While I think we would all applaud the sentiments behind the Private Members Bill you put up today, which I only heard about in the ABC News, I have to ask a fundamental question and/or make a comment on it. The bill I refer to is the bill for more efficient buildings.
We all want our buildings to be clean and green, for a variety of reasons. Lower running costs come from more efficient buildings, better health for people working in them and much more.
However, and please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken here - a news bulletin does not give exhaustive details - the thrust of your bill is aiming at reducing the Carbon Emissions of the building as a measure of the efficiency of the building.
Whilst the Greens Party may not generally accept that CO2 is not a pollutant, EVERY eminent scientist I have spoken to or researched, and there are plenty available for viewing on my website
, every one has said that CO2 is not the pollutant and is not a "greenhouse gas". The insist that Carbon Dioxide is a vital part of the atmosphere we breathe and the planet will not survive without this tiny component (around 0.004% I believe) of our atmosphere.
There are other polluting gases (and compounds in states other than gaseous), highly toxic gases emitted from buildings, power generation, vehicle exhausts and more, but we rarely, if ever, hear of the work being done to reduce them. We know Carbon MON
oxide is deadly and is a favourite of people wishing to suicide peacefully. We know that the various sulphur compounds and derivitates in emissions are deadly, but if you asked 1000 people, unless you polled outside a science facility, it's a safe bet that hardly a person would know ONE of them. But they will all have heard about this "dangerous gas CO2" that the Greens persist in vilifying, and using as the lead in to the radical ETS model they propose, and climate change (as we know global warming has ceased and now the real threat is global cooling towards a new Ice Age).
Senator, can you explain, in simple terms, why CO2 is still the lead villain in your bill as I understand it, and why the real issues, as identified by the genuine scientists, are not the focus of something as important as the bill you proposed?