Chapter 4 - The High Cost of Delay
4.1 This chapter analyses the evidence from the EWP, from
the inquiry and from other respected parties who have taken interest in Australia's
energy future in order to make some informed recommendations about the
Government's proposed energy policy.
4.2 While the continued use of coal, oil and gas for
Australia's future energy needs is the key element of the EWP strategy, the
Committee has gathered sufficient evidence to consider that, if adopted as it
stands, the EWP is a blueprint for delay in reducing Australia's greenhouse gas
emissions and will be directly responsible for the high cost to future
generations of Australians - environmentally and economically.[181] For example, the Committee heard
from the BCSE, who believe that the technologies that the EWP relies upon for
reducing greenhouse gases:
... are not going to be available for 15 years or so, but we still
have the challenge of spending $37 billion on energy infrastructure. How we are
going to do that in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions is certainly
not in the white paper. The white paper seems to be about R&D and
technology, which is great—and we do need that—but that is going to deliver
outcomes in 15 to 20 years time. There is nothing in place that will deliver
emission reductions in the short to medium term.[182]
4.3 The Committee also notes the ACF's concerns:
[The EWP] totally fails to recognise the economic and social
benefits that come from early action on climate change and investing in clean
energy technologies. For example, if the mandatory renewable target had been
expanded to a real five per cent by 2010, it could have created over 12,000
ongoing jobs, mainly in regional and rural Australia.[183]
The Committee's main concerns
4.4 The Committee considers there are a number of issues of
serious concern:
- while the Government acknowledges that greenhouse gas
emissions must be reduced if the world is to avoid experiencing catastrophic
climate change during the 21st century, the plan outlined in the EWP
does not go far enough and lacks a viable time-frame for success;
- the Government's energy policy fails to accept the
evidence that global warming has already begun and therefore action to reduce
emissions needs to be taken immediately;
- Government policy of relying on the hope that geosequestration
will eventually be possible and that it will significantly reduce greenhouse
gas emissions is not enough to reduce emissions in the near term;
- Government policy of hoping that alternative
technologies will be developed to make the burning of Australia's coal less
dirty and the production and use of energy more efficient is not enough to
reduce emissions in the near term;
- inadequate Government support in developing the
renewable energy industry, which will mean that Australia
will have to import renewable energy technologies in later decades;
- the Government's claim that the reduction of greenhouse
gases through the development of renewable energy sources will be too costly,
but ignores evidence to the contrary, and ignores concerns that there will be
greater costs to Australia in the future under its policy;
- the EWP proposal to cut diesel excise at a cost to the
cleaner LPG industry and to commitments made with the introduction of the GST;[184] and
- the EWP's lack of an effective plan to cut greenhouse
pollution, a long term target to boost renewable energy or a long term plan to
control the spiralling pollution from the energy and transport sectors.
4.5 These issues are discussed in more detail below.
Greenhouse gas
reductions
4.6 The Committee notes that the EWP acknowledges that
greenhouse gas reductions are
necessary to reduce the amount of global warming that will occur during the 21st
century. The EWP states:
The balance of scientific opinion is that global emissions of
greenhouse gases need to be reduced if changes in climate are to be avoided.
Analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that
reductions of some 60 per cent of annual global emissions are required by 2100
to avoid more than doubling pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. ... Even with substantial emission reductions, some climate change is
likely to occur.[185]
4.7 In recognising that the Government is aware that energy
production and its use are the major sources of greenhouse emissions within Australia
and globally, the Committee notes that the EWP states that:
Addressing human-induced climate change is a major issue for
this century. Emissions of greenhouse gases have the potential to raise global
temperatures, resulting in deleterious effects to people and the natural world,
its land and seascapes, its flora and fauna. Substantial reductions in global
greenhouse emissions will be needed to avoid these effects.[186]
4.8 The Committee is, however, aware that other
organisations see the problem as more acute. For example, a group from the
renewable industry and environmental sectors,[187]
representing more than 260,000 Australians and 350 companies, are more
concerned than the EWP about the effects of global warming:
The group believes that climate change is arguably the greatest
global challenge facing humanity in the 21st century. Climate change will have
serious economic, social, environmental and health risks for Australia,
including increased droughts, floods and bushfires, the loss of agricultural
production and irreparable damage to the Great Barrier Reef.[188]
4.9 The Australian Greenhouse Office notes with some
authority that the rate of CO2 emissions in Australia
has increased since 1990, and points to electricity generation in the energy
sector as the major contributor:
The energy sector is of key importance to greenhouse action in Australia.
