Unfortunately there are climate deniers in the senior ranks of the NSW Government.

Some hold the most responsible positions in government; Ministers in charge of departments which make policy on matters most sensitive to global warming – our natural environment, transport and fossil fuel resources.

During Budget Estimates last month the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the Hon. Robyn Parker revealed that she gets her information on climate science from the newspapers and believes the science is not settled and is still being debated. I asked the Minister: where did you get the information that the science (on climate change) was being debated?

She replied:

Do you not read papers, do you not listen -

And the Minister for Road and Ports and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council the Hon. Duncan Gay, coyly dodged a question from me on whether he believed that greenhouse gas emissions from trucks and cars contribute to climate change saying:

It is my understanding that a lot of people believe that.

Perhaps the most outrageous and bizarre statements have been recorded by the Government whip in the Upper House, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. His remarks have visited the extremist end of the climate deniers’ utterances. In the Legislative Council on 30 May 2011 he said:

I comment in this place on the latest adventures in the great global warming swindle that is gripping our nation and most of the formerly civilised world.

He appeared to be likening some present day climate scientists to totalitarian sympathisers.

Indeed, how different are today’s global warming urgers from those in pre-war Britain, who looked forward to a Britain that would be “centralised and totalitarian”? Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The present idolatry for pseudoscience, the claims of settled science and of a scientific consensus—these are the leper’s bell announcing the approach of the would-be totalitarian. The bell was not heeded in the 1930s. It should be heeded now.

And then on 11 May 2011 he suggested that dragons were just as responsible for climate change as CO2 emissions. I  can only presume he doesn’t believe in dragons.

Recently I introduced a Notice of Motion into the Legislative Council calling on the NSW Government to commit to dramatically decreasing NSW’s carbon emissions including that embedded in our coal exports, and immediately work to phase out fossil fuel energy and replace it with alternative and renewable energy.

I spoke in the parliament about some of the recent science from the renowned NASA climate scientist, James Hansen, showing a link between extreme weather events such as the current catastrophic drought in the USA and climate change.  (What would we now say about Super-storm Sandy?) I mentioned 2 recent reports from our own CSIRO. One shows that our marine life is changing (many species are migrating south) as our oceans warm and currents change. The other says that by 2070 many of the environments supporting our plants and animals will disappear due to the affects of climate change. And the Arctic sea ice is melting at the fastest rate since satellite recording began in 1979.

As I spoke all I could hear were guffaws from the chamber, it was not too hard to guess where the loudest were coming from.

The first step would be for this conservative government to acknowledge that the consensus from climate scientists is that climate change is occurring and that it is human induced. Interestingly enough the Premier, Barry O’Farrell said on Stateline in March 2011:

I accept climate change. I accept the impact of man on climate change and if we’re elected to Government I’m committed to using the energies of Government to limit that impact and reduce those emissions.

If indeed, the Premier does believe this, it is obviously time that he brought the climate deniers in his own government to heel. At present it appears that the deniers hold all the cards. What chance do we have of an appropriate response to human induced global warming when cabinet doesn’t even believe in it?

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [6.09 p.m.]: The Greens speak strongly against the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill 2012. We consider this bill to be based on politics, not science. The bill is not based on long-term thinking and it is not in the public interest. The Greens fully appreciate that coastal erosion is a major issue for many people living along the New South Wales coastline and we understand the enormous stresses involved for property owners who are faced with an encroaching sea. The Greens also understand that our coastline is one of the State’s most important economic assets and that its management is critically important to this State. We do not believe that the Government understands how best to deal with coastal management in a sensible, strategic and scientifically informed manner, nor does the Government have a clue as to how to proceed.

The bill will make a stressful situation much worse. We understand the Government’s regime—namely, coastal management—will not be informed by the latest respected science. Under this bill that management will become more ad hoc and even more fraught with conflict. The bill will pit neighbour against neighbour, property owners against councils, and property owners against the general public. Ultimately, the stress for all involved will only increase as a result of this bill. Instead of planning for coastal erosion in a strategic manner, this bill goes further down the ad hoc and reactionary route. It embraces a haphazard approach to managing very real and increasing coastal hazards. This is the last thing that the State’s coastline and our coastal communities need when faced with accelerated sea level rises.

