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.
Lateline -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) on Oramorph. Sorry. I would expect you to put her I'm not upset. Don't get upset. nobody's telling me anything. I'm just a wee bit cross because No, we understand... best, as we do for all our patients. Believe me, we are doing our very to consider, Doctor, Yes, well I would like you putting her on Tramadol or Oramorph. I would like you to consider That's all I'm asking you... and I have at this moment decided... I have considered those options She's already on Tramadol. Well, I've just been talking... We are giving her Tramadol. Four times a day. No, I thought... No, she's not on Tramadol yet. That's outrageous. She's already started on Tramadol. That is outrageous. No, it was in the night, though. Yes. Was it? know what's going on here. Sorry, nobody seems to really It sounds... There is a... morning they said it was last night. When I took the handover this because I've only just, um... Right. Oh, well that explains it, I've got, unfortunately, Can I just briefly... an appointment I must dash to. maybe, a direct line or something? Have you got a telephone number but if you ask Den or... I don't have a direct line, B4 and I'm happy to speak to you. Come through B4. Yep, come through but rest assured we are, you know, Right. I've got to dash off, our best to help. we truly will be doing No, no, absolutely. I'm sorry if I've appeared rude. Den, can I leave you, um... But I must... happy in herself at the moment. Well, she does seem I know the pain thing is real. I mean, Thank you. Thank you. Would you like a little chat? actually. I'd like a good chat. Yeah, I would like a little chat Yep, let's do that. Do you want to come into my office? is incredibly difficult for me. I'm really sorry, but this I've had to ask the neighbours Well... my mum's dogs, for a week or so, you know? to keep looking after them So it's just, it's all a wee bit... that your mum's going to be in It's most likely for a wee while, not just a week. and, um, she's disappeared now. I had a dog myself, Along with my ex-husband. (Sighs) You get very close, don't you? Very, very close to an animal. It's an unbreakable bond, really. what your name is now. I'm coming, Jenny, 'cause we know of the hospital? Have you had a nice tour You're back with us now. Scream if you want to go faster. There we go. Ready? ? Roll river ? Keep on rolling ? Ancient lady, cold ? Roll river, roll. ? Closed Captions by CSI

Tonight - desperate measures, choppers fly through a choppers

radioactive plume to drop water onto exposed fuel rods. There

is no water in the spent fuel pool and levels are extremely high,

which could possibly impact the

ability to take corrective

measures. TRANSLATION: With

the water being funneled into

the spent fuel pool, we believe

that it will help to cool down the fuel. This Program is Captioned Live.

Good evening, welcome to Well, nuclear experts relying

on limited information out of

Japan have struggled to form a consensus on exactly how bad

the Fukushima nuclear accident

is. One of Britain's leading

nuclear engineers said a few

days ago the Fukushima event

actually proves the safety of modern nuclear power plants.

Has he changed his mind as the situation has situation has worsened? Professor Robin Grimes is the Director of the Imperial Centre

for Nuclear Engineering. We'll

cross to speak to him shortly. joined by the Federal Later in the program we'll be