More than two-thirds of Australia’s
total greenhouse gas emissions come from the energy sector. In 2002 energy
sector emissions totalled 371 Mt CO2-e, accounting for 68% of net national
emissions. Stationary energy, or energy from fuel combustion, produced 262 Mt,
or 48% of net national emissions. Fugitive emissions from, for example, coal
mining and oil and gas production, comprised another 5% (30 Mt) of net national
emissions. Total emissions from the energy sector in 2002 were 1% higher than
in 2001 and 30% higher than in 1990. By 2020, energy emissions are projected to
reach 486 Mt CO2-e, an increase of 63% over the 1990 level.
Electricity generation accounted for approximately 69% of
stationary energy sector emissions or 33% of net national emissions in 2002.
Emissions from electricity generation grew by 41% between 1990 and 2002.
Future demand for energy in Australia
is projected to grow rapidly. Forecasts show that in 2020, energy demand will
have risen by 60% over the preceding two decades. To meet this demand, an
additional 25% of generation capacity is likely to be required by 2020, and, by
2030, an additional 52%.[189]
4.10 The Committee is concerned that, with the projected increased
demand for energy in the next 45 years, the EWP fails to put in place specific
targets and achievable timeframes to meet energy reductions and CO2 emissions.
As stated by Mr Brad
Page, CEO of the Electricity Supply
Association of Australia:
We need a single greenhouse policy to tell us what we're all
trying to achieve over the next 40 to 50 years because the kind of investments
we make in this industry, particularly power generators, have lives of 40 to 50
years.[190]
4.11
The Committee agrees with Greenpeace Australia Pacific
that:
... the prevention of dangerous climate change requires
industrialised countries, including Australia,
to reduce greenhouse emissions by 60-80% below 1990 levels by 2050 ... a roadmap
needs to be developed which sets out how this target will be achieved.[191]
Recommendation 1
4.12 The Committee recommends that the Government, in
consultation with energy interest groups and the energy industry, develops a
detailed long-term strategy that includes specific CO2 emissions reduction
targets for 2010, 2020 and 2030, with the ultimate goal of reducing greenhouse
emissions by at least 60% by 2050.
Time for action:
the evidence
4.13
The Committee is concerned that the EWP does not acknowledge
that any delay in significantly reducing greenhouse emissions will have an
increasing effect on climate change. One submission to this inquiry, for
example, is particularly critical. The Australian Wind Energy Association
(AWEA) states that the EWP goes no further than:
... acknowledging the potential for greenhouse gas emissions to result
in climate change impacts... however, these impacts are widely accepted to be
occurring now, and expected to increase in frequency and intensity with the
ongoing emission of CO2 gases.[192]
4.14
The Committee notes that, despite the connection made
in the EWP that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming,[193] the Minister for Environment and
Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, in a reply to a government question in the
Senate in December 2004, did not concede the causal link. He stated that the
reduction in rainfall in Australia:
... confirms that climate change is in fact a reality. The reality
is that there are significant reductions in the size of the Antarctic icepack.
There is significant climate change occurring around the world. There is no
longer a question about whether climate change is affecting the world. The real
questions are: what is causing it and what are the solutions? The jury is, it
is fair to say, scientifically out on both of those big answers. Governments of
the world need to work together to ensure that we address what I call the
biggest threat to the environment.[194]
4.15
But, by March 2005, the Committee notes, Senator
Campbell told the 20-nation energy and
environment conference in London
that the Australian Government had established a $500 million fund, as proposed
in the EWP to assist in developing carbon abatement technologies, and said
that:
The [$500million] fund was the key component of the Government's
$1.8 billion package of programs to address climate change.[195]
4.16
The Committee is concerned that the Government does not
give appropriate weight to the urgency in dealing with the increase of
greenhouse gas emissions. Evidence presented to the Committee[196] clearly indicates that action needs
to be taken immediately in order to achieve the necessary greenhouse gas
reduction targets mentioned in the EWP.
Recommendation 2
4.17 The Committee recommends that the Government set
abatement timeframes and raise the abatement targets for projects seeking
funding through the Low-Emissions Technology Development Fund.
