Labor sees the light on next Kyoto phase

IT came direct from Kevin Rudd's mouth: the Labor Party cannot commit to ratify a post-2012 second Kyoto period unless Australia's conditions are met.

Having spent 10 years of worship at the symbolic altar of Kyoto, Labor is suddenly selling a very different message. It is the opposite message: Kyoto has become conditional. Its sanctification is coming to an end.

The reason is obvious. Rudd must think not just about the campaign but as a future prime minister making international policy. The Kyoto Protocol imposes emission reduction targets only for the industrialised nations. An amended Kyoto Protocol will be required if new obligations are to be accepted by developing nations for the post-2012 period: a huge challenge, as most such nations reject this idea.

The process at work is unmistakable. It is policy reality eroding one of the most cultivated myths in Australia's political history as it becomes apparent that the existing Kyoto agreement cannot work and requires major surgery.

Rudd and John Howard are on the same page in the climate change debate that counts. This is the debate about the future: the debate about the next commitment period, beyond 2012, now the subject of intense global negotiations, to be resumed in Bali in December. The pivotal issue in these talks is whether developing nations, soon to become the leading emitters, will be brought inside the tent and have new obligations imposed on them.

This has long been Howard's position. It is why Howard refused to ratify Kyoto mark one. It is why Howard says any Kyoto mark two must have appropriate developing-nation obligations to win Australia's ratification. And this is the unequivocal position of the Rudd Labor Party.

The public is sure to be confused. Having spent the past four days assailing Howard for his failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol for the 2008-12 period, Rudd now says he cannot commit Labor to ratifying any post-2012 Kyoto agreement. For once, the symbolism has gone badly wrong for Labor.

Having accused Howard of lacking leadership on the Kyoto Protocol, Rudd now imposes the same core conditions as Howard on Australia's ratification of any second Kyoto period. Australia's position on these global negotiations is essentially bipartisan. It has become bipartisan because both sides have moved.

Asked about the future, Rudd now talks like Howard. He told ABC radio's AM program yesterday: "For the second commitment period ... our position is clear-cut. Developing countries need to adopt commitments themselves. That is absolutely fundamental and those commitments would need to have an impact not just on the major emitters but also have an effect on their own greenhouse gas emissions." This sounds even more hardline than Howard. Here was Rudd laying down tough conditions that he will demand as PM for ratifying any post-2012 system. It is a threshold event.

Rudd always accepted the principle that developing nations should be involved in the second commitment period, but his remarks this week stressing that this is an essential precondition for any Australian ratification are the strongest he has made.

All year Rudd has exploited the symbolism of climate change with political brilliance. But this week he was forced to adopt the guise of policy realist, provoked by the blunder from Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett.

In interviews with The Australian Financial Review and the AM program, Garrett said a Rudd government would not regard the absence of new obligations from developing nations in any post-2012 system as being a "deal-breaker" and that what counted was "delivering on the original Kyoto consensus". The newspaper interview was the pivotal mistake and Garrett has given Rudd a long explanation of how that occurred.

His stance, as reported in the AFR, was irresponsible. It would reverse Australia's position, undermine our national interest, undercut the entire thrust of our global diplomacy and damage efforts by many nations to bring the developing world into the next commitment period. But it was faithful to the original Kyoto concept.

In reversing Garrett's line, Rudd has clarified a sensible and constructive Labor policy position.

A Rudd government would ratify Kyoto immediately, accept the principle that developed nations must lead the way on emission reductions, seek binding commitments post-2012 from developed as well as developing nations according to the principle of "common but differentiated" commitments and, finally, require for Australian ratification of any agreement appropriate developing-country commitments.

These outcomes will be very difficult to achieve. Under the Kyoto Protocol there is no pathway to impose new obligations on developing nations. Any such agreement must be negotiated under the separate authority of the treaty, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The talks under the protocol and the treaty are separate but concurrent.

An informal ministerial meeting last week in Indonesia established the outlines for a post-2012 Bali road map likely to emerge from the UN negotiations in December. This will create two negotiations, under convention and protocol, that will represent the first real hope of getting a comprehensive second Kyoto phase.

The focus on the post-2012 period helps Howard hugely. This is because, as a new chapter opens, his failures in the first chapter are less conspicuous. The story of the past year has been Howard's flight towards climate change reality. Rudd is completely correct to argue that most of the policy me-tooism in climate change has come from Howard.

Consider the list: Howard embraced an emissions trading system, the principle of a long-term target for Australia, launched a campaign that saw Asia-Pacific nations accept an aspirational target, agreed that the UN was the best forum for negotiations and accepted that the likely structure would be a second Kyoto period. For Howard, one policy pillar has fallen after another.

But Howard made an epic mistake. He failed to get the political benefit of his policy rethink because he could not tolerate the idea of ratifying Kyoto. It was the bridge too far. And he has been punished severely. Blame for the furore over Kyoto ratification during the past week rests with Howard, not Malcolm Turnbull. It was Howard's decision not to ratify. It was Howard's decision to fight Rudd on the symbol of Kyoto. This was a political miscalculation.

Yet there is a deeper story: this campaign is bringing Howard and Rudd closer together in a bipartisan position for Australia beyond 2012.