Government's climate change

adviser Professor Ross Garnaut

who today recommended a price

on carbon between $20-30 per

tonne and that people should be

compensated with income tax

cuts. First our other

headlines - time to go further,

the US urges the United Nations

to consider more than just a

no-fly zone over Libya. And

votes determine views - a

national survey reveals the way

people vote is now the key indicator of

accept or reject that humans

cause global warming. Army

helicopters have been water bombing the crippled bombing the crippled nuclear

reactor in Fukushima as the

Japanese Government continues

to struggle to prevent a meltdown. Officials are hoping

they can restore power to the

plant which will allow them to

run cooling systems and back-up

generators, but the length of

time it's taking to regain

control of the reactor is causing alarm in the United

States

information to be released. ABC correspondent Hayden Cooper

reports from Tokyo. When all

else fails, improvise. This is the latest desperate attempt to

subdue an out of control atomic problem - defence helicopters

on a water bombing mission

above Fukushima. Four times

they sprayed reactor three , unloading more than 20 tonnes

water of water. TRANSLATION: With the

spent fuel pool, we believe it

will help to cool down the

fuel. It was a 2-pronged

approach. At ground level,

police brought in police brought in water cannon

trucks and fire engines were on

hand, too. Reactors two and

three are teetering on the

brink. Their containment

vessels are thought to be

damaged. If they give way,

cooling the core will be

impossible. It will melt down

and spew radioactive waste into

the air. So will

know treatment work? No-one seems to

know for sure. After the

mission, radiation levels had

only dropped slightly, and many

other problems persist. In

reactor four, spent fuel rods are rumoured to be totally

exposed. That's certainly the

opinion of one US expert. We

believe at this point that unit

four may have lost a

significant inventory, if not

lost all of its water. It's a

claim disputed Japanese. TRANSLATION: The claim disputed by the

collecting on the Japanese information that we're

side, we naturally pass onto

authorities in the United

States, but there is a time delay in delivering this information. This was

information regarding reactor especially the case with

number four. There's also some

dispute about how big the

exclusion zone should be. It's currently 20 currently 20 kilometres, but

the US and Australia are

calling for it to be extended

to 80. That would mean even more evasions. Those who've

been moved already, are and angry. TRANSLATION: I'm

shocked, they didn't tell us

what was happening and I'm very angry with the the plant. It's a joke. Within

the evacuation zone, streets

are deserted. Only a few hardy

souls remain, and they are

feeling abandoned and betrayed. TRANSLATION: We weren't told when the first reactor

exploded. We only heard about it it on TV. The government doesn't tell us anything. We're isolated, they're leaving

us to die. Further south in the

nation's capital, the city nation's capital, the city is

quieter than usual. Not so at Narita Airport, where foreigners cram the departure

lounge waiting for flights out

of Japan. There's a long line

of governments now telling

their citizens to leave Tokyo

and it's not just because of radiation fears, it's also

disruption to the city's

are running, some supermarkets

are short on stock and the

Japanese Government has now warned of widespread blackouts

across the capital. The death toll from the earthquake and tsunami is now officially just

short of 5,500 with more than

9,000 still listed as missing.

Nearly 500,000 Japanese sheltering in evacuation

centres throughout the tsunami-hit tsunami-hit area. In the town

of Kamaishi, 7,000 people are

huddled in community buildings trying to cope with food

shortages and temperatures

which have dropped to minus 5.

Mark Willacy spent the day in

Kamaishi. This is the main

street of Kamaishi... or

basically what's left of it. Shops, businesses have been

destroyed. Cars have been

pulverised against each other

and left here by a 10 metre

wave. The official death

here is 400, but like everywhere else there are

thousands missing. There are nearly 500,000 Japanese in evacuation centres. There are

7,000 Kamaishi residents in those evacuation centres, so it's suffering like everywhere

else. The rescue and relief crews

crews are pulling away the

debris, things like cars. This

is a car that's basically been wedged

wedged into a shop behind me. Kamaishi is typical of dozens of communities and towns in the

tsunami zone. It's been

utterly devastated, its heart ripped out. Joining us from

London to discuss the ongoing

crisis at Fukushima plant is Professor Robin Grimes the Director of the Imperial Centre for Nuclear Engineering,

Imperial College. Thanks for

joining us. Has your early

optimism now been proven wrong

about how well were handling this crisis? I

think the early optimism that

the containment would manage to

hold all the radiation in is

definitely overconfident.

There has been release s of

radiation particularly in the

vicinity of reactor buildings

and that's always a cause for

concern. A few days ago you

thought they were handling the event so well it was an

endorsement of the safety of

modern nuclear reactors. Have

to start with? I want to really

stress the difference between a

modern reactor and this

generation one, there are

certain design features of this generation one reactor which

would not be allowed, would

actually never have passed

muster anywhere else. It's

really quite surprising in many

ways. The generation two reactors - and there are a

number of them in the same

region remember, in Japan region remember, in Japan -

have all performed very well

and, in fact, they're back up were back up and generating

before the conventional power

stations. It's the specifics

of this very old generation one reactor. What are the specifics? What worries you