Reliance on the
hope of geosequestration
4.18
In examining the EWP's reliance on the development of
geosequestration as a carbon abatement technology, the Committee found it
difficult to accept the Government's position. The EWP makes it quite clear, as
shown above in chapter 3, that it will be in excess of 15 years before
geosequestration will be operating. The Committee notes that experts in the
field of carbon capture technologies firmly predict that it would be another
decade before geosequestration will have an effect on abatement of carbon
emissions because the technology could only be applied in a cost-effective way
to coal-burning generators built after the technology is developed.[197]
4.19
Geosequestration, the Committee believes, will not help
reduce CO2 emissions by any significant amount for at least the next 25 years;
far too late to contribute to the immediate problem of controlling CO2 output.
The ACF comments:
[Geosequestration] could potentially substantially reduce
emissions from particular power stations ... but it takes time for these
technologies to work their way into the system. So, unless you actually start
shutting down all the coal-fired power stations that we currently have and
replace them overnight with geosequestration power stations, you will not get a
significant emission reduction in the short or medium term. The estimates
suggest that by 2030 you would get about two to three per cent reduction in Australia’s
electricity sector.[198]
4.20
The Committee also is aware that the EWP focuses on
coal geosequestration, as pointed out by the ACF:
The other problem with the government’s focus on
geosequestration is that it is nearly totally focused on coal. Where is the
research and development that is being done on geosequestration and gas? Where
is the research and development that is being done on geosequestration and
biomass?[199]
4.21
Furthermore, the Committee notes evidence that the
development of geosequestration would be costly – around $50 to capture one
tonne of CO2.[200] As the ACF stated:
Even if the low-emission technology fund does help to reduce the
cost of geosequestration, for example, you have to then basically drive
geosequestration onto the market at unrealistically higher rates to achieve
those deep cuts in emissions, and that would be extremely economically costly.[201]
4.22
The ACF also goes on to say:
Australia
is commenting on IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change][202] work that is being done on
geosequestration. It is playing a fairly active role in that. It is also
involved in the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, which is a group of
smaller countries who are seriously looking at the technology. The bottom line
with geosequestration is that what the white paper essentially does is to say,
'Let’s assume that it works in 2020 or 2030'. But in order to drive it onto the
market, the government would probably have to do something like put on a $50 a
tonne carbon tax in 2030 or 2050. That would be a massive shock to the economy.[203]
4.23
The Committee also notes evidence that geosequestration
may not deliver the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, even if
it does become operational in 15 years. Geosequestration by itself cannot meet
the reductions necessary for Australia
to be on target to reduce its emissions by 15-30%[204] if it is to assist in minimizing
global warming. As the Committee heard:
... even if
[geosequestration] does work, it cannot be the dominant energy system in the
world by the end of the [21st] century, simply because it is not a
zero emission technology. If you are optimistic you might get 80 to 90 per cent
emission reductions from a traditional coal-fired power station, but, if you
start building large-scale geosequestration plants all over the world, that 10
per cent emission that you still get would compromise the climate system... [Geosequestration]
is not a serious option overall for reducing emissions on the scale that we
need.[205]
4.24
The Committee also notes that a Discussion Paper
produced by the Australia Institute in September 2004 concludes with:
Over the next two decades, however, a policy that neglects or
excludes other low emission technologies, in favour of coal with CCS (CO2
Capture and Storage), will place Australia
on an unnecessary high-cost path to reducing emissions. This is not an
economically optimal policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the
energy sector.[206]
4.25
Greenpeace argues strongly that, in order to help
reduce the escalating greenhouse gas emissions, the Government should make a
commitment not to approve any new coal-fired power stations nor to expand or
extend the life of existing ones.[207] Furthermore, Greenpeace recommends that the
Government:
... should not fund research in areas
advocated by the fossil fuel industry, including geosequestration, which,
recognising the polluter pays principle, should be funded by the fossil fuel
industry.[208]
Recommendation 3
4.26 The Committee recommends that the Government:
-
recognise
that geosequestration is one of many options for reducing Australia's CO2 emissions;
and ensure that the greater proportion of the Low Emissions Technology Fund is
made available to technologies which can provide emission reductions in the
short term;
-
fund only
cost and abatement effective research and development on the basis of the
principle that the polluter pays; and
- extend the life of the Low Emissions
Technology Fund to cover the timeframe set out for emissions reductions
targets, namely a reduction of at least 60% by 2050.