In 2010 the former Government introduced a bill to amend the Coastal Protection Act that started taking the legislation in the same direction as today’s bill. The Greens had strong misgivings and concerns at that time about that direction. We were concerned that the 2010 amendments were shifting the Coastal Protection Act away from its original intent and stated objective to “provide for the protection of the coastal environment of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations”. It is important to protect private interests but so too is the public good—for the benefit of the environment and all of us collectively. The Greens considered the 2010 amendments were starting to skew the balance away from protecting the public good and further towards protecting individual private interests. In the end, The Greens did not oppose the 2010 bill. That decision was reached after a very difficult and protracted negotiation process, which saw some improvements inserted into the legislation. However, we did express serious reservations. Indeed, during my contribution today I will by quoting from the speech that Ian Cohen, my retired colleague, gave at that time.

This bill completely oversteps the mark and removes much of what The Greens negotiated in 2010. It has lost the important balance between private interests and public good. The bill has all but abandoned public good for now and for future generations. It represents an aggregation of the Government’s responsibilities and a dereliction of its duties to manage our coastal environment in a sensible, strategic and sustainable manner for future generations to enjoy as much as we do today. Our coastline is one of the State’s most important economic and environmental assets. Many people in local government are concerned that the bill seriously increases the risk of their future financial and legal liabilities.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Which councils?

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I will be quoting from a council groups letter. Councils are concerned about the consequences of the bill for the extensive planning process they have been undertaking using the existing sea level rise benchmarks and all the money the taxpayers have invested in that process. What will happen to that work now that the benchmarks are no longer supported by the State Government? The bill is irredeemable and it should be voted down—given the numbers in this place it will not be. In 2010 Ian Cohen said:

From the comments I have heard in the House tonight, I shudder to think what will happen if we have a change of government.

We have had a change of Government. Many in local government and across this State are shuddering because of this legislation and because of many other things that have happened since the O’Farrell Government was elected. Angus Gordon, an internationally respected coastal zone manager and Surfrider Foundation advisor, has described this legislation as the worse piece of coastal management legislation he has ever seen in a developed democracy. The Surfrider Foundation does a lot of good work for our coastal communities and coastal environments.

The Greens have considered this bill in two parts: changes to emergency coastal protection works and the changes to sea level planning benchmarks. Under the legislation “emergency” coastal protection works will become “temporary” coastal protection works. Items [6] and [8] of schedule 1 to the bill provides that a person does not require regulatory approval under the principal Act or any other law for works on private land. The amendment makes it clear that such works on private land are no longer required to be authorised by a pre-existing certificate. Seawalls and sandbags are designed to deflect wave energy and they can increase the scouring effect on land adjacent to them.

This will remove councils’ ability to regulate the placement of coastal protection works that may impact on neighbours or council property. Councils face financial liabilities as a result of these private works. Who pays to recover those costs when those works increase erosion to adjacent public land, for instance? If someone wants to build a retaining wall on their property over a certain height they usually have to get a development application. But under this bill if you are a property owner and you want to pile a wall of sandbags on the boundary of your property, despite the serious consequences that could have for adjacent properties, you will no longer need a certificate from council.

Schedule 1 [8] to the bill removes the restriction that temporary works may be placed only when beach erosion is occurring, is eminent or reasonably foreseeable. The new threshold requirement for temporary protection work is not clear. It means any person can place sandbags on their property or apply to have them placed on public property whether the threat to one’s property is real or not. Schedule 1 [8] to the bill also removes the restriction that the placement of works can be placed only to reduce impact or likely impact on a building being lawfully used for residential, commercial or community purposes.

Schedule 1 [20] states that a council cannot unreasonably refuse access to public land for the placement of temporary works on that public land or to gain access to place works on private land. What does “unreasonably refuse” mean? That terminology is very restrictive for councils. It curtails councils’ ability to manage the impacts of installing sandbags on public property and on what may be sensitive environments. Items [13] and [14] of schedule 1 to the bill propose insufficient safeguards in the placement of temporary works on public land. For example, section 55T (3A) states:

It is a condition of a certificate under this Division that the holder of the certificate must take all reasonable measures:

(a) to avoid damage to assets and vegetation on the public land, and

(b) to minimise risks to the public on the public land, and

(c) to minimise disruption of the public use of the beach concerned.