about its design, what's made

it particularly vulnerable to

this kind of accident? There

are two things that are two things that would not

be able to pass a safety

inspection for a new reactor at

the moment and one is the idea

that they have this large condensing ring, this been hearing about which is

actually outside the

containment vessel. In a

modern design, anything to do

with a reactor in which the primary circuits are concerned primary circuits

would have to be within a very

strong containment vessel. The containment vessels have actually done very well,

despite the fact this is a

40-year-old reactor. It's these doughnut-shaped exterior

structure that seems to have

failed in a couple of the cases

to some extent, so that's one thing. The second thing is the

arrangement of the spent fuel

ponds which are again in a sort

of a doughnut at the top of the

reactor having a very large mass

mass and having the spent fuel

very close to the reactor in

that way is not something we

would do anymore. Again, the

generation Type 2 reactors are not built like that and the

kind of reactors in the future,

Generation Three reactors are

different even again from

that. Is it clear how seems to have disappeared from these containment ponds which

contain fuel rods. That's what

appears the biggest problem,

and the Americans are the water has entirely boiled

off in at least one of these

pools in reactor four? There

are two very good points you're

making there. The first is

that the Americans seem to be

disagreeing with the Japanese.

I can't see how this can be a

matter ofcy Manhattanics. Either there Either there is some water or

there isn't some water. Certainly the Japanese are

stating clearly that there is considerable water loss in

number four and I imagine that

must be due to some earthquake damage,

damage, some cracking or

something like that. Now in

addition to that, because now the reactor is uncovered and

water is not being replenished

into those spent fuel tanks,

then evaporation will be occurring and the evaporation

rate is a metre or so a day. I figure, but it's of that order.

After a few days unless you

replenish the tanks the levels

do start to go down, and if the water levels go down, the

temperatures in the tanks will

go up. The fuel rods generate

heat and ultimately melt and

release radio iso topes into the atmosphere. How much of

this material is in these tanks and how much could potentially be released into the atmosphere? Remember these are 40-year-old tanks and they've had spent fuel in them for

almost all of that time, so there will have been a build-up

in the bottom of the tanks of

small amounts of radioactive materials.

materials. That would be due

to the radiation affecting the sort of waters and things will

have moved into the water, dust

particles and so forth. So

when you first start to get release of the water from the

tanks you'll start to detect some of

we've been saying, I think, is actually detection not necessarily of burst fuel rods

initially, but actually of this residual radiation that's

around the tanks anyway.

Latterly we almost certainly

have seen the effects of the

actual fuel pins themselves

which will have broken open and

become distorted and so forth.

There are different types of

radiation. That's why it's so

crucial to keep watching and

monitoring and find out not

what the situation is at any

one minute, but how that

- that tells you much

more. There are incredibly high

levels of radiation as we know above reactor four and, in

fact, above the whole complex. Now Now the helicopters can't go

anywhere near it. So they have to drop water from a long

distance up in the air, so if

very high levels of radiation

are being detected above the

reactor that means there's a

plume does it not, and what's

in that plume, are they radio active active isotope s? You've got

the water tanks now, the tops

of the cover of number four

have been blown off and

water level has dropped which

means the spent fuel no longer

has water on top of it. The

water doesn't just cool the

fuel, but acts as a radiation

barrier. Water is a magnificent radiation barrier,

so if there's exposed fuel and

it's open to the atmosphere,

then anything flying over the

top of it will directly from the fuel odds

irrespective as to whether they're

they're broken or not. Just

briefly, what's to stop that

going into a very large cloud

of dangerous radioactive

isotopes that then descends on

a major city like Tokyo? Very

good question. There are two different

different ways radiation

affects things. It's like

turning on a torch if you like

and if the fuel pins are

exposed it's like exposed it's like a torch being

turned on and the water level

goes down. It's like taking

the cover off a torch. In

addition to that, you're absolutely right, some broken

fuel rods will have given up

some of their radioactive

particles and those radioactive

particles then go up into these

plumes and they take the

radiation inside the particles

away from the site and that

would include certain amounts

of iodine. Most of the iodine,

in particular in the spent fuel

will have decayed away, because

the spent fuel has been in the ponds for quite a long time and radioactive iodine has a

