Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News Breakfast -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) dangerous climate change.

Because if we cannot

say... Now, negotiators from

194 countries spent the last 10

days in Copenhagen trying to

reach a global agreement to

reduce carbon emissions

Christine Milne is Deputy

Leader and joins us from the

phone in Copenhagen, as we end

to the lead-up to the last day

of the conference, what are

your thoughts and hopes as to

what may or may not

happen. It's clear the sticking

point that remains on the level

point that remains on the level

of ambition of the targets on

the table from the developed

countries such as Australia.

Also the long-term financing

mechanisms to assist the adapt

tigs and mitigation for

developing countries, but also

the issues around land use

because anything that is agreed

here has to have integrity, it

can't be underpinned by a

slight of hand and cheating

around accounting rules. At

this stage the Danes have more

or less given up on an outcome.

There are still leaders trying

to organise something of a

political statement, as the

Chinese have said, but just

going to the - what the Prime

Minister of Australia had to

say, he said that individually

leaders will be judged on what

they say, do, and fail to do,

and it is unfortunately our

Prime Minister and others like

him who failed to put higher

targets on the table and that

is a major reason why there

won't be a legally binding outcome. What is your

interpretation of the role

China is playing here. Do you

think they are being

irresponsible in not coming up

with emission targets to match

the developing nations -

developed nations and not agreeing to have

agreeing to have their targets

monitored, scrutinised by

international monitors. It's

really interesting to see the

way the framing of this outcome

is being set up right now, with

the Americans coming in saying,

"We are prepared to facilitate

100 billion, but by 2020", but

that requires China to agree to

emissions reductions measurable and verifiable

emissions reductions and so on.

If they don't, that means that

the poor countries don't get

any country. What that is

trying to do is shift the

debate to blame China instead

of the United States taking a fair percentage of the blame

for not putting fair reductions

on the table because it is the

failure of those developed

countries under the Kyoto

Protocol to meet their targets.

That has given China the room

to move now to say, "Well, we

won't agree to this until you

show us what you are prepared

to do, and then we'll consider

how far we'll move". Now, you

may be aware of reports here

this morning that the Prime

Minister of Tuvalu is claiming Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

offered his country money to

water down its draft text at Copenhagen, do you give much

credence to what he has to

say? I do, absolutely, that is

why I say Kevin Rudd will be

judged not only on what he

says, but what he's done. He

and Gordon Brown got together

and they have spent the last 24

hours putting pressure on the

least developed countries, and

many of the Pacific Island

countries, trying to make them

back off their commitment to

restraining global temperature

to 1.5 degrees and maintaining

50 parts to the million of the long-term trajectory and it's

Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown saying to those countries,

"Back off that, and there'll be

financing on the table", and

they have done it to the

Maldives well and President

Sarkozy has been doing it to

French and poor African

countries. What we have is the

developed countries refusing to

do what the science

do what the science requires,

trying to undermine those with

the least capacity and least

amount of power, the ones that

know what global warming is

going to do to them, trying to

undermine their position. So

it's a pretty shameful time

when Australia uses its

position in the Pacific to try

to browbeat small communt ris,

it's no wonder - countries,

have the meeting with Kevin it's no wonder Tuvalu didn't

Rudd. Turning to domestic

politics , if there's isn't a

mean Kevin Rudd's Emissions Copenhagen agreement, does that

Trading Scheme is dead for all

time? Well, what I think it

means is that we will be back

with a global meeting probably

in bond by mid 2010 and is

means that if this conference

doesn't result in a legally

binding treaty in the next six

months civil society in

Australia will have to organise

itself dramatically, fast, to

bring pressure to bear in the

context of coming up to a

Federal election to make sure

Australia puts on the table the

targets that the science

requires, and that is we have

to be going to the top end of

that range of 40% cuts by 2020.

That is what Kevin Rudd has to

step up to. Christine Milne,

Greens Deputy Leader in