Wednesday, 11 June 2014

Mark Butler, Subjects: Tony Abbott’s position on climate change


TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW ON SKY PM AGENDA

Date:  10 June 2014
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW WITH DAVID LIPSON ON PM AGENDA

REPORTER: For more I spoke to Labor's climate change spokesman, Mark Butler. Mark Butler, thank you for your time. Why do you say that climate change should be put formally on the agenda for the G20?
SHADOW MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND WATER MARK BUTLER: Well, I say it because it's the clear wish of the vast majority of nations around the world, including nations attending the G20. In very diplomatic terms, but firm terms, we've heard from the United States and a number of other G20 members on a number of occasions now that they expect climate change to be part of the discussion this year. Next year, there's a conference in Paris, which is the modern equivalent of the Kyoto conference. The US, China, so many other very significant nations have made it very clear that they expect those talks to be ambitious and they expect them to be far reaching. So the G20 conference is a very important part of the lead in to the talks in Paris next year. 
REPORTER: Is there a risk though, that if it is discussed at the G20 before the nations have had a chance to properly set a position that it could be premature in the long run, when we do get to Paris next year the discussions, then could be harmed, if you like, for any real action?
BUTLER: Well, I think on the contrary, what we discovered in Copenhagen is there's a very real danger in leaving these things to the last minute. There are a number of opportunities this year, including a leaders' summit that Ban-Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, is holding in September and the G20 among, many others, where really it's very reasonable to expect that nations will start preliminary discussions about what they expect – what the scope of discussions will be in the lead in to Paris next year. We learnt to our detriment in Copenhagen that leaving these things to the last minute can mean that there’s a very low likelihood of an ambitious agreement.
REPORTER: But not everyone wants this on the G20 agenda. Stephen Harper made that very clear and there is a chance that Tony Abbott may be able to pull together a bloc of countries that don't want this on the G20 including Britain, India and New Zealand so with that sort of opposition, isn't there a case to hold off, to discuss it, as Tony Abbott says it will be raised, but leave it off the formal agenda?
BUTLER: Well, first of all, I don’t think anyone's seen comments on the record from Britain or India or New Zealand to the effect that they don't want this on the agenda. Great Britain for example, under the Tory leadership of David Cameron, has been a leader in action on climate change. There’s no reason to expect that he, or Britain, don’t want to this to be part of those discussions. At the end of the day though, Tony Abbott is holding the chairmanship this year of the G20. If he intends to dig in along with Stephen Harper from Canada and prevent this from being a discussion at the formal G20 meeting well so be it. That doesn't mean I'm sure that US, China and other nations won't find an opportunity to have those discussions without Australia in the room and I don't think that's in Australia's interests.
REPORTER: The Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, said that no country is going to destroy jobs and growth in the name of climate action. And he says that the carbon tax does do that. As the party of the worker, do you agree that jobs should always be put before anything else, including the climate?
BUTLER: Well, I don’t accept that they're an "either-or" proposition. I think the surest way to destroy jobs and economic growth, particularly in the medium to long term in the 21th century, is to ignore climate change. Climate change already is having a significant impact on our weather, on our climate and on our industries, including agriculture obviously but other industries as well. So, it's all very well to bury one's head in the sand and assume that the conditions of the 20st century will endure into the 21st, but scientific advice internationally and here in Australia is telling us clearly that failure to take climate action is the one thing that's sure to jeopardise jobs and economic growth in the medium and long term.
REPORTER: You mentioned Barack Obama earlier. The Obama plan that was announced last week would set a limit on emissions from power generators, in fact it would force them to reduce their emissions by 30% on 2005 levels. Now, assuming that it is carried out in full, and that's somewhat unlikely – there is expected to be legal challenges - it will only reduce the total US carbon emissions by 5%. Now, Direct Action, Tony Abbott says, will also reduce emissions by 5% by 2020. And as you know, Labor's policy is to reduce carbon emissions by 5% by 2020. So how can Labor point to Barack Obama's plan as proof that Australia is going in the wrong direction. Aren't we in line?