relatively shorter half life

than many other products. I

should say, the bad news I

imagine would be it's not only

spent fuel rods in those ponds,

but active fuel rods which were

taken out for maintenance

purposes. Potentially there's much

radioactive material in those

ponds? Those types of fuel

rods, irrespective of whether

they are spent or out part of the way through

their active useful life have basically the same radiation

coming from them. It's pretty

much the same stuff. Professor

Robin Grimes, we thank you very

much for taking the time to

talk to us tonight. You're very

welcome, thank you. After weeks

of indecision, the United States has finally backed a no-fly zone over Libya. no-fly zone over Libya. It's

urging the UN to vote as tonight on measures to

protect civilians. It wants

the Security Council to approve

a wide-ranging resolution

authorising further unspecified

measures if necessary. A

senior Libyan official warned

the world has just hours to

prevent what he said would be

genocide. The ABC's foreign

affairs editor Peter

reports from Benghazi. Gaddafi's forces are

celebrating. They say they've

retaken Ajdabiya and they say the rebel stronghold is next. TRANSLATION: We love our

leader, we have liberated

Ajdabiya. From here we'll go

onto Benghazi. Our morale is

high. The leader's son

predicted the uprising will be

over in a matter of

days. You'll be surprised. In a few

will be there. You'll see the

pictures there. People celebrating, everybody will

come, the armed forces. A frustrated Libyan ambassador

warned time is running out to

stop Gaddafi taking his

revenge. In the coming hours we

will see a real genocide if the international community does

not move quickly and prevent

him from attacking with a large

force. The United States has

shed its earlier reluctance on

calling for even more drastic calling for even more drastic measures. The US view is that

we need to be prepared contemplate steps that include,

but perhaps go beyond a no-fly

zone. At this point as the

situation on the ground has

evolved. The turning point

appears to be the events in

Bahrain. Emboldened by

international inaction on

Libya, authorities have cracked

down hard on anti-government

protests, with the help of Saudi military. The increasingly violent events in

the Gulf kingdom are being

watched with growing alarm

around the world. Time may

have run out for have run out for the protesters

in Bahrain as well. One of the

key questions in the carbon tax

debate is how much a tonne of

carbon will cost emitters. We

came a step closer to learning

the answer today when the

Government's climate change

adviser told us what he'd like

to see, around $25 a increase by 4% a year in real terms and Professor Ross

Garnaut is arguing a large

chunk of the tax 's revenue

should be given back

families through tax cuts.

More from political

correspondent Tom Iggulden.

There was more than a tinge of

green in Canberra for this year's St Patrick's Day

celebrations attended by the

Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader. I understand

there was a flurry this morning

when his staff tried to explain

to him it was a green

about a saint. ... and he had to be convinced it was Patrick

and not Bob. It's good to see

the Prime Minister the Prime Minister wearing

green, without any prompting

from Bob Brown. A joke to be

sure, but the Prime Minister

seemed sensitive to criticism

she's beholden to the Greens' leader and pushed back last

night by calling his party

inflexible. If they are extreme as she now says, why form a government with them? But Bob Brown's not upset

by the Prime Minister's

comments. Once upon a time it

was extreme to educate all

children and until very

recently it was extreme to

think that you might take the

economy from being based on

fossil fuels to renewable

energy. If Labor keeps taking

our policies they'll keep doing

alright. Climate change adviser

Ross Garnaut might argue he's

as much to do with Labor's carbon plans the Government a way to sell

the carbon tax to a sceptical

public - by giving half the

money it would raise to low and

middle-income earners in the

former of tax cuts. It's very

important to save the planet

from cooking if at the same

time you can reform the tax

system and at the same time

make us more productive, that's

a good thing and you can do it

at the same time without any

compromising of the environmental objective. And

today, he indicated what price

the Government will need to set

to meet its carbon reduction

targets. Based on past modelling it's likely that Australia's carbon price would need to commence at around $25. That's

his view of where a starting

price should be.

