PM: Today has been a very difficult day of negotiations at this Copenhagen Conference on climate Change. Today very little progress has been made. Nonetheless an agreement is still possible here in Copenhagen. But for such an agreement to be reached we have to see every country pull its weight, developing countries and developed counties and if every country pulls it weight we can secure the agreement which we need in Australia's national interest and, of course which the world needs for the next generation of human kind.
We have, of course, two days remaining, and there are still a number of major policy areas still to be resolved. We still have areas of policy disagreement which lie in the area of mitigation, that is, how much we can as countries agree on the reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions but both developing and developed countries.
Secondly we also have policy disagreement which remains in the area of climate change finance in particular of the adaptation needs of the most vulnerable states around the world.
Thirdly, we still have unresolved areas in, what is called areas of measurement reporting and verification, that is the verification of undertakings made at this Copenhagen conference, whether they actually occur on the ground.
Today I have spent a lot of the day in detailed discussions with delegations from around the world and from heads of delegation from heads of Government, from Foreign Ministers and Environment ministers, both from Small Island States, from developing countries in Africa, developing countries in Asia, as well as with the British Prime Minister the Danish Prime Minister, the UN Secretary General and others. This is very much a complex process of negotiation with still a lot of work to be done, a lot of work to be done. One area of agreement which has emerged today is in the area of deforestation and avoided degradation of forests.
This is an important area. Deforestation represents some 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. What we've done today together with a range of other countries is agree on a new global initiative on, what is called, reduced emissions in deforestation and forest degradation as part of an overall fast-start funding program for 2010, '11 and '12. Globally this represents a $3.5 billion agreement. Australia's contribution to it will be $120 million.
The reason why this has been done is because this is a significant area of global greenhouse gas emissions. We need to make progress on all fronts. This is a practical front where in fact agreement has been possible early, cooperation between developed and developing countries in this area of deforestation has been strong so far, more work needs to be done. It also builds on existing Australian initiatives both in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. Can I conclude my remarks by saying that Australia's national interest is fundamentally served by securing a strong agreement here in Copenhagen. Australia, as you know, is amongst the hottest and driest continents on earth, and therefore feels the impact of climate change first and hardest. Therefore for Australia, strong action at home through a carbon pollution reduction scheme which puts caps on carbon and compensates families is important. Strong action abroad, through strong action here in Copenhagen is equally important, equally important for the future of our economy, equally important for the future of our environment, equally important for the next generation of Australians. Over to you folks.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, with two days to go don't you think it's time to name and shame some of these countries which may not be pulling their weight? Who would you single out as needing to step up to the plate?
PM: The business of diplomacy and trying to reach agreement suggests that these disagreements over the immediate season ahead need to be kept internal and the reason for that is that we want to produce a strong agreement. It doesn't actually yield results, just at this stage, to be throwing mud at particular countries. If you want an outcome the wiser course of action is to work internally, privately, diplomatically in order to try and reach agreement. That does not mean that the discussions which occur internally are necessarily, shall I say, couched in diplomatic language, that can be quite firm but that is a different matter to actually getting engaged in the business of public name calling.
You see what's required here is cooperation. I have a sense that as more heads of government arrive here in Copenhagen that we will make some more progress. But can I just say, as I said yesterday, success at this Copenhagen conference is by no means guaranteed, there is no guarantee of success. All we can do, and all I can do as Prime Minister of Australia is, frankly, work as hard as I can to try and find concessus through the major areas of policy disagreement that I mentioned just before.
JOURNALIST: Without throwing mud at particular countries then-
PM: Sounds like a leading question but off you go.
JOURNALIST: -is it that some issues are just too difficult or are some countries posturing for their own domestic politics rather than (inaudible)
PM: Part of the problem lies in where we've got to after two years, a document which having just read it carefully myself, is the current negotiating text, which has something like 91 square bracketed areas of disagreement. That actually represents something of a problem. Our task in the remaining two days is to get that down to a manageable list in the three to four critical areas of policy disagreement that I referred to before. That's the process that's underway. It's a difficult process but in order to focus the attention of leaders of government we're going to have to get this list down to core alternatives in critical areas of policy disagreement which can make or break the future of this potential Copenhagen accord.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, was it possibly a mistake to introduce the Danish text this morning given the reaction from Brazil, India, China, (inaudible) counties and was it true that the ministers of the G77 boycotted the meeting again today to discuss the text (inaudible) or not?
PM: First of all. I won't go to the internal diplomatic processes that are underway. Secondly the Prime Minister of Denmark, assuming the chair of the conference was an entirely natural and inevitable development. He did so at the beginning of the high level session. What is a high level session, it's one that involves heads of government. This is entirely appropriate for Prime Minister Rasmussen to do and had been long anticipated. Secondly, on the second point that you make about the circulation of a Presidents text, that has not occurred. As of where we stand at this time, we are dealing with the extent of the remaining texts which were developed by the respective working groups of the UN process up until now. The one I've just referred to, as I've said, one of those two texts has something like 91 or 92 squared bracketed areas of disagreement. I think as an international community we need to do better than that.