BUTLER: No, because President Obama's plan builds on a range of other initiatives that his administration has taken. His plan sets quite ambitious emissions limits on existing power plants, but it builds on initiatives already announced by the President to limit pollution from motor vehicles, and also to limit pollution from new power plants. It also builds on the 2020 target for carbon pollution reduction that the United States has to reduce carbon pollution by 17%, not 5% in Australia's case, but 17%. Now all of the experts seem to indicate that America will quite comfortably achieve that 17% reduction by 2020 and this initiative from President Obama is about the next decade.
REPORTER: But on that plan, as well, he used 2005 as the baseline. Now, emissions in 2005 in the United States were unusually high, partly because of the recession and partly because of the increase in fracking that was going on at the time, so a 30% reduction on that sounds much better than it actually is, because in 2012 there was already a 16% reduction in emissions. So, again, isn't the Coalition Government taking action in line with countries like the United States?
BUTLER: Well, no it's not, not at all. Tony Abbott repeated this myth in Canada this morning, or yesterday, when he tried to compare President Obama's plan with his Direct Action plan. The thing missing from Tony Abbott's plan, the thing that all of the experts and commentators point to as the thing missing from his plan when compared to all the other plans in China, opening in Korea soon, in Europe and in the United States is that there is no formal, legal limit on carbon pollution from the power industry, from the transport industry or any other part of the economy. Tony Abbott's plan is a hope. It’s crossing fingers, throwing a couple of billion dollars at big polluters and hoping that we’ll be able to achieve the 5% reduction. Frankly, given what Tony Abbott looks like he's going to do to the renewable energy industry for example and looking at the land clearing laws that Campbell Newman has put in place, even 5% is going to be a very significant ask in Australia based on the Direct Action policy.
REPORTER: Over the weekend, Labor's said that Tony Abbott was out on his own when it comes to climate change. He's not out on his own though clearly with Stephen Harper's endorsement over the last 24 hours.
BUTLER: Well, it's clear that Stephen Harper is something of a soul-mate of Tony Abbott's in this respect. I mean, there are - at province level – significant things happening in Canada as there are in the United States at state level, but clearly Stephen Harper and Tony Abbott have a similar view about global action on climate change, but whether it's one leader or two leaders this is very significantly a minority view. The vast bulk of significant nations in the world that have signed up to the two degree limit in increase in global temperatures by 2050 recognise that the most effective way to deal with that is to put a legal cap on carbon pollution and then let business work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate. That’s what we’re seeing in the United States, at province level in Canada, our oldest trading partners in Germany, France and the UK and many others, but most importantly for Australia we’re seeing also now in our own region. The seventh emissions trading scheme begins operation this week in China and in six months our third largest export partner, South Korea, starts the second largest carbon trading scheme in the world.
REPORTER: And Labor would be happy it seems to go to another election on the carbon tax, if the Government pushes it on to a double dissolution?
BUTLER: We're dealing with the current debate. So in the next couple of weeks in the Federal Parliament we'll be debating the best carbon pollution reduction plan for Australia and the Australian Labor Party will be continuing to argue the plan we took to the election which was to have an emissions trading scheme put in place as soon as possible in Australia -the same sort of scheme that I've just talked about beginning in China, in South Korea, already operating in many places in the Northern Hemisphere, we'll be continuing to make that argument over the next couple of weeks.
REPORTER: And would you be happy to keep making that argument in a new election?
BUTLER: Well, we’re making that argument because it’s the plan we took to the Australian people. It's proper that the Labor Party continue to make the argument for the plan that we took to the last election. As for Double Dissolutions, that’s in the hands of the Prime Minister, not me, or even Bill Shorten or Tanya Plibersek, that's a matter for the Prime Minister. We will be holding true to the plan that we took to the last election during the course of this Parliament.
REPORTER: That's now, but what if it does go further? Because members of the Labor Party today have said, 'bring it on' if there is another election.
BUTLER: Well if there's a double dissolution election based on the carbon repeal bills that the Government is currently putting forward in the Senate then we will continue to argue the position we're arguing in the Senate. But what happens at the next election will obviously be subject to the normal policy development process that every party undertakes in between election campaigns. At the moment though, we're dealing with bills that are currently before the Australian Parliament, bills which we obviously have a clearly stated view that we enunciated to the Australian people in September and we’ll continue to argue in the Australian Parliament.
REPORTER: Mark Butler, we'll have to leave it there. Thanks for your time.
BUTLER: Thanks David.
ENDS

No comments:

Post a Comment