Emissions trading was understandably a popular theme. Delegates were still awaiting the outcome of the Prime Minister’s Task Group on Emissions Trading, and keen to hear James White, the principal policy officer of the state-based National Emissions Trading Taskforce, speak at the conference about the possible design of a national scheme.

Why emissions trading? Mr White said an emissions trading scheme was a potentially low-cost way to achieve an emissions target, that it promotes the deployment of cleaner energy technologies, and allows the market to decide which technologies should be deployed first. Based on 2006 modelling, Australia’s economy would continue to grow strongly with a carefully designed scheme, he said, and vulnerable industries and regions could be sheltered from its impact. But he added it was not a silver bullet and further government incentives would be necessary.

The differences in Federal and State climate change policy were clearly evident at the conference. In response to growing concern about climate change in March this year, the Prime Minister said: “History is littered with examples of nations having overreacted to presumed threats to their great long-term disadvantage”. At Wednesday’s opening main plenary session, the NSW Minister for Climate Change Phil Koperberg played devil’s advocate, using Easter Island as an example of a community that had failed to react to the threat of dwindling natural resources, which resulted in a long-term population decline. The NSW Minister asked if the current position on climate change was the equivalent of cutting down the last Easter Island tree?

Three years ago when I began reading the growing number of climate change reports, I remember a sense of frustration: what can one person do with a global problem? AGL’s Paul Anthony argued that businesses are “past the tipping point” of reducing their carbon footprint. AGL provided a practical example of cutting carbon emissions using existing technology (such as renewables and gas) and market mechanisms (the Chicago Climate Exchange). It was this level of confidence - viewing climate change as a business opportunity, rather than an environmental issue - which inspired me with a sense of optimism at the end of SE2007.

The consensus at SE2007 was that a close working partnership between business and government was necessary to lower our carbon emissions. While Mr Koperberg recognised the role of industry as drivers and innovators, it is governments who write the policies that make or break these innovations out in the market. The conference was an ideal forum to put such working partnerships into practice. It brought together a large diversity of delegates from business and government, from local community campaigners, government advisers and MPs to executives from large resources companies and the finance industry.

Volunteering for SE2007 was a rewarding experience, providing valuable exposure to both the sustainable energy industry and how a conference this size is coordinated. The food and hospitality at the Hilton were excellent (especially for a student). In closing, I would like to thank the dedication and hard work of the event organisers without which SE2007 would not have been possible. I look forward to seeing you all at SE2008!