E&OE
JOURNALIST: Well Prime Minister, welcome to AM.
PM: It's good to be on AM.
JOURNALIST: Global warming targets set by the G8 mandate an 80 per cent cut by 2050. That sounds impressive, but the UN's Ban Ki-moon says it's simply not enough. Is he wrong?
PM: I think what the UN Secretary-General is saying is that member states of the United Nations and the major economies will need, of course, to deal with medium term targets, those closer to 2020.
Why is that necessary? Because if we simply talk about long term, very long term aspirational targets, that leaves action too late. Therefore, we need to have credible medium term targets, and secondly we need those in order to construct emissions trading schemes - or as we call them in Australia, Carbon Pollution Reduction Schemes - to actually price the carbon in the economy, and to have a real effect in changing economic behaviour.
JOURNALIST: Well if there aren't then mid-term levels set by the G8, has that in effect been a failure?
PM: The one good thing which has come out of this meeting including that of the major economies is that we set a target of seeking to ensure that we don't allow a temperature increase in excess of two degrees. That is actually a new consensus across the international community.
What's that mean in practical terms, that we should have as our overall scientific goal not allowing concentration in excess of 450 parts per million, because one relates to the other, of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere. That in turn should shape the sorts of reduction technologies, systems, and policy systems that we bring about in economies around the world.
JOURNALIST: Well given those ambitious targets that have been enunciated at the G8, is Australia's target of say 60 per cent by 2050 enough? Are you going to have to raise your bar?
PM: Well as you know, Australia has already indicated its own medium term targets, and there was a lot of commentary in the discussions I attended today about the paramount importance of that, consistent with the remarks I made just before.
Therefore our medium term targets of 5, 15 or 25 depending on the nature of the global outcome at Copenhagen are entirely appropriate, entirely consistent with the, let's call it the Global Mainstream. But we still have a number of economies who aren't committing to medium term targets effectively.
JOURNALIST: Well without the Chinese, without the Indians, does it mean much at all?
PM: Well the critical missing element in this equation is what commitments will be taken up by the major emerging economies, you've just named two of them. That's really important to the future.
If you look at the overall concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so far, it's plain that the bulk of that historical contribution so far has come from the advanced economies. But if you were to roll the clock forward 50 years, the bulk of that contribution will come from the major emerging economies, including China and India with a heavy concentration on coal.
Therefore, one of the proposals we've put forward in terms of a Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute is really important, because the overwhelming energy dependency of those economies will be coal-fired electricity. Therefore, sequestration is really important, that's one of the reasons we're getting behind it.
JOURNALIST: Now of course you stood on the stage with Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, other world leaders, who gave very explicit support for the Carbon Capture Institute. Now, you've launched that before in Australia, what was new about the launch here at the G8?
PM: What we've done in recent times is actually sign up every member of the G8 as Foundation members, that's what's new, including most recently Russia. And other major emerging economies beyond the G8 as well, in addition to the very large energy companies around the world.
Secondly, it was important to launch this Institute globally because it has to be global in its scope. We are funding it in Australia to the tune of up to $100 million a year, but if we're going to make a difference with coal-fired electricity generation and the greenhouse gases emitted from that generation process, CCS - carbon capture and storage - must occupy centre place.
JOURNALIST: The Chinese Premier's not here because of the ethnic violence in his country. Would you have raised the case of the arrested Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu if he had been here?
PM: This matter is being handled by the Foreign Minister in Australia, Stephen Smith. And with all complex consular cases, we have to proceed cautiously on the basis of the advice as it unfolds. What we've already done in Beijing, and Shanghai and Canberra is make strong representations for access to this Australian citizen.
JOURNALIST: I guess Malcolm Turnbull is challenging you to use your Chinese contacts to help an Australian citizen. Why wouldn't you get on the phone and make a call that may help that person?
PM: Can I say that Mr Turnbull in recent times has displayed a monumental lack of judgment. I would suggest he also reflects a general lack of judgment on many questions.
This is not the time for sensationalist domestic political point-scoring. It's the time for working calmly and methodically through this very difficult consular case, as we've done with many consular cases before.
Therefore, as and when it's appropriate, as I indicated already in remarks to the media, we'll make all representations at whatever levels are necessary. But we'll proceed through this methodically, liaising with the company, liaising with the family, consular access I'm advised has been granted for the individual, and then we will proceed accordingly. And we'll take whatever necessary action is appropriate, including representations at whatever level, step by step.
JOURNALIST: When you say whatever level, does that mean at some stage you could intervene?
PM: I'd just say we'd take necessary interventions at whatever level. I don't rule any particular intervention out of court, but can I say this, it's important to proceed calmly, methodically, and step by step, as we do with complex and challenging consular cases around the world all the time.
Obviously this has a particular difficulty attached to it, I understand that, but there are many other sensitive consular cases which I could also say to you don't make it into the public media.
JOURNALIST: Of course, implicit in what Malcolm Turnbull is saying is that basically you're soft on China.
PM: Well can I just say that, consistent with my remarks earlier in our interview, if I have seen a spectacular lack of judgment on a range of questions recently, it would be Mr Turnbull's judgment, I think that applies in this case as well. The business of dealing with difficult, complex diplomatic questions and particularly when human lives are involved, requires sensitivity and proper handling.
JOURNALIST: Are you saying he's risking the future of that court case, of that individual?
PM: No, that's what you just said. Can I just say that I believe that in handling this, it's appropriate for the Government to act in a methodical way, establish the facts, work our way through it with the Chinese authorities as we do with complex consular cases around the world.
As I said before, we'll make representations as appropriate, to whom it is appropriate, and at whatever level, based on the expert advice, and this is being appropriately handled by the Foreign Minister in Australia, as I'm abroad.
JOURNALIST: Now this has been one heck of a day, it's been a big day for you. Two world figures in one day, the Pope and Barack Obama. Are you exhausted by all that?
PM: No, I'm elected to do a job and I'll do that job. The meeting with His Holiness the Pope was a good meeting, it was about many things of concern to Australians at a general and more spiritual level, I suppose.
It's a different type of meeting of course to the discussions you'd have with the President of the United States. Mind you, the President of the United States is seeing the Pope tomorrow. So we exchanged some notes on that as well.
JOURNALIST: Now you were raised a Catholic, any thoughts of going back to that faith?
PM: Well I've always described myself, I tend not to talk about questions of personal religious faith in these sorts of interviews, but you've asked the question. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, I married an Anglican, I've gone to an Anglican Church for a long period of time. As I've said in a number of interviews before I suppose you'd categorise me as a Christian of no fixed denominational abode.
JOURNALIST: On that note, thank you very much.
PM: Thanks very much.
(Ends)