it's an important input into

our considerations. We've got

a lot more detailed work to do

in the coming weeks and

months. The Opposition is

claiming Professor Garnaut is

making the case against the

carbon tax. Professor Garnaut has confirmed what the Coalition has been saying, that

the carbon price will have to

be $25 a tonne or more. $25 a

tonne carbon price means $300 a

year on year on your electricity bill,

6.5 cents a litre on your

petrol bill. Professor Garnaut has, in fact, criticised the

direct action to climate change favoured by the Opposition

Leader - a criticism echoed

tonight by a former Liberal

leader. They say they have a

direct action plan. Well, I'm

an economist, I can tell you from my side of there is an implicit price on carbon in that direct action

plan and I'd be amazed if it is

not substantially higher than

anything Julia Gillard will announce in the next 3-5

years. The committee advising

the Government on the carbon

scheme meets tomorrow in

Canberra, a step closer to that vital decision on what the

eventually price of a tonne of

carbon will be around the

scheme. If there's one thing

Professor Garnaut and the

Government agree on, is that

it's now or never for a carbon tax. Australians are split down the middle about whether humans are

to blame for climate change.

According to a survey by the

CSIRO. As Margot O'Neill reports, the survey shows that

how people vote is now the key indicator of whether they

accept or reject the scientific evidence for human-induced

global warming. It seems it's

politics, not science that

determines most people's

attitude to climate change.

Australia's peak science body, the CSIRO, conducted the

nation's largest survey on

climate change views before last year's federal election

and while more than 90% Australians believe the climate

is changing, 50% believe it's

because of human carbon

pollution, while 40% believe

it's natural variability and

has nothing to do with humans.

Just 6% deny any climate change

at all. Women are more likely

to believe human responsible, but the most dramatic difference between the

groups is who they vote for.

Liberal and National Party

voters dominate those who

humans are to blame, while

Labor and Green party voters dominate those who believe they

are. A bit of a blow, I

suppose. It would be very nice

for popular debates about things like climate change to

be driven more by science, more

by knowledge, more by by knowledge, more by facts than they are. How

climate change is now more

likely to reflect their broader

political and personal values. Sometimes even deep-seated beliefs and

concerns about nature with a

capital N, about God, about

God's plan for the world -

those sorts of things sometimes explicitly rather than

implicitly underlie the public

debate about climate change.

Very rarely do debate about the science itself. Which may explain why

there's also confusion. Even

those who say climate change natural still want Government

action and still partly blame countries and global corporations for causing it. From this survey and other

surveys here and the United

States and the UK, I think it's

fairly clear there's a lot of

confusion in the general public

about the nature about the nature of climate

change. So who do people rely

on for information on the

Government almost last as a

trusted source, just ahead of

car and oil companies. Those who believe in human-induced

global warming list their top three trusted sources as university scientists, followed by environmental organisations, and environmental group

scientists. Those who don't

believe in human-induced

climate change also name

university scientists as their

number one source, followed by

friends and family and their

doctors. doctors. The results confirm a dramatic shift in just a few

years, with a 10% drop or so in people accepting the climate change link to human pollution,

even though in the same period,

climate scientists have become

even more certain of the evidence. The fact that

attitudes can change so

quickly, to me suggests they're

not firmly rooted in

deep-seated beliefs and values,

that they are more shallow and,

therefore, are able to

shifted again. The survey will

be repeated annually.

Joining us now in our Parliament House studio is the Government's adviser on climate change, Professor Ross Garnaut.

You said today there's no point

in covering up the truth.

We're living in an awful contest between knowledge and

ignorance, so who are the prominent Australians who

you're arguing are on the

ignorant side of the

need to name them Tony, they name themselves often

enough. You did say there's no

point in covering up the truth

- don't you think it's up to you to give us some idea of what you're talking about? That personalises it too much, but

one only has to go to last week's airwaves when

fortunately for once the

science was being debated. We should be debating whether or not this not this science issue is a real one. I don't think

there's any doubt that it's

real. I've spent real. I've spent four years

now pretty deeply immersed now pretty deeply immersed in

these things. I spent a lot of

early time trying to sift out

the credible from the not so

credible within the science and credible within the science and I tested statistically those