The hope of a
cleaner burn from coal
4.27
The Committee notes that, as discussed in chapter 2,
the EWP, in introducing the Low-Emission Technology Development Fund at a cost
of $500 million, seeks to invite private investment to:
... demonstrate breakthrough low-emission technologies with
significant long-term abatement potential. Eligible technologies need to be
able to reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 2 per cent at realistic rates
of long-term uptake. Technologies can include renewable and fossil-fuel supply
as well as energy efficiency in both the stationary and transport sectors.[209]
4.28
However, the Committee is aware of The Australia
Institute's studies, based on investigation of current literature, of the
various emissions from different fuel mixes for power generation. From these
studies the Committee notes that, by using the Integrated Drying Gasification
Combined Cycle (IDGCC) in coal-fired electricity generators, a reduction from
1200 Kg (CO2 equivalent per Megawatt hour of energy produced) to 900kg can be
achieved.[210] HRL Ltd, an Australian
owned energy, technology and project development, also claims that, for every
single megawatt (MW) hour of electricity produced using IDGCC, 30% less brown
coal is used and hence 30% less CO2 will be emitted.[211]
4.29
The Committee considers that the target of 2% reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions hoped for in the EWP's Low-Emissions Technology
Development Fund[212] is far too small
for the investment of $500 million. For example, the BCSE claims that the
technologies that exist right now - such as using LPG in energy generation,
increasing the MRET to encourage further renewable energy input into the energy
market, rolling out the NSW BASIX scheme[213]
across the nation, and putting in place incentives to encourage energy
efficiencies in the manufacturing, commercial and residential sectors - would
achieve significant reductions in emissions from energy without imposing a
major impost upon the economy. These measures would:
... create a 9% reduction in stationary final energy consumption
and a 9% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the stationary energy
sector.[214]
Recommendation 4
4.30 The Committee recommends that the Government provide
incentives to encourage the uptake of current energy efficiencies, such as by
adopting the NSW BASIX
energy efficiency scheme on a national basis.
Immediate support
for renewable energy technologies
4.31
The Committee notes that an additional $100 million, on
top of the Low-Emission Technology Development Fund, is proposed to support the
development of smaller-scale renewable technologies. The Solar Cities trials,
for example, aim to:
... provide working demonstrations of how technology and efficient
markets can combine for a sustainable energy future.[215]
4.32
The EWP states that the trials will be monitored for at
least 5 years.[216] The Committee is
concerned that the $75 million for the solar cities scheme over five years
could be better used instead to continue funding the existing Photovoltaic
Rebate Program (PVRP). This scheme has proved very successful:
Over the period 2000–01 to 2003–04, a total of $28.5 million had
been rebated with more than 5300 photovoltaic systems installed providing six
megawatts of total capacity of energy available from photovoltaic sources. From
2003–04, the Australian Government extended the life of the initiative to
2004–05 and increased total funding to $40.4 million. In 2003-04, the total of
rebates paid amounted to over $4.8 million with just under 1000 photovoltaic
systems installed.[217]
4.33
The Committee notes that the PVRP will not receive
funding after June 2005.[218]
4.34
As the Committee is aware, the way to develop solar
energy and reduce unit costs is to create large-scale deployment, and notes the
successes in many developed countries with wind and solar technologies:
... because it is recognised that, with significant deployment,
you will get cost reductions. We can at least guarantee that these technologies
will be there in five and 10 years time to deliver greenhouse abatement.[219]
4.35
The Committee sees that the MRET is another vital
factor in creating greenhouse gas abatement. The Committee, contrary to the
Government's claim that implementing an emissions trading scheme and/or
expanding the mandatory renewable energy target would lead to higher costs,
believes that:
... in fact, it is more likely that the Energy White Paper will ...
