is set to increase with the development of
new wind farms - much of this development will be stimulated by the Government's
mandatory renewable energy target currently under threat in the Senate.
Basslink is the key to the sustainable development of Tasmania's renewable
energy resources, generating significant local investment and jobs, while
at the same time reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.
Greenhouse trigger
Government members note that the Commonwealth is undertaking consultation
with the states on the matter of the inclusion of a greenhouse trigger
in the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999. The issues and recommendations raised in the non-government
members' report should be referred for consideration in that process.
Demand management and energy efficiency
In the Government members' view, end use energy efficiency is where some
of the greatest and most cost-effective greenhouse savings in the energy
sector are to be made. It is rapidly rising demand for energy that is
the main cause of rising emissions. Government members draw attention
to a recent presentation given by Mr Allan Gillespie, Chairman of the
Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA), which suggested that
30,000 GWh of electricity a year could be saved through end use energy
efficiency, bringing Australia in line with average OECD energy intensity.
The ESAA estimate that this could save from 20 to 30 Mt of greenhouse
gas emissions per year and contribute to significant improvement in economic
performance. [19]
Governments are currently working towards world's best practice in minimum
energy performance standards (MEPS) for a large range of appliances, and
industrial and commercial equipment. The states already have legislation
in place to ensure the introduction of these standards. The Commonwealth
is committed to working with the states to ensure an efficient process
for the introduction and improvement of MEPS. Attention is also being
given by Government to improving energy efficiency in the commercial sector,
in particular building energy efficiency with new standards to be included
in the Building Code of Australia. Other recent initiatives include the
introduction in 2001 of minimum standards for electric motors and commercial
air conditioners; and the consideration of minimum standards for commercial
refrigeration, commercial water heating, industrial equipment and lighting.
[20]
The Greenhouse Challenge Program has also been working with companies
to improve energy efficiency. Actions to abate emissions under the Greenhouse
Challenge most commonly involve improvements in energy and process efficiency.
For example, the aluminium industry has implemented a range of energy
efficiency measures in accordance with their action plan such as reduction
of power consumption by improvements to the production process in the
reduction lines and the carbon baking process. [21]
The Commonwealth is working in cooperation with the states to improve
the information available nationally and the coordination of energy efficiency
programs. In addition, a number of states have recently established energy
efficiency services to assist the commercial and residential sectors.
[22] Greater coordination and cooperation between
state and Commonwealth agencies delivering energy efficiency programs,
and with their stakeholders in business and the community - for example,
in the context of a single, agreed and ambitious national energy efficiency
plan - would deliver both improved greenhouse outcomes and enhanced economic
wellbeing. [23]
Renewables
In June 2000, the Government launched a strategic policy framework for
the renewable energy industry - `New Era New Energy' the Renewable Energy
Action Agenda. The action agenda has been developed in partnership with
the renewable energy industry and has the support of government and industry.
[24]
Action agendas are a key part of the Government's industry strategy.
They are designed to build a dynamic partnership between industry and
government, with the common goal of promoting sustainable economic growth
for Australian business and changing cultural expectations.
In developing the Renewable Energy Action Agenda, a strategic analysis
of the industry's competitive position was undertaken; a vision for the
industry developed and agreed, impediments and opportunities for sustainable
growth identified; a set of strategies and actions developed; and clear
responsibility and pathways for their implementation defined. [25]
The vision for the Renewable Energy Action Agenda is `to achieve a sustainable
and internationally competitive renewable energy industry which has annual
sales of $4 billion by 2010'. This target is considered to be a great
challenge for the industry, but an achievable one. It will require growth
in the renewable industry of between 24 and 26 per cent per year. The
target proposed in the non-government members' report recommendations
is not realistic. [26]
To achieve the action agenda vision, several strategic areas need to
be addressed including: building the market, building community commitment,
building industry capability, setting the policy framework and encouraging
a culture of innovation. [27]
The existing Commonwealth renewables measures such as the Renewable Energy
Commercialisation Program, the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program,
the Household and Community Photovoltaic Rebate Program, and the Renewable
Energy Equity Fund, totalling over $380 million of Commonwealth investment
will play a leading role in implementation and achievement of the strategy.