That clause contains the terms “avoid” and “minimise”, but what do those terms mean? With what expertise are they determined? How can a private property owner be expected to have the expertise to determine the environmental impacts they will cause to dune stability, beach nourishment, native vegetation and biodiversity? Schedule 1 [26] to the bill amends section 55Z. It provides that a private landholder can obtain permission from a neighbouring property owner to place sandbags on that neighbour’s property. Who in that situation will be liable for the increased erosion the sandbags might cause to other neighbouring or public property? Has the Government given thought to this very likely scenario? They are but some of the problems the bill has in dealing with temporary protection works or sandbags. Further, in the Minister’s second reading speech he said that the code of practice for coastal protection measures will be reviewed once the legislation is in place. That will mean current restrictions on the weight of sand bags and the height of walls could change, yet we are not privy to those important details in this debate—we should be.

Coastal erosion is normal and predictable. Due to differences in geomorphology and topography some areas of the coast recede and some resist. This is a normal process—it happens irrespective of climate change—and areas considered hotspots for coastal erosion have been so for a very long time. Accepting these basic realities of coastal erosion, the Greiner Government introduced the notion of “planned retreat” not “radical retreat”. I urge members who have not already read Ian Cohen’s speech—although it is too late now—on the 2010 bill to do so. He outlined the history of governments in this State from both sides of the political fence who have tried to grapple with this issue. Planned retreat is a policy to make the most of the coastline while dealing with its dynamic and predicted change. It is sensible policy when the alternative, which the Government often promotes, is business as usual with our heads, almost literally in this situation, in the sand. Most of us have realised that human-induced climate change is driving accelerated sea level rise.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I don’t accept that.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I acknowledge that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps does not accept that climate change is contributing to sea level rise. On 17 August 2012 the CSIRO released a marine climate change report card for Australia, and it had the following summary in relation to sea level rise:

The rate of rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century and during the 20th century … Sea levels are rising around Australia and the frequency of extreme high sea-level events that occur on annual to decadal timescales has increased by a factor of about three during the 20th century … Sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century and beyond in response to increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. Including an allowance for the ice sheets, the IPCC projections are for a rise of 18 cm to 79 cm by 2095 compared to 1990.

However, our current understanding of the response of ice sheets to global warming is inadequate and a larger rise is possible.

 Sea levels are currently rising at near the upper end of current projections.

Ian Cohen, in his excellent contribution in 2010, said:

In explaining sea level rise to the inquiry on Managing our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate, Dr Hunter of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre stated:

… if you get one metre of sea level rise—which is pretty well the upper limit of what we expect this century—that will give us a shoreline recession of between 50 and 100 metres. In other words, the shoreline on average will move back 50 to 100 metres. So if we take a middle of the range projection of half a metre for this century then we are talking about a recession of the shoreline, on average, of between 20 and 50 metres back.

So a one metre rise equates to between 50 and 100 metres of shoreline recession. Ian Cohen continued:

Climate change impacts on our coastal zone are not limited to shoreline recession. Concurrent with rising sea levels is the intensification in storm-surge events and wave energy. The Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coast National Assessment report states:

With a mid range sea-level rise of 0.5 metres in the 21st century, events that now happen every 10 years would happen about every 10 days in 2100. The current 1-in-100 year event could occur several times a year.

I note with absolute disgust that many Government members in the other place spoke with outrageous climate change denialism at a time when every respected climate scientist—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: We’re not denying it—

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Marie Ficarra. The Government is denying that climate change and sea level rise are taking place. Members opposite are denying it. During the budget estimates last week I asked two Ministers whether they believed that greenhouse gases were contributing to climate change. I asked the Minister for the Environment, who avoided, obfuscated and did everything not to answer the question. She did not want to put on the record that she believed in anthropogenic global warming. What a proud day it was for New South Wales last week, and what a proud day it is today. On Friday in the budget estimates I asked the Minister for Roads and Ports whether it was his understanding that greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks and other vehicles contributed to climate change. His response was, “That is your understanding.” I said, “No, Minister, I am asking you the question. Is it your understanding?” He said, “I believe that is some people’s understanding.”