things that could be tested and

the conclusions there. There's no

no doubt what the overwhelming

weight of scientific evidence

is telling us. is telling us. Climate change is happening, global warming's

happening and human actions are

contributing to it. You know very well that CSIRO survey we

were talking about in the last

report, and in fact it appears

to be a split along political

lines as to whether people believe

believe or do not believe that humans humans are largely responsible

for global warming. Let me ask

you, because obviously the key

figure on the side of the

debate that's sceptical is the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Are you saying he is on the

ignorant side of this debate

between knowledge and ignorance

as you put it? No, I'm not,

because Tony Abbott says he

understands that science is

happening, that he accepts the like that in the past week, soy

wouldn't put him on the

ignorant side. In the past week

in fact on Monday, he told a community forum that the science is not settled, it's

not proven that carbon dioxide

is not quite the environmental

villain that some people make

it out to be. First of all,

your response to those points?

But doesn't that indicate that

there certainly is a cloud in

his mind over this issue at the

very least? He was on the

ignorant side on Monday night,

but not on Tuesday. On Tuesday

his statement was with the science. Can our

political leader be on the

ignorant side one day and on

the knowledge side from your

point of view on another day

and still have a consistent message? He

the ignorant side one day and

the knowledge side the next.

It wasn't a consistent message,

but I'm very glad that the most

recent statement is consistent

with the science. It wouldn't

be good for Australia for a

senior political leader to not be accepting what the mainstream science is saying.

A lot of A lot of our civilisation is built on acceptance of knowledge from science. Have

you sat down with Tony Abbott

and talked with him through

this issue, talked about perspective of the science and

the economics that flow from

that? Not with Tony, no. I

have with other leading

Liberals over the years, but

not with Tony. Are you

surprised by that? I'd be very

happy to talk to him if he

wished to do so. No, he can

handle this as he wishes. I think Tony would be happy to talk to

him. Senator Nick Minchin was largely responsible for putting

him in power and he came out last Friday and said the world

is entering a cooling phase and

that you have no authority to

speak on the climate, because

you're an economist, not a scientist? Nick's quite right,

I'm not a climate scientist and

never pretended to be. I'm

trying to interpret what the mainstream science mainstream science says. I can

read English and there are very clear statements from the

learned academies,

academies of science of all of

the countries of scientific

achievement. All of the

countries that we would look to

for accomplishment in science.

I know how to read research qualifications

qualifications and academic qualifications

overwhelming majority of

credible climate scientists are

of the view that the warming that is occurring is strongly

influenced by human activity

and there's no doubt whatsoever

about the warming trend.

That's something that an

economist can make a

contribution to, because the

statistics of time series are

part of the technical kit of a

lot of economists and asked a couple of Australia's

best economists to examine

exactly that question and they

came up with the answer. There is a is a statistically significant warming trend. Let's move onto

your recommendations and you're

recommending that the carbon

tax be used to fund income tax cuts, why are you doing

that? The carbon tax generates a lot

a lot of

back as a reform of the tax and

social security gives two

things. First, it makes sure

that there's no regress ive

effect of the carbon pricing

itself. It makes sure that

people whose electricity bills

are rising have the means to

pay for them. We don't want

this reform carbon tax to make

poor people poorer

the tax and social security

reform does that. Also, you

get an additional benefit. You

can raise the efficiency of the

economy by carefully structured reform of tax and social

security. Ken Henry

recommended a restructuring of

that kind. Coustas lot of

revenue. It's a pity we couldn't

couldn't do it straight away

when Ken recommended it, but now we

now we have the chance. The figure quoted in the

'Australian' - is that what you're recommending

exactly? Not exactly. I talked

about half of the revenue and

about half is getting up. I'm going to have going to have detailed figures

in my final report for the

Prime Minister at the end of

May. I haven't put every last

figure on it. I've got two

major papers to come - the one

on support for innovation and

the new technologies and the

week after the electricity

sector, the final report will

bring all the numbers together. Aren't you though, with the tax cut call

that it will look like a

socialist call for wealth

redistribution. That's almost

certainly what you'll be

accused of. If a tax cut is

socialism then a lot of people

would like socialism. Why are

you so dismissive of the

Opposition's direct action

climate policy? The world - not

just Australia - the world's

had a lot of experience with regulator ways of achieving economic policy outcomes and

it's had a lot of experience of

market-based ones. The carbon price is a market-based

arrangement. You put

incentives for saving on

emissions right through the economy.