[28]
The Governments mandated 9500 GWh Mandatory Renewable Energy Target will
be one of the key drivers for growing the market for renewables, expected
to generate at least $2 billion in renewable energy investment in Australia
by 2010, and achieve emissions savings of up to 7 Mt per annum. The measure
will create a large, secure and long term market for new renewable energy
in Australia. [29] The introduction of this
measure is currently being hampered by the Senate, despite the strong
message given to Senators in submissions to the Senate inquiry on the
relevant bills that its implementation should not be delayed. Without
the stimulus that the measure offers, it is projected that the share of
renewable energy will fall progressively to less than 8 per cent by 2010
as a result of rapidly increasing demand for electricity and the fact
that most new electricity generation projects continue to select coal
as a fuel source. [30]
Transport
The non-government members' majority report contains a large number of
recommendations for the transport sector. Government members acknowledge
that action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this
sector. However, it is a matter of concern that there is an overwhelming
emphasis in the report's transport recommendations relating to improvements
to infrastructure, rail in particular, without considering the cost implications
or how such initiatives would be funded, and without recognising the need
for a more systematic approach to reducing emissions from this sector.
These recommendations also give the incorrect impression that little is
currently happening to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport.
It needs to be recognised that reducing emissions growth from this sector
requires the facilitation of long term change in how we build our urban
environments, the modes by which we travel and transport goods, and improving
the efficiency of these modes. Many of the measures contained in the NGS
are focused on identifying ways to achieve this change, which is not something
that can happen overnight without great cost (economic and social). Substantial
effort by governments is being put towards identifying and implementing
the most cost-effective options for the transport sector under this range
of initiatives.
This does not deny the need for shorter term action in areas such as
public transport systems, and many jurisdictions have been undertaking,
and have responsibility for, such actions. The Sydney Olympic Games provided
a good example of how systematic changes can significantly alter transport
usage, thus demonstrating much can be achieved through determined intervention.
It is worth noting that the cost of the intervention to achieve this short
term change has not been fully accounted for as yet. While the introduction
of new and improved infrastructure, coordination and range of options
for getting to the Games venues successfully delivered a significant increase
in the use of public transport during the period of the Games, there is
no indication from the NSW Government that the same commitment to public
transport will be maintained. It is noted that there were many complementary
measures, including serious limits on parking in congested areas, which
combined with enhanced public transport to make the exercise possible.
This is a short term example of how a variety of elements, which on their
own would have had limited or no impact, must be combined to achieve a
systematic impact.
The Commonwealth is committed to, and will continue to encourage states
to take action in this area. It is incorrect to state that there are no
Commonwealth funds for urban rail or public transport. For example, $65
million has been provided to Queensland to construct a light rail network
that meets Brisbane commuter needs; the 100 per cent excise credit for
rail transport will substantially assist all parts of the rail sector,
significantly reducing costs and improving the competitive position of
rail; the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme has been extended
to cover all public buses; and up to 50 per cent towards the cost of converting
vehicles to CNG or LPG is provided under the Alternative Fuel Conversion
Program. [31]
The report contains a number of worthwhile suggestions to reduce transport
related greenhouse gas emissions. However, these suggestions need to be
fully considered in terms of longer term cost effectiveness and how they
would fit together in a strategic framework to reduce transport greenhouse
gas emissions. This is something that the Commonwealth is asking states
and territories to consider under the National Greenhouse Strategy. In
the Government members' view, a better set of recommendations would balance
the broader range of issues raised in evidence brought before the inquiry
such as fuel efficiency, changing travel behaviour, encouraging technological
development of cars to improve efficiency and use of alternative fuels,
and encouraging modal shift, to provide a strategic way forward for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.
