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