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Point of order: The Hon. Cate Faehrmann seems to be drifting into some sort of nostalgia about budget estimates. She should return to the leave of the bill.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order: It is almost impossible to discuss this coastal bill without canvassing issues relating to global warming and sea level rise. The Hon. Cate Faehrmann is completely in order.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I remind the Hon. Cate Faehrmann that the bill relates to coastal protection.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: To the point of order—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I have ruled on the matter.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I am expressing concern that Government members misunderstand climate change in terms of their views. The bill removes a key piece of legislation to tackle the impacts of climate change, so it is appropriate that I talk about comments made in budget estimates last week. I am concerned that, unfortunately, the Government is being run by people who do not believe in climate change. That is one issue. It is absolutely outrageous and it fills me with disgust when I hear Government members say that the science is uncertain. I think the Hon. Marie Ficarra used the word “uncertain”. The science is not uncertain. Professor Mary O’Kane did not say that the science was uncertain.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: It is constantly changing. The sea levels are constantly changing.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: The Hon. Marie Ficarra used the word “uncertain”. The word “uncertain” is used by climate change denialists. Climate change denialists should use the word “uncertain” carefully when talking about climate change. Professor Mary O’Kane said that the science was adequate. I believe that Professor O’Kane’s report has been used in a way that she did not wish it to be used. She said:

The way the science has been used to determine benchmarks is adequate.

How much clearer do members opposite want it? The way the science has been used to determine benchmarks is adequate, given the current level of knowledge. Nowhere in the report does Professor O’Kane say that the science is not adequate and that the benchmarks should be withdrawn. The Hon. Robyn Parker in her second reading speech said:

It is not a denial that sea level rises exist—it does exist and has existed for thousands of years—sea levels have changed and continue to change. It is the fact that the science, in terms of the impact in different areas, is being debated …

That seems to imply that the Minister for the Environment is a climate change denialist if she is saying that climate change science is being debated. The final issue I raise is that of consultation. I wrote to the Minister expressing concern that there has not been enough consultation. She told me that there was extensive consultation in October and November 2011. However, we heard from the Sydney Coastal Councils Group today that there was no consultation on the bill; it was simply a general PowerPoint presentation. A meeting was held recently, and a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis was carried out, but there was no consultation on the bill. All the rhetoric about consultation is false. There has not been any consultation on this bill. The legislation is outrageous. The Government is abrogating its responsibilities. The Greens do not support the bill.

The CSIRO has just released a landmark study on the effects of climate change on Australia’s already sensitive and damaged ecosystems.

Dr Michael Dunlop, lead researcher at CSIRO, said “Climate change is likely to start to transform some of Australia’s natural landscapes by 2030″.

By 2070, many of the plants and animals we now know will disappear. Our grandchildren will experience a very different natural environment from the one of which we are now a part.

The ability of native species and ecosystems to withstand the effects of climate change has already been weakened by current practices of habitat clearing, water extraction, mineral extraction and invasive species. Climate change will be yet another threat to the very existence of many aspects of our natural environment we have grown to love so much.

If we are to save some of our precious ecosystems we must ensure the integrity of our National Parks, our Federal National Reserve System and find new ways to conserve our biodiversity.

There could not be a stronger argument for taking immediate action on climate change and I introduced a Notice of Motion to the parliament on Tuesday 18 September 2012 to this effect.

The sad fact is we have too many peope from all political persuasions (except the Greens!) who are kowtowing to the fossil fuel lobby. Their ongoing pandering to climate denialist extremeists will go down in the history books as some of the most bizarre, head-in-the-sand behaviour humankind has witnessed. And most selfish to boot.

For details on the CSIRO report The implications of climate change for Australia’s biodiveristy conservation and protected areas.

