Introduction

Over the last four years, the average amount of water flowing into the Murray was less than one quarter of the long-term average.

So Adelaide is a good place to be if you want to remember why it’s clever to be green.

As the capital of the driest state of the driest continent, it has had to re-engineer its water supply because local rainfall and the Murray had ceased be secure sources of water.

Major investment by the Rann and Rudd governments in desalination, stormwater harvesting and recycling, along with a comprehensive response in the Murray Darling Basin as part of the Rudd Government’s $12.9 billion long term plan, Water for the Future, have been turning around South Australia’s water crisis.

But what we’ve seen so far is nothing compared with what’s to come for all of us, unless we tackle climate change head on.

With a four degree temperature rise, there will be a dramatic reduction in irrigated agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin. This would leave the Basin beyond salvation.

With a four degree temperature rise, Australia will be scorched. The number of very hot days will increase dramatically – doubling in Adelaide and increasing by 30 times in Darwin.

And with a four degree temperature rise, some of our greatest natural assets will be devastated – with massive coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef and the loss of most of Kakadu’s wetlands.

The reason I use a four degree temperature rise is because this is an increase that has been specifically dismissed by the alternative government as not being a problem.

So while we make efforts to adapt to climate change – including preparing for a future with less rainfall – we need to be making every effort to reduce the carbon pollution that is causing climate change in the first place.

Reducing carbon pollution

This is easier said than done.

The fundamental challenge we need to overcome is that it has always been, and still is, cheaper to fuel economic growth with high polluting energy than with clean and renewable energy.

And there is no cost free way to do it.

As former Prime Minister Howard said three years ago:

the idea that you can bring about the changes that are needed and which many people have advocated, without their being any impact at all at any time on the cost to the consumer, is quite unrealistic.  

The question is how we share the costs.

We need to use high polluting goods and services less, and make sure that goods and services that don’t pollute are more affordable.

If we are going to tackle climate change, this is the change we need to make.

There are four main ways the Rudd Government is driving this change.

Direct funding of energy efficiency

The first is with direct investment in energy efficiency, including through our two and a half billion dollar Energy Efficient Homes Package and with $64 million for key building and appliance measures in the National Strategy on Energy Efficiency.   

This strategy is reducing emissions in a whole range of sectors — from more fuel efficient freight trucks to high tech street lighting.  In cooperation with the States, the Government is helping families and businesses are save on their energy bills by delivering better information, smarter products and greener homes.

There is still much to do, and so the Government’s next steps on energy efficiency will be guided by the recently announced Prime Minister’s Task Group on Energy Efficiency, which will report this year.

Direct funding of technology

The second way we are helping reduce carbon pollution is with direct funding into research and development, with the $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative, which includes the $1.5 billion Solar Flagships program.

Solar Flagships is supporting the construction of large-scale solar power stations in Australia.  This program aims to build 1000 megawatts of solar electricity generation capacity.  That’s enough to power a quarter of a million Australian homes. 

We’re also using technology to reduce carbon pollution from vehicles, with the $1.3 bn Green Car Innovation Fund.  This is driving innovation and green jobs in Australia’s car industry, with grants of $149m to Holden to produce a new fuel efficient vehicle in Australia, and $35m to Toyota for manufacture of the new Hybrid Camry. 

Renewable Energy Target

The third way the Rudd Government is driving change is through an expansion in clean energy investment, by dramatically increasing the Renewable Energy Target by over four times, so that by 2020, 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity comes from renewable energy.

This will ensure that in ten years, the electricity comes from clean renewable sources, like wind, solar and geothermal will be about equal to all the current electricity use of Australian households.

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

The fourth and most important way we are delivering action on climate change is through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Firstly, our plan caps and reduces Australia’s carbon pollution for the first time ever.

Secondly, our plan tackles the root of the problem by making polluters pay for their carbon pollution.

And finally, our plan takes the money raised from the polluters and provides cash assistance to 8.1 million working families – 660 dollars a year on average.

Lower income households get more assistance, and higher income households get less. 

The simple fact is if you want to reduce carbon pollution at the lowest cost to taxpayers you need an emissions trading scheme like the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

That’s why everyone from John Howard to Angela Merkel to Malcolm Turnbull to Barack Obama has embraced emissions trading.

And it’s why the overwhelming majority of advocates of action on climate change support emissions trading, and everyone who opposes action on climate change is doing everything they can to obstruct emissions trading.

Over thirty countries have emissions trading in place and a number of others are working on it.