In May 2000, the establishment of new advisory body to the Australian
Transport Council was announced to enable transport ministers to better
address transport issues of cross-modal, cross jurisdictional and strategic
significance. The National Transport Secretariat (NTS) will be examining
in detail many of the issues brought before the Committee. These include
fringe benefits tax issues; improved transport planning processes; improved
freight corridors (looking at all modes of freight transport and their
interaction); improving the environmental performance of the transport
system; and development of an action plan for strategic land transport
infrastructure based on analysis of recent national land transport reports
(including those on rail reform cited in the non-government members majority
report). [32]
A key component of the NTS work program is to provide a strategic review
of the risks and opportunities facing the transport sector in responding
to the challenge of climate change. [33] In
the Government members' view this is the opportunity to look at the outcomes
of existing work under the NGS and put forward a more strategic, coordinated
approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from this sector. It is
recognised that a comprehensive approach to transport requires actions
outside transport portfolios, and therefore it is important that consideration
be given to how the NTS work can be integrated into an effective, whole-of-government
approach to transport related issues.
Commonwealth - state relations and funding of transport measures
Government members note the call for a common transport fund. Australia
has recently undergone beneficial tax reform with the introduction of
A New Tax System. A key element of this system was a landmark reform of
Commonwealth - State financial relations. The intergovernmental agreement
on these reforms provides all goods and services tax (GST) revenue to
the states, to be spent according to their own budgetry priorities. It
removes state reliance on financial assistance grants and revenue replacement
payments from the Commonwealth.
As GST revenue increases, all states will receive large financial gains.
In the Government members' view, some of these gains should be used to
improve public transport services and reduce the cost of taking public
transport in preference to removing the GST, which would only complicate
the new system.
The Commonwealth has in the past provided, and will continue, specific
purpose payments to states for a variety of transport related programs.
These have included major road and rail infrastructure programs consistent
with Commonwealth and national policy objectives agreed to between the
Commonwealth and the states. A common transport fund similarly would need
to meet these objectives, and ensure that all the costs and benefits of
proposed activities are considered, including environmental, social and
economic impacts.
Existing measures in the transport sector
The Commonwealth has been steering reform in a number of transport areas
that ultimately will have a positive effect on reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. This includes the Environmental Strategy for the Motor Vehicle
Industry, and encouraging the uptake of alternative fuels. We note increasing
attention, especially at state level, to optimisation of transport patterns
to make them more environmentally and economically efficient.
The Commonwealth has recently invested $250 million in rail reform to
create a reliable competitive, efficient and customer focused interstate
rail transport system. A key component of this has been attracting private
sector involvement in rail, and the establishment of the Australian Rail
Track Corporation (ARTC). To achieve the goal of rail reform full cooperation
of the states is required. As noted by the Deputy Prime Minister the Hon
John Anderson MP, `many of the barriers to private investment in rail
relate directly to the practices of state government agencies. These barriers
must be removed if the nation is to get full value from the $250 million
Federal investment in the interstate rail network'. [34]
Results have already been seen from these reforms including:
- the upgrading of the track between Melbourne to Adelaide saving 2
hours travel time and on the Perth to Adelaide section, a saving of
2.5 hours; [35]
- the allocation of $124 million towards generating additional freight
paths through Sydney and to relieve the existing peak hour curfew on
freight train movements; and [36]
- the signing of a historic 15 year lease agreement, on 20 October 2000,
by the Federal and Victorian Governments, covering the interstate standard
gauge lines throughout Victoria. $60 million has been committed by the
ARTC to track improvements that will enable freight trains to travel
at greater speeds thereby improving the competitiveness of rail transport
in Victoria. [37]
Carbon and the Land
Greenhouse sinks
It was clear from evidence presented to the Committee that increasing
greenhouse sinks provides an effective, practical and low cost means for
Australia to reduce emissions and assist in meeting Australia's international
commitments. Significant opportunities exist in Australia to invest in
carbon sinks and there are many environmental and economic benefits to
be gained from that investment beyond the carbon sequestered.
