[LINK] Another Rudd for the future ...

[Glen Turner]

On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 13:14 +1100, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 12:46 PM 14/12/2007, Eleanor Lister wrote:
> >oh, i see, "reports" good, "studies" bad ... there's a difference?
> >
> >may one suggest that since the scientific evidence on climate change is
> >fully developed and prescriptive, that KR is trying to take a big
> >lungful of air before he has to confront big business on carbon emission
> >reduction, which will no doubt be a painful process for all parties
> >concerned.
> 
> KR has already shown he accepts the scientific evidence that climate 
> change is real. But the range of 25-40% is not exactly prescriptive, 
> but indicative. The choices made in Australian policy for where we 
> put an interim target within that range should depend on a number of 
> aspects to allow for transition, not falling off a cliff. That's 
> hopefully what the Garnoud report will provide. Would you rather he 
> just agree to the 40%?

The problem for the government is twofold:

1) We have to be on-board any widely-adopted international treaty on
   carbon. Australia's trade prospects are poor otherwise.

2) Australia has done nothing in the past decade; carbon production
   has increased by >30%.  Only our offsets from slowing land clearing
   have restricted the net total to 3% -- but the developing countries
   are determined that developed countries no longer be allowed to
   hide behind such accounting treatments. In fact, they are pretty
   determined to make Australia pay the piper for the 30% increase,
   and it's only the fear that this would instill into the USA that
   is holding their hand.  If the USA looks like it is not going to
   participate in the Bali process (eg, the Republicans find a viable
   presidential candidate) then Australia's bargaining position
   disappears.

So unless Rudd and Wong are really good negotiators (and thankfully
that might yet be the case) Australia is going to get a bad deal out
of Bali. There can't be too much whinging about this -- we got a
good deal out of Kyoto.

When the deal is done Rudd needs something to point to as the government
implements a 25-80% reduction in greenhouse gas production across a
decade (the wide range of the numbers is reflective of ongoing
negotiations).
Garnaut is to provide that paper.  Rudd is trying to input that paper
into the Bali process -- to reduce the range to a number which is cheap
for Australia.  It's a nice try, but it's really too little too late.

Cheers, Glen

BTW, one thing that is really annoying me at the moment is the criticism
of the Murray River not being on the COAG agenda.  Ms Wong is
negotiating
*the* treaty which will control Australia's international trade for the
next 20 years.  We don't want her efforts distracted by grandstanding
premiers.  The item can easily go onto the agenda of the next COAG,
whereas Australia will never get the opportunity to renegotiate some
of the terms of Bali.