economy. Every individual and

every firm then has an

incentive to find ways of reducing the amount of

emissions and there's 23

million Australians and they

will find millions of ways of

the incentive to do so. With a

regulator approach it's the

Government deciding you do

this, you do that, even if you

put in place an auction or a

narrow competitive process, it's being guided by the

Government deciding where the

emission savings are and we

learnt in the great contest of

economic ideas in the '50s and

'60s and '70s and '80s that

market approaches beat regulator surprised that three market

liberals would come up with a

regulator approach and the

Labor Government with its tinge

of socialism would come up with

a market approach? Oh I a market approach? Oh I think you'd be drawing a long bow to say that the Liberal Party has

been a market orientated party. Parts of the Liberal Party have

beened a Michelle

market-focussed people in their

approach to economic policy,

but you can't say that's a

theme of the Liberal Party.

Through history there's been a

lot of the opposite as there has been on the Labor

Party. The divide between

people who understand the value

of the market economy of the market economy and those

who prefer regulation. It

isn't along party lines and it

never has been. You seem to put

a great deal of faith in

actions currently being taken

by China, but at the same time

they still plan to build over

the next decade many hundreds

of new coal-fired power

stations which along with they're going to be increasing

emissions vastly even if they

make some inroads into reducing

them at the same time. Overall

they're going to be increasing

admissions and we're putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage against the

Chinese who won't have a carbon price? Two different questions

there. Let's go with the first

one first. China's doing a lot

to reduce emissions. Two years

ago it wasn't. When I report when I gave it to Prime

Minister Rudd in 2008, one

couldn't be very optimistic

about what the big developing

countries, China, India,

Indonesia were going to do.

There's been a big change.

Biggest in China, but quite a

big turnaround in India as

well. Since hosting the Bali summit in December 2007,

Yudhoyono and the Indonesian

Government have been serious

about these issues. They are

quite dramatically changing the relationship between economic

growth and the amount of emissions, greatly reducing the amount of emissions. But have

you any indication they're

going to reduce the number of

coal-fired power stations they have currently on the have currently on the drawing

boards? If they build them all

we're in serious

trouble? First, they are

reducing the number of

coal-fired power stations.

They're getting rid of a lot of very unenvironmentally friendly

stations and replacing them

with low emissions. You're

quite right in the premise of

your question. It's a big challenge if you're still building

building coal-fired power

stations no matter how environmentally clean they are, it will still increase

emissions. There's been a big

change in expectations about

the future. Over the last year

peaking in coal use. I first

heard this for 2020. That was

right off the agenda two and

three years ago. A lot will

depend on their success with alternative technologies.

Solar costs are coming down

rapidly in China. Nuclear

costs are coming down very

rapidly in China. When I was in Beijing in January and

senior policy people in these areas and senior technical

people in these areas, they

were surprised and very pleased

at the rate at which the low emissions technologies were

coming down in cost. That included nuclear which they

were looking forward to as a

lower cost source of power than

coal in due course. Of coal in due course. Of course

that's got its own questions.

You've suggested price of between $20-30 a

tonne, I presume that directly

translates into a carbon tax of

$20-30 a tonne. If $20-30 a tonne. If so, what

will be the impact on

electricity prices. Tony

Abbott's given his figure

today, what's yours? I've got a

whole paper on the electricity

sector in two weeks, there's no

simple answer. There's

complicated dynamics and I'm

going through all of that. I'm

not ducking the question, but

I'll have a detailed answer to that in two weeks' time. Tony

Abbott close to the mark with

his $300 increase I think he

said for electricity prices for

the average

depends on a few things, on how

the structural change goes and

I'm going to go into all of

that. The important point is

that the bottom that the bottom half of the

income distribution can get a

tax and social security

adjustment that amply cover s

that. Ross Garnaut, more when you've completed those reports. Thank you very

much for being here

tonight. Good Tony, see you

later.