Much of the Government effort to date has focused on stimulating business
investment in these opportunities and in providing the necessary support
mechanisms to account for the carbon. The new $400 million Greenhouse
Gas Abatement Program also provides support for regional greenhouse partnerships,
to encourage significant and sustained reductions in greenhouse emissions
across regional Australia in various sectors. This includes promoting
sustainable land management involving the incorporation of greenhouse
considerations into agricultural, forestry, and vegetation management
practices. [38]
The Committee heard that many opportunities exist to enhance the protection
of existing carbon sinks such as native forests, and to invest in new
carbon sinks such as plantations, agroforestry and revegetation activities.
However, to get the maximum benefit from carbon sinks there is a need
for concerted action now, and the Committee heard that there were several
perceived impediments to this. Some of these impediments will not be resolved
until the outcomes of the international negotiations on sinks are known.
However, a key step that can be taken to facilitate and encourage action
with regard to greenhouse sinks is the development and implementation
of an overarching strategic policy framework for sinks. The policy framework
for sinks should integrate with natural resource management and ecologically
sustainable development; provide the basis for broadscale activity to
address other significant environmental issues such as dryland salinity;
and facilitate opportunities for new industries under a greenhouse banner.
Government members support the recommended development of a National Policy
Framework for Greenhouse Sinks.
Limiting the use of sinks
Government members do not support restrictions being placed on the use
of sinks as a domestic greenhouse response measure or a cap on the use
of sinks in a domestic emissions trading system. As noted earlier, the
opposition to the use of sinks is largely an ideological one. To restrict
the use of sinks would rule out potentially highly cost effective action
thereby increasing the overall cost to the economy of abatement.
Reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions
Government members agree that concerted action is also required in the
agricultural sector. In the Government members view the key to this action
is set out in the National Farmers Federation submission to the inquiry:
… greater identification, dissemination and extension of on-ground
changes to land management practices which enhance sustainability but
also reduce emissions from the agricultural sector… production
oriented solutions... .
… provision of information to land managers about greenhouse issues,
how they relate to natural resource management and how they may impact
on their management decisions and costs of production. [39]
The Government members support, in principle, the recommendations put
forward by the Committee with regard to the agricultural sector. Government
members note that this is a key area where states and territories can
make a difference, it is also potentially a cost-effective area of opportunity
for business that is yet to be seized upon. The use of a systematic approach
and effective coordination of activities at a national level will facilitate
such opportunities.
Managing our natural resources
Government members acknowledge the significance of land clearing in contributing
to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and other significant environmental
problems such as dryland salinity. Government members agree there is an
urgent need for long term action to address this issue and support the
recommendation that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions be a central
focus of natural resource management.
Under the Constitution, land management is a state and territory responsibility.
As such, land clearing controls most appropriately sit with state and
territory governments. However, Government members agree that for land
clearing to be effectively addressed requires sustained commitment, cooperation
and effective partnerships between governments, landholders, and non-government
organisations. To date not all states have demonstrated the necessary
degree of commitment and willingness to cooperate with the Commonwealth
and the other states and territories to achieve the desired outcome. Hopefully,
this will improve as governments come to realise the implications of global
warming both for the regions of the nation and for the nation as a whole.
For its part, the Government has demonstrated its commitment to such partnerships
in the past with the Natural Heritage Trust, and more recently with the
Prime Minister's $1.4 billion National Action Plan for Salinity and Water
Quality in Australia to be discussed at the upcoming, November 2000, Council
of Australian Governments meeting.