Just last week the Obama Administration reiterated its support for emissions trading in the annual Economic Report of the President.

It is a policy that works.

And it works not just by enforcing a limit on emissions. By putting a price on carbon – by making polluters pay - it creates an economic incentive, and it will be the single biggest driver in clean development in the coming decades.

In the next ten years, along with the Renewable Energy Target, it will create additional jobs and attract additional investment in the order of $19 billion.

And under the CPRS, the renewable energy sector will be thirty times its current size by 2050. 

The alternative 

I don’t want to turn this morning into a heavily political exercise, but I would simply point out some points of contrast between our policy and the alternative which has recently been proposed.

Fundamentally it is a question of whether you are seeking a slogan to get you through an election, or whether you recognise that we have a unique and brief moment now to secure the chances of future generations.

On that measure, ours works, the alternative doesn’t. Ours delivers reductions. The alternative would see emissions increase by 13 per cent by 2020.

Ours makes polluters pay and therefore creates the incentive for clean development – the alternative lets the biggest polluters off scot-free.

Ours helps families cover increased costs with tax breaks and increased benefits. The alternative doesn’t deliver a single dollar in assistance to working families. Instead working families bear the cost of new subsidies to polluters, through higher taxes or pared-back services.

The alternative is what you get when your starting point is, and I quote the Leader of the Opposition, that climate change is “absolute crap”.

Given his known views and how threadbare his alternative is, it seems to me that it would be better if the Leader of the Opposition gave up the pretence that he cares about climate change.

Australians can spot a con job. The Leader of the Opposition should have the courage of his conviction that climate change is nothing more than an expletive. 

Copenhagen

It would be remiss of me not to speak briefly about where we are following the Copenhagen conference over the past two months.

It’s true that Copenhagen did not deliver the perfect outcome.

But one of the most disappointing things to come out of Copenhagen, I have to say, is the satisfaction that some have displayed about this imperfect outcome.

And unfortunately, that goes for some who seek to lead this nation. 

To have the man who aspires to lead this nation instead leading the cheer squad for failure is nothing short of a dereliction of duty. This approach completely ignores the fact that a strong global agreement is manifestly in Australia’s own national interest.

Rather than harness what was good about Copenhagen and focus our efforts towards what we can do as individuals and as a nation to maintain momentum, some have smugly exaggerated the shortcomings as a justification to do nothing.

It is no surprise that these are not impartial observers – they are the same people who never wanted action on climate change.

The reality is that the Copenhagen Accord is an important and welcome step toward an effective global agreement on climate change.

It saw, for the first time, leaders agree to hold any increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.

For the first time, leaders of developed as well as developing countries agreed to take action, side by side, to deliver that objective.

For the first time, leaders agreed to a framework for a transparent system to track our progress, which is key to getting the environmental outcome we all need.

And for the first time, leaders agreed on the finance necessary to support emissions reductions and adaptation in developing countries.

The world now has major emitters prepared to take action and to be accountable for it. The significance of this should not be overlooked or forgotten.

The Accord is strongly supported by both developed and developing countries.

The Accord includes pledges to cut and limit emissions from countries representing around 80% of global emissions and more than 85% of the global economy.

There is plenty here to build on.

And while we may be a year or so away from the agreement we ultimately want, does that mean that each of us should let our contribution to climate change just get bigger until then?

Does that mean that each of you should abandon your work in developing low polluting goods and services until we get a perfect deal?

Does that mean that we ignore all the work on climate change that actually is happening overseas, such as in China, where according to PWC the total market for clean and low pollution industries could be worth five hundred billion to a trillion US dollars in just three years – and do we ignore the enormous opportunities for Australian business that this presents?

Does that mean that Australian families should stop reducing their carbon footprints, and that our businesses should pollute like there’s no tomorrow?

More than ever, now is the time for each of ask to as the simple question: what can we do to help tackle climate change?

Conclusion

It seems to me it was smart before Copenhagen to try to reduce carbon pollution, and it is still clever now.

By contrast, there is nothing smart about making a bad problem worse.

2009 was the second hottest year on record in Australia, and it ended our hottest decade.

Since the 1940s, each decade in Australia has been warmer than the one before it.

What we don’t do today, will still need to be done tomorrow - only it will get harder.

The best time for us to act on climate change has long passed.

The best time for us to pass the climate change laws that will limit pollution and drive investment in a clean, renewable future has long passed.

We must take the opportunity that remains while we still can.