My motion in NSW Parliament reads:

1. That this House notes that:

(a) evidence is building that human induced climate change is driving extreme weather events, including:

(i) the latest peer reviewed paper by James Hansen, climatologist and director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, ‘Perception of Climate Change’ published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 6 August 2012 explains that climate change is driving extreme weather events, and “our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change”,

(ii) extreme weather events are causing death, drought, bush fires, destruction of agricultural land with consequent food shortages and rising food prices world wide,

(iii) the heat wave in Europe in 2003 killed more than 50,000 people, the 2011 catastrophic drought in Texas caused more than $5billion in damage, recent bush fires in Colorado brought shocking destruction and record-breaking heat in 2012 has brought drought to over 50 per cent of the United States of America,

(b) evidence is building of the serious impacts of climate change on marine ecology, including:

(i) on 17 August 2012, the CSIRO released a Marine Climate Change Report Card for Australia which states that there is now clear evidence of extensive southward movements of tropical fish and plankton species in southeast Australia, declines in abundance of temperate species, and the  first signs of the effect of ocean acidification on marine species with shells,

(ii) The Report Card notes the average of global-averaged sea-level rise during the 20th century was approximately 1.7 mm per year and that the current rate from 1993 to present is approximately 3.1 mm per year, and this is near the upper end of current projections and that rising sea levels will result in increased frequency of extreme flooding events, inundation of low-lying coastal regions and coastal erosion,

(c) Arctic sea ice is melting at the fastest rate since satellite recording began in 1979,

(d) on 16 August 2012, Marco Tedesco, assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences at The City College of New York released satellite images which show melting over the Greenland ice sheet shattered the seasonal record in the modern era, four weeks before the close of the melting season,

(e) there are now growing expectations of the Arctic becoming sea-ice free in summer within the decade, and perhaps sooner,

(f) evidence is building of the serious impacts  of climate change on Australia’s plants, animals, ecosystems and biodiversity, and

(g) the CSIRO has just released a landmark study dated 18 September 2012 which highlights the sensitivity of Australia’s species and ecosystems to climate change and states that, by 2070, many of the environments supporting our plants and animals will disappear.

2. That this House calls on the Government to:

(a) acknowledge that human induced climate change is causing extreme weather events, changing marine ecology, causing sea level rise and diminishing Arctic sea ice in ways that will have serious consequences for humankind,

(b) take climate change impacts into account in all relevant government decision making, and

(c) commit to dramatically reducing carbon emissions from New South Wales, including that embedded in the State’s coal exports, and immediately work to phase out fossil fuel energy and replace it with alternative and renewable energy.

(Notice given 18 September 2012—expires Notice Paper No. 126)

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [3.40 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to dispel some of the global warming and climate change myths being circulated by climate sceptics. I refer to the website www.scepticalscience.com, which provides facts about the many myths that are being circulated by people trying to convince us that climate change and global warming are not happening. The document deals with the myths under the heading “Climate Myth vs What the Science Says”. As to the climate myth “It’s the sun”, what the science says is “In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.” Another climate myth is there is no consensus. In fact, 97 per cent of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. The next climate myth is “It’s cooling”. The science says that the last decade, 2000 to 2009, was the hottest on record. Another myth is that the temperature record is unreliable. The science says that the warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
Another climate myth is that it has not warmed since 1998. Yes, it has: for global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record tied with 2005. A further climate myth is the Antarctica is gaining ice. In fact, satellites have measured Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. A climate myth put forward is that an Ice age was predicted in the 1970s. In fact, the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. Another myth is the “Hockey stick is broken”—that famous graph. However, recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1,000 years. Another myth is “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy”. In fact, a number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. A myth out there is that hurricanes are not linked to global warming. In fact, there is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming. Glaciers are growing, some climate sceptics tell us. In fact, most glaciers are retreating, which poses a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.

Another climate myth is that 1934 was the hottest year on record. The science says that 1934 was the hottest year in the United States, not globally. Climate sceptics say that it is very cold. The science says, no, a local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures. Another climate myth being bandied about at the moment by climate sceptics is that extreme weather is not caused by global warming. In fact, extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming. That is what climate change scientists have been saying for many years. Another climate myth is that the medieval Warm Period was warmer. The science says that globally the average temperature now is higher than the global temperature in medieval times.