The Action Plan recognises that land clearing in salinity risk areas
is a primary cause of dryland salinity and that effective controls on
land clearing are required in each jurisdiction. Under the plan any Commonwealth
investment in catchment/region plans will be contingent upon land clearing
being prohibited in areas where it would lead to unacceptable land or
water degradation; and the Commonwealth will require agreement from relevant
states and territories (particularly Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania)
that their vegetation management regulations are effectively used or where
necessary, amended to combat salinity and water quality issues. [40]
The Action Plan also aims to replace the current disjointed Commonwealth-state/territory
frameworks for natural resource management, with a particular focus on
ensuring effective institutional arrangements are in place to oversight
implementation of the Action Plan, and that appropriate funding contributions
from states and territories and participating communities are made. The
Commonwealth is prepared to make a major financial contribution to implement
the Action Plan. States and territories will be expected to match this
contribution. New institutional arrangements proposed include the establishment
of a single Natural Resource Management Council to replace existing Commonwealth/state/territory
councils on issues currently concerned with elements of salinity, water
quality, biodiversity and other natural resource management and related
environmental issues. [41]
Native forest wood products and wood wastes as a source of renewable
energy
In common with the Government members report on the Renewable Energy
(Electricity) Bill 2000 and Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill
2000, Government members do not agree that native forest waste should
not be regarded as eligible biomass for the purposes of these Bills. In
the view of Government members, the arguments against the use of native
forest wood waste are irrational and unjustified. As noted by Dr Clive
Hamilton, of the Australia Institute, in the Senate Committee inquiry
into the Bills:
… if you have wood waste lying on the forest floor after logging,
it will release its carbon dioxide either by being burnt on the forest
floor or rotting, or you can chip it and put it into a coal fire power
plant or a bespoke energy facility. It is better to turn it into energy
rather than see the carbon just emitted into the atmosphere for no beneficial
purpose. [42]
We note that in the non-government members' majority report, the issue
is described as more about ecologically sustainable forest management
and the Regional Forest Agreements (RFA). This is nonsense. In the first
place, ecologically sustainable forest management is important in greenhouse
terms, however the report has not focused on how this might be improved
to lead to better greenhouse outcomes. Instead inappropriate focus has
been given to using the renewable energy bills to tackle perceived issues
with the outcomes of RFA's.
The Government has on several occasions noted that the best estimate
of the percentage of energy under this bill from forest waste would be
about 3 per cent. As stated by Senator Hill, `It is a very small percentage
of the total energy source, not a percentage that would be said to have
any significant effect on decisions to harvest a native forest or not'.
[43]
More importantly, while biodiversity is in itself of critical importance
for the sustainable human inhabitation and development of the Earth, it
is an issue quite separated from global warming. Indeed, the only connecting
point between the two is the fact that significant warming of the atmosphere
will undoubtedly lead to substantial changes to the biodiversity mix worldwide
and, probably with drastic effects, to regional ecologies. In such a context,
it is strange that so much emphasis should be devoted by the non-government
members to a far-fetched hypothetical threat posed to oldgrowth native
forests by the inclusion of forest wastes as renewables, when global warming
poses a real - by some evidence inevitable - danger of extinction to these
same forests.
Emissions Trading
As noted earlier, it is the view of Government members that economy-wide
market-based measures, such as emissions trading, are most likely to be
the fairest way to share the burden, at least cost to the economy, and
ensure all sectors are contributing to the abatement effort. Most of the
issues raised in the report regarding emissions trading are not new to
the debate and already being considered by Government in its examination
of this mechanism.
In order to provide greater certainty for industry, the Government has
recently confirmed that implementation of a mandatory domestic emissions
trading scheme will only proceed if the Kyoto Protocol has entered into
force, and there is an established international emissions trading regime.
This decision has not ruled out an earlier introduction of emissions trading
if further analysis demonstrates that domestic emissions trading would
be in the national interest. [44]
Government members are pleased to note the non-government members' majority
report recognises that there remain many complex issues that need to be
resolved prior to the introduction of such a system. We note that the
Australian Greenhouse Office is continuing their analysis of emissions
trading; and is undertaking a highly consultative process to examine these
issues. We are confident that the Government will take into account all
views in coming to a decision on the final design of emissions trading.
Government has also stated that all care will be taken to avoid disadvantaging
industries which have taken action in advance of a domestic emissions
trading scheme and is examining the possibility of crediting early action.