lead to high costs associated with greenhouse emissions due to its failure to
drive technological change in the energy sector cost effectively. This is
particularly evident [in] its failure to establish a price on greenhouse
emissions and [to] set a long-term emission reduction target.[220]
4.36
Indeed, the Committee believes by increasing the MRET
to a 5% target by 2010, and then increasing the MRET further to 10% by 2020,
the Government would, as the BCSE suggested, send a signal to industry that it:
... is serious about reducing greenhouse emissions. That then
needs to be supported by an emissions trading scheme that puts a price to
carbon so we can start to get effective investment in energy infrastructure and
we do not build stranded assets. That is an important step but, in itself, it
is also not sufficient. We would still need an expansion in the mandatory
renewable energy target and some aggressive energy efficiency measures,
particularly mandated minimum performance standards for new homes and buildings.[221]
4.37
In response to evidence that supports the need to
provide easier entry pathways for new technologies into the energy market, the
Committee agrees with the WASEA:
In better integrating with renewables, [base-load power
stations] reduce the overall cost of renewable energy on the system. We also
need to see a system that fairly rewards renewable energy for its role in the
system.
There are also some techniques that have been used successfully
overseas by getting information from the community about what types of
technologies they would like to see in the system. Deliberative polling in
particular has been used very successfully in Texas.
That involves going to the community and explaining to them that there is a
requirement to source additional energy to meet the needs of a growing
population. If they were involved in the process of deciding where that energy
was to come from, we may see an informed community taking the decision to
source a percentage of that energy from renewable sources, with a smaller
percentage from coal and perhaps a percentage from gas. Those types of measures
would be very beneficial in facilitating the uptake of more desirable energy
forms.[222]
Recommendation 5
4.38 The Committee recommends that the Government continue
to fund the Photovoltaic Rebate Programme (PVRP), and set targets for the
installation of stand alone (RAPS) Photovoltaic (PV) energy systems and for
grid-connected PV energy systems.
Recommendation
6
4.39 The Committee recommends that the Government re-examine
the projected costs of increasing the MRET to at least 5% by 2010, to 10% by
2020, and 50% by 2050, and if it is not prepared to do this, provide
infrastructure grants for renewable energy developments.
Fuel excise
reductions
4.40
The Committee believes that the proposed tax credit
exempting businesses from paying excise on diesel, gas and petrol, will have a
significant negative effect on investment and development in low emission,
indigenous renewable energy sources. As Tim
Colebatch, Economics Editor of The Age, argued:
The weakness [of the EWP] is that most of its spending is on a
soft-headed, populist tax cut to make it cheaper for business to use and waste
energy. The core goal of the policy is to make dirty fuels cleaner. Yet the
core spending is just on making dirty fuels cheaper. And while there is a token
effort to balance the fossil-fuel and renewable-energy sectors, in reality the
policy turns its back on the renewable-energy future to focus on prolonging the
fossil-fuel present.[223]
4.41
The Committee is aware of the problems the excise
changes will cause the LPG industry. As discussed in chapter 3, the ALPGA
clearly demonstrated in their submission and at the public hearing that the EWP
policy change will erode the competitive position of LPG across the whole
industry.[224] The ALPGA went on to say
that:
In addition to the potentially negative financial impacts
directly on LPG consumers, a reduction in LPG consumption would have far
greater consequences that we believe are inconsistent with the EWP’s
fundamental objectives. These might include an increase in oil imports,
greenhouse emissions and air pollution.[225]
4.42
The Australia Institute's studies reveal that currently
operating combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)[226]
production of electricity reduces the CO2 emissions from 1200 Kg (CO2
equivalent per Megawatt hour of energy produced) to under 400kg,[227] representing a 60% reduction. The
Committee therefore considers that the EWP should take into account the use of
LPG in electricity generation in its commitment to reducing CO2 emissions instead
of, as noted in chapter 3, ignoring this promising energy source in power
generation.
4.43
The Committee also notes that the proposed reduction of
$1.5 billion in excise on diesel in the EWP does not honour the commitment the
Government made when developing the GST legislation, which required that an
'Energy Credit Scheme' would provide incentives to switch to the cleanest
fuels.[228]
Recommendation 7
4.44 The Committee recommends that the Government not
proceed with the proposed reductions in excise on diesel and petrol in the EWP,
unless the decision to impose excise on biofuels and gaseous fuels by 2012 is
reversed.
