HOST: Prime Minister, good morning. Welcome to AM.
PM: Good morning.
HOST: You're off to Copenhagen. You are one of the Friends of the chair. Have you been busy? You've had some late nights over the weekend phoning world leaders to try and increase the chances of a deal happening at Copenhagen?
PM: Well Australia has been active for many months and certainly since the UN special session on climate change in September. We've been active with leaders around the world including most recently and the reason is - Australia is among the hottest and driest continents on Earth. We are feeling the impact of climate change fastest and hardest, and we have an Australian national interest at stake in strong and decisive action on emissions reductions here in Australia and strong action through a global agreement where everyone is pulling their weight. That's why we're active, because it is in Australia's national interest that we get a strong deal.
HOST: Are you a betting man? Are you prepared to put money on the chances of there being a deal, even a political deal done at Copenhagen?
PM: Look, all I can say is that it's tough- it's very, very tough- and that, when you've got countries as diverse as the United States, China, India, the European Union, the least developed countries in Africa and Asia, the small island states in the Pacific and the Caribbean, each with different views- this is going to be a very tough and hard negotiation. So my job is to do what I can as Australia's Prime Minister to forge a- help forge a deal through the middle of this. It'll be very hard, but we have basic Australian national interest at stake, because the impacts of climate change here on drought, on fire, on extreme weather events, on coastal inundation, on the cost of insurance, on the devastation of agriculture, on the cost of food, quite apart from simply walking away from our responsibility to our kids and our grandkids, is not one I am prepared to take. I'm going to go there and give it my absolute best.
HOST: Is Tony Abbott right here that we can make huge cuts by adopting these green carbon measures, better land management practices, better tillage, less use of fertiliser, that we can, some have even suggested that we can achieve huge carbon cuts without having an emissions trading scheme?
PM: Can I just say two things in response to that. Emissions trading schemes have been backed by Mr Howard, Mr Costello, Mr Turnbull and until very recently the Liberal Party, and our Government as well- and that's because we worked it out to be the best scheme possible to put a cap on carbon pollution on the one hand and to provide compensation for families to deal with any additional carbon cost on the other. That's why the previous government, and that's why this Government reached that conclusion. Second point is Mr Abbott in his interview just now showing again policy on the run, a very erratic approach to policy.
He talks loosely about direct action - this is answering your question - direct action and he cites as his authority Professor Ross Garnaut. Let me read to you what Professor Ross Garnaut actually had to say about this. He said "it will be possible to get a strong reduction through regulation"- that's direct action as Mr Abbott recommends- "but the cost of doing it will be very much higher" and I quote Professor Garnaut."It will mean that Australians will have to have much lower standards of living, we would have to accept lower wages, lower health and education services, less defence commitment."
And he goes on to say he didn't know why Australians would choose a more expensive course of action to tackle climate change. He says "of course it is not impossible that you could use direct action. We would just be much poorer." So here you have the Leader of the Opposition, again policy on the run, citing Professor Garnaut as the authority, when in fact he is recommending the most expensive approach to doing this for the whole nation, the whole economy and for families. And by regulation what does he mean? Having some Commonwealth bureaucrat regulating every time you change a light bulb, regulating what sort of trucks you can drive. It is simply irresponsible, erratic policy - again made on the run.
HOST: So that's not on the table in Copenhagen? This isn't been discussed behind the scenes? Is this lead negotiator who supposedly let the cat out of the bag on this wrong?
PM: On the question of land use, in the Kyoto negotiations in 1997, and it has been so ever since, land use, deforestation has been part and parcel of the scheme not just available to Australia but worldwide, to all developed countries. And that obviously is the matter which is under discussion in Copenhagen again, as it should be. But let's put it into context. In terms of deforestation, land use, it represents globally 18 percent of emissions, but for the rest of the economy, you have the stationary energy sector, power generation 25 percent. You have industry, 20 percent. You have the transport sector, 15 percent.
Is there a serious suggestion that you can deliver global greenhouse gas emissions in order to get to your two degrees centigrade target that is not allowing temperatures to rise beyond two degrees purely by focussing on a sector which generates only 18 percent of emissions? Let's just get real about this and go to some basic facts.
HOST: Australia has been accused of cooking the books here and trying to have things both ways. Our land use emissions have soared 82 percent since 1990, but under the Kyoto Protocol, Australia opted out of reporting these emissions. But if we include these emissions in any new deal, and we include these better land management practices, of course our emissions are going to drop. Isn't this a sneaky way of doing it?
PM: What- as I said before- the spread of greenhouse gas emissions globally involves some 18 percent from deforestation around the world, some 25 percent from the energy sector, 15 percent from transport, 19 percent from industry. You've got to be acting on all these fronts. The 18 percent involved in deforestation is not irrelevant. It's central. The second point is this. These are rules which the world community agreed, not just for Australia but for every developed country back in 1997. So therefore it is entirely appropriate that Australia has reported annually to the UN on the achievement of its Kyoto targets. We committed to 108 percent against 1990 levels.
We're currently tracking at 107 percent. This is a balanced approach. But you ask about Copenhagen - it's going to a tough, tough negotiation. We go there, I thought consistent with Mr Abbott's commitment that we should be aiming for a range of five, 15 and 25 percent targets. That is certainly the framework within which we are operating. That was his last stated position as well.
HOST: For any deal to be effective China has to be part of it. The sticking point from what I understand that it says that developed nations like Australia owe developing nations a carbon debt for the pollution that has already been put in the atmosphere. Is Australia prepared to make that concession?
PM: Well, the bottom line is this. For a deal to work for the future, Australia will do no more, and no less, than what the rest of the world does. We need concerted global action- but the rest of the world includes developed and developing countries. Developed countries have contributed the overwhelming amount of existing accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that is true. Go to the future, if we the developed countries became carbon neutral tomorrow let me tell you the combined impact of China and India into the medium term future would be huge.
That's why both developed and developing countries, including China, have to be part and parcel of this deal so whether it is a five per cent target reduction that we achieve in Copenhagen for a 15 percent, or a 25 percent, we are going to have to see action from developed countries, action from developing countries as well. But for Australia, we'll be doing no more or no less than the rest of the world.
HOST: Okay, Mr Rudd, Thanks for your time this morning.
PM: Good to be with you.