[45]
As also noted earlier, the Government supports a comprehensive approach
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting our international commitments.
There is a comprehensive package of measures already in place and in considering
the introduction of a domestic emissions trading scheme, consideration
will also be given to the range of measures required to supplement such
a mechanism.
The Government has already rejected the concept of a carbon tax in favour
of more flexible and cost effective mechanisms such as emissions trading.
The proposed use of revenue from a carbon tax to fund a `reverse carbon
tax' incentive program would duplicate existing programs. For example,
the $400 million Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program is already providing
an incentive to encourage significant investment in cost effective greenhouse
gas abatement. [46]
Convention on Climate Change Bill
Government members agree that such legislation is inappropriate at this
time, given the level of uncertainty regarding the international framework,
and support in principle the general conclusions of the report on this
matter.
Senator John Tierney Senator
Tsebin Tchen
Government Members Response to the Recommendations of the Inquiry into
Australia's Response to Global Warming
Government members support the following recommendations:
No's 3, 4, 7, 8, 17–20, 24, 30-32, 51, 63, 65, 69, 71, 74-80,
86-89, 92-94, 98, 103, 105.
Government members believe that the following recommendations are already
being dealt with through existing Government measures and processes and
as such are superfluous:
No's 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 21-23, 28, 38-40, 42, 43, 44,
45, 46, 52, 54-56, 58, 59, 66-68, 81, 83, 95, 96, 100-102, 104.
Government members disagree with the following recommendations and believe
they are either not supported by evidence, ill conceived, impractical
or are premature:
No's 9, 12, 15, 25-27, 29, 33-37, 41, 47-50, 53, 57, 60-62, 64, 70,
72, 73, 82, 84, 85, 90, 91, 97, 99, 106, and Australian Democrats recommendations
no's 1-14.
Footnotes
[1] Hansen et al, `Global Warming in the twenty-first
century: An alternative scenario', Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science No 97, 2000, pp 9875-80.
[2] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra,
6 September 2000, pp 924-25.
[3] Official Committee Hansard, Canberra,
9 March 2000, p 3.
[4] Official Committee Hansard, Canberra,
9 March 2000, p 3.
[5] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Climate Change Options for the Kyoto Protocol Compliance System: A
Discussion Paper, 2000, p 6.
[6] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Climate Change Options for the Kyoto Protocol Compliance System: A
Discussion Paper, 2000, p 8.
[7] Australian Greenhouse Office, Submission
No 169.
[8] Australian Greenhouse Office, Submission
No 169.
[9] Ms Gwen Andrews, Official Committee Hansard,
Canberra, 9 March 2000, p 5; and Mr David Buckingham, Official Committee
Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March 2000, p174.
[10] Australian Greenhouse Office, Submission
No 169. Ms Gwen Andrews, Official Committee Hansard, Canberra,
9 March 2000, pp 3-5.
[11] The positive role of the AGO was demonstrated
in the Commonwealth presentation to the Senate inquiry, and in number
of other presentations and submissions to the inquiry including Mr Ric
Brazzale, Australian Cogeneration Association presentation to the Senate
inquiry (Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March
2000); Mr Cameron Schuster, Wesfarmers CSBP Ltd presentation to the Senate
inquiry (Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 17 April 2000); Gorgon
Australia LNG, Western Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd (Submission No 90);
and Australian Industry Greenhouse Network (Submission No 113).
[12] Department of Industry, Science and Resources,
Energy use in Commonwealth Operations 1998-99, 2000, p 38.
[13] This was noted in a number of industry
submissions and presentations to the inquiry. See also Australian Greenhouse
Office, Greenhouse Challenge Evaluation Report, 1999.
[14] Australian Greenhouse Office, Greenhouse
Challenge Evaluation Report, 1999, p 73.
[15] Media Release, Senator Nick Minchin, Minister
for Industry Science and Resources, Greenhouse Challenge Delivers Credibility,
11 October 2000.
[16] Australian Greenhouse Office, Greenhouse
Challenge Evaluation Report, 1999, p 77.