JOURNALIST: Just to clarify, the $120 million Australia is putting (inaudible) is that per year?
PM: No that's over the three year period and as I said that's out of a global initiative of US$3.5 billion just to put this into context.
JOURNALIST: In the context, again, of pulling weight. There is talk from various people about the amount of money Australia will be pitching in once (inaudible) does come about and it will amount to billions of dollars a year by 2020 potentially. Can you clarify what, in your mind, is likely broader picture of Australians will be paying to pull our weight?
PM: First of all, there is no indication whatsoever from the conference as to what the overall climate change finance arrangement may or may not be. There still remain a whole range of possibilities on this score.
What we have always said, consistent with statements by the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, over a long period of time, is that Australia will contribute its fair share, but there are an elastic series of possibilities at present. The key thing is this: stand back from it all, what do we need to do? We need to land an agreement on mitigation, land an agreement that is on what we will, in overall terms, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by in order to prevent temperatures rising by more than two degrees Celsius. That's objective number one.
Objective number two is to provide appropriate levels of climate change finance for the most vulnerable economies and countries around the world to undertake in large measure the necessary adaptation to climate change impacts where there populations are, frankly, the most exposed.
And the third is to make sure we have a measurement, reporting and verification system in place which is capable of, shall we say, keeping the international system honest on these questions.
That's what we're on about. One of the elements of that total jigsaw is finance, but it is completely open to negotiation at this stage. Australia's position, as it's always been, is that once agreement is reached, then we, of course, will contribute our fair share.
JOURNALIST: Was there any progress today on the issues of finance. Why haven't (inaudible) Is that because of the furious reaction to the very suggestion that there might be (inaudible)
PM: Well, first of all, let's clarify this concept of a Danish text. Remember, it is not unique or remarkable for the President of the Conference at an appropriate time to seek to bring together the existing texts put forward through the United Nations process and to review those texts and to seek to consolidate them and to solicit further views from governments about where we can reach final agreement. That process of consultation between the various groups involved in this conference is underway as we speak and I've been in a number of meetings today with the Danish Prime Minister and others on all of that. It's still underway. As I said, not a lot of progress has been made today, and it may take some time yet. There is still a way in which an agreement can be forged. There is still a way in which consensus can be achieved in all of the three major policy areas of disagreement that I've referred to this evening, but we do need all countries to put their best foot forward and time is running out.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) happy with the United States (inaudible) so far on carbon emissions targets?
PM: Well, as I said before, I think yesterday and again today, on the question of overall greenhouse gas reductions, if we, as a planet, as a global community, we are serious about achieving greenhouse gas reductions over time, which can keep temperature increases within two degrees Celsius, it means that everybody has got to pull their weight.
The United States has made a significant contribution to this debate. The previous US administration refused to indicate any target whatsoever. The Obama administration has been forthcoming in terms of its 17 percent commitment. China has also been forthcoming in terms of its commitment to reduce its carbon intensity by some 45 percent over time. The Europeans have a range of targets, with an upper range of 30. Japan has a conditional target of 25.
So let me say in response to your question, if we are hoping to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in order to bring about temperature stabilisation within two degrees centigrade, we'll need to see somewhat more effort across the board. How that's distributed remains to be part and parcel of these very sticky negotiations in the couple of days ahead.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, you've described it before as the political will. What you're saying is that the political will isn't being shown by some parties at the moment?
PM: What I'm saying is that large international conferences like this are full of more argy-bargy than your average national ALP conference on steroids, that's what I'm saying. And therefore - for any international folk here I'll provide simultaneous translation for that later on - but this involves, as I said yesterday, a very large sound and light show. Separating that from the substance of the negotiations is a separate matter and making sure you don't get distracted by either a) the name calling, b) the sound and light show or c) any of the other, sort of, frivolities going on is important.
But, underneath it all, you've got to have a core negotiation. That is underway. It is proceeding at a snail's pace right now. But the nature of these negotiations is that they either run into a brick wall or you get a breakthrough towards the end. As I said, the ingredients for securing an outcome are there. It requires political will to get there. More heads of Government will be arriving here tomorrow and that will be a necessary additive to getting the job done.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) What do you say to allegations of you twisting on the subject of legally binding (inaudible)?
PM: Can I just say that particular discussion over the nature of the agreement was canvassed extensively in the Pacific Islands Forum in Cairns some months ago, canvassed extensively at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago. I draw your attention to the text of the unanimously adopted communiqué of the Commonwealth, involving 53 countries, most island states of the Pacific, which plainly referred to the support of the process which has been promoted by the Danish Prime Minister, and that is to produce a framework agreement here with the objective of them providing a basis for the further conclusion of a legally binding treaty as the next stage. One cannot occur without the other. So the suggestion that these matters have not been canvassed in recent months is simply not well founded, and I draw your attention to the communiqué.
