Twist in leader's rhetoric

THE Copenhagen climate conference wrapped up with no binding agreement, no consensus on timetables or targets for emissions reductions. Kevin Rudd said the outcome "represents a significant global agreement". Does it now?

Essentially, all that was agreed to in the accord was global temperatures shouldn't be allowed to rise by more than 2C. No means of achieving the target was detailed, no monitoring of developing countries cutting emissions was allowed for.

Even reductions promised by developed states aren't binding under international law. But the Prime Minister still thinks the accord was "a significant global agreement".

His rhetoric contrasts sharply with what he had to say as opposition leader in 2007, when John Howard negotiated non-binding aspirational targets at the APEC summit in Sydney. Rudd then considered an agreement significant only if it had tangible outcomes.

On August 27, 2007, he told journalists: "It's very important that Australia do everything that it can now to use the APEC summit as a stepping stone to a concrete outcome." He went on: "I hope we can produce a good outcome on climate change. For it to be a good outcome, it's got to have some significant benchmarks." Rudd was, of course, putting pressure on Howard that if he couldn't secure a binding agreement at APEC, it should be regarded as a failure.

Two years on and we have Rudd and Labor responsible for managing Australia's international negotiations.

The bar for what constitutes a significant outcome has been lowered.

Rudd was playing politics from opposition in 2007 when he talked down the APEC outcome. Now he is spinning from government when he talks up the Copenhagen outcome. How else do you explain his about-face as to what constitutes success, unless Rudd has come to understand just how hard it is to secure global agreements?

A quick perusal of any undergraduate text on international law would have opened the Prime Minister's eyes to the difficulties of getting a consensus when negotiating with a host of nations.

It might have even persuaded him not to try to enact a carbon pollution reduction scheme before knowing what the rest of the world intended to do (or not do).