[17] Australian Greenhouse Office presentation
to the Senate inquiry into the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000,
Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000, Proof Committee
Hansard, Canberra, 14 July 2000.
[18] Australian Greenhouse Office, Submission
No 169.
[19] Electricity Supply Association of Australia,
Address to Renewable Energy Generation Conference, Hobart, 15 June 2000.
[20] Australian Greenhouse Office, Submission
No 169; and Australian Greenhouse Office, Switched On, Issue 1,
July 2000.
[21] http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/agreements.
[22] The Sustainable Energy Development Authority
(SEDA) in NSW, the Victorian Sustainable Energy Authority, and ACT Energy
Advisory Service are a few examples.
[23] Electricity Supply Association of Australia,
Address to Renewable Energy Generation Conference, Hobart, 15 June 2000.
[24] Department of Industry Science and Resources,
New Era New Energy: Renewable Energy Action Agenda, 2000, pp 17-18.
[25] Department of Industry Science and Resources,
New Era New Energy: Renewable Energy Action Agenda, 2000, pp 17-18.
[26] Department of Industry Science and Resources,
New Era New Energy: Renewable Energy Action Agenda, 2000, pp 19-20.
[27] Department of Industry Science and Resources,
New Era New Energy: Renewable Energy Action Agenda, 2000, p 21.
[28] Department of Industry Science and Resources,
New Era New Energy: Renewable Energy Action Agenda, 2000, pp 23-32.
[29] Australian Greenhouse Office presentation
to the Senate inquiry into the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000,
Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000, Proof Committee
Hansard, Canberra, 14 July 2000; Australian Greenhouse Office submission
to the Senate inquiry into the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000,
Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000, submission no 5; and
Senate Official Hansard, Tuesday 10 October 2000.
[30] Australian Greenhouse Office presentation
to the Senate inquiry into the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000,
Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000, Proof Committee
Hansard, Canberra, 14 July 2000.
[31] Media Release, Prime Minister of Australia,
Changes to the Goods and Services Tax, Measures for a Better Environment,
31 May 1999.
[32] Media Release, the Hon John Anderson MP,
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services,
New Transport Body to Examine Planning, Greenhouse Emissions, 19
May 2000.
[33] Media Release, the Hon John Anderson MP,
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services,
New Transport Body to Examine Planning, Greenhouse Emissions, 19
May 2000.
[34] Media Release, the Hon John Anderson MP,
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services,
Federal Government Welcomes Private Sector View on Rail's Future,
31 May 1999.
[35] Media Release, the Hon John Anderson MP,
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services,
More Efficient Rail Travel Between Adelaide and Perth, 2 March
1999.
[36] http://www.dotrs.gov.au/land/rail/reform.htm.
[37] Media Release, the Hon John Anderson MP,
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services,
Historic Lease to Improve Rail's viability, 20 October 2000.
[38] Australian Greenhouse Office, Greenhouse
Gas Abatement Program: Guidelines, 2000.
[39] National Farmers Federation, Submission
No 145, p 4.
[40] Media Release, Prime Minister of Australia,
Our Vital Resources: A National Action Plan for Salinity and Water
Quality in Australia, 10 October 2000.
[41] Media Release, Prime Minister of Australia,
Our Vital Resources: A National Action Plan for Salinity and Water
Quality in Australia, 10 October 2000.
[42] Official Committee Hansard, Canberra,
13 July 2000, p 44.
[43] Senate Official Hansard, 10 October
2000, p 18054.
[44] Media Release, Senator Nick Minchin, Minister
for Industry, Science and Resources, Government Provides Greater Greenhouse
Certainty for Industry, 23 August 2000.
[45] Media Release, Senator Nick Minchin, Minister
for Industry, Science and Resources, Government Provides Greater Greenhouse
Certainty for Industry, 23 August 2000.
[46] Ms Gwen Andrews, Official Committee
Hansard, Canberra, 9 March 2000, p 5.
Top
|