And secondly, can I just say in a conference like this, you know, yesterday I was responding to whoever it was saying various things about Australia, and I'm sure they'll be saying it about today. That's just part of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune which are associated with conferences like this. Key thing is not to get distracted by it, stick to the task and try as hard as you can to bring about an agreement.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, what did you think of Ethiopia's proposal on finance and its suggestion that we create financial mechanisms. Did you discuss that with Ethiopia in your bilateral meeting ahead of the announcement, and also, on the REDD agreement, $120 million, what will that be used for? Will that be used to purchase REDD credits or will it be used for some other purpose.
PM: Let me go to those in sequence. I met extensively with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia last night into the wee hours. I can't remember when, now, but as you know, over here it all blurs. I'm sure you've not had that experience so far. But we had a good discussion and we've had previous discussions on the telephone and previous discussions elsewhere on the particular needs of the least-developed countries in Africa. Remember, Ethiopia itself is a country that faces a particular challenge associated with drought and the intensification of drought conditions of the back of climate change.
I discussed with Prime Minister Meles last night his proposed intervention today. He'd already discussed it in detail with his African colleagues. He was extending me the courtesy of briefing me on it, and I thank him for that.
Secondly, you ask in terms of my views on it. I believe it represents a constructive framework for further discussion. Doesn't necessarily mean that Australian Government would sign up to every element of it, but he was providing a way of opening the dialogue between developed and developing countries on the question of climate change finance, in particular for the states of Africa.
I note, in particular, he's recommended the establishment of an expert body to go to the range of possibilities of public finance, private finance. That is an appropriate way forward in terms of some of the specific recommendations contained, or possibilities that he's highlighted within that. In terms of Tobin taxes or aviation taxes, of course, that's not the view of the Australian Government, but he recommends a mechanism for looking at a range of private and public financing options. That, I think, is a constructive way forward. Trying to find a long-term financing option to sustain the adaptation needs of countries in Africa and the small island states is a constructive way forward, but as I said, these negotiations on finance have a long, long way to go.
JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd, you said (inaudible)
PM: Well spotted.
JOURNALIST: What's going to happen if (inaudible)
PM: Ah, the old hypothetical.
JOURNALIST: There's only two days, so obviously there's a plan. Will you just give up and Australia goes on its own (inaudible)?
PM: Our job here in Copenhagen is to, frankly, work our guts out to try and get a good outcome for the Australian national interest and a good outcome for the next generation of Australians, the next generation of young people around the world. It doesn't - certain people may find political benefit out of predicting doom, gloom and failure. My job, as the Prime Minister of Australia, is to work as hard as possible for success. We worked as hard as possible for success at home for a carbon pollution reduction scheme to put a cap on carbon to compensate families. We're working as hard as possible abroad to bring about a global agreement in Australia's national interest here.
But I'm just being straight up and down with folk, as I was yesterday. These are very hard negotiations. They are very tough, 190 nations, something like 140 heads of government due here soon. This will probably be one of the largest concentrations of heads of government at any time in history, but the challenges we face are among the largest we've faced in history as well, given their long-term future consequences.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible)
PM: I'm sorry, I didn't answer the other part to someone else's question, asked about REDD. I'll come back to both of them, sorry.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well, first of all, when it comes to action on, let's call it forest carbon, Australia's international forest carbon initiative has been running for some years. It operates with three arms at present, primarily one with Indonesia, one with Papua New Guinea, and one multilaterally through various World Bank programs. These are at various stages of development in the two countries that I've mentioned.
For example, in Indonesia we are looking, in particular, at how we can undertake the best protection to avoid forest fires. It's as basic as that at this stage. One of the other measures that we are advancing globally, and it's something on which I spoke at the UN special session on climate change in New York in September, was the use of satellite technologies to properly map whether or not deforestation was occurring or not occurring and whether undertakings made by individual farmers or localities were in fact being honoured, as opposed to other measurement systems which we may be a bit more sceptical about, and that's a robust discussion being held at the moment.
Can I just say that we are only a few steps along the road, and therefore, when it comes to building on the three sets of programs that we've got, this further investment that I referred to before will be important. The reason in overall terms why it's important is that 18 percent of global emissions are too big to ignore, and you've got to be serious about this if you're going to serious about the rest of global emissions. That's why we must not just do everything possible to reach a strong agreement here in Copenhagen for the Australian national interest, but also at home in Australia have a mechanism to deliver it as well. That's why, in Australia, like 36 other countries around the world, we've embraced an emissions trading scheme as the cheapest, most jobs friendly, most environmentally effective means of bringing down carbon pollution, and ultimately the ultimate goal being a globally linked set of cap-and-trade systems which enable you, of course, to operate internationally as well.
Having said that, folks, I think I've got to head back to the conference centre. All the best.
(ENDS)