Senator BROWN (12:03 PM) —I move Australian Greens amendment No. 8:

40 Required GWh of renewable source electricity

The Greens amendment here is to increase the two per cent target which the government has set in this legislation, which I will explain in a minute is really one per cent, to 10 per cent of energy by 2010 coming from renewable sources—that is, coming from environmentally friendly sources that are not going to worsen the impact of global warming.

The problem with this legislation is that it is so timid and so short of the mark. The government made a commitment that it would have a two per cent target but, when under pressure, no doubt from the coal producers and others, it dropped that effectively to one per cent. It said, `We will set the two per cent target as of now,' knowing that electricity consumption is liable to double on current rates by 2010. `We will make it two per cent now, which is 1,500 gigawatt hours, and by 2010 it is only going to be one per cent of consumption.' This bill is aimed at having an outcome by the year 2010. The Greens target is for an additional 10 per cent of electricity to come from renewable sources such as wind power and solar power by 2010. I point out again that this is very modest by world standards. In fact, the world average of Kyoto protocol countries is 7.4 per cent. Our target is less than half of Denmark's target—which is 20.3 per cent of wind power and solar power and other renewables by the year 2010—it is less than Greece, Sweden and Finland and it is about the same as the UK, Ireland and Spain.

Increasing the overall target is an alternative to a portfolio approach, which we would have preferred, which said that you aim to get solar power to increase by this amount and wind power to increase by that amount. What we have here is legislation which says, no, there is a list of things which can be certified as renewable, including this outrageous government-Labor Party enactment here that burning of woodchips from native forests and woodlands will be classified as renewable energy, when it is not renewable energy. That is the key deceit of this legislation. So what happens with this very modest target of one per cent by the year 2010 is that these unacceptable technologies such as burning woodchips or damming coastal inlets as tidal power and wrecking the natural environment will be squeezing out new and currently more expensive technologies like wind and solar power. It effectively puts a brake on wind and solar power when the whole ostensible aim is to put a foot on the accelerator, to give them a real boost. It is a competitive field and, by putting in woodchips and big dams and so on, the newer, better technologies—the greenhouse gas free technologies—get squeezed.

The best approach would have been to make the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 about wind and solar power and truly renewable energy. It is not about renewable or environmental power anymore; it is about a whole range of new technologies, including environmentally destructive and dirty power like burning woodchips in furnaces. Our alternative, which we have brought forward here, is to raise the overall target so that you will still have room for a more prodigious increase in the really clean technologies like solar power. Also under this amendment we have set targets for the year 2020 of 25 per cent of electricity to come from renewable sources and 50 per cent by the year 2030, and to join Denmark in aiming for 100 per cent to come from renewable resources by the year 2050. That seems to be green nirvana, but let me tell you that that is the sort of option we have to aim for.

Let me reiterate what world scientific knowledge is telling us. Unless, by the middle of this century, we decrease injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from 1990 levels by about 60, 70 or 80 per cent, the greenhouse and global warming impact and the enormous economic, environmental and social impacts which we are leaving to future generations will continue to grow. Even if we stop producing greenhouse gases now, there is an inertia factor which means that sea level rises due to warming of the oceans are going to continue for some centuries. The challenge for us, faced with this situation, is not just to reduce greenhouse gases to the 1990 levels but to go much further and wind them back. That is why the target which the Greens are putting into this legislation is far from being nirvana; it is sensible and based on converting that scientific knowledge into a real plan of action that this nation can be proud of. We are saying: not one per cent but 10 per cent in the next decade, and then let us build in an ongoing program which does not stop there. That is way short of what is required if this nation is not going to be seen as an outrageous and deliberate polluter of the atmosphere by future generations, which left them to handle insurmountable problems, as there is massive migration of millions of people around the world as sea levels rise, as there is massive impact on local economies due to changes in weather and as there is massive cost put on economies. Not just developing countries but wealthy countries will be faced with rising sea levels, rising temperatures and huge impacts on, for example, agriculture and the spread of disease due to changed weather conditions.

This is a prime responsibility on our shoulders and this legislation is tiddlywinks compared with what is required. Those of us who were at the Senate inquiry had that endorsed amply, if we needed it, by scientific opinion from around the world. What the Greens are proposing—that is, a 10 per cent rise—is modest. It is certainly something that the Labor Party should be reaching for if it wants to show itself as having any credibility as an alternative government to people who are concerned about the environment. Already this morning we have seen the Labor Party vote to allow burning of woodchips from native forests and woodlands to be counted as renewable and ecologically sustainable energy when it is not. This target for renewable energy will boost business in Australia, create thousands of jobs, be good for regional and rural economies and will provide a vast stimulus for Australia's marvellous expertise in such things as solar power. It is a modest target and the right way to be aiming. I hope we will get Labor Party support on this amendment, which I recommend wholeheartedly to the chamber.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—Is there no further comment? The question is that amendment No. 8 moved by the Australian Greens be agreed to.