That's all from us. If you'd

you'd like This Program Is Captioned

Live. Good evening and welcome to Lateline Business. I'm Ticky Fullerton. Tonight, Fullerton. Tonight, some advice

for the US President from one of the world's leading

economists - get some new

advisers. I think he has a

much weaker team now than he

did before. Some of the people

he has are very good at what they're good at but it's not

the things that are needed

today. Close to the edge - markets markets worldwide rally but the risk grows of another economic

meltdown. Because it's not

just a hurricane, it's not just

an earthquake, it's not just a tsunami, it's this nuclear

problem which we've never

really had the combination of

all that at one time. And a

leap into the unknown -

speculation grows that China

may float its currency. We are

proposing a kind of big-bang approach. Close your eyes, take a deep take a deep breath and jump.

Open up everything

overnight. To the markets and a

volatile day's trade saw early

losses reverse. The All

Ordinaries finished down just 5

points, the aSX300 was 3 points

lower. The Nikkei had a bad

day, Hong Kong's hang seng lost

nearly 2%. Markets trying to recover from the global

financial crisis had a bit of a

setback over the last few days

because of the disaster in Japan. As fought to bring stricken nuclear reactors under control,

investors panicked but with no

more dire news out of Japan

today, the markets began to

rally. Here's Emily Stewart. As the Australian trading day

began, it was still all about

Japan. The fear factor had been

ramped up after a jitterery

night on Wall Street. Because

it's not just a hurricane, it's

not just an earthquake. It's

not just a tsunami, it's this

nuclear were never really had the

combination of all that at one

time. 11 billion shares were

traded on the New York stock exchange, Nasdaq overnight and

on the New York stock exchange

more than three stocks fell for

every one that rose while more

than two-thirds of Nasdaq

companies fell. At its worst today the All Ordinaries

reached a 6-month low. We've

seen a swinging drop at the

open, the market dropping 80 points from clopz only to regain that

ground as the news flow out of

Japan eased up and the Nikkei recovered. Today

reached a low of 5% but the end

of the day it had clawed back

much of the ground but was down 1.fev%. Other pamarkets in the

region were also down. The

Japanese yen has jumped to a

record high against the US

dollar, prompting speculation the Bank of Japan might

intervene. But currency analyst

Richard Grace says it's unlikely.. It's a typical

pattern of behaviour in the

currency mark that the yen strengthens during this time of uncertainty and time of repatriation of Japanese

capital back into the local economy. The Australian Dollar

fell from 99.1 yaus cents

overnight to just above 97

cents this morning. Lowest

point against the US dollar for

the year but like the share

market has improved through the day day and at local close was 98

cents. The prices in - crisis

in Japan has financial experts

asking questions about the

economic damage that might

follow. In Sydney today, it was one of the world's top

economists, Dr Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic

Research, the authority that

declares recessions in the US.

Dr Martin Feldstein, welcome to

the program. The Japanese crisis has been described

potentially apop lptic. How do

you see it rippling out into

the rest of the global

economy? There are so many

ways. We're hardly beginning to

understand what it might do but

one of the things it may mean

is Japanese exports will be

down and therefore their

ability to fund activities in the rest

the rest of the world will be

down. Japan is such a big

exporter of capital. They may even

even turn into an importer of

capital for a while. How significant holdings of US treasuries and has all this affected their

ability to hold the paper? It

certainly will reduce their

appetite for buying more of it in the near term. They are a

big holder and they're a big

buyer. Could that have a direct

impact on the US balance? It

would basically have an impact

on interest ratesyism think it

would have some small - on

interest rates. I think it

would have some small effect on

the size of the US balance but

more likely would push up interest rates and force the US

to get its funds elsewhere. Dr

Fell fell, do you think we are

at risk of a second global

financial

this is big enough to do that.

I think there are other things

that are weakening around the

globe, in Europe and in the US.

At this point I think we're not

likely to have a crisis and we're probably not likely we're probably not likely to

have an actual downturn but I think

think the risks of a downturn

have increased as a result of this and

this and other things. What is

your report card on the US

economy right now? It economy right now? It doesn't

get a very good grade. We had

some good news at the ends

last year, consumer spending

rose rather sparply, a big

increase in consumer durables,

in automobiles so a lot of

people started talking about

3.5, 4% growth for this year

but I think that we're much

more likely to see a weaker

expansion than that. You were