‘Protecting’ the Queensland economy?

The Queensland Premier tells us that her state will be more severely damaged by climate change than will others and that its effects will include:

• deterioration and loss of coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef;
• loss of buildings due to tidal surges and flooding;
• extinction of animal species;
• less rainfall in some areas and loss of surface water and river flows;
• damage to and reduced yield from agriculture and fishing;
• threat to tourism and losses for the hospitality industry; and
• increased demand for services from a rapidly growing population.

In almost the same breath, she tells us that Queensland emits almost a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. This makes Queenslanders responsible for the highest per capita emissions in the world.

Now for the good news. The Premier has proudly announced that three new coal mines will open in Queensland within the next 12 months. She has also raised the levy on coal, increasing government financial dependence on its production. Better still, she assures us there are plans to open more coal mines, ensuring that Queensland remains Australia’s premier exporter of pollution.

As expected from such a zealous leader, Anna Bligh has asked that, when the Australian government introduces an emissions trading scheme, the price of carbon should be initially set as low as possible. She also asks that this initial price remain unchanged for three years and that the worst polluters in Queensland receive special consideration when it comes to issuing free emission permits.

These measures are necessary, she claims, in order to protect the Queensland economy. How? By encouraging existing polluters to remain in Queensland and attracting new ones to become established there? On her own admission, protecting short-term economic advantage is destined to wreak severe longer-term damage to the state economy and increase Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Undaunted, Premier Bligh responds to this criticism with the surprise announcement that her government will reduce Queensland emissions by as much as 30 per cent.

“How?” ask her critics.

“Simple,” replies the Premier, “Households will be asked to use less electricity. We may further increase the domestic electricity tariff to make sure they get the message.”

“What contribution will the Queensland public sector make towards reducing emissions?” ask homeowners. The Premier remains silent.

Anna Bligh ignores the fact that the public sector is often a profligate user of electricity generated from burning coal, the major source of Queensland’s burgeoning CO2 emissions. She know that public sector inefficiencies and waste can be paid for by increased taxes, reduced services, imposing higher fees and charges, or by lowering standards and accountability.

Little wonder then that she should steadfastly refuse to set annual and longer term targets for reduction of CO2 emissions by government departments, agencies and businesses. To do otherwise would expose the performance of her government to scrutiny she does not want and can ill afford.

However, the Queensland government is to be commended for urging households to reduce electricity consumption by fitting solar hot water (SHW) panels but what kind of example does it set? How many government properties needing hot water - for example, office buildings or Housing Commission residences - have been fitted with SHW panels? How many could be and what are the potential savings in electricity consumption and reduction in CO2 emissions?

How many local governments have been provided assistance and asked to use methane produced from waste facilities to generate electricity rather than pollute the atmosphere? What targets have been set for reducing electricity consumption by publicly owned businesses such as Queensland Rail and the Port Authorities?

Are publicly funded organisations such as newly establishing businesses and universities required, as a condition of funding, to set targets for reducing electricity consumption and report on outcomes achieved?

More broadly, has the Queensland public sector reduced CO2 emissions over the last five years and if so, by how much?

The answers to this and other questions is almost certainly “No”, but we may never know for sure. Why? Because nobody has set and published targets or measured and reported performance outcomes.

Without targets, action tends to be unguided, unfocused and unproductive. Without reporting there is little action and no accountability. This makes it possible for the Queensland government to ignore the cost message sent by pricing carbon. It can simply pass any cost increases on to private sector consumers without adjusting its own practices or reducing its CO2 emissions.

It is therefore incumbent on the Commonwealth government to do what Premier Bligh refuses to do: Demand that all public sector organisations set annual and five-year rolling targets for reduced consumption of electricity generated from fossil fuels, such that per capita CO2 emissions in Queensland are no more than those in the other states.

Public sector agencies must be required to prepare annual programs for reduction of CO2 emissions and report actual outcomes. They should be penalised for failing to achieve targets and have targets for future years appropriately adjusted so that state emissions targets are met.

Unless this is done, it is not only end-users in the private sector who will pay, so will other states and territories by having to make greater reductions. Only in this way can Australia ensure that national targets required under the Kyoto Protocol are achieved. Given the present attitude and practices of the Queensland government, it should come as no surprise to learn that those targets are not being met.

Not all is doom and gloom in the Sunshine State. The Bligh government has approved the building of a pollution-free solar-thermal power station. It will provide all base load electricity needs in the Cloncurry area, a remote region of western Queensland with a population of some 2,500. The station is expected to come on line in 2010, replacing diesel generators which presently supply the town with power.

Some of the largest, hottest and most accessible granite deposits found anywhere in Australia are located in the Cooper Basin. These have the capacity to produce sufficient base load electricity to meet Queensland needs for hundreds of years. Electricity produced from these deposits is pollution-free and is estimated to cost less than coal. Government should be encouraging competitive development of this valuable resource.

Parts of Queensland are semi desert where there is little rainfall and even less pastoral activity - but there is day after day of clear skies and brilliant sunlight. They provide ideal locations for solar power stations using heliostat technology. Government should seek and encourage their construction, provided they can produce pollution-free electricity at costs comparable to using coal plus the cost of emission licences.

Queensland has huge and varied potential for generating power from renewable sources without emitting greenhouse gases. With political will, it could be producing all of its electricity needs from those sources within 15 years. Where is the political will? Where are the supportive policies? Without them, investment in Queensland’s longer term economic prosperity driven by pollution-free electricity, will not be made.