Energy efficiencies
4.45
The Committee acknowledges the sorts of benefits[229] that energy efficiencies can deliver
in greenhouse abatement, and notes that energy efficient benefits will only
occur with proper and deliberate planning. As stated by Mr
Phil Harrington,
Division Head, International Energy Agency:
Energy efficiency offers enormous benefits for energy security,
sustainable development and greenhouse gas abatement. These benefits can be
realised at negative or very low cost. But this will only occur under an
ambitious and comprehensive policy framework [where the] role of governments
[must] offer leadership, establish integrated, comprehensive policy frameworks,
set high standards and deal with policy conflicts.[230]
4.46
The Committee considers that the EWP fails to offer
government leadership, fails to set high standards and fails to deal with
policy conflicts, all of which are necessary for establishing an energy
framework necessary to achieve the level of emissions reductions required to
prevent catastrophic global warming in this century.
Recommendation 8
4.47 The Committee recommends that the Government develop a
more comprehensive policy framework that will set stronger market incentives to
invest in energy efficiencies and mandate standards for CO2 abatement with specific,
quantifiable and meaningful targets.
Recommendation 9
4.48 The Committee recommends that the Government move to
review its own operations in order to achieve maximum energy efficiencies and
CO2 abatement prior to 2010.
The cost of delay
4.49
The Committee understands that the issue for the
critics of the EWP is that, if action is not taken now, the cleaning up of Australia's
greenhouse gases will be more costly and more difficult as we move towards
2020, with a corresponding increase in the warming of the earth's atmosphere.
The ACF makes it clear:
In essence, unless additional measures are
taken to rein in energy sector emissions Australia’s greenhouse emissions will increase substantially over the
next couple of decades. In order to contribute to meeting a long-term global
target to stabilise the climate after a delay until 2020, Australia’s and the
energy sector’s emissions would need to reverse the upward trend in emissions
and come down by around 2.5% and 3.5% per year respectively to 2050. Such a
rapid reduction in emissions would likely be very costly when compared to the
around 1.5%/year reduction that would be required if policies and measures were
instituted to start reducing those emissions now.[231]
4.50
The Committee notes the latest developments by
the states in creating carbon trading schemes, in response to the states'
perception of the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions.[232]
Recommendation 10
4.51 The Committee recommends that the Government introduce
a carbon trading scheme, or at least provide support for the states' carbon
trading scheme, and mandate maximum levels of carbon emissions for Australia,
according to diminishing benchmarks towards the goal of 60% by 2050.
Recommendation 11
4.52 The Committee recommends that the Government reconsider
the benefits of a carbon tax as a tool to reduce carbon emissions in the
industrial sector.
Looking forward
4.53
The Committee recognises the concerns expressed in many
of the submissions that the EWP does not contain effective planning for the
future needs of the Australian community in energy supply, gas emission
reductions or alternative renewable energy development.[233]
4.54
Energy related emissions are increasing at an alarming
rate, yet there are no expressed policies in the Energy White Paper that will
address this issue and rein in emissions.[234] The renewable industry and environmental
sector group, the Clean Energy Crisis Meeting Group, contends that the EWP:
... fails as a 21st Century response to energy security and
climate change. The group agrees that the White Paper contains no effective
plan to cut greenhouse pollution, no long term target to boost renewable energy
and no long term plan to control the spiralling pollution from the energy and
transport sectors.[235]
4.55
The Committee is sceptical that
the Government's 'business as usual'[236]
approach to Australia's future energy needs and the EWP's claimed commitment to
greenhouse gas abatement will be as successful as the Government would
have Australians believe. Australia
remains the highest per capita greenhouse emitter in the developed world. If Australia
is to contribute effectively to minimising global warming and regain
credibility on the matter in international forums, the Government must mandate
rigorous and demonstrable benchmarks for the reduction of greenhouse emissions.
4.56
The Committee has received evidence that some of these
measures are available now. However, few of the proponents of those existing
technologies believe the current regulatory and policy framework will provide
adequate opportunities for significant structural change - change that would
pave the way to deep greenhouse cuts - in the energy generation and transport
sectors.
4.57
The Committee refers the Government to the
recommendations of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information
Technology and the Arts References Committee's previous inquiry – The Heat is on: Australia's Greenhouse
Future, November 2000 – for measures that would significantly reduce Australia's
greenhouse emissions.
4.58
The Committee calls on the Government to do more to
guarantee future Australian and global standards of living and security by
revisiting its energy policy with a view to ensuring Australia
plays a leading role in delivering a clean energy future.
Senator John Cherry
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page