Another climate myth is that the arctic ice melt is a natural cycle. In fact, the thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat. Climate sceptics like bandying about the myth that oceans are cooler. The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming. Another climate myth is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is alarmist. The science says that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summarises the recent research by leading scientific experts. Apparently, Greenland is gaining ice. In fact, Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Hear! Hear! More water for arid lands.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I think the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is saying that is the result of global warming.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Natural global warming.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I am glad I am putting this on the record because there is at least one climate sceptic in our midst today, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. Climate sceptics like to say there is no empirical evidence. The science says that there are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global. Another myth is that the Arctic sea ice has recovered. The thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat, according to the facts. Another climate myth is “It’s aerosols”. The science says that aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise. Another one is “It’s El Nino”. El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming. Some climate sceptics say, “It’s a natural cycle”. The science says that no known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming, except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Another climate myth is “2009-10 winter saw record cold spells”. The science says “A cold day in Sydney in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.” Climate sceptics say, “Scientists can’t even predict weather”. The science says, “Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather details.” Another climate myth is that the sea level rise predictions are exaggerated. In fact, the sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting. Another climate myth is the “IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers”. The science says that glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite one error in one paragraph in a 1,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Climate change is real and it is time members in this place dealt with the facts rather than conspiracy theories.

Government Whip and chief climate denialist Peter Phelps has blocked a Greens motion which called on the House to note the global scientific consensus on human induced climate change and to reaffirm and review the government’s own emissions reduction targets.

“Of course, Mr Phelps isn’t the only climate denier in the NSW Government. The Premier is spending an awful lot of energy backing up his federal colleague Tony Abbott who thinks climate change is ‘absolute crap’.

“Mr Phelps and Mr O’Farrell might not want to price pollution in order to reduce emissions, but they don’t appear to have any kind of plan to meet their own extremely modest reduction targets.

“This motion has revealed the government’s true colours when it comes to climate change. Climate denialists are front and centre of the NSW Coalition.

“Premier O’Farrell hasn’t made any genuine commitments to tackle climate change, which scientists are telling us will see bushfires, floods and other extreme weather events become more frequent and more serious,” said Ms Faehrmann.

Media contact: Peter Stahel 0433 005 727

 Ms Faehrmann to move—
1. That this House notes the global scientific consensus that the Earth’s climate is changing due to
increases in human produced greenhouse gases.
2. That this House calls on the Government to:
(a) reconfirm its commitment to its current long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction
target of 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050, and
(b) review this target in response to the Federal Climate Change Commission’s report
entitled “The Critical Decade”, published on 23 May 2011.

Ms Faehrmann to move—

1. That this House notes that the Federal Climate Commission’s report, The Critical Decade, released on 23 May 2011 which refers to over 185 scientific sources has found that:

(b) in the last 50 years the number of record hot days in Australia has more than doubled, increasing the risk of heatwaves and associated deaths, as well as extreme bush fire weather in South Eastern and South Western Australia,

(c) the temperature of the upper 700 m of the ocean continues to increase, with most of the excess heat generated by the growing energy imbalance at the Earth’s surface stored in this compartment of the system,

(d) recent observations confirm net loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets while the extent of Arctic sea ice cover continues on a long-term downward trend, and that most land-based glaciers and ice caps are in retreat,

(e) the sea level has risen by 20 cm globally since the late 1800s, impacting on many coastal communities and the plausible estimate of the amount of sea-level rise by 2100 compared to 2000 is 0.5 to 1.0 m,

(f) the biosphere is responding in a consistent way to a warming Earth, with observed changes in gene pools, species ranges, timing of biological patterns and ecosystem dynamics,

(g) there is a very large body of internally consistent observations, experiments, analyses, and physical theory that points to the increasing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide the most important, as the ultimate cause for the observed warming,

(h) despite the dip in human emissions of greenhouse gases in 2009 due to the global financial crisis, emissions continue on a strong upward trend, on average tracking near the top of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenarios,

(i) the number and magnitude of climate risks will rise as the climate warms further,

(j) the peaking year for emissions is very important for the rate of reduction thereafter, and the decade between now and 2020 is critical,

(k) to minimise this risk, we must decarbonise our economy and move to clean energy sources by 2050 which means that carbon emissions must peak within the next few years and then strongly decline, and

(l) the longer we wait to start reducing carbon emissions, the more difficult and costly those reductions become.

2. That this House calls on the Government to:

(a) reassess New South Wales targets that have been set to return greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2025 and reduce emissions by 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050, and

(b) set new targets in accordance with the Federal Climate Change Commission’s finding that global emissions will need to be reduced very close to zero by 2050 to stabilise carbon dioxide concentrations at a value compatible with a global temperature increase of 2 per cent.

(Notice given 27 May 2011)